Comments on: Do women need the same amount of influenza vaccine as men?

By: OneChanceOneLife

OneChanceOneLife — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:43:29 +0000

Actually, some current medical studies have proven that men are starting to disappear slowly because of this fact. Natural selection occurs even within the human race. In about 300 years or so... the number of men could become a serious problem.
________________________________________
Drug Rehab WA

By: StereoID

StereoID — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:10:38 +0000

The fact that women are stronger when it comes to resisting any kind of disease is an old proven fact. I don't know why you are asking such a simple question. Although socially speaking, women are seen as being weak, the truth is that their metabolism is much stronge than what men are “equipped” with.

By: crapface McGee

crapface McGee — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:57:47 +0000

u suck!!!!!!!! i had swine flu and im fine!!!!!!!

By: crapface McGee

crapface McGee — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:57:47 +0000

u suck!!!!!!!! i had swine flu and im fine!!!!!!!

By: u2star

u2star — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:35:45 +0000

I am interested in getting a titer done before I decide to get the h1n1 vaccine. My doctor will submit sample only id I find a lab myself that will do it. Can anyone help me with this pleas?!!!

By: Mary Odom

Mary Odom — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:54:23 +0000

I probably spoke (wrote!) too soon– I know people use male and female mice for making monoclonals. In the lab where I worked we kind of standardized on female for better response, but I don't know of any real data proving that. –Mary [foot in mouth]

By: Mary Odom

Mary Odom — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:09:47 +0000

Hi–
I just thought I'd add that women often have stronger immune responses than men, and not just humans. A result of this is that female mice are used to make monoclonal antibodies, and other reagents and assays requiring an immune response are almost always done with female animals (rabbits, rats…). Human females are several times more likely to develop autoimmune disorders than human males– the actual amount of difference depends on the particular disorder– SLE (Lupus) especially and MS come to mind as good examples, although some disorders don't show a big gender bias. You can find more info on this in the literature. Offhand I'm guessing it might have something to do with levels of steroid hormones (anti-inflammatory) and their balance with inflammatory cytokines, interleukins, etc.

Regarding dosing men and women differently for vaccines, please remember that the data are the mean values for individuals describing themselves as male or female– in real life the hormones and potentially other factors responsible for the response differences are on a continuum in the population.

The discussions here are always interesting– thanks!

By: gsgs

gsgs — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:40:04 +0000

> The fact that the H1N1 strain does not induce protective responses in men or women
> means that there are strain specific differences.

current predictions for mexflu are good, AFAIK

> Hence one cannot simply give women half the dose every year without considering the strain.

one can, but is it reasonable ? Use all data ... in absence of other data that graph
suggests ~70%-80% (not 50%)

> Why do you think a new strain would behave similarly?

history

> It could just as well generate a sub-optimal response in women when a half dose is given -

could happen, but IMO not just as well

> do you want to take that chance?

we always take chances. Do you want to take the chance for more side effects from
full doses which aren't really necessary ? Do you want to take the chance from giving
men "only" the amount that women get despite evidence for reduced reaction ?

> Yearly clinical studies would be required for which there is no time. Spend the money on a better vaccine.

no time for that either. Except the decision whether to add adjuvants or not

By: profvrr

profvrr — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:57:52 +0000

Protection against infection is considered to be conferred by HI titers of 1:40 or greater – it isn't a 'magic barrier' but a number derived from empirical results. This issue has been discussed previously here. The fact that the H1N1 strain does not induce protective responses in men or women means that there are strain specific differences. Hence one cannot simply give women half the dose every year without considering the strain. Why do you think a new strain would behave similarly? It could just as well generate a sub-optimal response in women when a half dose is given – do you want to take that chance? Yearly clinical studies would be required for which there is no time. Spend the money on a better vaccine.

By: gsgs

gsgs — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:58:50 +0000

I redid the graph here:
http://magictour.free.fr/panflu/vaxmf.jpg
so to make it more instructive (IMO)

> women generate a stronger antibody response than men

> Half-dose ... effective

I don't think there is some magic 1:40 barrier, at which protection increases
overproportional.

> In interpret these observations to mean that the antibody response to inactivated
> influenza virus vaccine is not universally more robust in women compared with men

not universally, at usual, no surprise.
But : "on average", "there is evidence", "may" , "could",

> My conclusion is that it would not be possible to determine conclusively that women
> could receive half the amount of inactivated influenza virus vaccine as men.

would,possible,conclusively,could,
There is an optimal dose which can be calculated from these data and
we should use it. Depending on age,gender,weight,...
The more data, the better.

> a new strain of influenza virus might come along

ahh, yes. But it would likely behave similar. And then, it might not (so soon).

> I would rather spend money on developing new ways to produce as much
> influenza vaccine as needed as quickly as possible

spend on both, of course, but how much ? ~$5B spent in the 2005 budget
on the vax-thing by USA.

the graph i.e. shows that half-doses are good. Why don't they give half doses
now, when there is shortage ?

from the picture I would estimate that women should get 70%-80% of the vax that
men get.
You must decide independently whether women should be protected preferrable
(contact with children...) - that would increase the amount again.
Not so big difference between the 18-49 and 50-64 groups.

Why is it, that women have a stronger response ?
Do they also respond stronger to real infection ?
But obviously they are not less likely to catch it. Without that
stronger response maybe(30%) they would get more(120%) flu
than men (because of exposure to children or )

By: profvrr

profvrr — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:05:07 +0000

I would not assume that the gender effect applies to all infectious diseases, but there is some evidence that it is observed with a number of different vaccines. Certainly deserves more investigation, especially with respect to the mechanism.

By: David

David — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:04:32 +0000

Finally – I've found the smoking gun on why I get sick more often than my wife. Seriously – can we also assume female's have a stronger immune response due to natural infection across several pathogens?

David

By: profvrr

profvrr — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:49:54 +0000

I also found it curious – and was discussing it this evening with my colleagues here. Bad batch of vaccine, bad HI assay – could be a number of explanations. I'm looking into it further.

By: pjie2

pjie2 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:38:49 +0000

It's startling to me that the H1N1 titres weren't protective in any of the groups. Is that usual, or was it one particular dud batch of vaccine?