Monday, November 9, 2009

CDC Recommendations for Booster

Prevention of Pneumococcal Disease: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
Summary
This report updates the last recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (MMWR 1989;38:64-8,73-6). ACIP recommends that the vaccine be used more extensively and administered to all persons in the following groups: a) persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years, b) immunocompetent persons aged greater than or equal to 2 years who are at increased risk for illness and death associated with pneumococcal disease because of chronic illness, c) persons aged greater than or equal to 2 years with functional or anatomic asplenia, d) persons aged greater than or equal to 2 years living in environments in which the risk for disease is high, and e) immunocompromised persons aged greater than or equal to 2 years who are at high risk for infection. This report contains updated information regarding a) antimicrobial resistance among pneumococci, b) vaccine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, c) indications for vaccination, d) guidelines for revaccination, e) strategies for improving delivery of vaccine, and f) development of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine.
INTRODUCTION
Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus) is a bacterial pathogen that affects children and adults worldwide. It is a leading cause of illness in young children and causes illness and death among the elderly and persons who have certain underlying medical conditions. The organism colonizes the upper respiratory tract and can cause the following types of illnesses: a) disseminated invasive infections, including bacteremia and meningitis; b) pneumonia and other lower respiratory tract infections; and c) upper respiratory tract infections, including otitis media and sinusitis. Each year in the United States, pneumococcal disease accounts for an estimated 3,000 cases of meningitis, 50,000 cases of bacteremia, 500,000 cases of pneumonia, and 7 million cases of otitis media (1-4). The focus of this report is the prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease (i.e., bacteremia, meningitis, or infection of other normally sterile sites) through the use of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. This vaccine protects against invasive bacteremic disease, although existing data suggest that it is less effective in protecting against other types of pneumococcal infections.
BACKGROUND Incidence of Invasive Disease
Severe pneumococcal infections result from dissemination of bacteria to the bloodstream and the central nervous system. Data from community-based studies indicate that overall annual incidence of pneumococcal bacteremia in the United States is an estimated 15-30 cases per 100,000 population; the rate is higher for persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years (50-83 cases per 100,000 population) and for children aged less than or equal to 2 years (160 cases per 100,000 population) (5-9). In adults, 60%-87% of pneumococcal bacteremia is associated with pneumonia (10-12); in young children, the primary sites of infection are frequently not identified.
In the United States, the risk for acquiring bacteremia is lower among white persons than among persons in other racial/ethnic groups (i.e., blacks, Alaskan Natives, and American Indians). Black adults have a threefold to fivefold higher overall incidence of bacteremia (49-58 cases per 100,000 population) than whites (5-8). Rates of invasive pneumococcal disease are exceptionally high among Alaskan Natives and American Indians. The age-adjusted annual incidence of invasive pneumococcal infection among Alaskan Natives and Alaskan Native children aged less than 2 years was determined by a prospective surveillance study to be 74 cases and 624 cases per 100,000 population, respectively; rates for meningitis and bacteremic pneumonia are eightfold to tenfold higher for Alaskan Natives of all ages than for other U.S. population groups (13). The highest incidence rates for any U.S. population have been reported among specific American Indian groups (e.g., Apache) (14). The overall annual incidence for such groups is 156 cases per 100,000 population; the incidence for children aged 1-2 years in these groups is 2,396 cases per 100,000 population.
In the United States, the estimated overall annual incidence of pneumococcal meningitis is one to two cases per 100,000 population (15). The incidence of pneumococcal meningitis is highest among children aged 6-24 months and persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years; rates for blacks are twice as high as those for whites and Hispanics. Because the incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) meningitis in children rapidly decreased following the introduction of Hib conjugate vaccines, S. pneumoniae has become the most common cause of bacterial meningitis in the United States (CDC, unpublished data).
Other Pneumococcal Infections Lower Respiratory Tract Infections
S. pneumoniae is the most common cause of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, occurring most frequently among the elderly and young children. The precise incidence of pneumococcal pneumonia is difficult to ascertain because routine diagnostic tests are insufficiently specific and sensitive. Nonetheless, at least 500,000 cases of pneumococcal pneumonia are estimated to occur annually in the United States; S. pneumoniae accounts for approximately 25%-35% of cases of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in persons who require hospitalization (16-19). Concomitant bacteremia occurs in approximately 10%-25% of adult patients who have pneumococcal pneumonia (17,20).
Acute Otitis Media and Other Upper Respiratory Tract Infections
S. pneumoniae is a substantial cause of acute otitis media (AOM) and other upper respiratory tract infections (e.g., sinusitis). Although these types of infections usually do not progress to invasive disease, they cause considerable morbidity and medical cost. In the United States, AOM results in more than 24 million visits to pediatricians per year (21); approximately 30%-50% of AOM infections are caused by S. pneumoniae (22). AOM infection most often occurs in children aged less than 4 years. In the United States, 62% of children experience an episode of AOM during their first year of life, and nearly half have had three or more episodes before their third birthday (23).
Mortality
Pneumococcal infection causes an estimated 40,000 deaths annually in the United States (1,2,24), accounting for more deaths than any other vaccine-preventable bacterial disease (25). Approximately half of these deaths potentially could be prevented through the use of vaccine. Case-fatality rates are highest for meningitis and bacteremia, and the highest mortality occurs among the elderly and patients who have underlying medical conditions. Among children, death from pneumococcal infection is relatively uncommon, except among those who a) have meningitis, b) are immunocompromised, or c) have undergone splenectomy and have severe bacteremia. Despite appropriate antimicrobial therapy and intensive medical care, the overall case-fatality rate for pneumococcal bacteremia is 15%-20% among adults. Among elderly patients, this rate is approximately 30%-40% (5-7,15,26-28). An overall case-fatality rate of 36% was recently documented for adult inner-city residents who were hospitalized for pneumococcal bacteremia (12).
Risk Factors
Children aged less than 2 years and adults aged greater than or equal to 65 years are at increased risk for pneumococcal infection. Persons who have certain underlying medical conditions also are at increased risk for developing pneumococcal infection or experiencing severe disease and complications. Adults at increased risk include those who are generally immunocompetent but who have chronic cardiovascular diseases (e.g., congestive heart failure or cardiomyopathy), chronic pulmonary diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease {COPD} or emphysema), or chronic liver diseases (e.g., cirrhosis). Diabetes mellitus often is associated with cardiovascular or renal dysfunction, which increases the risk for severe pneumococcal illness. The incidence of pneumococcal infection is increased for persons who have liver disease as a result of alcohol abuse (10,20,29,30). Asthma has not been associated with an increased risk for pneumococcal disease, unless it occurs with chronic bronchitis, emphysema, or long-term use of systemic corticosteroids.
Persons with functional or anatomic asplenia (e.g., sickle cell disease or splenectomy) are at highest risk for pneumococcal infection, because this condition leads to reduced clearance of encapsulated bacteria from the bloodstream. Children who have sickle cell disease or have had a splenectomy are at increased risk for fulminant pneumococcal sepsis associated with high mortality. Before the widespread use of penicillin chemoprophylaxis for these patients, children with sickle cell disease were 600-fold more likely than children without this disease to develop pneumococcal meningitis (24).
The risk for pneumococcal infection is high for persons who have decreased responsiveness to polysaccharide antigens or increased rate of decline in serum antibody concentrations as a result of a) immunosuppressive conditions (e.g., congenital immunodeficiency, human immunodeficiency virus {HIV} infection, leukemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, Hodgkins disease, or generalized malignancy); b) organ or bone marrow transplantation; c) therapy with alkylating agents, antimetabolites, or systemic corticosteroids (31); or d) chronic renal failure or nephrotic syndrome (20,30). S. pneumoniae is the most commonly identified bacterial pathogen that causes pneumonia in HIV-infected persons (32). In children, invasive pneumococcal disease is often the first clinical manifestation of HIV infection. The annual attack rate of pneumococcal bacteremia is as high as 1% (940 cases per 100,000 population) among persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (33). As many as 91% of adults who have invasive pneumococcal infection have at least one of the previously mentioned underlying medical conditions, including age greater than or equal to 65 years (6,9,24,27). Recurrent pneumococcal meningitis may occur in patients who have chronic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage resulting from congenital lesions, skull fractures, or neurosurgical procedures.
A case-control study conducted in Finland identified day care center attendance among children aged less than 2 years as a major risk factor for invasive pneumococcal disease (34). Although the risk for invasive pneumococcal infection associated with day care center attendance was significantly higher (i.e., 36-fold) among children aged less than 2 years compared with those who did not attend day care, the risk among children aged greater than or equal to 2 years (the age group in which pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine could potentially prevent disease) was not significantly different from that for those who did not attend day care. Studies conducted in the United States also have indicated that children aged less than 2 years who attend day care are at higher risk for infection than are those who do not (35). In addition, clusters of invasive pneumococcal disease have been reported among children who attend day care (36,37).
Antimicrobial Resistance
Strains of drug-resistant S. pneumoniae (DRSP) have become increasingly common in the United States and in other parts of the world (38,39). In some areas, as many as 35% of pneumococcal isolates have been reported to have intermediate- (minimum inhibitory concentration {MIC}=0.1-1.0 ug/mL) or high-level (MIC greater than or equal to 2 ug/mL) resistance to penicillin (CDC, unpublished data;8,40,41). Many penicillin-resistant pneumococci are also resistant to other antimicrobial drugs (e.g., erythromycin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and extended-spectrum cephalosporins). High-level penicillin resistance and multidrug resistance often complicate the management of pneumococcal infection and make choosing empiric antimicrobial therapy for suspected cases of meningitis, pneumonia, and otitis media increasingly difficult (42). Treating patients infected with nonsusceptible organisms may require the use of expensive alternative antimicrobial agents and may result in prolonged hospitalization and increased medical costs. The impact of antimicrobial resistance on mortality is not clearly defined. Emerging antimicrobial resistance further emphasizes the need for preventing pneumococcal infections by vaccination.
PNEUMOCOCCAL POLYSACCHARIDE VACCINE
The currently available pneumococcal vaccines, manufactured by both Merck and Company, Inc. (Pneumovax 23) and Lederle Laboratories (Pnu-Immune 23), include 23 purified capsular polysaccharide antigens of S. pneumoniae (serotypes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 8, 9N, 9V, 10A, 11A, 12F, 14, 15B, 17F, 18C, 19A, 19F, 20, 22F, 23F, and 33F). These vaccines were licensed in the United States in 1983 and replaced an earlier 14-valent formulation that was licensed in 1977. One dose (0.5 mL) of the 23-valent vaccine contains 25 ug of each capsular polysaccharide antigen dissolved in isotonic saline solution with phenol (0.25%) or thimerosal (0.01%) added as preservative and no adjuvant. The 23 capsular types in the vaccine represent at least 85%-90% of the serotypes that cause invasive pneumococcal infections among children and adults in the United States (43-45). The six serotypes (6B, 9V, 14, 19A, 19F, and 23F) that most frequently cause invasive drug-resistant pneumococcal infection in the United States are represented in the 23-valent vaccine (8,39).
Immunogenicity
Pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide antigens induce type-specific antibodies that enhance opsonization, phagocytosis, and killing of pneumococci by leukocytes and other phagocytic cells. After vaccination, an antigen-specific antibody response, indicated by a twofold or greater rise in serotype-specific antibody, develops within 2-3 weeks in greater than or equal to 80% of healthy young adults (46); however, immune responses may not be consistent among all 23 serotypes in the vaccine. The levels of antibodies that correlate with protection against pneumococcal disease have not been clearly defined.
Antibody responses also occur in the elderly and in patients who have alcoholic cirrhosis, COPD, and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (20,24,46); however, antibody concentrations and responses to individual antigens may be lower among such persons than among healthy young adults. Persons aged greater than or equal to 2 years with anatomic or functional asplenia (e.g., from splenectomy or sickle cell disease) generally respond to pneumococcal vaccination with antibody levels comparable with those observed in healthy persons of the same age (47).
In immunocompromised patients, antibody responses to pneumococcal vaccination are often diminished or absent. In patients with leukemia, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma, antibody response to pneumococcal vaccination is substantially lower than response among patients who are immunocompetent. Patients who have chronic renal failure requiring dialysis, renal transplantation, or nephrotic syndrome have a diminished immune response to vaccination, resulting in lower antibody concentrations than those observed in healthy adults (24). In patients with Hodgkins disease, the antibody response to pneumococcal vaccination is greater if the vaccine is administered before splenectomy, radiation, or chemotherapy; however, during chemotherapy, preexisting pneumocococcal antibodies may decrease, and responses to pneumococcal vaccine may be diminished (48). Patients who have AIDS may have a diminished antibody response to pneumococcal vaccine (49,50). The reduction in titers of antibody corresponds to the degree of immunosuppression; some asymptomatic HIV-infected persons or those with only generalized lymphadenopathy respond to the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (51). HIV-infected patients with CD4+ T-lymphocyte counts less than 500 cells/uL often have lower responses to pneumococcal vaccination than either HIV-infected persons with higher CD4+ T-lymphocyte counts or persons who are not HIV-infected (52).
Bacterial capsular polysaccharides induce antibodies primarily by T-cell- independent mechanisms. Therefore, antibody response to most pneumococcal capsular types is generally poor or inconsistent in children aged less than 2 years whose immune systems are immature. Age-specific immune responses also vary by serotype, and the response to some common pediatric pneumococcal serotypes (e.g., 6A and 14) also is decreased in children aged 2-5 years (53-55).
Duration of Antibody Levels
Levels of antibodies to most pneumococcal vaccine antigens remain elevated for at least 5 years in healthy adults. In some persons, antibody concentrations decrease to prevaccination levels by 10 years (56,57). A more rapid decline (i.e., within 3-5 years after vaccination) in antibody concentrations may occur in certain children who have undergone splenectomy following trauma and in those who have sickle cell disease (58,59). Similar rates of decline can occur in children with nephrotic syndrome (60). Antibody concentrations also have declined after 5-10 years in elderly persons, persons who have undergone splenectomy, patients with renal disease requiring dialysis, and persons who have received transplants (24,56,57,61-63). Low or rapidly declining antibody concentrations after vaccination also have been noted among patients with Hodgkins disease (64) and multiple myeloma (65). However, these quantitative measurements of antibodies do not account for the quality of the antibody being produced and the level of functional immune response. Tests measuring opsonophagocytic activity and the quality of antibodies produced (i.e., avidity for pneumococcal antigens) may ultimately be more relevant for evaluating response to pneumococcal vaccination (66).
Precautions and Contraindications
The safety of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine during the first trimester of pregnancy has not been evaluated, although no adverse consequences have been reported among newborns whose mothers were inadvertently vaccinated during pregnancy. For additional information about precautions and contraindications, the vaccine manufacturer's package insert should be reviewed.
Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine generally is considered safe based on clinical experience since 1977, when the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine was licensed in the United States. Approximately half of persons who receive pneumococcal vaccine develop mild, local side effects (e.g., pain at the injection site, erythema, and swelling). These reactions usually persist for less than 48 hours. Moderate systemic reactions (e.g., fever and myalgias) and more severe local reactions (e.g., local induration) are rare. Intradermal administration may cause severe local reactions and is inappropriate. Severe systemic adverse effects (e.g., anaphylactic reactions) rarely have been reported after administration of pneumococcal vaccine (20,24). In a recent meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials of pneumococcal vaccine efficacy, local reactions were observed among approximately one third or fewer of 7,531 patients receiving the vaccine, and there were no reports of severe febrile or anaphylactic reactions (67). No neurologic disorders (e.g., Guillain-Barre syndrome) have been associated with administration of pneumococcal vaccine. Although preliminary data have suggested that the pneumococcal vaccine may cause transient increases in HIV replication (68), the importance of this occurrence is unknown. Pneumococcal vaccination has not been causally associated with death among vaccine recipients. Health-care providers should report suspected adverse events after administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) by calling (800) 822-7967, a 24-hour, toll-free telephone number.
Vaccine Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Cost-Effectiveness
Several clinical trials have been conducted evaluating the efficacy of vaccine against pneumonia and pneumococcal bacteremia. In addition, multiple case-control and serotype prevalence studies have provided evidence for pneumococcal vaccine effectiveness against invasive disease ((Table_1) {44,69-80}).
Efficacy Against Nonbacteremic Pneumococcal Disease
Prelicensure randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pneumococcal vaccine efficacy were conducted in the 1970s among young, healthy gold miners in South Africa who had high rates of pneumococcal pneumonia and bacteremia; a multivalent polysaccharide vaccine significantly reduced the occurrence of radiographically diagnosed pneumonia in this group (71,72). In non-epidemic situations in the United States, most pneumococcal disease in adults occurs in the elderly or in persons with chronic medical conditions. Vaccine efficacy for nonbacteremic pneumonia was not demonstrated for these populations in two postlicensure RCTs conducted in the United States (74,76). However, these studies may have lacked sufficient statistical power to detect a difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed, nonbacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia between the vaccinated and nonvaccinated study groups (81). A meta-analysis evaluating pneumococcal vaccine efficacy by combining the results of nine randomized, controlled trials also did not demonstrate a protective effect for nonbacteremic pneumonia among persons in high-risk groups (67). The ability to evaluate vaccine efficacy in these studies is limited because of the lack of specific and sensitive diagnostic tests for nonbacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia. The pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine is not effective for the prevention of common upper respiratory diseases (e.g., sinusitis or AOM) in children (82).
Effectiveness Against Invasive Disease
Effectiveness in case-control studies generally has ranged from 56% to 81% (75,78-80). Only one case-control study did not document effectiveness against bacteremic disease (77) -- possibly because of study limitations, including small sample size and incomplete ascertainment of vaccination status of patients. In addition, case-patients and persons who served as controls may not have been comparable regarding the severity of their underlying medical conditions, potentially creating a biased underestimate of vaccine effectiveness (81).
A serotype prevalence study based on CDC's pneumococcal surveillance system demonstrated a 57% (95% confidence interval {CI}=45%-66%) overall protective effectiveness against invasive infections caused by serotypes included in the vaccine among persons aged greater than or equal to 6 years (44). Vaccine effectiveness of 65%-84% also was demonstrated among specific patient groups (e.g., persons who have diabetes mellitus, coronary vascular disease, congestive heart failure, chronic pulmonary disease, and anatomic asplenia). Effectiveness in immunocompetent persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years was 75% (95% CI=57%-85%). Vaccine effectiveness could not be confirmed for certain groups of immunocompromised patients (e.g., those with sickle cell disease, chronic renal failure, immunoglobulin deficiency, Hodgkins disease, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, or multiple myeloma). However, this study could not accurately measure effectiveness in each of these groups because of the minimal numbers of unvaccinated patients with these illnesses. In an earlier study, vaccinated children and young adults aged 2-25 years who had sickle cell disease or who had undergone splenectomy experienced significantly less bacteremic pneumococcal disease than patients who were not vaccinated (47). A meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials of pneumococcal vaccine concluded that pneumococcal vaccine is efficacious in reducing the frequency of bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia among adults in low-risk groups (67). However, the vaccine is not effective in preventing disease caused by non-vaccine serotype organisms (79).
Cost-Effectiveness
Preliminary results of a cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine is cost-effective and potentially cost-saving among persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years for prevention of bacteremia (83). The vaccine compares favorably with other standard preventive practices.
VACCINE ADMINISTRATION
Pneumococcal vaccine is administered intramuscularly or subcutaneously as one 0.5-mL dose. Pneumococcal vaccine may be administered at the same time as influenza vaccine (by separate injection in the other arm) without an increase in side effects or decreased antibody response to either vaccine (62,84). Pneumococcal vaccine also may be administered concurrently with other vaccines. The administration of pneumococcal vaccine with combined diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP); poliovirus; or other vaccines does not increase the severity of reactions or diminish antibody responses (85).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VACCINE USE Immunocompetent Persons
The vaccine is both cost effective and protective against invasive pneumococcal infection when administered to immunocompetent persons aged greater than or equal to 2 years. Therefore, all persons in the following categories should receive the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (Table_2). If earlier vaccination status is unknown, persons in these categories should be administered pneumococcal vaccine.
Persons Aged greater than or equal to 65 Years
All persons in this category should receive the pneumococcal vaccine, including previously unvaccinated persons and persons who have not received vaccine within 5 years (and were less than 65 years of age at the time of vaccination). All persons who have unknown vaccination status should receive one dose of vaccine (Figure_1).
Persons Aged 2-64 Years Who Have Chronic Illness
Persons aged 2-64 years who are at increased risk for pneumococcal disease or its complications if they become infected should be vaccinated. Persons at increased risk for severe disease include those with chronic illness such as chronic cardiovascular disease (e.g., congestive heart failure {CHF} or cardiomyopathies), chronic pulmonary disease (e.g., COPD or emphysema, but not asthma), diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, chronic liver disease (cirrhosis), or CSF leaks.
Persons aged 50-64 years commonly have chronic illness, and 12% have pulmonary risk factors for invasive pneumococcal disease. Therefore, persons in this age group who have these risk factors should receive the vaccine (86). Persons aged 50 years should have their overall vaccination status reviewed to determine whether they have risk factors that indicate a need for pneumococcal vaccination (87). Vaccination status also should be assessed during the adolescent immunization visit at 11-12 years of age (88).
Persons Aged 2-64 Years Who Have Functional or Anatomic Asplenia
Persons aged 2-64 years who have functional or anatomic asplenia (e.g., sickle cell disease or splenectomy) also should be vaccinated. Persons with such a condition should be informed that vaccination does not guarantee protection against fulminant pneumococcal disease, for which the case-fatality rate is 50%-80%. Asplenic patients with unexplained fever or manifestations of sepsis should receive prompt medical attention, including evaluation and treatment for suspected bacteremia. Chemoprophylaxis also should be considered in these patients (see Other Methods of Prevention). When elective splenectomy is being planned, pneumococcal vaccine should be administered at least 2 weeks before surgery.
Persons Aged 2-64 Years Who Are Living in Special Environments or Social Settings
Persons aged 2-64 years who are living in environments or social settings in which the risk for invasive pneumococcal disease or its complications is increased (e.g., Alaskan Natives and certain American Indian populations) should be vaccinated. In addition, because of recently reported outbreaks of pneumococcal disease (89), vaccination status should be assessed for residents of nursing homes and other long-term-care facilities.
Available data do not support routine pneumococcal vaccination of healthy children attending day care facilities. Recurrent upper respiratory tract diseases, including otitis media and sinusitis, are not specific indications for pneumococcal vaccine.
Immunocompromised Persons
Persons who have conditions associated with decreased immunologic function that increase the risk for severe pneumococcal disease or its complications should be vaccinated. Although the vaccine is not as effective for immunocompromised patients as it is for immunocompetent persons, the potential benefits and safety of the vaccine justify its use.
The vaccine is recommended for persons in the following groups: immunocompromised persons aged greater than or equal to 2 years, including persons with HIV infection, leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkins disease, multiple myeloma, generalized malignancy, chronic renal failure, nephrotic syndrome, or other conditions associated with immunosuppression (e.g., organ or bone marrow transplantation); and persons receiving immunosuppressive chemotherapy, including long-term systemic corticosteroids. If earlier vaccination status is unknown, immunocompromised persons should be administered pneumococcal vaccine.
Persons with asymptomatic or symptomatic HIV infection should be vaccinated as soon as possible after their diagnosis is confirmed. Plasma HIV levels have been found to be transiently elevated after pneumococcal vaccination in some studies (68); other studies have not demonstrated such an elevation (90). However, no adverse effects of pneumococcal vaccination on patient survival have been detected (68,90). When cancer chemotherapy or other immunosuppressive therapy is being considered (e.g., for patients with Hodgkins disease or those who undergo organ or bone marrow transplantation), the interval between vaccination and initiation of immunosuppressive therapy should be at least 2 weeks. Vaccination during chemotherapy or radiation therapy should be avoided.
REVACCINATION Duration of Immunity
Following pneumococcal vaccination, serotype-specific antibody levels decline after 5-10 years and decrease more rapidly in some groups than others (56,57,61-63), which suggests that revaccination may be indicated to provide continued protection. However, data concerning serologic correlates of protection are not conclusive, which limits the ability to precisely define indications for revaccination based on serologic data alone. Polysaccharide vaccines, including the currently available pneumococcal vaccine, do not induce T-cell-dependent responses associated with immunologic memory. Antibody levels increase after revaccination, but an anamnestic response does not occur (91). The overall increase in antibody levels among elderly persons has been determined to be lower after revaccination than following primary vaccination (92). Long-term follow-up data concerning antibody levels in persons who have been revaccinated are not yet available.
Data from one epidemiologic study have suggested that vaccination may provide protection for at least 9 years after receipt of the initial dose (44). Decreasing estimates of effectiveness with increasing interval since vaccination, particularly among the very elderly (i.e., persons aged greater than or equal to 85 years), have been reported (79).
Adverse Reactions Following Revaccination
Early studies have indicated that local reactions (i.e., arthus-type reactions) among adults receiving the second dose of 14-valent vaccine within 2 years after the first dose are more severe than those occurring after initial vaccination (20,93). However, subsequent studies have suggested that revaccination after intervals of greater than or equal to 4 years is not associated with an increased incidence of adverse side effects (20,94,95). Although severe local reactions may occur following a second dose of pneumococcal vaccine, the rate of adverse reactions is no greater than the rate after the first dose. An evaluation of 1,000 elderly Medicare enrollees who received a second dose of pneumococcal vaccine indicated that they were not significantly more likely to be hospitalized in the 30 days after vaccination than were the approximately 66,000 persons who received their first dose of vaccine (96). No data are available to allow estimates of adverse reaction rates among persons who received more than two doses of pneumococcal vaccine.
Indications for Revaccination
Routine revaccination of immunocompetent persons previously vaccinated with 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine is not recommended. However, revaccination once is recommended for persons aged greater than or equal to 2 years who are at highest risk for serious pneumococcal infection and those who are likely to have a rapid decline in pneumococcal antibody levels, provided that 5 years have elapsed since receipt of the first dose of pneumococcal vaccine. Revaccination 3 years after the previous dose may be considered for children at highest risk for severe pneumococcal infection who would be aged less than or equal to 10 years at the time of revaccination. These children include those with functional or anatomic asplenia (e.g., sickle cell disease or splenectomy) and those with conditions associated with rapid antibody decline after initial vaccination (e.g., nephrotic syndrome, renal failure, or renal transplantation). Revaccination is contraindicated for persons who had a severe reaction (e.g., anaphylactic reaction or localized arthus-type reaction) to the initial dose they received.
Persons at highest risk and those most likely to have rapid declines in antibody levels include persons with functional or anatomic asplenia (e.g., sickle cell disease or splenectomy), HIV infection, leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkins disease, multiple myeloma, generalized malignancy, chronic renal failure, nephrotic syndrome, or other conditions associated with immunosuppression (e.g., organ or bone marrow transplantation), and those receiving immunosuppressive chemotherapy (including long-term systemic corticosteroids). If vaccination status is unknown, patients in these categories should be administered pneumococcal vaccine.
Persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years should be administered a second dose of vaccine if they received the vaccine greater than or equal to 5 years previously and were aged less than 65 years at the time of primary vaccination. Elderly persons with unknown vaccination status should be administered one dose of vaccine (Figure_1).
The need for subsequent doses of pneumococcal vaccine is unclear and will be assessed when additional data become available. Because data are insufficient concerning the safety of pneumococcal vaccine when administered three or more times, revaccination following a second dose is not routinely recommended.
Persons with Uncertain Vaccination Status
To help avoid the administration of unnecessary doses, every patient should be given a record of the vaccination. However, providers should not withhold vaccination in the absence of an immunization record or complete medical record. The patient's verbal history should be used to determine prior vaccination status. When indicated, vaccine should be administered to patients who are uncertain about their vaccination history.
OTHER METHODS OF PREVENTION Chemoprophylaxis
Oral penicillin V (125 mg, twice daily), when administered to infants and young children with sickle cell disease, has reduced the incidence of pneumococcal bacteremia by 84% compared with those receiving placebo (97). Therefore, daily penicillin prophylaxis for children with sickle cell hemoglobinopathy is recommended beginning before 4 months of age. Consensus on the age at which prophylaxis should be discontinued has not been achieved. However, children with sickle cell anemia who had received prophylactic penicillin for prolonged intervals (but who had not had a prior severe pneumococcal infection or a splenectomy) have stopped prophylactic penicillin therapy at 5 years of age without increased incidence of pneumococcal bacteremia or meningitis (98).
Oral penicillin G or V is recommended for prevention of pneumococcal disease in children with functional or anatomic asplenia (85). Antimicrobial prophylaxis against pneumococcal infection may be particularly useful for asplenic children not likely to respond to the polysaccharide vaccine (e.g., those aged less than 2 years or those receiving intensive chemotherapy or cytoreduction therapy). However, the impact of the emergence of drug-resistant S. pneumoniae on the effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis is not known.
Passive Immunization
Intramuscular or intravenous immunoglobulin administration may be useful for preventing pneumococcal infection in children with congenital or acquired immunodeficiency diseases, including those with HIV infection, who have recurrent, serious bacterial infections (i.e., two or more serious bacterial infections {e.g., bacteremia, meningitis, or pneumonia} in a 1-year period) (85,99). Data are inadequate to evaluate the utility of intravenous immunoglobulin administration in the prevention of pneumococcal disease among HIV-infected adults.
STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE OF VACCINE
The use of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine consistently has been recommended by ACIP (20,100), the American Academy of Pediatrics (85), the American College of Physicians (87), and the American Academy of Family Physicians. In addition, Medicare has provided a payment for pneumococcal vaccine since 1981 and a specific billing code (i.e., G009) for its administration since 1994. Roster billing for pneumococcal vaccination was authorized in August 1996. Hospitals may receive a separate payment for pneumococcal vaccination of Medicare beneficiaries independent of reimbursement based on prospective payment systems for services provided for other conditions. Despite these factors, the vaccine remains underutilized.
Pneumococcal vaccine is recommended for approximately 31 million persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years and approximately 23 million persons aged less than 65 years who are at high risk for pneumococcal disease (U.S. Immunization Survey, 1985). The year 2000 objectives of the Public Health Service call for vaccinating at least 60% of persons at risk for influenza and pneumococcal disease (and 80% of the institutionalized elderly) by the year 2000 (101). Most persons considered at risk for pneumococcal infection also should receive annual influenza vaccinations. However, as of 1993, only 28% of persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years had ever received the pneumococcal vaccine. This percentage is considerably lower than the reported annual influenza vaccination rates (52%) for the same population (102).
Barriers to achieving high pneumococcal vaccination levels among adults include a) missed opportunities to vaccinate adults during contacts with health-care providers in offices, outpatient clinics, and hospitals; b) lack of vaccine delivery systems in the public and private sectors that can reach adults in different settings (e.g., health-care, workplace, and college or university settings); c) patient and provider fears concerning adverse events following vaccination; and d) lack of awareness among both patients and providers of the seriousness of pneumococcal disease and benefits of pneumococcal vaccination (2,103). Because pneumococcal vaccine effectively reduces the incidence of bacteremia, the use of vaccine must be increased in accordance with recommendations.
Age-Based Strategies
Persons aged 50-64 years commonly have chronic illness, and 12% have pulmonary conditions that place them at increased risk for pneumococcal disease (86). However, less than 20% of those with risk factors are estimated to have received pneumococcal vaccine. A specific age-based standard should improve vaccination rates among persons with high-risk conditions. Therefore, age 50 years has been established as a time to review the overall immunization status of patients; risk factors that indicate the need to administer pneumococcal vaccine should be evaluated at this visit (86,87). Vaccination status also should be assessed during the adolescent immunization visit at age 11-12 years (88). This visit provides an opportunity to review the need for pneumococcal vaccine; adolescents with high-risk conditions should be vaccinated.
Organizational Strategies
Organizational strategies (e.g., standing orders {rather than requiring a physician's order} for pneumococcal vaccination of high-risk patients who are eligible to receive vaccine) are the most effective methods for increasing pneumococcal vaccination rates among persons at high risk (104). In a New York hospital, instituting standing orders for pneumococcal vaccination of the elderly and at-risk patients increased the pneumococcal vaccination rate from zero to 78% (105). Similar increases were achieved for influenza vaccination in community hospitals in Minnesota (106). The Health Care Financing Administration recently has approved a regulation that permits the use of standing orders to administer pneumococcal vaccine to Medicare patients (103). Pneumococcal vaccination also should be routinely provided for residents of nursing homes and other long-term-care facilities.
High vaccination coverage rates can be achieved when pneumococcal vaccination programs are targeted to hospitalized patients at high risk (104). A hospital-based immunization strategy is effective and capable of reaching those patients most likely to develop pneumococcal disease (106-109). Two thirds of persons with serious pneumococcal disease had been hospitalized within the previous 4 years before their pneumococcal illness, yet few had received pneumococcal vaccine (109). Among these patients, 87% had one or more high-risk conditions. Administration of pneumococcal vaccine should be included in routine clinical practice, and the vaccine, when indicated, should be administered before discharge to hospitalized patients to prevent subsequent admissions for pneumococcal disease. Eligible patients in high-risk groups can be identified by physicians, infection-control practitioners, nurse specialists, and clinical pharmacists.
Community-Based Vaccination Programs
Vaccination coverage rates increase when public health departments promote and offer the vaccine. A community-based immunization program implemented in public health jurisdictions by the California State Department of Health Services resulted in a 33% higher rate of pneumococcal vaccination than jurisdictions without such immunization programs (110). This program included interventions such as a) promoting and providing pneumococcal vaccine at health-department-sponsored outreach clinics, health-center clinics, and nursing and convalescent homes and b) promoting pneumococcal vaccine through leaflets, posters, and other material and referring persons to specific clinics for vaccination. Because rates of pneumococcal disease are high among blacks, particularly those of lower socioeconomic status, community outreach programs that are focused on underserved, often inner-city populations could be effective in preventing life-threatening pneumococcal disease among persons in these groups.
A community-based pneumococcal vaccine campaign was conducted as part of the Hawaii Pneumococcal Disease Initiative, which employed public and private sector partnerships to substantially increase vaccine delivery and improve vaccination levels among persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years (111). This public vaccination program was considered cost-effective for vaccinating substantial numbers of adults and stimulated vaccination activity among private health-care providers.
Provider-Based Strategies
Provider-based strategies that have proved effective in increasing adult vaccination rates include practice-based tracking systems and physician reminder systems. In practice-based tracking systems, providers identify the total number of their patients who are at risk and maintain rosters showing the proportion of patients who receive vaccination. Physicians using such a tracking system have administered 30% more influenza vaccine than those not using the system (112).
Physician reminder systems consisting of charts, computers, or preventive-health checklists remind physicians to review the need for pneumococcal vaccine for each patient and to administer the vaccine to those at risk for pneumococcal disease. Staff in physicians' offices, clinics, health maintenance organizations, and employee health clinics can be instructed to identify and label the medical records of patients who should receive the vaccine. The use of preventive-health checklists has increased pneumococcal vaccination rates fourfold (113) and from 5% to 42% (114). In one hospital, implementation of a computer reminder system that prompted physicians to review pneumococcal vaccination status before discharge increased pneumococcal vaccination rates from less than 4% to 45% (115).
Health-care providers in facilities providing episodic or acute care (e.g., emergency rooms and walk-in clinics) should be familiar with pneumococcal vaccine recommendations. They should offer vaccine to persons in high-risk groups or provide written information concerning why, where, and how to obtain the vaccine.
Simultaneous Administration of Pneumococcal and Influenza Vaccines
Because the indications for pneumococcal and influenza vaccines are similar, the time of administration of influenza vaccine -- including mass vaccination at outpatient clinics -- should be used as an opportunity to identify and vaccinate patients with pneumococcal vaccine. However, influenza vaccine is administered each year, whereas pneumococcal vaccine typically is administered only once for persons in most groups (see Revaccination).
CONJUGATE VACCINE DEVELOPMENT
Additional immunogenic pneumococcal vaccines that provide long-term immunity are needed -- especially for children aged less than 2 years, because incidence of disease is high and antibody responses to the polysaccharide vaccine antigens are poor in this age group. The most promising approach is the development of a protein-polysaccharide conjugate vaccine for selected serotypes, which improves the immunogenicity and potentially the protective efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination -- especially in young children. Immune response to many capsular polysaccharides can be improved by covalent coupling of the polysaccharide antigen to a carrier protein (116,117). Current conjugate vaccine development has focused on the serotypes most commonly causing infections in childhood. Candidate vaccine formulations in development and evaluation phases include at least seven serotypes of pneumococcal polysaccharides conjugated to one or several protein carriers. An effective conjugate vaccine protecting against the seven most common serotypes (4, 6B, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F, and 23F and serologically cross-reactive serotypes {e.g., 6A}) could potentially prevent 86% of bacteremia, 83% of meningitis, and 65% of otitis media cases among children aged less than 6 years in the United States (45). In persons aged greater than or equal to 6 years, these serotypes have accounted for 50% of the cerebrospinal fluid and blood isolates (44). Preliminary results obtained in phase I and phase II studies suggest that these vaccines generally are safe and induce primary and booster antibody responses in children aged 2-5 years and infants aged 2 months (118-121). Multicenter trials to evaluate conjugate vaccine efficacy against acute pneumococcal otitis media and invasive disease in children are ongoing.
The polysaccharide vaccine has not reduced nasopharyngeal carriage of S. pneumoniae among children (122). However, preliminary data suggest that conjugate vaccines may reduce nasopharyngeal carriage of the pneumococcal serotypes included in the vaccine (123). Reduction in carriage rates of S. pneumoniae would potentially increase the overall impact of the vaccine by reducing transmission and, consequently, disease incidence. Prospective randomized trials are required to demonstrate the protective efficacy of conjugate vaccines against invasive pneumococcal infections. These vaccines also should be evaluated for utility in preventing pneumococcal disease in immunocompromised adults who respond poorly to the current 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.
References
CDC. Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine usage, United States. MMWR 1984;33:273-6,281.
Williams WW, Hickson MA, Kane MA, Kendal AP, Spika JS, Hinman AR. Immunization policies and vaccine coverage among adults: the risk for missed opportunities. Ann Intern Med 1988;108:616-25.
Stool SE, Field MJ. The impact of otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1989;8(suppl):S11-S14.
Jernigan DB, Cetron MS, Breiman RF. Minimizing the impact of drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae (DRSP): a strategy from the DRSP working group. JAMA 1996;275:206-9.
Istre GR, Tarpay M, Anderson M, Pryor A, Welch D, Pneumococcus Study Group. Invasive disease due to Streptococcus pneumoniae in an area with a high rate of relative penicillin resistance. J Infect Dis 1987;156:732-5.
Breiman RF, Spika JS, Navarro VJ, Darden PM, Darby CP. Pneumococcal bacteremia in Charleston County, South Carolina: a decade later. Arch Intern Med 1990;150:1401-5.
Bennett NM, Buffington J, LaForce FM. Pneumococcal bacteremia in Monroe County, New York. Am J Public Health 1992;82:1513-6.
Hofmann J, Cetron MS, Farley MM, et al. The prevalence of drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in Atlanta. N Engl J Med 1995;333:481-6.
Plouffe JF, Breiman RF, Facklam RR, Franklin County Pneumonia Study Group. Bacteremia with Streptococcus pneumoniae in adults -- implications for therapy and prevention. JAMA 1996;275:194-8.
Burman LA, Norrby R, Trollfors B. Invasive pneumococcal infections: incidence, predisposing factors, and prognosis. Rev Infect Dis 1985;7:133-42.
Kuikka A, Syrjanen J, Renkonen O-V, Valtonen V. Pneumococcal bacteremia during a recent decade. J Infect 1992;24:157-68.
Afessa B, Greaves WL, Frederick WR. Pneumococcal bacteremia in adults: a 14-year experience in an inner-city university hospital. Clin Infect Dis 1995;21:345-51.
Davidson M, Parkinson AJ, Bulkow LR, Fitzgerald MA, Peters HV, Parks DJ. The epidemiology of invasive pneumococcal disease in Alaska, 1986-1990: ethnic differences and opportunities for prevention. J Infect Dis 1994;170:368-76.
Cortese MM, Wolff M, Almeido-Hill J, Reid R, Ketcham J, Santosham M. HIgh incidence rates of invasive pneumococcal disease in the White Mountain Apache population. Arch Intern Med 1992;152:2277-82.
Wenger JD, Hightower AW, Facklam RR, Gaventa S, Broome CV, Bacterial Meningitis Study Group. Bacterial meningitis in the United States, 1986: report of a multistate surveillance study. J Infect Dis 1990;162:1316-23.
Marrie TJ, Durant H, Yates L. Community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization: 5-year prospective study. Rev Infect Dis 1989;11:586-99.
Research Committee of the British Thoracic Society. Community-acquired pneumonia in adults in British hospitals in 1982-1983: a survey of aetiology, mortality, prognostic factors and outcome. Q J Med 1987;62:195-220.
Fang GD, Fine M, Orloff J, et al. New and emerging etiologies for community-acquired pneumonia with implications for therapy: a prosepective multicenter study of 359 cases. Medicine 1990;69:307-16.
Torres A, Serra-Batlles J, Ferrer A, et al. Severe community-acquired pneumonia: epidemiology and prognostic factors. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991;144:312-8.
CDC. Recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee: pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. MMWR 1989;38:64-8,73-6.
Schappert SM. Office visits for otitis media: United States, 1975-90. Hyattsville, MD: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, 1992 (Advance data no. 214).
Bluestone CD, ed. Pediatric otolaryngology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company, 1990.
Teele DW, Klein JO, Rosner B, Greater Boston Otitis Media Study Group. Epidemiology of otitis media during the first seven years of life in children in Greater Boston: a prospective, cohort study. J Infect Dis 1989;160:83-94.
Fedson DS, Musher DM. Pneumococcal vaccine. In: Plotkin SA, Mortimer EA Jr, eds. Vaccines. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1994:517-63.
Gardner P, Schaffner W. Immunization of adults. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1252-8.
Hook EW, Horton CA, Schaberg DR. Failure of intensive care unit support to influence mortality from pneumococcal bacteremia. JAMA 1983;249:1055-7.
Mufson MA, Oley G, Hughey D. Pneumococcal disease in a medium-sized community in the United States. JAMA 1982;248:1486-9.
Campbell JF, Donohue MA, Mochizuki RB, Nevin-Woods CL, Spika JS. Pneumococcal bacteremia in Hawaii: initial findings of a pneumococcal disease prevention project. Hawaii Med J 1989;48:513-8.
Lipsky BA, Boyko EJ, Inui TS, Koepsell TD. Risk factors for acquiring pneumococcal infections. Arch Intern Med 1986;146:2179-85.
Musher DM. Streptococcus pneumoniae. In: Mandell GL, Bennet JE, Dolin R, eds. Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 4th ed. Churchill Livingstone, 1994:1811-26.
CDC. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): use of vaccines and immunoglobulins in persons with altered immunocompetence. MMWR 1993;42(No. RR-4):1-18.
Keller DW, Breiman RF. Preventing bacterial respiratory tract infections among persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Infect Dis 1995;21(suppl 1):S77-S83.
Redd SC, Rutherford GW, Sande MA, et al. The role of human immunodeficiency virus infection in pneumococcal bacteremia in San Francisco residents. J Infect Dis 1990;162:1012-7.
Takala AK, Jero J, Kela E, R½nnberg P-R, Koskenniemi E, Eskola J. Risk factors for primary invasive pneumococcal disease among children in Finland. JAMA 1995;273:859-64.
Gessner BD, Ussery XT, Parkinson AJ, Breiman RF. Risk factors for invasive disease caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae among Alaska native children younger than two years of age. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995;14:123-8.
Cherian T, Steinhoff MC, Harrison LH, Rohn D, McDougal L, Dick J. A cluster of invasive pneumococcal disease in young children in child care. JAMA 1994;271:695-8.
CDC. Hemorrhage and shock associated with invasive pneumococcal infection in healthy infants and children -- New Mexico, 1993-1994. MMWR 1995;43:949-52.
Klugman KP. Pneumococcal resistance to antibiotics. Clin Microbiol Rev 1990;3:171-96.
Butler JC, Hofmann J, Cetron MS, Elliott JA, Facklam RR, Breiman RF. The continued emergence of drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in the United States: an update from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pneumococcal Sentinel Surveillance System. J Infect Dis 1996;174:986-93.
Arnold KE, Leggiadro RJ, Breiman RF, et al. Risk factors for carriage of drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae among children in Memphis, Tennessee. J Pediatr 1996;128:757-64.
Duchin JS, Breiman RF, Diamond A, et al. High prevalence of multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae among children in a rural Kentucky community. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995;14: 745-50.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Infectious Diseases. Therapy for children with invasive pneumococcal infections. Pediatrics 1997;99:289-99.
Robbins JB, Austrian R, Lee CJ, et al. Considerations for formulating the second-generation pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide vaccine with emphasis on the cross-reactive types within groups. J Infect Dis 1983;148:1136-59.
Butler JC, Breiman RF, Campbell JF, Lipman HB, Broome CV, Facklam RR. Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine efficacy: an evaluation of current recommendations. JAMA 1993;270:1826-31.
Butler JC, Breiman RF, Lipman HB, Hofmann J, Facklam RR. Serotype distribution of Streptococcus pneumoniae infections among preschool children in the United States, 1978-1994: Implications for development of a conjugate vaccine. J Infect Dis 1995;171;885-9.
Musher DM, Luchi M, Watson DA, Hamilton R, Baughn RE. Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in young adults and older bronchitics: determination of IgG responses by ELISA and the effect of adsorption of serum with non-type-specific cell wall polysaccharide. J Infect Dis 1990;161:728-35.
Ammann AJ, Addiego K, Wara DW, Lubin D, Smith WB, Mentzer WC. Polyvalent pneumococcal-polysaccharide immunization of patients with sickle cell anemia and patients with splenectomy. N Engl J Med 1977;297:897-900.
Siber GR, Gorham C, Martin P, Corkey JC, Schiffman G. Antibody response to pretreatment immunization and post-treatment boosting with bacterial polysaccharide vaccines in patients with Hodgkins disease. Ann Intern Med 1986;104:467-75.
Ammann AJ, Schiffman G, Abrams D, Volberding P, Ziegler J, Conant M. B-cell immunodeficiency in acquired immune deficiency syndrome. JAMA 1984;251:1447-9.
Ballet J-J, Sulcebe G, Couderc L-J, et al. Impaired anti-pneumococcal antibody response in patients with AIDS-related persistent generalized lymphadenopathy. Clin Exp Immunol 1987;68:479-87.
Huang K-L, Ruben FL, Rinaldo CR Jr, Kingsley L, Lyter DW, Ho M. Antibody responses after influenza and pneumococcal immunization in HIV infected homosexual men. JAMA 1987; 257:2047-50.
Rodriguez-Barradas MC, Musher DM, Lahart C, et al. Antibody to capsular polysaccharides of Streptococcus pneumoniae after vaccination of human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects with 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. J Infect Dis 1992;165:553-6.
Koskela M, Leinonen M, Haiva V-M, Timonen M, Makela PH. First and second dose antibody responses to pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in infants. Pediatr Infect Dis 1986;5:45-50.
Leinonen M, Sakkinen A, Kalliokoski R, Luotonen J, Timonen M, Makela PH. Antibody response to 14-valent pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide vaccine in pre-school age children. Pediatr Infect Dis 1986;5:39-44.
Douglas RM, Paton JC, Duncan SJ, Hansman DJ. Antibody response to pneumococcal vaccination in children younger than five years of age. J Infect Dis 1983;148:131-7.
Mufson MA, Krause HE, Schiffman G. Long-term persistence of antibody following immunization with pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1983;173:270-5.
Mufson MA, Krause HE, Schiffman G, Hughey DF. Pneumococcal antibody levels one decade after immunization of healthy adults. Am J Med Sci 1987;293:279-89.
Giebink GS, Le CT, Schiffman G. Decline of serum antibody in splenectomized children after vaccination with pneumococcal capsular polysaccharides. J Pediatr 1984;105:576-84.
Weintrub PS, Schiffman G, Addiego JE Jr., et al. Long-term follow-up and booster immunization with polyvalent pneumococcal polysaccharide in patients with sickle cell anemia. J Pediatr 1984;105:261-3.
Spika JS, Halsey NA, Le CT, et al. Decline of vaccine-induced antipneumococcal antibody in children with nephrotic syndrome. Am J Kidney Dis 1986;7:466-70.
Vella PP, McLean AA, Woodhour AF, Weibel RE, Hilleman MR. Persistence of pneumococcal antibodies in human subjects following vaccination. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1980;164:435-8.
Hilleman MR, Carlson AJ, McLean AA, Vella PP, Weibel RE, Woodhour AF. Streptococcus pneumoniae polysaccharide vaccine: age and dose responses, safety, persistence of antibody, revaccination, and simultaneous administration of pneumococcal and influenza vaccines. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3(suppl):S31-S42.
Kraus C, Fischer S, Ansorg R, Hðttemann U. Pneumococcal antibodies (IgG, IgM) in patients with chronic obstructive lung disease 3 years after pneumococcal vaccination. Med Microbiol Immunol 1985;174:51-8.
Minor DR, Schiffman G, McIntosh LS. Response of patients with Hodgkin's disease to pneumococcal vaccine. Ann Intern Med 1979;90:887-92.
Schmid GP, Smith RP, Baltch AL, Hall CA, Schiffman G. Antibody response to pneumococcal vaccine in patients with multiple myeloma. J Infect Dis 1981;143:590-7.
Romero-Steiner S, Pais L, Holder P, Carlone GM, Keyserling, H. Opsonophagocytosis of Streptococcus pneumoniae as an indicator of functional antibody activity in adults vaccinated with a 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine {Abstract}. Program and Abstracts of American Society for Microbiology. 98th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, May 21-25, 1995.
Fine MJ, Smith MA, Carson CA, et al. Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:2666-77.
Brichacek B, Swindells S, Janoff EN, Pirruccello S, Stevenson M. Increased plasma HIV-1 burden following antigenic challenge with pneumococcal vaccine. J Infect Dis 1996;174:1191-9.
MacLeod CM, Hodges RG, Heidelberger M, Bernhard WG. Prevention of pneumococcal pneumonia by immunization with specific capsular polysaccharides. J Exp Med 1945;82:445-65.
Kaufman P. Pneumonia in old age: active immunization against pneumonia with pneumococcus polysaccharide -- results of a six year study. Arch Intern Med 1947;79:518-31.
Austrian R, Douglas RM, Schiffman G, et al. Prevention of pneumococcal pneumonia by vaccination. Trans Assoc Am Physicians 1976;89:184-9.
Smit P, Oberholzer D, Hayden-Smith S, Koornhof HJ, Hilleman MR. Protective efficacy of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines. JAMA 1977;238:2613-6.
Riley ID, Tarr PI, Andrews M, et al. Immunisation with a polyvalent pneumococcal vaccine. Lancet 1977;1:1338-41.
Broome CV. Efficacy of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3(suppl):S82-S96.
Shapiro ED, Clemens JD. A controlled evaluation of the protective efficacy of pneumococcal vaccine for patients at high risk of serious pneumococcal infections. Ann Intern Med 1984;101:325-30.
Simberkoff MS, Cross AP, Al-Ibrahim M, et al. Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccine in high-risk patients: results of a Veterans Administration cooperative study. N Engl J Med 1986;315: 1318-27.
Forrester HL, Jahnigen DW, LaForce FM. Inefficacy of pneumococcal vaccine in a high-risk population. Am J Med 1987;83:425-30.
Sims RV, Steinmann WC, McConville JH, King LR, Zwick WC, Schwartz JS. The clinical effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine in the elderly. Ann Intern Med 1988;108:653-7.
Shapiro ED, Berg AT, Austrian R, et al. The protective efficacy of polyvalent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. N Engl J Med 1991;325:1453-60.
Farr BM, Johnston BL, Cobb DK, et al. Preventing pneumococcal bacteremia in patients at risk: results of a matched case-control study. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:2336-40.
Spika JS, Fedson DS, Facklam RR. Pneumococcal vaccination -- controversies and opportunities. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1990;4:11-27.
Klein JO, Teele DW, Sloyer JL, et al. Use of pneumococcal vaccine for prevention of recurrent episodes of otitis media. In: Weinstein L, Fields BN, eds. Seminars in infectious disease. New York: Thieme-Stratton Inc, 1982;305-10.
Lin JD, Sisk JE, Moskowitz A, Fedson DS. The cost effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccination {Abstract}. Abstracts of the American Public Health Association 124th Annual Meeting and Exposition. New York, NY, November 17-21,1996, p. 328.
DeStefano F, Goodman RA, Noble GR, McClary GD, Smith SJ, Broome CV. Simultaneous administration of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. JAMA 1982;247:2551-4.
American Academy of Pediatrics. 1994 Red book: report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics 1994:371-5.
CDC. Assessing adult vaccination status at age 50 years. MMWR 1995;44:561-3.
American College of Physicians Task Force on Adult Immunization, Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guide for adult immunization. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians, 1994;107-14.
CDC. Immunization of adolescents: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Medical Association. MMWR 1996;45(No. RR-13).
CDC. Outbreaks of pneumococcal pneumonia among unvaccinated residents in chronic-care facilities -- Massachusetts, October 1995, Oklahoma, February 1996, and Maryland, May-June 1996. MMWR 1997;46:60-2.
Katzenstein TL, Gerstoft J, Nielsen H. Assessments of plasma HIV RNA and CD4 cell counts after combined Pneumovax and tetanus toxoid vaccination: no detectable increase in HIV replication 6 weeks after immunization. Scand J Infect Dis 1996;28:239-41.
Garner CV, Pier GB. Immunologic considerations for the development of conjugate vaccines. In: Cruse JM, Lewis RE, eds. Conjugate vaccines. Basel, Switzerland: Karger, 1989;11-7.
Mufson MA, Hughey DF, Turner CE, Schiffman G. Revaccination with pneumococcal vaccine of elderly persons 6 years after primary vaccination. Vaccine 1991;9:403-7.
Borgoåo JM, McLean AA, Vella PP, et al. Vaccination and revaccination with polyvalent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines in adults and infants. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1978;157:148-54.
Mufson MA, Krause HE, Schiffman G. Reactivity and antibody responses of volunteers given two or three doses of pneumococcal vaccine. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1984;177:220-5.
Rigau-Perez JG, Overturf GD, Chan LS, Weiss J, Powars D. Reactions to booster pneumococcal vaccination in patients with sickle cell disease. Pediatr Infect Dis 1983;2:199-202.
Snow R, Babish JD, McBean AM. Is there any connection between a second pneumonia shot and hospitalization among Medicare beneficiaries? Pub Hlth Rep 1995;110:720-5.
Gaston MH, Verter JI, Woods G, et al. Prophylaxis with oral penicillin in children with sickle cell anemia. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1593-9.
Faletta JM, Woods GM, Verter JI, et al. Discontinuing penicillin prophylaxis in children with sickle cell anemia. J Pediatr 1995;127:685-90.
Mofenson LM, Moye J, Bethel J, et al. Prophylactic intravenous immunoglobulin in HIV-infected children with CD4+ counts of 0.20x10 9/L or more: effect on viral, opportunistic, and bacterial infections. JAMA 1992;268:483-8.
CDC. Update on adult immunization: recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP). MMWR 1991;40(No. RR-12):42-4.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2000: National health promotion and disease prevention objectives. Washington, DC: Public Health Service, 1991.
CDC. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccination coverage levels among persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years. MMWR 1995;44:506-7,513-5.
CDC. Increasing pneumococcal vaccination rates -- United States, 1993. MMWR 1995;44:741-4.
Gyorkos TW, Tannenbaum TN, Abrahamowicz M, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of immunization delivery methods. Can J Public Health 1994;85(suppl):S14-S30.
Klein RS, Adachi N. An effective hospital-based pneumococcal immunization program. Arch Intern Med 1986;146:327-9.
Crouse BJ, Nichol K, Peterson DC, Grimm MB. Hospital-based strategies for improving influenza vaccination rates. J Fam Pract 1994;38:258-61.
Schwartz B, Breiman R. Pneumococcal immunization: from policy to practice {Editorial}. JAMA 1990;264:1154-5.
Fedson DS. Improving the use of pneumococcal vaccine through a strategy of hospital-based immunization: a review of its rationale and implications. J Am Geriatr Soc 1985;33:142-50.
Fedson DS, Harward MP, Reid RA, Kaiser DL. Hospital-based pneumococcal immunization. Epidemiologic rationale from the Shenandoah study. JAMA 1990;264:1117-22.
CDC. Pneumococcal immunization program -- California, 1986-1988. MMWR 1989;38:517-9.
Campbell JF, Donohue MA, Nevin-Woods C, et al. The Hawaii pneumococcal disease initiative. Am J Public Health 1993;83:1175-6.
Buffington J, Bell KM, LaForce FM, et al. A target-based model for increasing influenza immunizations in private practice. J Gen Intern Med 1991;6:204-9.
Cheney C, Ramsdell JW. Effect of medical records' checklists on implementation of periodic health measures. Am J Med 1987;83:129-36.
Cohen DI, Littenberg B, Wetzel C, Neuhauser D. Improving physician compliance with preventive medicine guidelines. Med Care 1982;20:1040-5.
Clancy CM, Gelfman D, Poses RM. A strategy to improve the utilization of pneumococcal vaccine. J Gen Intern Med 1992;7:14-8.
Baltimore RS. New challenges in the development of a conjugate pneumococcal vaccine {Editorial}. JAMA 1992;268:3366-7.
Robbins JB, Schneerson R. Polysaccharide-protein conjugates: a new generation of vaccines. J Infect Dis 1990;161:821-32.
Steinhoff MC, Edwards K, Keyserling H, et al. A randomized comparison of three bivalent Streptococcus pneumoniae glycoprotein conjugate vaccines in young children: effect of polysaccharide size and linkage characteristics. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1994;13:368-72.
Kayhty H, Ahman H, R½nnberg P-R, Tillikainen R, Eskola J. Pneumococcal polysaccharide-meningococcal outer membrane protein complex conjugate vaccine is immunogenic in infants and children. J Infect Dis 1995;172:1273-8.
Leach A, Ceesay SJ, Banya WA, Greenwood BM. Pilot trial of a pentavalent pneumococcal polysaccharide/protein conjugate vaccine in Gambian infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1996;15:333-9.
Anderson EL, Kennedy DJ, Geldmacher KM, Donnelly J, Mendelman PM. Immunogenicity of heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in infants. J Pediatr 1996;128:649-53.
Douglas RM, Hansman D, Miles HB, Paton JC. Pneumococcal carriage and type-specific antibody. Failure of a 14-valent vaccine to reduce carriage in healthy children. Am J Dis Child 1986;140:1183-5.
Dagan RR, Melamed M, Muallem L, et al. Reduction of nasopharyngeal carriage of pneumococci during the second year of life by a heptavalent conjugate pneumococcal vaccine. J Infect Dis 1996;174:1271-8.

Experience is the Great Teacher




The new field of epigenetics is redefining the field of genetics and molecular biology. No longer can we say that the presence of a gene is predetermined destiny. On the contrary, the once clear demarcations between genotypye and phenotype have been blurred into the gray realms of question and uncertainty. This is the proper terrain for good science to take place. The hard and fast domains of truth will always lead us into facile acceptance and sclerotic cognition. These are not realms where imagination or science can can work their magic. jj





Early life stress 'changes' genes
By Victoria Gill Science reporter, BBC News

Mice that are abandoned as pups have behavioural problems later on
A study in mice has hinted at the impact that early life trauma and stress can have on genes, and how they can result in behavioural problems.
Scientists described the long-term effects of stress on baby mice in the journal Nature Neuroscience.
Stressed mice produced hormones that "changed" their genes, affecting their behaviour throughout their lives.
This work could provide clues to how stress and trauma in early life can lead to later problems.
The study was led by Christopher Murgatroyd, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany.
He told BBC News that this study went into "molecular detail" - showing exactly how stressful experiences in early life could "programme" long-term behaviour.
To do this, the researchers had to cause stress to newborn mouse pups and monitor how their experiences affected them throughout their lives.
"We separated the pups from their mothers for three hours each day for ten days," Dr Murgatroyd explained.
"It was a very mild stress and the animals were not affected at a nutritional level, but they would [have felt] abandoned."
The team found that mice that had been "abandoned" during their early lives were then less able to cope with stressful situations throughout their lives.
The stressed mice also had poorer memories.
Programming genes
Dr Murgatroyd explained that these effects were caused by "epigenetic changes", where the early stressful experience actually changed the DNA of some of the animals' genes.
"This is a two-step mechanism," Dr Murgatroyd explained.
When the baby mice were stressed, they produced high levels of stress hormones.
These hormones "tweak" the DNA of a gene that codes for a specific stress hormone - vasopressin.
"This leaves a permanent mark at the vasopressin gene," said Dr Murgatroyd. "It is then programmed to produce high levels [of the hormone] later on in life."
The researchers were able to show that vasopressin was behind the behavioural and memory problems. When the adult mice were given a drug that blocked the effects of the hormone, their behaviour returned to normal.
This work was carried out in mice, but scientists are also investigating how childhood trauma in humans can lead to problems such as depression.
Professor Hans Reul, a neuroscientist from the University of Bristol, UK, said that this was "a very valuable addition to the body of work on the long-term effects of early-life stress".
"There is strong evidence that adversities such as abuse and neglect during infancy contribute to the development of psychiatric diseases such as depression," he told BBC News.
"This underscores the importance of the study of epigenetic mechanisms in stress-related disorders."

Achorn's Myopia

[GPRI] Fine Letter by Longtime Green Jeff JohnsonRichard Walton richard at soup.org Wed Mar 28 19:08:17 PST 2007
Previous message: [GPRI] FW: Save the Date! Global Warming Event April 14
Next message: [GPRI] Proposed Visits to Senate Offices; No War With Iran
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi: This is a fine letter by longtime Green [and once our candidate for
lieutenant governor and other offices] Jeff Johnson. It is unusually long
for a Letter to the Editor so the editors must have thought highly of it.
As I certainly did. Peace. Richard.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:06 p.m.
Kerry s gaffes vs. Bush s high crimes
01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Edward Achorn s accusation, in his Feb. 6 column Politicians are all too
human, that John Kerry is a hypocrite is certainly reasonable. We all
might justly be accused of occasionally being hypocritical. However, the
Kerry critique is too simplistic in its partisan focus. Whether Kerry is
bashing America is not really relevant. The U.S. deserves to be
criticized. We are fighting a war that has been responsible for the deaths
of thousands of innocent human beings.
This war was sold like toothpaste to the American people with a series of
blatant lies emanating from the executive branch. The human and financial
costs of this illegal war are too numerous to count, but one very high
price, not often discussed, is blowback. We are considered a rogue nation
by the majority of the world s people.
By many accounts, we have energized, if not emboldened terrorism, with
policies that demonstrate contempt for human life. The face of Bush is a
recruiting poster for all of the people of the world who hate America not
because we get to watch American Idol on television but because of the
terrible things we have done to them. And Bush s mendacity seems to lack
any boundary or constraint whatsoever. While he was supposedly listening
to advisers on the advisabilty of his surge, he was already implementing
this flawed policy that will only result in more death, hatred and
carnage.
As for Kerry s vote against the Kyoto protocol, Achorn makes another valid
point, but it certainly does not diminish Bush s responsibilities to this
nation to act on global warming. For six years and change, Bush has denied
the irrefutable and unambiguous science supporting the anthropogenic
causes of global warming.
Bush s science adviser, a lawyer, even altered a recent EPA report on the
seriousness of global warming to make its findings sound less ominous.
The first installment of the 2007 IPCC report (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change) is positively chilling in its forecasts for the not too
distant future. Climate change is the biggest threat not only to our
nation s security, but to the security of our species. And what has Bush
done? Nothing, unless you call coal gasification and learning how to
pronounce cellulosic inspired leadership.
Don t get me wrong, I am not a Kerry supporter. In fact, I have equal
loathing for both of the mainstream political parties that have been
complicit in plotting the suicidal foreign and domestic policies of the
last two decades. But Bush is in a league of his own. Negligence and lies
have been the hallmark of his reign of errors. John Kerry may indeed have
gaffed again, but at least he is not guilty, as Bush is, of high crimes.
JEFF JOHNSON
Wakefield
"The only way out of our crisis (terrorism) is to reduce the anger of the
most rational, thus also reducing the constituency of the least rational."
Sam Smith.
"When they come for the innocent without crossing over
your body, cursed be your religion and your life." Anon. But often
quoted by Dorothy Day.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Richard Walton" <richard at soup.org>

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Glenn Beck as Climate Change Expert

Glenn Beck as Climate Change Expert
I sent this intemperate email to Beck because he is a very dangerous man. Lies take on lives of their own and the growing fascist -right in this country has been waging an effective war against science and the very real dangers of climate change for all too long using the public airwaves to dispense their voodoo propaganda.

Your rants generally are tolerable for only a few moments, but I do feel it is important to know what the current fascist agenda is. However, your distortion and trivialization of climate science and the threats posed to life on this planet by climate change are criminal.

You have always been a smarmy, bloated, racist, social-Darwinist, but I found your profound ignorance a typical and predictable stigmata of your despicable kind.Your newly acquired niche as a global climate skeptic is dangerous. My great fear is that you might possibly influence many in your feeble minded audience who know even less science than you, as unlikely as that possibility might seem.

On your "show" last evening, you presented two people as climate experts, neither of whom are climate scientists or scientists of any kind, for that matter. Lord Monckton, as he likes to be called, is a laughable charlatan except that the consequences of his endlessly repeated talking points, which have been endlessly refuted, will be the death knell for what we refer to and currently recognize as civilization. Monckton's facile reasoning and glib pseudo-science are false comfort to a nation with a predilection for magical thinking, fundamentalist religion, and a tiresome belief in its own exceptionalism.

Why not have real climate experts on your "fair and balanced " network for the zombie nation to provide a little real science to your elucidation of the "facts"? It would probably make no difference anyway since you have no capacity for nuance or analysis unless it is wrapped in the shiny Fox trademark of snarky, disingenuous, loathsome and venomous corporate ideology. The unfettered free market will simply banish all that damages its own mythology.

Science is a problem because it relies on evidence and facts before etiological relationships can be postulated. Business just lies so that it can go on " biggering and biggering."Repeat the lie often enough and people will believe it. Joseph Goebbels could not have said it better. In fact, I think he did say it.

Beck you are abusing the public airwaves with dangerous deceptions. You have no respect for knowledge or the hard work necessary to find the truth and solve the many problems our species and planet are facing today. You are an enemy of the people who is as sociopathic, delusional, and narcissistic as any in your lunatic circle. Or are you merely a hired gun who will say and do anything for the highest bidder? It does stretch one's credulity to think it possible that you are as stupid and shallow as you seem. Perhaps you are even less than I thought possible: the ancient archetype of greed personified. Glenn have you sold your much vaunted "soul" to the highest bidder? Remember GB, the Devil will have his due.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Proteins,Lipids,Carbohydrates

Monday, November 2, 2009

Seahorse Reproduction


Peer at a seahorse, briefly hold one up to the light, and you will see a most unlikely creature; something you would hardly believe was real were it not lying there in the palm of your hand. Should we presume these odd-looking creatures were designed by a mischievous god who had some time on her hands? Rummaging through a box labelled "spare parts", she finds a horse's head and, feeling a desire for experimentation, places it on top of the pouched torso of a kangaroo.
Poseidon's Steed
by Helen Scales
272pp,
GOTHAM BOOKS,
£15.99
Buy Poseidon's Steed at the Guardian bookshop
This playful god adds a pair of swivelling chameleon eyes and the prehensile tail of a tree-dwelling monkey for embellishment – then stands back to admire her work. Not bad, but how about a suit of magical colour-changing armour, and a crown shaped as intricately and uniquely as a human fingerprint? Shrink it all down to the size of a chess piece and the new creature is complete.
No matter how tempting such a strange tale of creation may be, seahorses are real creatures, a product of natural selection and an endangered species. They inhabit a wide stretch of the oceans and are not, as we might suppose, restricted to warm azure waters that lap on equatorial shores. If you stand with your toes dabbling in shallow sea almost anywhere in the world there is a chance you might see a seahorse. Not a very great chance, admittedly, but a chance nonetheless.
Right now, somewhere in the world, sunbeams pierce through shallow water and cast pools of brightness on the seagrass meadow below. The night shift has ended, and diurnal creatures begin to emerge from sleeping hideaways: rabbitfish, parrotfish, damselfish.
Suddenly, two tiny silhouettes come together like a pair of knights on a chessboard. The seahorses greet each other with a nose-to-nose caress and, wrapping their tails around a single blade of grass, they begin a seductive dance, spiralling round and round each other. Blushes of orange and pink give away their emotions and, for a moment, the seahorses swim together, heads tucked down, tails entwined. A gentle humming and clicking from the male is the soundtrack to their flirting.
The first time a seahorse couple meet, this gentle courtship carries on for hours, days even, and it is a risky time. Driven by hormones that interfere with the instinct to hide, they abandon the camouflaged safety of their seagrass home. The female initiates sex by reaching up toward the surface, stretching her body as straight as it will go. This proves quite irresistible to the male, who immediately responds by pumping his tail vigorously up and down.
The couple halt in the open water column and hold their bodies close, forming a heart shape with their touching snouts and bellies. Their first attempt isn't quite right, so they break apart and try again several times until their position is perfected, the female just above the male. Then an extraordinary thing happens. A short hollow tube emerges from the female, which she pushes into an opening in her partner's belly. The couple raise their heads and arch their backs as the female shoots an egg-laden liquid into the male.
Copulation is perfunctory, taking just six or seven seconds. When the male is full with the precious cargo, he wanders off, his bright mating costume already fading. He sways and wiggles his body, settling the eggs into position where they will remain for the next few weeks, growing in a protected internal pond.
The strangest thing about seahorses is that their males are the only ones in the world who experience – firsthand – the agonies of childbirth. Admittedly, there are many fathers who do a great job of helping out with the youngsters. In eastern Australia's rainforests, tadpoles of the marsupial frog wriggle into special pouches slung on their fathers' hind legs. Six weeks later, out hop the next generation of miniature frogs.
These, and many other caring males – including pipefishes and seadragons – deserve praise for their efforts, but only male seahorses become truly pregnant, nurturing their young inside their bodies, providing them with food and oxygen, whisking away waste products. This is all the more remarkable when we consider that pregnancy is a rare occurrence in fish, even among females.
When people first hear about seahorse males getting pregnant, the question that naturally follows is, "So what makes them male?" The simple answer is sperm. The distinction between scarce round eggs and prolific tadpole-like sperm is essentially all that separates woman from man, doe from buck, mare from stallion, and so on.
Yet despite such a clear definition, it took marine biologists a long time to understand what was going on with seahorse sex. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle first wrote about the unusual reproductive habits of the Syngnathidae family, to which seahorses belong, in the third century BC. In his book, On The History of Animals, Aristotle went into extraordinary detail about the lives of many fish species he encountered while staying on the Mediterranean island of Lesbos. But it wasn't until the 18th century that scientists finally realised something strange was going on, and began to study syngnathid sex in detail.
For four decades, arguments flared over which sex carried the eggs during a seahorse pregnancy. Everyone agreed that the females produced the eggs, but it wasn't clear whether or not they handed them over to their male partners to look after. The academic tussle was played out on the pages of specialist journals, until the debate was finally laid to rest in the 1870s, when several scientists observed pairs of seahorses engaging in tight embraces within the confines of the laboratory. Those watching closely enough witnessed the transfer of eggs.
Females of most species make a limited number of eggs and tend to look after them well before they hatch, while males make torrents of sperm. This means that pregnancy isn't usually a great option for males. Why should a male spend time looking after a single brood of young, when he could be roaming around, fertilising many more broods elsewhere?
For mammals, there is only one contender for who is best suited to do the childcare: the female nurtures young inside her womb, leaving the male pacing about with few options to help except fending off predators, and bringing them food. Female fish, however, usually carry out external rather than internal fertilisation. So they can abandon their eggs to concentrate on feeding, in order that next time they make bigger, better eggs.
Male fish, on the other hand, can boost their credentials by hanging around. By claiming and defending a piece of prime territory, a male can look after several clutches at once and, in doing so, become irresistible to the ladies who prefer responsible, caring types to father their children.
When evolutionary biologists discovered that male seahorses become truly pregnant, they rubbed their hands in anticipation. It gave them a perfect opportunity to test out their theories of how differences between the sexes evolve. They expected to find that the females, unshackled from the toils of pregnancy, had kicked up their heels and adopted a typically male habit, spreading their gametes as far and wide as possible. But no, most female seahorses are loyal to one male throughout his pregnancy, and do not mate again until he is ready. In fact, many seahorses are monogamous throughout whole breeding seasons, returning to the same partner time and again. Some may even stay in devoted couplings for much of their lives.
So what benefits do females gain by abandoning pregnancy while at the same time sticking with one mate? The answer could lie in their rarity. Seahorses don't live in crowded neighbourhoods, possibly because their plankton food is too scarce to support more than a handful of adults in a habitat the size of a tennis court. With such limited social opportunities and meagre swimming skills, seahorses can't rely on finding a new partner every time they are ready to breed. As soon as they have found a suitable mate, it pays off in the long run for both males and females to stay together.
Equally, if males are unlikely to find a profusion of other mates, it isn't a huge sacrifice to settle down, be faithful, and become pregnant. And taking on the reins of pregnancy gives male seahorses one last added benefit: full reassurance that all the babies he is caring for are definitely his own – something other males, most notoriously human beings, can't be absolutely sure of without a DNA test.
And so, eventually, a cloud of transparent specks like a swarm of apostrophes is launched into the sea: a herd of miniature seahorses with huge snouts too big for their spindly bodies but with all the necessary features already in place.
The brand-new foals, each the size of a flea, swim upward, inflating their swim bladders with a gulp of fresh air before drifting away to begin life with no more help from father or mother. They will settle down in different seagrass patches and, after six months of feeding and growing, they will – all being well – find a partner and start a family of their own.
As for the fathers, their work is never finished. As soon as the arduous birth is over, the female returns and their courtship ritual resumes. The male may already be pregnant again by the next day – a tiresome life indeed, but one that maximises the output of offspring. Which is, ultimately, all that really counts.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Tiger Skin Trade in China




Tiger skin trade in China exposed
By Jody Bourton Earth News reporter
Advertisement
Skins for sale
An undercover investigation has revealed the continued trade in tiger skins in China.
Covert filming by the Environment Investigation Agency shows traders selling skins of tigers and other rare animals such as snow leopards.
The skins are sold as luxury items and are used for clothes and home decor.
The campaigning group has published its investigation a few days before an international summit on big cat conservation in Kathmandu, Nepal.
Buying and selling big cat skins and body parts is illegal in China.
People are buying them for prestige, skins are very expensive and tend to cost around 20,000 US dollars each
Alasdair CameronEnvironmental Investigation Agency
However, a team from the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), based in London, UK and Washington DC, US says its investigations reveal the trade in big cats still occurs in many parts of the country, including Tibet.
Between 25 July and 19 August 2009 the EIA carried out investigations in markets in five cities in western China.
Skin sale
In just 21 days the team was offered four full tiger skins, 12 leopard skins, 11 snow leopard skins and two clouded leopard skins as well as associated bones and teeth from the species.
"It's really quite significant," says EIA spokesperson Alasdair Cameron.
"What's interesting is the market has changed. Previously the market was for skins amongst the Tibetan community, that market has largely collapsed and what we're seeing now is skins bought for decoration and taxidermy amongst Chinese businesspeople," he says.
"People are buying them for prestige, skins are very expensive and tend to cost around 20,000 US dollars each," Mr Cameron explains.
Advertisement
Other rare cat skins offered
"We're also being told skins are being used for non-financial bribery within China, so the demand is increasing outside of the Tibetan areas."
The EIA says the animals are being smuggled into China from various places including Tibet, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Covert operation
The team captured the illegal trade on film using a hidden camera while they enquired about animal skins on sale.
What surprised the team was how easy it was to find and purchase the endangered animal products.
"There is some law enforcement in China, in a few regions, but there are whole swathes of the country where this trade is allowed to carry on with almost no fear of detection," Mr Cameron says.
"Some of the places we have been to, skins are openly displayed in shop windows while police cars drive past."
Debbie Banks, lead campaigner of the EIA, believes not is enough is being done by the Chinese authorities to combat the trade.
"If China can put a man into space, they can do more to save the wild tiger," she says.
Tiger meet
On the 27 October a summit is being held in Kathmandu, Nepal to discuss how best to save wild tigers from extinction.
The Kathmandu Global Tiger Workshop will bring together tiger experts and conservation organisations from around the world to further efforts to protect the animal, especially running up to the Chinese calendar's year of the tiger in 2010.
However, Mr Cameron has mixed feelings about the forthcoming year of the tiger.
"We're hoping to use the year of the tiger as a way to highlight the threats faced by the animal but traders in China are actually saying that next year is going to be great because people will want to get a piece of the tiger in the year of the tiger."
"There could actually be a spike in demand."

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Respiration




Aerobic respiration
Respiration is a process which releases energy inside each of the body's cells. It is not, as many people think, simply breathing - but see below.
Equation for the reaction
Reactants i.e. needed to take part in the process
Products i.e. made by the process
Not "made" but released from molecules of reactant
Glucose
+ oxygen
carbon dioxide
+ water
+ energy
From digestion of food especiallycarbohydrates
From air breathed in
Into air breathedout
Left in cell/blood/breathed out as vapour
More efficient than anaerobic respirationEnergy is trapped in the molecular structure of ATP
Delivered to cells in bloodstream
Removed from cells in blood stream
Used to power all the cell's processes-movement, electrical activity, synthesisThe energy is actually contained in the bonds between the atoms of the glucose molecule C6H12O6 which is the basic "fuel" for most cells in the body. This comes from carbohydrates in food which are processed by the digestive system, absorbed into the blood and passed around the body. The energy release is most efficient when the glucose is oxidised using oxygen derived from air, producing CO2 and H2O which are much simpler compounds. Aerobic respiration is an almost universal process - carried out by most animals and plants. It consists of several stages, the first of which is shared with anaerobic respiration and takes place in the cytoplasm of cells. The purely aerobic reactions take place inside mitochondria, small specialised organelles within the cytoplasm of all body cells. More active cells have more mitochondria.
Click for more information about the glycolysis, link reaction, Krebs/citric acid cycle and electron transport processes.Green plants carry out respiration 24 hours of the day, but in the light it is masked by photosynthesis which seems to put it in reverse. Some organisms can also perform anaerobic repiration as a less efficient alternative. In the bodies of most (higher) animals, aerobic respiration is assisted by muscular movement performed by the breathing system (also known as the respiratory system) and the circulatory system, but at the single cell level diffusion takes over.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Copenhagen: Let's Make It Happen







Barnacle Glue and Penises




Barnacles are able to attach themselves to almost anything.
They are found clinging to the hulls of ships, the sides of rock pools and even to the skin of whales.
Just how they stick so steadfastly whilst underwater has remained a biochemical puzzle for scientists for many years.
Now researchers have solved this mystery, showing that barnacle glue binds together exactly the same way as human blood does when it clots.
Barnacles are crustaceans that live in shallow ocean environments.
We've found homologous enzymes in barnacles and humans
Dr Gary DickinsonDuke University, US
As larvae they affix to hard substrates, then remain stationary for the rest of their lives.
To attach themselves to a surface, the barnacles secrete an adhesive substance.
Scientist knew the chemical properties of this glue, but not how these chemicals interact to create a sticky effect.
Now researchers reveal all in The Journal of Experimental Biology.
Sticking point
Actually obtaining some barnacle glue proved an initial hurdle.
"No one really knew how to work with barnacle glue before this study," says Dr Gary Dickinson, a member of the research team from Duke University's Marine Laboratory in Durham, North Carolina, US.
"Most people try to cut it off the bottom of a barnacle and then dissolve it, but we knew this does not work well, and this approach has limited potential," he explains.

Sticking around
So Dr Dickinson and his colleagues learnt how to gently remove glue from the barnacles (Amphibalanus amphitrite) as they secreted it.
They were then able to deconstruct the glue to find out exactly how it works.
The team initially compared the glue to another substance which clots in solution; red blood cells.
They expected the mechanism by which glue particles bind, and red blood cells bind, to be different.
However, they found they are remarkably similar.
In blood, a number of enzymes work to create long protein fibres that bind red blood cells, or platelets, together into a clot and create a scab.
Using techniques including atomic force microscopy and mass spectrometry, the team found that very similar enzymes, known as trypsin-like serine proteases, are at work in barnacle glue.
One of these glue enzymes is remarkably like Factor XIII, an essential blood clotting agent in human blood.
The enzymes are highly conserved because they are very effective at what they do
Dr Gary DickinsonDuke University, US
"We've found homologous enzymes in barnacles and humans, which serve the same function of clotting proteins underwater, despite roughly a billion years of evolutionary separation," says Dr Dickinson.
However, this surprising result does make evolutionary sense, says team member Professor Dan Rittschof, also from Duke University's Marine Laboratory.
"Virtually no biochemical pathway is brand new. Everything is related and really important pathways are used over and over," he explains.
"Really key parts of those pathways can't change because if they do, the pathway fails and the animal dies."
Glue potential
Dr Dickinson believes other organisms might also use this glue.
"The enzymes are highly conserved because they are very effective at what they do."
"There are bound to be a number of other organisms that use the same enzymes for the same purpose," he says.
His team hopes that further research might lead to a solution to the problem of marine fouling, where barnacles stick to boat hulls creating drag.
Many anti-fouling compounds used to paint the undersides of boats are toxic, so Dr Dickinson's team hopes to find a more environmentally-friendly solution.
Washington: Barnacles can totally change the size and shape of their penises to battle the waves and have sex, a new study has found.Graduate student Christopher Neufeld and Dr. Richard Palmer from the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Alberta discovered that these distant relatives of crabs and lobsters can alter the size of their penises up to 8 times their body length, in order to mate.The authors said that barnacles want to mate but are permanently bound to whatever rock or hull they once latched onto. Because of this condition, barnacles have evolved the longest penises of any creature for their size to seek out and have sex with their neighbors.Neufeld and Palmer have shown that barnacles appear to have acquired the capacity to change the size and shape of their penises to closely match local wave conditions.
GA_googleFillSlot("living-160x600");
"Barnacles have evolved the longest penises of any creature for their size to seek out and have sex.."
When wave action is light, a longer (thinner) penis can reach more mates, but at times of higher wave action, a shorter (stouter) penis is more manoeuvrable in flow and therefore can reach more mates.The research suggests that sexual selection, competition with other males, female choice, sexual conflict between males and females, is not required to explain variation in genital form.In barnacles, this variation appears to be driven largely by the hydrodynamic conditions experienced under breaking waves, the authors said.The study is published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Salt Tolerant Tomato

GM Tomato Plant Doesn't Shrink from Salty Water
By Kate Wong
Each year, nearly 25 million acres of once-farmable land are lost to salty irrigation water. The salts deposited in the fields disrupt a plant's ability to soak up water through the roots, lowering productivity and sometimes even dehydrating the plant entirely. Scientists have tried for decades to develop salt-tolerant crops through selective breeding but to no avail. Now findings described in the August issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology are offering the first seeds of hope. According to the report, researchers have genetically engineered tomato plants that flourish in salty water.
Earlier research had identified a plant protein that isolates salt, stowing it in intracellular compartments where it cannot upset the plant's normal biochemical routine. Building on that work, Eduardo Blumwald of the University of California at Davis and University of Toronto postdoctoral fellow Hong-Xia Zhang genetically manipulated tomato plants to manufacture more of this so-called transport protein. The resulting plants grow and produce fruit even when irrigated with water that's 50 times saltier than normal¿more than a third as salty as seawater.
The researchers grew the salt-tolerant plants in greenhouses, but Blumwald hopes to conduct field trials in salt-damaged soils in the future. If all goes as planned, he notes, scientists could develop commercially useful versions of these transgenic tomato plants within three years.


Scientists Successfully Clone an Endangered Mammal
By Kate Wong
OAS_AD("Right1");
Though it remains a topic of controversy among conservation biologists, the idea of using cloning technology to preserve endangered species has received serious consideration ever since the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997. But recent attempts to clone endangered mammals such as the argali and the gaur have failed to yield viable offspring. Now a European research team has met with success. According to a report in the October issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology, the same technique used to replicate Dolly¿somatic cell nuclear transfer¿has produced an apparently healthy mouflon lamb, a member of an endangered species of sheep found on Sardinia, Corsica and Cyprus.
Pasqualino Loi of the University of Teramo in Italy and his colleagues recovered so-called somatic granulosa cells from the ovaries of two female mouflons found dead in a Sardinian pasture and injected their nuclei into domestic sheep egg cells that had had their nuclei removed. The resulting embryos were then surgically implanted in four domestic ewes, one of which delivered a cloned baby mouflon after 155 days. At 25 days old, the time at which the researchers submitted their report, the little mouflon appeared normal.
"Although the nuclear donor cells were recovered from dead animals and considered nonviable, they were able to generate normal embryos and offspring," the team writes. "Our findings support the use of cloning for the expansion of critically endangered populations, both within a concerted conservation program and in extreme situations involving sudden death.