MHRA Advises on Rare GBS Risk After RSV Vaccination
Healthcare professionals are advised to inform recipients of Abrysvo (Pfizer) and Arexvy (GSK) about potential symptoms of GBS. Should these occur, recipients should seek immediate medical care, as early intervention can reduce severity and improve outcomes.
GBS is an acute demyelinating disease that affects the peripheral nervous system. It has previously been reported in response to several vaccines, including those for influenza, swine flu, SARS-CoV-2, meningococcal disease, poliovirus, and rabies. Symptoms usually start in the limbs and include tingling, numbness, or pins and needles in the feet and hands, followed by muscle weakness and difficulty moving joints.
Severe Cases May Include Paralysis
In more serious cases, patients may experience shooting nerve pain, often in the legs or back, breathing difficulties, drooping facial muscles, problems with swallowing or speech, and double vision. Some may develop paralysis in the legs, arms, or face.
Treatment typically requires hospitalisation for several weeks or months. Therapies include immunotherapy and symptomatic management. GBS can be fatal in rare instances.
Study Suggests Increased Risk Post-Vaccination
The MHRA alert follows a US study evaluating GBS risk in adults aged over 65 after receiving RSV vaccines. The study, led by the US Food and Drug Administration and data analysis company Acumen in California, was conducted as a self-controlled case series analysis between 3 May 2023 — when the vaccines were first approved in the US — and 28 January 2024.
The study involved approximately 3.23 million Medicare recipients who received either Abrysvo or Arexvy. The researchers compared the incidence of GBS during risk intervals of 1-42 days after vaccination — when most reactions occur — to the incidence in later control periods (43-90 days).
Ninety-five GBS cases were reported in the early period. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) ranged from 2.02 to 2.46, translating to 6.5-9 additional cases per 1 million vaccine doses. However, statistical significance was only reached in the Arexvy group.
In the UK, Abrysvo is the RSV vaccine offered through the NHS to adults aged 75-79 and to pregnant women.
As of 2 June 2025, the MHRA had received 21 Yellow Card reports of suspected GBS in older adults following Abrysvo vaccination. This was out of more than 1.9 million doses of Abrysvo administered up to 26 May on the NHS scheme.
There have been no Yellow Card reports of GBS following Arexvy in the UK, probably due to limited use. Arexvy is not used in the NHS but may be accessed privately by adults over 60, or those aged 50-59 at higher risk.
Arexvy is not recommended for use in pregnancy. However, the MHRA said that there was currently no evidence that Abrysvo increased GBS risk in pregnant women. The MHRA reported that, among over a quarter of a million doses of Abrysvo given to pregnant women up to 26 May 2025, there had been no Yellow Card reports of suspected GBS.
Risk Remains Rare, Says MHRA
The MHRA emphasised that the risk of GBS from RSV vaccines remains rare. Early, unpublished data from post-marketing surveillance by the UK Health Security Agency and Public Health Scotland estimated a combined excess of 15-25 GBS cases per million doses of Abrysvo given to those aged 75-79.
The Commission on Human Medicines has reviewed the data and advised that the benefits of RSV vaccination in older adults outweigh the risk of developing GBS.
Healthcare professionals and the public are urged to continue reporting suspected adverse reactions associated with Abrysvo and Arexvy through the Yellow Card scheme.
Dr Sheena Meredith is an established medical writer, editor, and consultant in healthcare communications, with extensive experience writing for medical professionals and the general public. She is qualified in medicine and in law and medical ethics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NHS Fife says staff have faced violent threats as it defends tribunal actions
NHS Fife has said police had to be called after staff faced threats of 'physical harm and sexual violence', as the health board sought to defend its actions around an employment tribunal. The update from NHS Fife also revealed that legal costs have increased by £38,000 in just one month. The health board released a statement midway through the employment tribunal involving nurse Sandie Peggie, who was suspended after she complained about having to share a changing room with transgender medic Dr Beth Upton at Victoria Hospital on Christmas Eve 2023. NHS Fife said it was 'having to defend' itself and wanted to answer questions posed by the press and politicians, addressing 'misinformation' online. It urged for respect for 'the privacy of all those giving evidence', following 'significant and very polarised debate' on social media. The statement said: 'In some cases, however, what began as debate has evolved into much more worrying behaviour, including a threat of physical harm and sexual violence, which has required the involvement of Police Scotland.' It added that staff should be able to work 'without being subjected to unacceptable personal attacks and trolling on social media', and criticised Sex Matters, the charity which is funding Ms Peggie's legal team, for allegedly 'steering public opinion'. It said: 'The claimant's case is being supported by Sex Matters, whose chief executive officer and co-founder was called as a witness by the claimant in the earlier hearing. 'The claimant's barrister is also chair of Sex Matters. 'Other members of the organisation's 'advisory group' have provided commentary to the media on a number of occasions where no reference is made to their direct involvement.' The health board insisted that its actions in investigating Ms Peggie 'were not punitive', and reiterated that an investigation was launched due to allegations concerning patient care, which were not upheld following a disciplinary hearing on June 25. The health board said: 'While the claimant raised concerns about a trans woman's use of a locker room, this was not the reason that NHS Fife's internal investigation was initiated. 'As made clear during tribunal proceedings, the disciplinary process was initiated due to concerns raised about interactions with a colleague and patient care.' It said that the 18-month investigation was 'not of itself punitive' and said that the probe was believed to be 'fair and impartial'. The health board said that as of June 30, legal costs had increased to £258,831.31, an increase of almost £40,000 from May 31, when costs were£220,465.93, with the majority covered by Central Legal Office (CLO) and National Services Scotland (NSS) who administer the CNORIS Indemnity scheme. It said: 'NHS Fife is liable for the first £25,000 of costs associated with defending the case.' The statement said: 'The Health Board appreciates that there are deeply entrenched views on both sides of the debate around single-sex spaces and has never sought to stifle fair and reasoned debate on the topic, asking only that any media coverage is respectful, fair, balanced, accurate, and distinguishes fact from opinion.' It added: 'NHS Fife acknowledges the Supreme Court's ruling and other developments in this area. 'Work is under way across the entirety of the health board's estate (including toilets, changing and locker rooms) to identify areas where any adaptions may be required and schedule any work that may be necessary to improve facilities.' Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, said: 'This is an extraordinary intervention from NHS Fife, even by the board's standards. 'NHS Fife has dug itself into a reputational black hole. 'If the only way forward the board can see is to lash out, including by criticising Sex Matters, which has at all times acted with propriety and in pursuit of its charitable objects, that suggests desperation.' When the statement was mentioned at the employment tribunal on Friday, Ms Peggie's junior counsel Charlotte Elves said it caused 'some concern'. Jane Russell KC, representing NHS Fife, said: 'Unfortunately because this hearing has taken place in public, Fife's witnesses have been exposed to a very unsafe environment and I'm afraid threats have been made to them as have threats been made to me.' Judge Alexander Kemp said: 'No participant whether witness, representative or participant should be intimidated and if that has happened its a matter for the criminal courts and Police Scotland. 'Obviously matters of defamation are not within our jurisdiction.'
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cognitive warfare: why wars without bombs or bullets are a legal blind spot
Imagine waking up to the news that a deadly new strain of flu has emerged in your city. Health officials are downplaying it, but social media is flooded with contradictory claims from 'medical experts' debating its origin and severity. Hospitals are filled with patients showing flu-like symptoms, preventing other patients from accessing care and ultimately leading to deaths. It gradually emerges that a foreign adversary orchestrated this panic by planting false information – such as the strain having a very high death rate. Yet despite the casualties, no rules define this as an act of war. This is cognitive warfare, or cog war for short, where the cognitive domain is used on battlefields or in hostile attacks below the threshold of war. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. A classical example of cog war is a concept called 'reflexive control' – an art refined by Russia over many decades. It involves shaping an adversary's perceptions to your own benefit without them understanding that they have been manipulated. In the context of the Ukraine conflict, this has included narratives about historical claims to Ukrainian land and portraying the west as morally corrupt. Cog war serves to gain advantage over an adversary by targeting attitudes and behaviour at the individual, group or population level. It is designed to modify perceptions of reality, making 'human cognition shaping' into a critical realm of warfare. It is therefore a weapon in a geopolitical battle that plays out by interactions across human minds rather than across physical realms. Because cog war can be waged without the physical damage regulated by the current laws of war, it exists in a legal vacuum. But that doesn't mean it cannot ultimately incite violence based on false information or cause injury and death by secondary effects. Battle of minds, bodily damage The notion that war is essentially a mental contest, where cognitive manipulation is central, harks back to the strategist Sun Tzu (fifth century BC), author of The Art of War. Today, the online domain is the main arena for such operations. The digital revolution has allowed ever-more tailored content to play into biases mapped through our digital footprint, which is called 'microtargeting'. Machine intelligence can even feed us targeted content without ever taking a picture or recording a video. All it takes is a well-designed AI prompt, supporting bad actors' pre-defined narrative and goals, while covertly misleading the audience. Such disinformation campaigns increasingly reach into the physical domain of the human body. In the war in Ukraine, we see continued cog war narratives. These include allegations that the Ukrainian authorities were concealing or purposefully inciting cholera outbreaks. Allegations of US-supported bioweapons labs also formed part of false-flag justifications for Russia's full-scale invasion. During COVID, false information led to deaths when people refused protective measures or used harmful remedies to treat it. Some narratives during the pandemic were driven as part of a geopolitical battle. While the US engaged in covert information operations, Russian and Chinese state-linked actors coordinated campaigns that used AI-generated social media personas and microtargeting to shape opinions at the level of communities and individuals. The capability of microtargeting may evolve rapidly as methods for brain-machine coupling become more proficient at collecting data on cognition patterns. Ways of providing a better interface between machines and the human brain range from advanced electrodes that you can put on your scalp to virtual reality goggles with sensory stimulation for a more immersive experience. Darpa's Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology (N3) program illustrates how these devices may become capable of reading from and writing to multiple points in the brain at once. However, these tools might also be hacked or fed poisoned data as a part of future information manipulation or psychological disruption strategies. Directly linking the brain to the digital world in this way will erode the line between the information domain and the human body in a way never done before. Legal gap Traditional laws of war assume physical force such as bombs and bullets as the primary concern, leaving cognitive warfare in a legal grey zone. Is psychological manipulation an 'armed attack' that justifies self-defence under the UN charter? Currently, no clear answer exists. A state actor could potentially use health disinformation to create mass casualties in another country without formally starting a war. Similar gaps exist in situations where war, as we traditionally see it, is actually ongoing. Here, cog war can blur the line between permitted military deception (ruses of war) and prohibited perfidy. Imagine a humanitarian vaccination programme secretly collecting DNA, while covertly used by military forces to map clan-based insurgent networks. This exploitation of medical trust would constitute perfidy under humanitarian law – but only if we start recognising such manipulative tactics as part of warfare. Developing regulations So, what can be done to protect us in this new reality? First, we need to rethink what 'threats' mean in modern conflict. The UN charter already outlaws 'threats to use force' against other nations, but this makes us stuck in a mindset of physical threats. When a foreign power floods your media with false health alerts designed to create panic, isn't that threatening your country just as effectively as a military blockade? While this issue was recognised as early as 2017, by the groups of experts who drafted the Tallinn Manual on cyberwarfare (Rule 70), our legal frameworks haven't caught up. Second, we must acknowledge that psychological harm is real harm. When we think about war injuries, we picture physical wounds. But post-traumatic stress disorder has long been recognised as a legitimate war injury – so why not the mental health effects of targeted cognitive operations? Finally, traditional laws of war might not be enough – we should look to human rights frameworks for solutions. These already include protections for freedom of thought, freedom of opinion and prohibitions against war propaganda that could shield civilians from cognitive attacks. States have obligations to uphold these rights both within their territory and abroad. The use of increasingly sophisticated tactics and technologies to manipulate cognition and emotion poses one of the most insidious threats to human autonomy in our time. Only by adapting our legal frameworks to this challenge can we foster societal resilience and equip future generations to confront the crises and conflicts of tomorrow. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. David Gisselsson Nord receives funding from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Childhood Cancer Foundation. He has also received a travel grant from the US Department of Defence. Alberto Rinaldi has received funding from the The Raoul Wallenberg Visiting Chair in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and the Swedish Research Council.
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Testosterone gel: what happens if it rubs off on other people
A case that first appeared in a medical journal several years ago has recently resurfaced in the media, highlighting an unexpected risk of hormone therapies: a baby girl in Sweden developed unusually large genitals after lying on her father's bare chest, accidentally exposed to his testosterone gel. The incident is a reminder that hormone treatments, while safe when used correctly, can pose risks to others if proper precautions aren't followed. Testosterone is a powerful sex hormone that plays a crucial role in male development. In the early months of life, babies undergo rapid development, making their bodies, and hormones, extremely sensitive. Even small amounts of testosterone absorbed through the skin can affect a baby's development, particularly with repeated exposure. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. During 'mini-puberty' – a short surge in hormone levels occurring a few months after birth – boys experience rising testosterone levels that help complete reproductive system development and prime it for adulthood. This process also influences brain development. In girls, oestrogen rises slightly during this period, but testosterone remains very low. When a girl is exposed to external testosterone, such as from hormone gel, it can cause unexpected changes, including enlarged clitoris or fusion of the labia. This is precisely what occurred in the Swedish case. Testosterone gels are commonly prescribed to treat men with low testosterone deficiency. The gel is typically applied once daily to clean, dry skin on the shoulders, upper arms or stomach. These alcohol-based gels help the hormone absorb into the skin. While the gel dries within minutes, residue can remain on the skin for an hour or two after application. If someone touches the treated area too soon, or rests directly on it, they can inadvertently absorb some of the hormone. This risk is particularly significant for babies and children, whose thinner, more absorbent skin and developing bodies make them more vulnerable. Testosterone gels are also increasingly used off-label in women to treat menopause symptoms (such as low libido, low mood and fatigue) and at around one-tenth of the dose given to men. This lower dose is achieved by applying a smaller amount of the same male product — this time to the lower abdomen, buttocks or outer thighs. This means there's much less hormone overall, but incidental exposure from women is also possible, for example, when holding a child soon after application. Some perspective While stories like this understandably cause concern, it's crucial to understand the actual risk level. In the UK, around 50,000 to 100,000 people are prescribed testosterone on the NHS, with gel formulations popular due to their ease of application. If accidental exposure were common, we would see far more cases than the small number reported in medical journals. The instructions accompanying these gels are clear: apply only to specified areas, wash hands immediately, cover the skin once dry and avoid close skin contact for several hours. When these guidelines are followed, transfer is very unlikely. In the case of the Swedish child, when the father stopped resting the baby on his bare chest, the genital changes reversed over time. This pattern holds true for other reported cases – if exposure stops early, many effects can fade naturally. However, in more severe or prolonged cases, children may need medical treatment. This could include hormonal tests, continued monitoring, anti-hormone treatment, or even surgery if physical changes don't resolve. Early intervention is key, making it essential to consult a doctor if there's any concern. For those with babies, young children, or pregnant partners at home, the solution is straightforward planning. Apply the gel when you won't be in direct contact immediately afterwards, or consider alternative application methods such as injections, skin patches, or tablets (available in the US), which carry lower risks of unintentional exposure to others. This case serves as a valuable reminder that testosterone therapy, like all medications, comes with responsibilities. When used properly, it's an effective treatment for men with diagnosed testosterone deficiency, improving sexual function and mood, with evidence suggesting it can also support muscle mass, bone health, and metabolism. There is no need to fear these treatments, but if you are prescribed this medication, use it responsibly and follow the instructions carefully. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Daniel Kelly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
