Recombinant Flu Shots Can Prevent Additional Hospital Stays
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers investigated the burden of influenza and the potential impact of switching from the standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine to RIV in reducing influenza-related hospitalizations among working-age adults in the United States, including those aged 18-49 years or 50-64 years.
They collected data on influenza burden, vaccine effectiveness, and coverage rates for both age groups from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 2012-2023, excluding 2020-2021.
The rates of influenza-related hospitalizations and deaths were estimated among adults aged 18-49 years or 50-64 years with at least one chronic medical condition.
A modeling analysis was carried out for both age groups to estimate the potential reduction in hospitalizations if RIV had replaced the standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine, taking chronic conditions into account.
TAKEAWAY:
Over the past decade, influenza caused a median annual number of 151,021 hospitalizations and 7215 deaths among US adults of working age, with adults aged 50-64 years experiencing threefold and fivefold higher rates of hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, than those aged 18-49 years.
Among adults aged 18-49 years, the 14% with chronic conditions accounted for 28% of hospitalizations and 29% of deaths related to influenza. Similarly, among those aged 50-64 years, the 47% with at least one chronic condition accounted for 68% of hospitalizations and 69% of deaths related to influenza.
The modelling analysis indicated that a complete switch to RIV could have prevented a total of 87,654 (95% CI, 74,518-101,482) additional influenza-related hospitalizations over the past ten seasons among adults aged 50-64 years.
Similarly, among adults aged 18-49 years, a switch to RIV could have prevented a total of 14,436 (95% CI, 10,100-19,963) additional influenza-related hospitalizations over the same period.
IN PRACTICE:
'Considering the whole 50- to 64-year age group for the use of enhanced vaccines, like RIV, deserves consideration as it could support public health interventions promoting healthy aging,' the authors wrote. 'A risk-based recommendation may be more appropriate for younger working ages, given the fraction of burden within those with chronic conditions,' they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Laurence Torcel-Pagnon, MSc, Sanofi, Lyon, France. It was published online on April 17, 2025, in Clinical Infectious Diseases .
LIMITATIONS:
The vaccine effectiveness of RIV vs the standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccinevaries between seasons and studies, making it challenging to compare benefits across different scenarios. The analysis was limited due to a scarcity of high-quality evidence on clinical burden and vaccine effectiveness in at-risk groups. Lastly, the modeling approach used may not have considered indirect effects that influenced vaccination at the population level.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Sanofi. The authors reported being employees of Sanofi and potentially holding shares in the company.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Thirsty Trump's Desperate Cold-Call About Nobel Peace Prize
President Donald Trump has stooped to cold calling Norwegian diplomats in his long-suffering bid to be awarded the country's coveted Noble Peace Prize. Norway's Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg, the former NATO secretary-general, confirmed to Politico that Trump called him to discuss tariffs and economic cooperation between the two countries. 'It is true that President Trump called me a few days before his conversation with Prime Minister (Jonas Gahr) Støre. Several of the president's staff members also participated in the conversation, including Treasury Secretary Bessent and Trade Representative Greer,' said Stoltenberg. However, Norwegian newspaper Dagens Næringsliv reported on Thursday that the topic of the Nobel Peace Prize was also raised in their discussions, and it was the second such time that the topic was raised during a call. Stoltenberg added, 'I will not go into further detail about the content of the conversation.' In recent months, Trump has frequently proclaimed that he believes that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize much more than the previous four presidents who have received the award—especially more than former President Barack Obama. '(Obama) didn't even know why the hell he got it, right? He still doesn't,' Trump told a Las Vegas audience last year during a campaign stop, The Independent reported. 'He got elected, and they announced he's getting the Nobel Prize. I got elected in a much bigger, better, crazier election, but they gave him the Nobel Prize.' In his second term, Trump has publicly ramped up the pressure to get his hands on the award and he has enlisted the help of his MAGA proxies to prove he is Nobel-worthy. Israel President Benjamin Netanyahu wrote a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee praising Trump for his role in negotiating the 2020 Abraham Accords. Laying it on thick, Netanyahu claimed that Trump was 'forging peace, as we speak, in one country in the region after another.' Armenia and Azerbaijan have also publicly come out in support of Trump winning the prize after a successful Aug. 8 summit at the White House saw the two countries walk away with a joint peace agreement to end a 37-year conflict, the Atlantic Council reported. 'I think President Trump deserved to have the Nobel Peace Prize,' Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said at the White House, 'and we will defend that, we will promote for that.' Now all eyes are on Trump's highly-anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska as he looks to finally put an end to Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine once and for all, something he promised to do on 'day one' of his presidency. A former aide in Trump's first term told The Hill 'there's no question the pressure's on' for the administration to secure the prize. 'Trump sees this prize as the ultimate capstone to how history will remember him,' they added. Yet even if Trump doesn't broker peace between Russian and Ukraine, MAGA pundit Geraldo Rivera declared that Trump deserves it anyway. 'If you have a president of the United States trying so hard... for peace, even if he's not totally successful, just the effort is so, it's so overt, it's so public, it's so aggressive. You know, he deserves recognition at least for that,' Rivera told Newsmax host Rob Finnerty on Wednesday. 'If he does end this war, Geraldo, can they deny him the Nobel Peace Prize?' Finnerty asked. 'Hell no,' Rivera said. 'I think that this and/or Gaza would put him on the fast track, and anyone to deny that, I think, would really be putting their partisan politics in front of their logic.' The Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded at a ceremony on Dec. 10, 2025, in Stockholm, Sweden. The Daily Beast has contacted White House representatives for comment on Trump's campaign push for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Here's How This Forgotten Healthcare Stock Could Generate Life-Changing Returns
Key Points CRISPR Therapeutics' first approved therapy, Casgevy, was a breakthrough. One of Casgevy's biggest achievements may be demonstrating the viability of CRISPR Therapeutics' strategy. The biotech company could soar if it can follow up that win with more clinical and regulatory milestones. 10 stocks we like better than CRISPR Therapeutics › Over the past few years, the market hasn't been kind to somewhat speculative, unprofitable stocks. CRISPR Therapeutics (NASDAQ: CRSP), a mid-cap biotech, fits that description. The company's shares are down by 24% since mid-2022. The S&P 500 is up 50% over the same period. Despite this terrible performance, there are reasons to believe that CRISPR Therapeutics could still generate life-changing returns for investors willing to be patient. Here's how the biotech could pull it off. CRISPR Therapeutics' first success CRISPR Therapeutics' first approval was for Casgevy, a treatment for sickle cell disease (SCD) and transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia (TDT), which it developed in collaboration with Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Before Casgevy, no CRISPR-based gene-editing medicine had been approved. While it became the first, it still faces some challenges. Ex vivo gene-editing therapies require a complex manufacturing and administration process that can only be performed in authorized treatment centers (ATCs). Moreover, they're expensive. Casgevy costs $2.2 million in the U.S. Getting third-party payers on board for that is no easy feat. Still, CRISPR Therapeutics and Vertex Pharmaceuticals are making steady progress. As of the second quarter, CRISPR Therapeutics had achieved its goal of activating 75 ATCs. It had also secured reimbursement for eligible patients in 10 countries. The two companies estimate there are roughly 60,000 eligible SCD and TDT patients in the regions they have targeted. Let's say they continue to strike reimbursement deals and can count on third-party coverage for 70% of this target population (42,000 people), then go on to treat another 30% of that group in the next decade (12,600 patients). Assuming they could extend that $2.2 million price tag to those countries, Casgevy could generate more than $27.7 billion over this period. Based on its agreement with Vertex, 40% would go to CRISPR Therapeutics, or roughly $11.1 billion over a decade. That's not bad, but it's not that impressive either. So, while Casgevy could contribute meaningfully to CRISPR Therapeutics' results -- and may even reach blockbuster status at some point -- the medicine may primarily serve as a proof of concept to demonstrate that the biotech's approach can be effective. Substantial progress with its first commercialized product will help the stock price. But the company's performance will depend even more on future clinical and regulatory milestones, especially as it shows with Casgevy that it can manage the intricacies and complexities of marketing gene-editing medicines. Can the pipeline deliver? CRISPR Therapeutics has six candidates in clinical trials, which isn't bad at all for a mid-cap biotech company. One of its leading programs is CTX310, a potential therapy designed to help reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients with certain conditions. CTX310 is already producing encouraging clinical trial results. Additionally, it's an in vivo medicine, meaning it bypasses the need to harvest patients' cells to manufacture therapies; in vivo gene-editing treatments are easier to handle than their ex vivo counterparts. The company's path to creating life-changing returns hinges on its ability to deliver consistent clinical and regulatory wins over the next few years for CTX310 and other important candidates. If CRISPR Therapeutics can successfully launch several new products in the next five to seven years, its shares are likely to skyrocket. In the meantime, under this scenario, the company would succeed in making gene-editing medicines more mainstream. This would encourage third-party payers to get on board -- and healthcare institutions, and perhaps even governments, to help push for more ATCs, since there'd be a greater need to accommodate these treatments. Can CRISPR Therapeutics achieve this? In my view, the biotech stock is on the riskier side, but does carry significant upside potential. There's a (small) chance the gene-editing specialist will deliver life-changing returns in the next decade, but investors need to hedge their bets. It's best to start by initiating a small position in the stock, then progressively add more if CRISPR Therapeutics lands more wins. Should you invest $1,000 in CRISPR Therapeutics right now? Before you buy stock in CRISPR Therapeutics, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and CRISPR Therapeutics wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,155!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,106,071!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,070% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 184% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Prosper Junior Bakiny has positions in Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends CRISPR Therapeutics and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Here's How This Forgotten Healthcare Stock Could Generate Life-Changing Returns was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ohio's new flat tax puts schools, roads and other public goods at risk
The result was two decades in the making. Republicans in charge of the Statehouse ended the progressive, or graduated, income tax in Ohio. They did so in the most recent state budget bill, commencing in July. That outcome may please many Ohioans, especially those who have applauded the Republican project, begun in 2005. The aim has been to reduce state income tax rates, shrinking both the percentage collected from individuals and the number of brackets. Not surprisingly, taxpayers, especially big campaign donors, like paying less. Today, the state income tax features a single bracket, all those affected paying 2.75%. That is a long way from the nine brackets and top rate of 7.5% on income above $200,000 early in this century, or just before Republicans went to work. The argument has been that such a reduction would prove an economic boon to the state. As it is, the data indicate nothing of the kind. The state still lags the country as a whole, its median income 41st among the states. Such trends inspire some Republicans to insist they haven't done enough. Many, including Vivek Ramaswamy, the party's leading candidate for governor, talk about eliminating the income tax. Wouldn't that be swell? Worth recalling is why Ohio adopted an income tax. The state found itself increasingly without the resources to invest adequately in public goods, from education to roads and health care. So, in 1971, the state legislature, pushed by Gov. John Gilligan, the Democratic governor, enacted the tax. When opponents challenged the measure, Ohio voters decisively rejected their view. No doubt, Republicans often grumbled about the tax. At the same time, a bipartisan consensus formed. When recessions struck, or events otherwise triggered budget shortfalls, both parties looked to the income tax for help. Notably, the likes of George Voinovich and Bob Taft recognized the value in increased tax rates for those at the highest income rungs. Why? Mike DeWine recently provided an answer. The governor took office six years ago expressing skepticism about the need for further income tax cuts. (His fellow Republicans went ahead, anyway.) He cited the state's 'unfinished business.' Most recently, as he vetoed ill-conceived moves by lawmakers to address the local property tax burden, he reminded: 'We need to fund our schools, we need to fund our mental health in the state.' The income tax is a practical tool for addressing such priorities. It opens the way to progressivity, reflecting the ability to pay. Thus, it adds a worthy element of equity, in contrast to the regressive sales tax and property tax. This is what Republicans have abandoned with their flat tax. More: Trump's reversal on climate change is among his most reckless actions | Opinion Headed into this budget cycle, Republicans had whittled the number of tax brackets down to two, 2.75% on income between $26,050 and $100,000 and 3.5% on income above $100,000. By wiping out the higher rate, they have delivered a $1 billion tax cut to those Ohioans with higher incomes. Two think tanks, Policy Matters Ohio and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, have calculated further that the top 1% of earners, with an average annual income of $1.7 million, will receive 40% of the tax cut. The bulk of the remainder flows to the next 15%. Since Republicans began whacking the graduated income tax, the top 1% have enjoyed an average annual tax cut of $52,459. By contrast, those in the bottom 20% pay $80 more in all taxes. The bottom 20% pay 12.7% of their income in state and local taxes while the top 1% pay just 6.3%. That inequity will deepen with the flat income tax. Something else merits attention: The Republican income tax cutting means that for every tax dollar Ohio collected in 2004, it takes in 85 cents today. That helps explain a conspicuous hole in the new state budget. It falls $2.86 billion short of the resources required under the Fair School Funding Plan. Nearly three-quarters of school districts receive less than what the funding plan says they need to provide an adequate education. Recall the applause that greeted the unveiling of the plan, a bipartisan effort to tackle, finally, a problem that dates to 1997, when the Ohio Supreme Court declared the school funding formula unconstitutional. The plan even represents a path to addressing rising anger about local property taxes. The state must step up to ensure the funding necessary to support public goods and services. Primary and secondary education are hardly alone in facing neglect. Higher rates for the wealthiest could be achieved while preserving part of their tax cut. The governor and lawmakers might tap the more than $11 billion in tax credits, exemptions, deductions and other breaks. What won't get the job done is abandoning the progressive income tax for a flat rate. Douglas is a retired Beacon Journal editorial page editor. He can be reached at mddouglasmm@ This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: Ohio flat tax puts schools, roads, other public goods at risk| Opinion
