 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / May 2006house dust mite vaccine
Some news of a dust mite vaccine: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-2151727,00.html > Some news of a dust mite vaccine: > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-2151727,00.html I get very dissapointed with stuff like this.They make a big deal about it and then never talk about it again. > I get very dissapointed with stuff like this.They make a big deal about > it and then never talk about it again. The trial they describe was only with 20 people, although they did have 19 of the 20 show an improvement, but it's still a pretty small group of test subjects. But perhaps that's a normal size test group for a phase II trial though - it's still pretty early days for this vaccine AFAIK. Personally I hope they've got something that works - a dust mite vaccine sounds like a good idea to me. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the trials progress. I'm sure if it's successful we'll hear more publicity. Tony > Personally I hope they've got something that works - a dust mite > vaccine sounds like a good idea to me. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tony Keep us posted. I'll be first in line, even if I have to pay for it. ~Melanie I find the concept of a *vaccine* for dust mite allergy as opposed to a regular desensitization "allergy shot" confusing. Anyone understand what distinction is being made here?  SignatureAlison Chaiken "From:" address above is valid. (650) 236-2231 [daytime] http://www.wsrcc.com/alison/ Waging a war is simple, but running a country is very difficult. -- Pham Van Dong, first prime minister of unified Vietnam, 1976 > I find the concept of a *vaccine* for dust mite allergy as opposed to > a regular desensitization "allergy shot" confusing. Anyone understand > what distinction is being made here? I'm not an expert but I think the difference of the reported treatment from regular desensitization is the technology they're using. Regular desensitizing shots are (in my understanding) repeated small doses of the actual allergen; the aim is to habituate the immune system to the allergen so it stops over-reacting, hence "de-sensitization". These shots aren't offered in the UK any more due to the risk of anaphylactic shock, but I believe they're available in most other developed countries. According to the article the "vaccine" is some dna attached to the allergen, designed to produce a normal immune response. So the basic difference is that they have attached dna to the allergen. Presumably the reason they're doing that is to try to make something more effective and/or better tolerated than normal desensitization. So it sounds like their "vaccine" is a refinement of the desensitisation approach; perhaps it would be more accurately described as "enhanced desensitization". Maybe there are marketing or commercial reasons for calling it a "vaccine"; or maybe they just want to distinguish it from regular desensitization. The study is of only a small number of subjects, but I don't think that regular desensitisation has as high a success rate as they've reported, so it appears (from these results) that they have made something that is an improvement on normal desensitization. What's needed now is a much larger double-blind trial; if they can show a similar improvement in (say) one or two hundred people then that would be a lot more convincing. Of course one has to view the early small-sized trial results with some degree of scepticism. From the article it appears that the number of shots of the experimental treatment is much less than that needed for regular desensitization, so it would be a more convenient form of treatment as well if it proves effective. Normal desensitization is a pain since you have to have lots of injections over a period of several months, I had them for hayfever years ago and having all the injections was a real drag; it didn't work for me, either. Tony >> I find the concept of a *vaccine* for dust mite allergy as opposed to >> a regular desensitization "allergy shot" confusing. Anyone understand [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of the actual allergen; the aim is to habituate the immune system to > the allergen so it stops over-reacting, hence "de-sensitization". Yes. Small escalating doses of the allergen can induce tolerance to itself. > These shots aren't offered in the UK any more due to the risk of > anaphylactic shock, but I believe they're available in most other > developed > countries. I'd be willing to bet it had much more to do with cost than safety. If appropriately monitored the shots are very safe. > According to the article the "vaccine" is some dna attached to the > allergen, They are working on a few DNA vaccines (the one in this article is one of them - at least according to the article) but nearly all the vaccines currently on the market are bits of protien from the organism in question or weakened live versions of it. Often they are mixed with adjuvants (chemicals that help stimulate an immune response). If they are too small for the immune system to recognize then they may be attached to something bigger so that the complex can be recognized (they attach tetanus to diptheria protiens for this reason - hence the shot is dT or DT but never T). The difference is the state of the immune system to start, the doses of antigens, and the way they are presented. "Allergy shots" look to reduce the response of the TH2 system (that which features mast cells, eosinophils and IgE) while the immunizations look to increase the TH1 response which features IgG. The increased IgG antibodies can then bind to the thing in question and then lead to killing it if it is a live organism or clearing it from the blood if it is small molecule. They are looking at all kinds of things to do with immunizations. For instance they are looking at vaccines against nicotine to help people quit smoking. Usually the biggest fear, besides spending a billion dollars for something that doesn't work, is triggering the allergic type of reaction. Then again, I would imagine life threatening anaphylaxis to cigarettes might help people stop smoking too - one way or the other. > From the article it appears that the number of shots of the experimental > treatment is much less than that needed for regular desensitization, > so it would be a more convenient form of treatment as well if it > proves effective. Well yes. Immunizations usually are 1-3 shots, ocassionally more. Desensitizations shots are usually every 1-3 weeks for years. Signature00doc All very interesting - thanks for the info! Tony >> I get very dissapointed with stuff like this.They make a big deal about >> it and then never talk about it again. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > group for a phase II trial though - it's still pretty early days > for this vaccine AFAIK. That is typical for phase one and two trials. At that stage they are working out issues of major toxicity and trying to figure out what doses to examine in the next phase. They usually are not powered to prove a difference. Phase III is where you enroll several hundred people (or more) and try to prove it works. > Personally I hope they've got something that works - a dust mite > vaccine sounds like a good idea to me. It should help many, but not all, people. The companion would be a cockroach antigen vaccine for city dwellers. > I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the trials progress. > I'm sure if it's successful we'll hear more publicity. I'm sure you will. Expect it to take something int he range of 10 years if all goes well. Signature00doc |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.