Talk:Influenza vaccine - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.201.195.170 (talk) at 07:37, 2 May 2020 (→Request edit - 6 of 7 M-001 trials completed. Only one of the 7 trials has results. None that BiondVax sponsored do.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:37, 2 May 2020 by 50.201.195.170 (talk) (→Request edit - 6 of 7 M-001 trials completed. Only one of the 7 trials has results. None that BiondVax sponsored do.: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Vital article

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Influenza vaccine.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Influenza vaccine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Influenza vaccine was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 4, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Viruses Top‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine: Translation Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

WanderingJosh (talk · contribs) has been paid by BiondVax Pharmaceuticals. Their editing has included contributions to this article. COI declared here

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jogabonito314 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jogabonito314.

Should include the strongly significant relationship between drop in healthcare worker vaccination and rise in nosocomial influenza-like illness in their elderly patients

A 2014 study of 62,343 hospitalized patients found that their risk of infection with an influenza-like illness while in hospital rose over five-fold, from 1.1% to 5.7% (P < 0.001) as rates of influenza vaccination among their healthcare workers dropped by about 76%, from 13.2% to 3.1% (P < 0.001).

J Hosp Infect. 2014 Mar;86(3):182-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.005. Epub 2014 Feb 6.

Can influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare workers influence the risk of nosocomial influenza-like illness in hospitalized patients?

Amodio E1, Restivo V2, Firenze A2, Mammina C2, Tramuto F2, Vitale F2.

PMID: 24581755

DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.005

merge proposal for specific vaccines

See Talk:Fluzone#Influenza_vaccine_brands for a proposal to merge Influvac, Optaflu, Fluzone together into Influenza vaccine brands (and make it easy to add other specific brands such as Vaxigrip as separate sections rather than redirects or new articles). Please centralise discussion over there. Boud (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Oral Influenza Vaccine in Trials

Daniel.Cardenas, this is not considered a secondary source as defined in WP:MEDRS and is not suitable for inclusion. It's too early to include this. Numerous promising treatments in the clinical trial phase do not pan out. If it were phase III and in a prominent journal (e.g., New England Journal of Medicine), I could perhaps understand the rationale for including it (perhaps in a Research section). When you say it's being covered in a secondary source-do you have a well-respected peer-reviewed review journal article that covers this specific oral influenza vaccine? Or a tertiary reference like a textbook? This seems like you are edit warring the material in and not being respectful of WP:BRD-why? (yes, I know it's optional but it really is the accepted guidance on Misplaced Pages for the right thing to do-this is well-established).

Additionally, what is discussed in the lead should also be covered in the body of the article and should be highly noteworthy (this is not yet noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in the lead-as above, it's premature at this time since many experimental treatments in phase II clinical trials fail). I will see what the community thinks for broader consensus and further discussion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, but I'll remove it anyways. Thanks for the thorough explanation. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If not, you're welcome to explain why it belongs. Otherwise, it should be removed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for phase 2 working better than existing treatments and not launching? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

No, phase 2 trials have a high rate (~82%) of failure. If it survives additional, larger and much more expensive phase 2 trials, as a vaccine, it will need to clearly demonstrate safety and efficacy in tens of thousands of people with flu. Without a major pharma partner (none displayed, here -- this was my error, as Janssen is a partner for the oral vaccine; see below), and with a share price of 49 cents, it does not appear Vaxart has the finances to take this project much further (~ $22M/yr in losses). --Zefr (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: I missed mention of the Janssen partnership on developing the oral vaccine, shown in the table footnotes on p 6 of the Vaxart investor file. It was also discussed in the SeekingAlpha article dated July 2019. --Zefr (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If we included information about this, it would belong in the ==Research== section (not the lead), and it would be a pretty bland statement that says there's some research on flu vaccines that can be delivered as a pill. PMID 31978354 could be cited for that. MEDRS has a strong preference for secondary sources, although WP:MEDPRI does permit primary sources under limited circumstances, as a temporary measure. Alternatively, and more usually, we could just wait a few months. It seems likely that this will get mentioned in a secondary source before long.

I also want to say that while a flu vaccine in pill form could be more pleasant for the patients who are currently getting a flu jab every year (e.g., me), a vaccine that could bypass the Cold chain problem and had no risk of spreading bloodborne infections is an important area of research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Someone did try to put it in ==Research== and mentioning PMID 31978354, but it was removed by Zefr. While I agree the removed edit sounds like advert but if we just paraphrase that edit and remove advert part... then I think it'll be OK. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Would go in the research section if anything. Would like to see a review on the topic not a press release. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, i have included it on research section. other reviews on the topic is scarce at the moment (afterall the publication is issued few days ago), but will update it once further review available. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a review from 2008 by someone from that company, but I haven't found much else at PubMed. Google Scholar has a few more hits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove quadrivalent flu in the research section

IMO Research section is only for vaccine in research and development phase. Since quadrivalent flu vaccines (injection or nasal) are already in the market or already past research phase. Can we remove "Quadrivalent vaccines for seasonal flu' sub-section in the Research section? and move the content elsewhere in the article. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Request edit - 6 of 7 M-001 trials completed. Only one of the 7 trials has results. None that BiondVax sponsored do.

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Influenza vaccine. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

>"As of 2019, there were some ongoing clinical trials of the M-001 universal influenza vaccine candidate" needs updating. The trial NCT03058692 has results, and 5 of the other 6 have completed. NCT02691130: results failed NLM's limited QC review - twice. None of BiondVax's 6 completed trials have published results. NCT01419925: results also failed NLM's limited QC review - three times. BiondVax's failed to submit the legally required "basic results" for a single one of its M-001 trials.

This could be, and I ask it be noted with, "As of May, 6 of 7 M-001 trials are completed. One of the 7 trials has results. None that BiondVax sponsored do."

As for NCT03058692, the results are new, very long (about 67 p-values) and there's no summary or conclusion; I'm not sure what edit about that is appropriate. Expert help needed.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Categories: