|
February 2003
|
Palivizumab does not reduce RSV infection. It
reduces lower respiratory tract disease due to RSV, but the total number of RSV
infections is the same. |
|
BOSTON The future of prophylaxis for respiratory syncytial
virus (RSV) may lie in nasal vaccines and expanded use of palivizumab (Synagis,
MedImmune).
The first attempt to gauge the efficacy of RSV vaccination
occurred in 1964. Children in the initial study who received the vaccine had a
worse outcome than control children who received no vaccine or a parainfluenzae
virus vaccine. The children who received the RSV vaccine had a higher
mortality and hospitalization rate in subsequent seasons when they became
infected with RSV, said H. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of the department of
pediatric infectious disease at Tufts-New England Medical Center. This
early failure set back the development of RSV vaccines. Even today, we continue
to feel the impact.
![[bar]](../art/gradient.gif) Will we get one?
It may still be several years before physicians see a safe and
effective vaccine that prevents RSV infection in children. One reason is the
necessity of immunizing infants in the first month after birth.
Hospitalization due to RSV generally occurs in the first six months of
life, Meissner said here at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of
Pediatrics. So the vaccine must be administered early in life.
There are several other stumbling blocks to vaccine development.
Maternal antibodies neutralize killed vaccines, to some extent, and may have
the same effect on live attenuated vaccines. Additionally, the immune response
to certain glycoproteins in the first few months of may be limited.
We know that immunity to RSV is complex and that there are
at least two strains of RSV based on the G glycoprotein, he said.
There are also numerous subtypes of RSV that the vaccine would have to be
active against. And there are safety concerns, as well. So there are a lot of
problems in developing an effective RSV vaccine.
![[bar]](../art/gradient.gif) Nasal vaccines and
ribavirin
The FDA is reviewing a cold-adapted influenza vaccine that is
administered as an intranasal spray. The vaccine replicates at 32° C to
34° C, the temperature of the nasal turbinates. The virus will replicate on
the nasal mucosa, stimulate an immune response that mimics a natural infection
and protect the individual from influenza when the virus is encountered in the
community.
This is important because there are trials underway looking
at a similar approach for RSV vaccine, he said. The problem so far
has been that even the attenuated RSV vaccines cause symptoms in very young
children. So it is necessary to further attenuate those temperature-sensitive
mutant strains. The problem is that if the virus is attenuated too much
immunogenicity can be lost.
Ribavirin is an option for RSV treatment. Most institutions,
however, do not use ribavirin due to its cost. It has not been shown to
reduce the length of hospitalization, he said. It may slightly
improve oxygenation in the blood, but whether or not it reaches a clinically
significant benefit in oxygenation remains controversial.
![[bar]](../art/gradient.gif) Other alternatives
RSV immune globulin IV (Respigam, MedImmune) was the first agent
proven to be efficacious against RSV and is still available. It is seldom used
today, however, because it must be administered intravenously and due to other
problems associated with its use. For a while, people suggested that
[Respigam] not only protected against RSV, but parainfluenzae virus, adenovirus
and other respiratory viruses as well, he said. But the concern is
that Respigam is not selected for antibodies to any virus other than RSV. So
the lot of Respigam that is being administered may not have a sufficient titer
of antibodies to protect against other respiratory viruses.
RSV immune globulin IV has been largely replaced by palivizumab
(Synagis, MedImmune). The RSV impact trial in 1998 demonstrated that
palivizumab is effective in reducing RSV hospitalization. Among all infants in
the trial there was a 55% reduction in hospitalization.
The control group in this trial was hospitalized at a rate
of 10.6%, and the palivizumab group was hospitalized at a rate of 4.8%,
Meissner explained. In subsequent phase-4 trials, the hospital rate was
similar or even lower. While these post marketing studies are not controlled,
the results suggest that the efficacy rate is at least as good as it was in the
clinical trial.
Studies have also shown that premature children without lung
disease or broncopulmonary dysplasia have an 80% reduction in hospitalization
with palivizumab. Based on this and other data, it is safe to say that
palivizumab reduces the hospitalization rate due to RSV even in high-risk
children, he said.
![[bar]](../art/gradient.gif) Buck stops here
One of the key issues surrounding palivizumab use is cost.
Palivizumab does not reduce RSV upper respiratory tract infection. It reduces
lower respiratory tract disease due to RSV. Palivizumab works to keep the
infection confined to the upper airways. Much higher doses of circulating
antibody are necessary to prevent upper airway infection.
There are going to be breakthrough infections, he
said. Children still will be hospitalized due to RSV. Among children who
experience breakthrough RSV infections despite palivizumab, there is no
apparent difference in the severity of infection, according to days in the
intensive care unit, days of supplemental oxygen, and length of stay.
It will be difficult to prove that palivizumab is cost effective.
However, these many interventions that are not cost effective and yet
have a significant role in minimizing disease severity, he said.
The issue becomes one of deciding where to draw the line. The Committee
on Infectious Disease is in the process of rethinking the recommendations for
the use of palivizumab and the selection of children who are most likely to
derive benefit.
For more information:
- Meissner HC. Management of RSV: From steroids to albuterol
and synagis. Presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of
Pediatrics. Oct. 18-23, 2002. Boston.
- Dr. Meissner has no direct financial interest in the
products mentioned in this article, nor is he a paid consultant for any
companies mentioned.
|