Serious Lung Infections in Children Jump After Introduction of Pneumococcus Vaccine

gdpetti

Inactive
UC Davis Children's Hospital
Health News Digest
Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:50 EST

A comprehensive national study by UC Davis researchers has found that the introduction of an early childhood vaccine for bacterial pneumonia nearly a decade ago has decreased the incidence of pneumonia, but the drop was accompanied by a dramatic increase in the incidence of a serious and sometimes life-threatening complication.

The researchers conjecture that the doubling of the incidence of the complication, which causes pockets of purulence, or pus, around the lungs, may partly be the result of the vaccine eliminating certain types of pneumococcus, creating the opportunity for other bacteria to take its place.

Published in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics, the study examined the incidence of empyema, a complication of pneumonia that is a severe infection in a cavity between the lung and the chest wall. Despite a 50 percent drop in hospitalizations from pneumonia due to pneumococcus since the introduction of the vaccine in 2000, and an overall decrease in all bacterial pneumonias, the empyema rate jumped 70 percent.

In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration licensed PCV7, a vaccine designed to protect infants and children from the seven serotypes, or strains of microorganisms, most commonly responsible for serious infections from Streptococcus pneumoniae, which is responsible for most community-acquired bacterial pneumonias.

Su-Ting T. Li, the study's lead author, said that while the study does not directly examine the reason for the increased empyema rate, it may be because the vaccine eliminated competition from the seven targeted pneumococcal serotypes that commonly cause pneumonia, creating opportunities for pneumococcal serotypes not targeted by the vaccine.

Though responsible for less pneumonia overall, those serotypes may lead to more complicated pneumonias, such as empyema, when they do occur. In addition, the incidence of empyemas caused by staphylococcus, another bacterial cause of pneumonia not addressed by pneumococcal vaccines, appears to be increasing. This increase in staphylococcal empyemas may be due to more virulent and antibiotic-resistant forms of staphylococcus, such as methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

"This may be occurring because the vaccine does not affect the types of microorganisms causing empyemas," said Li, an assistant professor in the Department of Pediatrics at UC Davis Children's Hospital. "The vaccine may be getting rid of the pneumococcal bacteria that cause most pneumonia and other types of invasive pneumococcal disease. But the bacteria that are left over that it doesn't protect against that are more likely to cause empyema may increase because they don't have to compete against the other pneumococcal bacteria anymore."

The researchers launched the study after learning of conflicting regional data on empyema incidence since the introduction of PCV7. Since its introduction, empyema incidence was reported to have increased by 88 percent in Utah and 400 percent in California. Texas, on the other hand, reported a 55 percent decrease. The incidence in Quebec, Canada, reportedly remained unchanged.

The study employed the nationally representative Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) to estimate the total annual hospitalizations of children with empyema 18 and under in the United States. The researchers analyzed KID data from 1997, 2000, 2003 and 2006. The estimated counts for these years were then converted into annual incidence rates per 100,000 children using U.S. Census Bureau data. The findings were then compared to incidence rates between 1997 and later years to gauge the impact of the PCV7 vaccine on hospitalizations.

The researchers found that during 2006 an estimated total of 2,898 hospitalizations of children 18 and under in the U.S. were associated with empyema. The empyema-associated hospitalization rate was an estimated 3.7 per 100,000, an increase of almost 70 percent over the 1997 empyema hospitalization rate of 2.2 per 100,000. The rate of complicated pneumonia, which includes empyema, pleural effusion, or bacterial pneumonia requiring a chest tube or decortication, similarly increased 45 percent to 5.5 per 100,000.

While hospitalization rates associated with complications from pneumonia increased, the rate of bacterial pneumonia hospitalizations decreased 13 percent to 244.3 per 100,000. The rate of invasive pneumococcal disease -- pneumonia, sepsis or meningitis caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae -- decreased 50 percent to 6.3 per 100,000.

The researchers also found that since the introduction of the PCV7 vaccine, the average age of children with empyema is decreasing. In 2006, the mean age for children hospitalized for empyema decreased to just above 6 years, one year younger than the mean age of slightly more than 7 in 1997. For children younger than 5 years old, the rate of empyema hospitalizations increased 100 percent, from 3.8 per 100,000 in 1997 to 7.6 per 100,000 in 2006.

The finding is important because empyemas, though relatively uncommon, can be life-threatening. Empyemas are a collection of pus in the pleural space between the outer surface of the lung and chest wall that sometimes develop from an infection secondary to the pneumonia. Empyemas can impede breathing by pressing against the lung. Early intervention is key to decreasing mortality. Interventions range from antibiotics, to minimally invasive drainage with a catheter, to the riskier open surgical removal of the layer of pus restricting lung expansion.

Li and co-author Daniel Tancredi, an assistant professor in the Department of Pediatrics at UC Davis Children's Hospital, said parents should continue to immunize their children with the pneumonia vaccine because it has proven highly effective in combating invasive pneumococcal disease.

"They should certainly immunize their kids because the fraction of pneumonia that tends to result in empyema is still low, so there is a huge benefit from immunization," Tancredi said.

But parents should be watchful for complications from the types of bacterial pneumonia not covered by the vaccine. Each year, empyema causes significant morbidity with prolonged hospitalizations and multiple invasive procedures.

Li said an expanded vaccine that would cover the serotypes associated with empyema is in the works and is expected to be approved and distributed within a few years.

"We're hoping that once the new vaccine is approved and licensed and distributed to patients we would look at the data again and that we would find decrease in the incidence of empyema," said Li. "This paper demonstrates the value of nationally representative administrative data sets because they allow researchers and clinicians to address an issue in which regionally specific data sets yielded mixed results," Tancredi said.

UC Davis Children's Hospital is the Sacramento region's only comprehensive hospital for children. From primary care offices to specialty and intensive care clinics, pediatric experts provide compassionate care to more than 100,000 children each year and conduct research on causes and improved treatments for conditions such as autism, asthma, obesity, cancer and birth defects. The hospital also has the only level 1 pediatric trauma center and pediatric emergency room in the region.
For more information, visit [ http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/children/ ].
Comment: So, in the interests of reducing a relatively harmless infection the vaccine manufacturers helped increase life threatening infections. This is a form of eugenics since it's likely that some portion of the children, perhaps all, who got the life threatening infection would not have even come down with a pneumococcal infection and if they had, their life would not have been threatened by it.

========================
fair use http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...mp-After-Introduction-of-Pneumococcus-Vaccine
 

dissimulo

Membership Revoked
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]
gdpetti said:
: So, in the interests of reducing a relatively harmless infection the vaccine manufacturers helped increase life threatening infections. This is a form of eugenics since it's likely that some portion of the children, perhaps all, who got the life threatening infection would not have even come down with a pneumococcal infection and if they had, their life would not have been threatened by it.


I think you might want to take another look at your numbers. The ultimate question is whether mortality has increased or decreased as a result. It is quite possible to increase the incidence of a more serious disease while still decreasing overall mortality. I wouldn't call pneumococcal pneumonia a harmless disease - particularly for the very young or very old.
[/FONT]
 

dissimulo

Membership Revoked
Based on the numbers from the paper, if the full population of the US were vaccinated, the results would look something like this:

Code:
Hospitalization            Before        After        Result per 300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bacterial pneumonia        0.28%        0.24%        ~120,000 less hospitalizations
Invasive pneuomococcal        0.013%        0.0063%        ~18,000 less hospitalizations
Empynema                0.0022%        0.0037%        ~4,500 additional hospitalizations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change in hospitalizations:                    ~133,500 less hospitalizations
 

zookeeper9

Veteran Member
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]

I think you might want to take another look at your numbers. The ultimate question is whether mortality has increased or decreased as a result. It is quite possible to increase the incidence of a more serious disease while still decreasing overall mortality. I wouldn't call pneumococcal pneumonia a harmless disease - particularly for the very young or very old.
[/FONT]

As someone who almost lost a son at 15 months to this disease, no it is NOT harmless. Every other child since then has had the vaccine and had not had an issue, not a major infection from it.
 

gdpetti

Inactive
First, that isn't my comment, second, it gets back to the basic issue of the number of vaccinations that have been introduced into society, especially young children, as such vaccinations in whole or separate add up to a pollution of the body's basic defense system. Add the fact that since the pharma companies started taking over under Reagan/Bush1 regime and all that followed, they have been allowed to forego alot of late stage testing... as the FDA just uses their own industry results as proof of the results and pretty much lets them run the show.

They have replaced the drug pushers on the street corner with 'snakes in suits' that push it over the airwaves with clever little ads to 'go ask your doctor'... for those free samples that drug pushers are known for... to get you started.. to get you used addicted and used to the change in the health care industry... and it is an industry. One that pushes ever more vaccines on the public in the name of treatment and isn't usually backed up with stage 3 trials... like they used to ... the laws keep changing in their favor as they support the political puppets that support them.

Individual results may vary, and remain mostly unknown because the game of testing has been changed... and the testing is now done on the patients... especially those 'sick' or considered 'sick' these days, a number forever on the rise as more and more chemicals and medicines are thrown out into society without proper testing.

The usual case is that such reports are sponsored by the pharma companies themselves, so the data is skewed as a result. This is the problem with all the recent vaccines such as 'swine flu' and the chemical cocktails kids are given before starting school, as it is mandatory in most areas... same as the new 'health' legislation before Congress is based on mandatory subscription or enrollment. Pay or be penalized.

The followup research is rarely done by these same companies/research centers/universities, as their corporate/govt sponsors don't pay for what they don't want. Some people always seem to benefit from any drug, but without the proper follow through testing, those results have to wait years after introduction for the exhibition of real results... as the illnesses and aftereffects of the vaccinations/drugs become known... same as with polio or most drugs/vaccines. The combo effects aren't usually listed. Assoicated illnesses aren't proven as the testing isn't done. This is what most of the complaints have been about in recent decades as the testing has been disposed with... as too costly... thus the Feds/FDA has allowed the to run the show directly.

That data could be correct, but how about the data for kids getting the vaccine and having effects not related to those directly tied to this vaccine? All such vaccines introduced into the body have effects, but usually the testing in such research isn't done for anything outside the immediate scope of the drug stated. No one is paying them to study anything 'outside the box'. As with most chemicals introduced into our lives after WW2, after the war efforts production of large supplies and stockpiles that needed to be disposed with, we just haven't cared about the results. THis is a classic symptom of a govt taken over by those they are supposed to be governing. Step by step the corporations have taken over. They have introduced one chemical after another. On Wall Street, they have slowly taken down all the protective legislation designed after The Depression to prevent such greed and excess. The same has been happening in the pharm industry as all those chemical companies expanded and developed after WW2 and since then with Vietnam etc.. as the bio/chemical war industry grew.

Fluoride is a good example... with known ill effects but is still mass marketed as an aid, and all the ill effects ignored. That comment by that editor was in response to all this activity. A simple look at how another chemical cocktail has been introduced into children mostly (get 'em while their young and dumb) without proper testing. The only testing done today is essentially that sponsored by the company marketing it. Competitors can do opposing research, but that is another issue.

For every child helped, how many are possibly hurt? THat is the meaning of that comment. One problem seems to be helped as another is created... created without intent to kill l perhaps, usually just due to greed and the desire to maximize profits which require less testing, less followup etc. Then add the govt involvement through making such vaccines mandatory in various ways... and all the legislation that has been passed in fear (swine flu) that can be used to great effect later... the next time, the next season of opportunity swings around.

How many are being introduced to further viral/chemical contamination as a result of this vaccine? How to measure it? Like with the swine ful, it is done in comparison to overall figures for seasonal flu. ILn comparison, very few died from this 'swine flu', as many, many more die every year from the basic seasonal variety.. usually those already sick from something else, and therefore prone to 'contamination' or increased infection etc .
 
Top