International and Regional Experts Focus on RSV Prevention at Pfizer MERA Maternal Immunization Summit: Born Ready
The summit aimed to increase awareness of the virus and its impact, in addition to the importance of maternal immunization in preventing RSV and protecting newborns. Experts addressed the challenges and barriers to the adoption of maternal immunization, shared best practices, and explored how healthcare providers can more effectively implement maternal immunization programs in the region.
Professor Irene Cetin, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Milan and Head of Obstetrics, Mangiagalli Policlinico Hospital Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda, Milan, Italy, said: 'Maternal immunization leverages the natural pregnancy process whereby antibodies – disease-fighting molecules – pass naturally from mother to baby through the placenta, starting in the second trimester and peaking during the third. Maternal antibodies help protect infants at birth and during the first few months of life, before they are eligible to receive vaccinations themselves.'
The administration of a vaccine to an expectant mother activates the maternal immune system, triggering the production of immunoglobin G (IgG) antibodies, which pass through the placenta from the parental bloodstream.
Professor Mohamed Momtaz, Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kasr Al Ainy Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, said: 'Because of the way the placenta pumps antibodies into the fetus during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, fetal IgG concentration usually exceeds the concentration of antibodies in the maternal circulation in full-term infants, meaning the baby is better protected from infectious diseases than the mother. This highlights the tremendous potential of maternal immunization to help prevent transmission of communicable diseases and reduce the impact of infections such as RSV. Furthermore, events like this summit encourage evidence-based conversations between healthcare providers and expectant mothers, while also highlighting practical approaches to communication and appropriate data sharing.'
According to the World Health Organization, RSV – a seasonal virus that leads to infections of the lungs and respiratory tract – is the most common cause of acute lower respiratory infections in children globally[i], responsible for an estimated 33 million such infections, more than three million hospitalizations and almost 60,000 deaths per year in children under 5 years of age[ii]. This trend is reflected regionally, where RSV infections are the leading cause of acute respiratory tract infections in young children, typically peaking during the winter months or the rainy season in humid countries.
Professor Hossam Al Tatari, Director of General Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Diseases Services at The Heart Medical Center, Al Ain, UAE said: 'RSV infection is very common, affecting almost all children within two years from birth. In adults and older, healthy children, RSV typically produces mild symptoms that mimic the common cold, but in the newborn babies below 6 months, and those otherwise immunocompromised, such as babies born prematurely, the infection can prove life-threatening. It is imperative that we explore every possible avenue to mitigate the risks associated with RSV, and take every step to prevent transmission, especially to the most vulnerable amongst us.'
Highlighting the benefits of maternal immunization to newborns and immunocompromised infants, Dr Hammam Haridy, Senior Director Regional Medical & Scientific Affairs at Pfizer MERA said: 'Infections such as RSV, while potentially dangerous, are preventable with vaccination. Despite the significant impact of RSV in the region and across the globe, comprehensive and consistent region-wide surveillance and burden data across the Middle East and North Africa region are currently limited. Forums such as the Maternal Immunization Summit are therefore crucial to drive buy-in of healthcare providers in order to increase awareness and tackle vaccine hesitancy. By providing a platform via which stakeholders can connect and share data and insights, we can drive the conversation around maternal vaccination, ensuring we make best use of available data in our interactions.'
Both the World Health Organization and the Strategic Group of Experts on Immunization recommend countries adopt measures to prevent severe RSV in infants[iii], with decisions on whether to use maternal immunization or monoclonal antibodies dependent upon a number of factors.
Emphasizing the need for collaboration between the medical community and vaccine developers to ensure maximum success in prevention, Merih Cetinkaya, Professor of Pediatrics, Health Sciences University and Head of Neonatology at Basaksehir Cam Sakura, City Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey, said: 'Communicable diseases such as RSV have considerable impact on neonatal health, affecting both our populations and our healthcare systems, and vaccinations remain a cornerstone in lessening this impact. As healthcare providers, we share responsibility with stakeholders across the healthcare landscape to understand such diseases, to leverage innovation and technology, and to ensure equitable access to life-saving vaccines, especially for the most vulnerable members of our communities.'
During the event, Pfizer underscored its ongoing commitment to shaping the future of public health through the power of vaccines. Over the years, Pfizer's vaccines have played a vital role in preventing, controlling, and in some cases nearly eradicating infectious diseases, safeguarding millions of lives around the world and across the MERA region. As a leader in biopharmaceutical innovation, the company remains deeply invested in research and development, driving forward new solutions with the aim of enhancing patient outcomes and advancing global health.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
04-07-2025
- Gulf Today
Vaccine panel is turning misinformation into policy
Lisa Jarvis, Tribune news Service Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's dismantling of Americans' trust in — and ultimately, access to — vaccines isn't happening with one sweeping policy that grabs the public's attention. It's unfolding quickly and quietly, in bland conference rooms where hand-picked appointees make decisions that will have far-reaching consequences for our health. Inside one of those nondescript rooms last week, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an independent panel that makes vaccine recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a glimpse of what's to come. The group, few of whom have any expertise in vaccines, infectious diseases or epidemiology, at times cast aside evidence-based science and sowed doubt in some of our most valuable public health tools. This panel of seven replaced the 17 ACIP members Kennedy fired last month in order to stack the committee with members who share his anti-vaccine agenda. Their lack of expertise and, for some, even basic knowledge of epidemiology, were evident throughout the two-day meeting. Some were unfamiliar with the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free shots to those eligible. (The program has provided some 71.5 billion doses to kids since 1994.) At least one member appeared to struggle to understand the distinction between a vaccine's efficacy and its effectiveness. It's a wonky, but important distinction referring to how well a vaccine works in a trial versus the real world. Some seemed not to take seriously the risk that infections like RSV and the flu can pose to even healthy children. One member suggested that the 250 children who died from the flu last season — a recent high — was a 'modest' number. But this group isn't just unqualified — it's dangerous. Its decisions directly influence insurance coverage and access to vaccines, affecting health outcomes for all Americans. The stakes are particularly high when it comes to protecting children against preventable diseases. Yet the tone of the panel's first formal meeting suggested many members are more intent on sowing doubt about routine immunisations. Even worse, their actions could impede access to these important medicines. 'That whole meeting was a travesty,' says Fiona Havers, a physician and epidemiologist. After the ACIP firings, Havers resigned from the CDC, where she was considered one of its leading experts on vaccine policy. Kennedy's oft-repeated claim is that the COVID-19 response caused vaccine hesitancy in the US and that his drastic changes at the CDC are a necessary step in rebuilding the public's trust. Martin Kulldorff, a former Harvard epidemiologist and chair of the panel, echoed that sentiment during the meeting's opening, emphasizing the importance of 'rebuilding trust in sound science,' and again at the end, when he commended participants for discussing vaccines in an 'unbiased, open and transparent way.' It's a convenient — and inaccurate — framing. It elides the role Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again movement played in spreading vaccine misinformation during the pandemic. It provides cover for their 'just asking questions' approach to evaluating vaccine policy. The problem, of course, is when people given the CDC's imprimatur are asking questions that are purposely crafted to sow doubt. That became clear from the outset when Kuldorff announced that the committee would evaluate the cumulative effects of the childhood vaccine schedule, as well as any immunizations that had not been considered in the last seven years, including the hepatitis B shot given to newborns. The implication is that the CDC has been ignoring some unknown dangers of shots that have been safely used for years. Kuldorff, who was fired from Harvard, was a vocal critic of COVID vaccine mandates during the pandemic and refused the shot. 'The claims that were framed as efforts to increase vaccine confidence actually do the opposite — they undermine vaccine confidence,' says Sean O'Leary, the American Academy of Pediatrics' liaison to ACIP. He called the meeting 'a really long couple of days for science.' A discussion of flu vaccines was a disturbing preview of what 'rebuilding trust' might look like under Kennedy's CDC — and how that mantra could be used to disrupt access to vaccines. After a thankfully routine vote to recommend that Americans get their fall flu shots, the panel stated that those vaccines should not contain thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative that decades ago came under scrutiny for a now-disproven link to autism. It was a disturbing development that upended the panel's normally measured process for evaluating vaccines. The discussion was added to ACIP's agenda at the last minute, but more alarming was that thimerosal was being discussed at all. The preservative's safety has been thoroughly studied, but was removed from all childhood vaccines in 2001 to try to address parents' hesitancy. Today, it is used sparingly— the single-dose flu vaccines that the majority of Americans receive don't contain it, but it's still used as a preservative in multi-dose vials, which just 4-5% of patients in the US receive. Most troubling was that the 'evidence' against thimerosal was presented by Lyn Redwood, a nurse and former head of the Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine group founded by Kennedy. She used her time to make a series of false claims about the preservative's risks. Her original presentation cited a fake study on the risks of thimerosal — a reference removed after the media raised concerns. Pediatrician Cody Meissner, one of two rational members, questioned the purpose of her presentation and its contents. (Meissner was often the lone voice of reason and expertise on the panel during the two-day meeting.) Ultimately, when it came time to vote on recommending the preservative be removed from flu shots, Meissner was also the only member to vote against it. The vote has real consequences. It means some Americans will lose out on their shots. The vaccine is more commonly used outside the U.S., and there's concern about how ACIP's decisions could ripple into global health. And vaccine hesitancy experts worry that re-litigating a settled topic could undermine broader confidence in immunisations. And perhaps most alarming is the precedent set by the committee bypassing the CDC's normal review process to push through what seemed like a preordained decision. Typically, a CDC working group comprised of internal staff and subject matter experts would spend months developing recommendations that are presented to ACIP in a public forum. They would examine hard data on a vaccine within the broader context of its real-world use, considering, for example, the magnitude of the public health problem it addresses, challenges to implementing a rollout, and its impact on health equity, Havers explains. Before considering removing a shot like the thimerosal-containing flu vaccine, the working group would first study the public health consequences of the decision. 'None of that happened, which is why this was a complete farce,' Havers says. That's the antithesis of transparency. And it's a sign for what we can expect from this group. After watching the panel railroad a vote on settled science, it's fair to worry about their future plans. The next effort to 'rebuild trust' could have far-reaching health consequences — and, without a doubt, will cost lives.
Arabian Business
01-07-2025
- Arabian Business
The economics of prevention: How maternal RSV immunisation can strengthen public health systems
While respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) typically causes mild symptoms in adults, the virus can be life-threatening for infants. The seasonal virus is the most common cause of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in infants and young children worldwide, accounting for an estimated 33 million LRTIs each year. This global trend is reflected in the Middle East and North Africa region, where RSV is the leading cause of acute respiratory tract infections in young children. In addition to causing LRTIs, RSV leads to over three million hospital admissions and nearly 60,000 deaths globally in children under five each year. Maternal vaccinations not only help protect one of the most vulnerable population groups but also support national healthcare systems and economies by reducing both direct and indirect costs. The economic impact of infant RSV The health impact of RSV in infants results in a heavy burden on national healthcare systems. In Dubai alone, a recent 10-year retrospective cohort study showed that nearly half of patients with RSV were aged under 2 years; of these patients, 22 per cent were hospitalised with an average hospital stay of four days and a hospitalisation cost of US$9.8 million. Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, researchers recently projected that if nothing changes, RSV will drive roughly 86,000 infant hospitalisations and US$817.9 million in associated medical costs over the next five years. However, the economic impact of RSV in infants extends beyond the hospital, as parents often miss work to care for their sick infants, leading to a loss in economic productivity. The science behind maternal vaccines Maternal vaccines leverage the natural infant protection mechanism that occurs during pregnancy, providing a boost to the levels of antibodies to shield infants during the first months of life before they are eligible to receive vaccines directly. This transfer of antibodies from mother to fetus is so efficient that by the time a baby is born at full term, the concentration of antibodies in the baby's blood is often even higher than in the mother's. Maternal vaccines have come a long way since the 1800s, when it was first observed that infants born to women vaccinated against smallpox during pregnancy were protected in early life. Today, pharmaceutical leaders are constantly investing in research and development (R&D) efforts related to maternal vaccines while prioritising the safety of both mother and child. Pfizer has leveraged years of vaccines expertise and new scientific discoveries to bring forward a maternal RSV vaccine with the potential to harness a mother's natural ability to provide protection to growing babies through the transfer of antibodies in the womb. This maternal immunisation is currently helping to protect infants in their vulnerable first months of life from disease caused by this highly contagious virus. The potential impact of maternal RSV vaccines By preventing RSV in infants, maternal vaccinations have the potential to reduce the economic impact of the disease. According to recent research, increasing the uptake of the maternal vaccine in KSA to 90 per cent will have a budget impact of US$741.8 million, compared to US$1,689.7 million with a 25 per cent uptake. In addition to direct medical costs, costs related to parent absenteeism will also be reduced, resulting in a more productive and efficient economy. Reducing the impact of RSV in infants will also free up hospital beds, making way for other urgent infant healthcare needs, resulting in a stronger healthcare infrastructure. Beyond the economic impact of maternal RSV vaccines, and of much higher importance, preventing RSV in infants has the potential to safeguard infant lives and can contribute to national government efforts to reduce infant mortality rates.
Gulf Today
27-06-2025
- Gulf Today
Many older people are really eager to be vaccinated
Paula Span, Tribune News Service Kim Beckham, an insurance agent in Victoria, Texas, had seen friends suffer so badly from shingles that she wanted to receive the first approved shingles vaccine as soon as it became available, even if she had to pay for it out-of-pocket. Her doctor and several pharmacies turned her down because she was below the recommended age at the time, which was 60. So, in 2016, she celebrated her 60th birthday at her local CVS. 'I was there when they opened,' Beckham recalled. After getting her Zostavax shot, she said, 'I felt really relieved.' She has since received the newer, more effective shingles vaccine, as well as a pneumonia shot, an RSV vaccine to guard against respiratory syncytial virus, annual flu shots and all recommended COVID-19 vaccinations. Some older people are really eager to be vaccinated. Robin Wolaner, 71, a retired publisher in Sausalito, California, has been known to badger friends who delay getting recommended shots, sending them relevant medical studies. 'I'm sort of hectoring,' she acknowledged. Deana Hendrickson, 66, who provides daily care for three young grandsons in Los Angeles, sought an additional MMR shot, though she was vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella as a child, in case her immunity to measles had waned. For older adults who express more confidence in vaccine safety than younger groups, the past few months have brought welcome research. Studies have found important benefits from a newer vaccine and enhanced versions of older ones, and one vaccine may confer a major bonus that nobody foresaw. The new studies are coming at a fraught political moment. The nation's health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has long disparaged certain vaccines, calling them unsafe and saying that the government officials who regulate them are compromised and corrupt. On June 9, Kennedy fired a panel of scientific advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and later replaced them with some who have been skeptical of vaccines. But so far, Kennedy has not tried to curb access to the shots for older Americans. The evidence that vaccines are beneficial remains overwhelming. The phrase 'Vaccines are not just for kids anymore' has become a favorite for William Schaffner, an infectious diseases specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 'The population over 65, which often suffers the worst impact of respiratory viruses and others, now has the benefit of vaccines that can prevent much of that serious illness,' he said. Take influenza, which annually sends from 140,000 to 710,000 people to hospitals, most of them seniors, and is fatal to 10% of hospitalized older adults. For about 15 years, the CDC has approved several enhanced flu vaccines for people 65 and older. More effective than the standard formulation, they either contain higher levels of the antigen that builds protection against the virus or incorporate an adjuvant that creates a stronger immune response. Or they're recombinant vaccines, developed through a different method, with higher antigen levels. In a meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 'all the enhanced vaccine products were superior to the standard dose for preventing hospitalisations,' said Rebecca Morgan, a health research methodologist at Case Western Reserve University and an author of the study. Compared with the standard flu shot, the enhanced vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalization from the flu in older adults, by at least 11% and up to 18%. The CDC advises adults 65 and older to receive the enhanced vaccines, as many already do. More good news: Vaccines to prevent respiratory syncytial virus in people 60 and older are performing admirably. RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization for infants, and it also poses significant risks to older people. 'Season in and season out,' Schaffner said, 'it produces outbreaks of serious respiratory illness that rivals influenza.' Because the FDA first approved an RSV vaccine in 2023, the 2023-24 season provided 'the first opportunity to see it in a real-world context,' said Pauline Terebuh, an epidemiologist at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine and an author of a recent study in the journal JAMA Network Open. In analysing electronic health records for almost 800,000 patients, the researchers found the vaccines to be 75% effective against acute infection, meaning illness that was serious enough to send a patient to a health care provider. The vaccines were 75% effective in preventing emergency room or urgent care visits, and 75% effective against hospitalisation, both among those ages 60 to 74 and those older. Immunocompromised patients, despite having a somewhat lower level of protection from the vaccine, will also benefit from it, Terebuh said. As for adverse effects, the study found a very low risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare condition that causes muscle weakness and that typically follows an infection, in about 11 cases per 1 million doses of vaccine. That, she said, 'shouldn't dissuade people.' The CDC now recommends RSV vaccination for people 75 and older, and for those 60 to 74 if they're at higher risk of severe illness (from, say, heart disease). As data from the 2024-25 season becomes available, researchers hope to determine whether the vaccine will remain a one-and-done, or whether immunity will require repeated vaccination. People 65 and up express the greatest confidence in vaccine safety of any adult group, a KFF survey found in April. More than 80% said they were 'very 'or 'somewhat confident' about MMR, shingles, pneumonia, and flu shots. Although the COVID vaccine drew lower support among all adults, more than two-thirds of older adults expressed confidence in its safety. Even skeptics might become excited about one possible benefit of the shingles vaccine: This spring, Stanford researchers reported that over seven years, vaccination against shingles reduced the risk of dementia by 20%, a finding that made headlines. Biases often undermine observational studies that compare vaccinated with unvaccinated groups. 'People who are healthier and more health-motivated are the ones who get vaccinated,' said Pascal Geldsetzer, an epidemiologist at the Knight Initiative for Brain Resilience at Stanford and lead author of the study. 'It's hard to know whether this is cause and effect,' he said, 'or whether they're less likely to develop dementia anyway.' So the Stanford team took advantage of a 'natural experiment' when the first shingles vaccine, Zostavax, was introduced in Wales. Health officials set a strict age cutoff: People who turned 80 on or before Sept. 1, 2013, weren't eligible for vaccination, but those even slightly younger were eligible. In the sample of nearly 300,000 adults whose birthdays fell close to either side of that date, almost half of the eligible group received the vaccine, but virtually nobody in the older group did. 'Just as in a randomized trial, these comparison groups should be similar in every way,' Geldsetzer explained. A substantial reduction in dementia diagnoses in the vaccine-eligible group, with a much stronger protective effect in women, therefore constitutes 'more powerful and convincing evidence,' he said. The team also found reduced rates of dementia after shingles vaccines were introduced in Australia and other countries. 'We keep seeing this in one dataset after another,' Geldsetzer said. In the United States, where a more potent vaccine, Shingrix, became available in 2017 and supplanted Zostavax, Oxford investigators found an even stronger effect.
