Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine

Moderna Starts Human Trials of An mRNA-Based Flu Shot (theverge.com) 81

Posted by BeauHD from the latest-vaccine-tech dept.
Yesterday, Moderna announced that the first set of volunteers in a clinical trial have received its mRNA-based seasonal flu vaccine. The Verge reports: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, mRNA vaccines were still largely experimental, even as they were heralded as the future of vaccine development. People who get an mRNA vaccine are injected with tiny snippets of genetic material from the target virus. Their cells use that genetic information to build bits of the virus, which the body's immune system learns to fight against. The high efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer / BioNTech was a major endorsement for this type of vaccine. Now, pharmaceutical companies plan to use this technology to fight other types of infectious diseases, including flu.

The flu shots available each year in the United States are usually between 40 and 60 percent effective. The most common shots are made by growing the influenza virus in cells or chicken eggs, and then killing the virus so it's no longer dangerous. It takes a long time to grow the virus, so companies have to start making the shots around six months ahead of time, based on predictions around which strain of the flu will be circulating that year. Pharmaceutical companies hope that mRNA-based flu vaccines can be more effective than the traditional shots. Because they'd be faster to make, production wouldn't have to start so far in advance, and they could theoretically be more closely matched with the type of flu spreading each season.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Moderna Starts Human Trials of An mRNA-Based Flu Shot More

Moderna Starts Human Trials of An mRNA-Based Flu Shot

Comments Filter:

  • Social distancing, masking, and shutdowns should have curbed the need a great deal.

    • Social distancing, masking, and shutdowns should have curbed the need a great deal.

      They did. It is certainly helpful that hospitals stressed with COVID patients did not have many flu patients to deal with. https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]

    • Sure for 2020, not going to be the case this fall/winter for 2021 or going forward. That is unless we see social distancing and mask mandates continue forever.

    • Oh, they did. The last flu season barely existed. Doctors said they've never seen anything like it. I forget the numbers but they were dramatic.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pimpy ( 143938 )

      I'm not sure what point you think you're making, these measures most certainly did curb the need while those measures were in place. Now that lockdowns are being lifted, people are straight back to the same behaviour as before, having learned exactly nothing in the process. It's not even just the vaccine dodgers, even normal functioning adults seem to forget to socially distance or wear a mask once restrictions begin easing.

  • Universal Flu Vaccine (Score:3)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Thursday July 08, 2021 @06:48PM (#61564027) Homepage Journal

    What we need is a universal flu vaccine that protects against most or all strains. They need to find a part of the virus that doesn't change much but is still a valid target for the immune system. That's not easy, but I believe they've been working on it.

    • What we need is a universal flu vaccine that protects against most or all strains. They need to find a part of the virus that doesn't change much but is still a valid target for the immune system. That's not easy, but I believe they've been working on it.

      I believe that was AstraZenicas big project prior to the coronavirus striking town. The blood clotting thing from adenoviruses could be a dampner on that effort although shit, the rates are still so low (put it this way, asprins got a higher rate of dangero

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by piojo ( 995934 )

        The blood clotting thing from adenoviruses could be a dampner on that effort

        Is there also a possibility that we'll use up all our adenoviruses and adeno-associated viruses? How many are there?

        Okay, I just googled it, and found this site [vectorbiolabs.com] claims AAVs provoke very little immune response. So my inference is that adenoviruses could get "used up", but that's less likely with AAVs. Though they have less room for the payload, so they may not be useful for some use cases.

        • Hmm. Interesting. I hadn't thought about that. I must assume that when you use an adenovirus the body will produce antigens to that specific adenovirus. I dont know if thats a problem or not though?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by piojo ( 995934 )

            Say the virus makes the body produce antigens which it later learns to recognize and fight. That's the intended result, but the body will probably also learn to recognize the virus itself. So if that virus is used in another vaccine, the body will fight it off before it has a chance to produce the antigen it's supposed to.

            NYT explains it better:

            Many researchers focused their efforts on presenting the immune system with a protein found on the surface of the Ebola virus.

            The gene for that protein was inserted into a different, harmless virus. When people received an injection of the vaccine, the harmless virus entered their cells; the cells then read the instructions in the Ebola gene and mass-produced Ebola’s surface protein. The immune system encountered the Ebola protein and made antibodies against it. And those antibodies protected the vaccinated people if they became infected with a full-blown Ebola virus.

            This type of vaccine, called a viral vector vaccine, came with a big risk: The recipients might develop immunity to the viral vector after just the first dose. When the second dose arrived, their immune systems could swiftly wipe out the viral vector before it delivered its payload.

            A number of vaccine makers decided to sidestep this potential threat by using different viruses for each dose. That way, the viral vectors in the second dose would be as new to the immune system as the first was. In 2017, for example, researchers at the Gamaleya Research Institute in Russia created an Ebola vaccine whose first dose contained a virus called an adenovirus. The second shot used another virus, called vesicular stomatitis virus.

            When the Covid-19 pandemic began last year, the Gamaleya researchers used a similar strategy to create vaccines against the new coronavirus. The first dose used the same adenovirus as in their Ebola vaccine, called Ad5. The second dose contained a different human adenovirus, Ad26. The researches inserted a gene into both viruses for the protein on the surface of the coronavirus, called spike.

            Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0... [nytimes.com]

    • Re:Universal Flu Vaccine (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Thursday July 08, 2021 @07:36PM (#61564155) Journal

      You remember right. That is a research goal.

      Even if we can't get a universal one, I'm looking forward to being able to adapt a vaccine to the circulating strain in six weeks instead of six months. One superpower of the mRNA vaccines is turnaround so rapid we can get inside the virus's equivalent of an OODA loop.

      60% is the best conventional flu vaccines do. One problem is they fall short of that peak most years. Even being able to hit 60% every year would save lives.

    • That's not easy, but I believe they've been working on it.

      Yep. For 50 years. Doing this is another 20 years away. We'll get to it right after we power up our fusion reactors which in turn will happen due to the discovery of the grand unifying theory.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by crow ( 16139 )

        It's a lot easier now to find common DNA sequences in the flu virus, and now with mRNA vaccines, we can more directly train the immune system on the proteins they code. So it may be a long ways away, or it could be right around the corner.

        • It's a lot easier now to find common DNA sequences in the flu virus, and now with mRNA vaccines, we can more directly train the immune system on the proteins they code. So it may be a long ways away, or it could be right around the corner.

          Except that it only takes a slight difference for an immune system to not identify a virus which makes it almost impossible to train it in a general sense. For the record I really hope you're right, but I'm incredibly skeptical.

          • ... which is why you want to target a protein sequence that doesn't change much.

            We have a whole lot of samples of influenza over the years, shouldn't be that difficult to find a few candidates.

            • The problem there is ensuring you don't cause an autoimmune disease in the process. What separates viruses from many critical cells in the body is often the very things which make them each unique, at least that is how it was explained to me once. mRNA is a new technique we have in our toolkit, but it's hardly the only way to make a designer vaccine.

              The other problem is the proteins which are the most visible to the body are the unique ones which is why even with COVID the target for the vaccine was the spi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Influenza is specifically evolved to avoid that kind of thing. Maybe someone will figure out a clever method, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

      Being able to manufacture custom vaccines quickly will make a huge difference though. Even better, you can make an mRNA vaccine that *anticipates* the direction flu strains are moving, unlike the live/killed vaccines where you actually need an active virus.

  • If it requires two shots, and the second one means feeling like shit for three days -- this is worth it for a COVID-19 vaccine, but at least to me, not worth it for the flu. My chances of catching the flu in any given year are about 1 in 6 (from experience) so if that knocks me out for a week, but the vaccination process knocks me out for even two days, then I'm better off rolling the dice. Even the normal shot, which only makes me feel like shit for one day, I have considered optional in most years and pas

    • Re:How sick does it make you? One or two shots? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Thursday July 08, 2021 @07:01PM (#61564071)
      Just so you know, some of us don't get sick at all - I mean NOTHING - from taking any vaccinations. I take the flu shot every year - no reactions to the shot. I had 2 doses of Pfizer. My only reaction, and technically it counts as "side effect", is that the arm that got the shot was moderately sore when I woke up the next day. I took a shower and that was the end of that - both times. I have a theory that because I get the flu shot every year and I have, over the years, gotten various other vaccinations, that my body is used to getting vaccinated and it made me have less of a reaction, but it's just a theory.
      • Same here. Get the flu shot every year, don't even notice it. My two Pfizer shots made me feel a bit tired afterward, but nothing a good nights sleep didn't fix.
      • for a day. My bud got pretty sick after both shots, but I don't know what it is but the Universe hates that guy. If something can go wrong for a person it does for him.

        Still, beats the hell out of a double lung transplant [nydailynews.com].

      • ya know what I don't understand? I haven't even thought about the flu in like 35 yrs. Basically since High School. Haven't had any vaccination, and haven't gotten sick either. I *did* get the Pfizer COVID vaccine tho. And the shingles shot.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xenna ( 37238 )

        I've taken a flu shot every year for over 10 years. No more than a sore arm. I took two Shingrix shots in 2019, both took me down for 1 or 2 days. I took the AZ vaccine, first shot left me in bed for a day, 2nd shot, no more than a sore arm.

        In spite of my ample experience, I'm not silly enough to attempt making a theory of it.

      • my body is used to getting vaccinated and it made me have less of a reaction

        I haven't had a vaccination in 40 years, and my level of reaction to the Pfizer vaccine was the same as yours. Looking at the data [cdc.gov] we have that reaction level in common with 50% of Pfizer recipients. Having regular vaccinations may not be the cause.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

          More likely has to do with how much general crap your immune system is used to dealing with (and perhaps mostly from when you were a kid). Mine is used to dealing with a barnyard, as well as annual flu shots. I had zero reaction to the first Pfizer CV shot, mildly annoying fever from the 2nd (took aspirin and it went away). I never react to flu shots.

          I did notice that after I'd had 4 or 5 variant flu vaccines, I stopped getting the flu altogether, even during a decade or so when I couldn't get the shot.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 4im ( 181450 )

        Well, I've also gotten a flu shot every year since the bird flu, no ill effects whatsoever.

        BUT. The first AZ vaccine shot did provide me with most of the range of side effects, which I felt for sth like 3 days. The second shot was no more than a sore arm and a headache for the day after.

        Considering this reaction to the vaccine, I suspect I'd have had a strong reaction to a real infection, so... good thing I'm now fully vaccinated in case I encounter the real thing - Delta is making rounds...

    • That's for yourself, but it matters who's around you.

      If you're visiting your grandparents in the nursing home, for example, that changes the calculations.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

        Agreed. But if I live only with someone who can (and generally does) get the vaccine, then the risk really is just to myself.

        • That would be true if the vaccine's effectiveness were 100%, but it isn't, so it's false.

          If whoever is around you considers it acceptable risk, that's one thing. Otherwise, that's bullshit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      If it requires two shots, and the second one means feeling like shit for three days -- this is worth it for a COVID-19 vaccine, but at least to me, not worth it for the flu. My chances of catching the flu in any given year are about 1 in 6 (from experience) so if that knocks me out for a week, but the vaccination process knocks me out for even two days, then I'm better off rolling the dice.

      Bear in mind that the reason the coronavirus vaccine gets a booster is so that it will provide lasting immunity. The flu mutates enough that having immunity beyond a year probably isn't useful anyway, assuming it isn't a universal vaccine, so instead of two days of sickness from the booster, you'd get two days of sickness if and when you get exposed to the actual virus (instead of a week). That's probably worth it.

      Also, the advantage of an mRNA vaccine is that it might be possible to create a stronger imm

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

        If the now shots lasted more than a year, I'd be willing to put up with considerably more annoyance than with the annual shots. But if it's an annual thing, then I'm going to rate it on the same scale I rate the current vaccines. Right now the current vaccines are not worth it to me, but I will certainly concede they may improve enough that they become worthwhile.

    • Probably zero for nearly all people. The overwhelming majority of people have little more than a muscle ache for a couple of hours. Getting sick from a vaccine is generally quite rare.

  • Than this made up Wu-flu crap!
  • Earlier this year the Moderna CEO said they'd be working on a combination flu shot / covid booster shot that would be available this fall.

  • With less lead time, they'll only have to decide whether to inject you with Intel or AMD chips. (Assimilation likelihood: 50%. Are you Intel Inside?)

  • It it plain wrong for Moderna to claim a "first" here, there were successful Phase I studies on humans already in 2015: https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com] We evaluated safety and immunogenicity of the first mRNA vaccines against potentially pandemic avian H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses. Two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 1 clinical trials enrolled participants between December 2015 and August 2017 at single centers in Germany (H10N8) and USA (H7N9). Healthy adults (ages 18–64year

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bws111 ( 1216812 )

      Where does it say Moderna is claiming a 'first'? The only time the word 'first' appears in the article is that Moderna says it started a clinical trial of its vaccine and gave the shot to the first set of volunteers. Not the 'first time anyone got A mRNA flu vaccine', the 'first people to get THEIR flu vaccine'.

  • And why do we need a flu shot? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fygment ( 444210 ) on Friday July 09, 2021 @06:20AM (#61565281)

    With few exceptions distancing, masking, and staying at home when you're feeling unwell (now an acceptable work paradigm) seem to address the challenge of the flu.

    So why the need for mass flu vaccinations? (Yes there is still a need for some people to get a shot just not the current scale of 'everyone needs to get a shot because flu season!'.)

    Enough profit through fear mongering.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bws111 ( 1216812 )

      In other words, why protect yourself (with a vaccine) when instead you can just hope everyone else does the right thing to protect you. No thanks.

    • With few exceptions distancing, masking, and staying at home when you're feeling unwell (now an acceptable work paradigm) seem to address the challenge of the flu.

      So why the need for mass flu vaccinations? (Yes there is still a need for some people to get a shot just not the current scale of 'everyone needs to get a shot because flu season!'.)

      Enough profit through fear mongering.

      So given the choice of:
      a) Annual partial-lockdowns.
      b) Thousands/tens of thousands of flu deaths each year and a substantial portion of the general population being really sick for a week.
      c) Everyone gets a flu shot.

      You're choosing a and b ahead of c?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      You know a lot of people get flu shots, and they're fairly critical for old people in shared living conditions and people who work in hospitals, right?

      The "everyone has to get one" is purely made up in your head.

  • Please wake me when they offer an mRNA based cancer shot.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close