6 ms·

It was vanquished. We pulled the vaccine off the market. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/#idm140034452980864title https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih

It was vanquished. We pulled the vaccine off the market. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/#idm140034452980864title https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/#idm140...

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
"Vanquished" is a bit too strong, but I agree, it's really frustrating that we know how to make a vaccine but have decided to not manufacture it anymore.
- ghaff 7y ago
  A similar vaccine is still used for dogs. Some of the reaction to the original LYMErix was almost certainly overblown but it also wasn't a great vaccine for a lot of reasons. One can reasonably ask if it should have pulled from the market, but it was a long way from a silver bullet. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/7/17314716/lyme-disease-vaccine-history-effectiveness https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/7/17314716/lym... There is apparently a new vaccine in the works. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/lyme-disease-vaccine-update https://www.healthline.com/health-news/lyme-disease-vaccine-...
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    We somehow came out of that same Vox article with very different impressions. 90% effective against the North American strain of Lyme for everyone 15 and older sounds pretty darn great to me. I certainly want it. It's great that there is a new vaccine under development, but it's likely years away, if it even completes its later phase trials at all. How about we use what we have?
    - ghaff 7y ago
      That's a pretty glass half-full summary of the data. I'd recommend reading this retrospective (linked from the article) for more detail: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/suppl_3/s253/444754 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/suppl_3/s253/444754 It's also a vaccine that, among other things, probably required multiple shots and maybe annual boosters. To be sure, Lyme has become a bigger problem since that vaccine was pulled and, with the benefit of hindsight, it probably should be available for high-risk adult populations in spite of the risks. Of course, it would probably have to be added to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program so the manufacturer couldn't be sued. Probably academic anyway as there is hopefully a better vaccine from a French company in the pipeline.
      - magduf 7y ago
        >It's also a vaccine that, among other things, probably required multiple shots and maybe annual boosters. Hepatitis C vaccine also requires multiple shots (3), though no annual boosters. What's the problem?
        hollerith 7y ago
        There is no hep C vaccine. There is a hep B vaccine that requires 3 shots and is strongly recommended to anyone with chronic hep C.
        magduf 7y ago
        Sorry, that's what I meant.
    - foobiekr 7y ago
      Would you want it if you discovered after the fact that you had the genotype to acquire Lymerix-triggered arthritis as a result? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/
      - smush 7y ago
        The GPs comment has a link to a Vox article that indicates that "Lymerix-triggered arthritis" was never more than a hypothetical posed by some of the members of the FDA review board. No hard evidence of that condition exists. In a sample of 150,000 recipients, only 59 people later reported arthritic symptoms later - no higher than unvaccinated rates. The vaccine was withdrawn before additional studies could provide full empirical evidence that there was no relationship, granted. But the preliminary samples for a lack of full study seem to show the vaccine was just fine, but for some reason the market got spooked.
minikites 7y ago
This is a pretty limited definition of "vanquished": >The available Lyme vaccine came with several immediately apparent limitations. First, the vaccine efficacy of <80% meant that 20% of fully vaccinated individuals could still get Lyme disease [20]. Second, achieving full protection required three vaccine doses given at the time of the initial dose and 1 month and 12 months after the initial dose. Third, the vaccine safety and efficacy database lacked tests in young children, a population at high risk of developing Lyme disease [3]. Also the vaccine was effective only against the predominant North American Borrelia strain without necessarily conferring protection against international subspecies [16, 22]. Finally, uncertainty about the length of vaccine-induced immunity implied that recipients might need booster vaccine doses as often as every year to prevent waning immunity.
lymeeducator 7y ago
How about the French pharmaceutical company that shelved their vaccine before GlaxoSmithKline's? I will try and find the article, but as I remember it, their vaccine worked on the OSPa protein and had a number of proven and harmful side effects. It turns out that the Lyme bacteria is hard to vaccinate for since it can change its outer surface proteins to evade the antibodis pretty easily -- in the end, the immune system is much better on its own than relying on a vaccine.
- DenisM 7y ago
  American vaccine was 90% effective with side effects on par with non-vaccinated population. It was pulled thanks to the antivax crowd: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/7/17314716/lyme-disease-vaccine-history-effectiveness https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/7/17314716/lym...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
dredmorbius 7y ago
Keep in mind that vaccines against diseases where the vaccine efficacy is relatively low, and/or the primary reservoir and transmission vectors are not human-to-human contact, are not nearly as effective as those in which reservoir and vector are human. Vaccinating against measles or HPV makes a tremendous amount of sense, as the disease can be entirely eradicated. At best with Lyme, human occurrences could be minimised (and especially for high-risk individuals). Mind: I'm going off general knowledge and reasoning, not close awareness of specifics here, take with ample salt.

It was vanquished. We pulled the vaccine off the market. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/#idm140034452980864title https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/#idm140...

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

"Vanquished" is a bit too strong, but I agree, it's really frustrating that we know how to make a vaccine but have decided to not manufacture it anymore.

ghaff 7y ago
A similar vaccine is still used for dogs. Some of the reaction to the original LYMErix was almost certainly overblown but it also wasn't a great vaccine for a lot of reasons. One can reasonably ask if it should have pulled from the market, but it was a long way from a silver bullet. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/7/17314716/lyme-disease-vaccine-history-effectiveness https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/7/17314716/lym... There is apparently a new vaccine in the works. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/lyme-disease-vaccine-update https://www.healthline.com/health-news/lyme-disease-vaccine-...
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  We somehow came out of that same Vox article with very different impressions. 90% effective against the North American strain of Lyme for everyone 15 and older sounds pretty darn great to me. I certainly want it. It's great that there is a new vaccine under development, but it's likely years away, if it even completes its later phase trials at all. How about we use what we have?
  - ghaff 7y ago
    That's a pretty glass half-full summary of the data. I'd recommend reading this retrospective (linked from the article) for more detail: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/suppl_3/s253/444754 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/suppl_3/s253/444754 It's also a vaccine that, among other things, probably required multiple shots and maybe annual boosters. To be sure, Lyme has become a bigger problem since that vaccine was pulled and, with the benefit of hindsight, it probably should be available for high-risk adult populations in spite of the risks. Of course, it would probably have to be added to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program so the manufacturer couldn't be sued. Probably academic anyway as there is hopefully a better vaccine from a French company in the pipeline.
    - magduf 7y ago
      >It's also a vaccine that, among other things, probably required multiple shots and maybe annual boosters. Hepatitis C vaccine also requires multiple shots (3), though no annual boosters. What's the problem?
      - hollerith 7y ago
        There is no hep C vaccine. There is a hep B vaccine that requires 3 shots and is strongly recommended to anyone with chronic hep C.
        magduf 7y ago
        Sorry, that's what I meant.
  - foobiekr 7y ago
    Would you want it if you discovered after the fact that you had the genotype to acquire Lymerix-triggered arthritis as a result? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/
    - smush 7y ago
      The GPs comment has a link to a Vox article that indicates that "Lymerix-triggered arthritis" was never more than a hypothetical posed by some of the members of the FDA review board. No hard evidence of that condition exists. In a sample of 150,000 recipients, only 59 people later reported arthritic symptoms later - no higher than unvaccinated rates. The vaccine was withdrawn before additional studies could provide full empirical evidence that there was no relationship, granted. But the preliminary samples for a lack of full study seem to show the vaccine was just fine, but for some reason the market got spooked.

minikites 7y ago

This is a pretty limited definition of "vanquished": >The available Lyme vaccine came with several immediately apparent limitations. First, the vaccine efficacy of <80% meant that 20% of fully vaccinated individuals could still get Lyme disease [20]. Second, achieving full protection required three vaccine doses given at the time of the initial dose and 1 month and 12 months after the initial dose. Third, the vaccine safety and efficacy database lacked tests in young children, a population at high risk of developing Lyme disease [3]. Also the vaccine was effective only against the predominant North American Borrelia strain without necessarily conferring protection against international subspecies [16, 22]. Finally, uncertainty about the length of vaccine-induced immunity implied that recipients might need booster vaccine doses as often as every year to prevent waning immunity.

lymeeducator 7y ago

How about the French pharmaceutical company that shelved their vaccine before GlaxoSmithKline's? I will try and find the article, but as I remember it, their vaccine worked on the OSPa protein and had a number of proven and harmful side effects. It turns out that the Lyme bacteria is hard to vaccinate for since it can change its outer surface proteins to evade the antibodis pretty easily -- in the end, the immune system is much better on its own than relying on a vaccine.

DenisM 7y ago
American vaccine was 90% effective with side effects on par with non-vaccinated population. It was pulled thanks to the antivax crowd: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/7/17314716/lyme-disease-vaccine-history-effectiveness https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/7/17314716/lym...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

dredmorbius 7y ago

Keep in mind that vaccines against diseases where the vaccine efficacy is relatively low, and/or the primary reservoir and transmission vectors are not human-to-human contact, are not nearly as effective as those in which reservoir and vector are human. Vaccinating against measles or HPV makes a tremendous amount of sense, as the disease can be entirely eradicated. At best with Lyme, human occurrences could be minimised (and especially for high-risk individuals). Mind: I'm going off general knowledge and reasoning, not close awareness of specifics here, take with ample salt.