Causal evidence that herpes zoster vaccination prevents a proportion of dementia cases, 2023, Markus Eyting

Mij

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Abstract
The root causes of dementia are still largely unclear, and the medical community lacks highly effective preventive and therapeutic pharmaceutical agents for dementia despite large investments into their development. There is growing interest in the question if infectious agents play a role in the development of dementia, with herpesviruses attracting particular attention.

To provide causal as opposed to merely correlational evidence on this question, we take advantage of the fact that in Wales eligibility for the herpes zoster vaccine (Zostavax) for shingles prevention was determined based on an individual's exact date of birth. Those born before September 2 1933 were ineligible and remained ineligible for life, while those born on or after September 2 1933 were eligible to receive the vaccine.

By using country-wide data on all vaccinations received, primary and secondary care encounters, death certificates, and patients' date of birth in weeks, we first show that the percentage of adults who received the vaccine increased from 0.01% among patients who were merely one week too old to be eligible, to 47.2% among those who were just one week younger. Apart from this large difference in the probability of ever receiving the herpes zoster vaccine, there is no plausible reason why those born just one week prior to September 2 1933 should differ systematically from those born one week later.

We demonstrate this empirically by showing that there were no systematic differences (e.g., in pre-existing conditions or uptake of other preventive interventions) between adults across the date-of-birth eligibility cutoff, and that there were no other interventions that used the exact same date-of-birth eligibility cutoff as was used for the herpes zoster vaccine program. This unique natural randomization, thus, allows for robust causal, rather than correlational, effect estimation.

We first replicate the vaccine's known effect from clinical trials of reducing the occurrence of shingles. We then show that receiving the herpes zoster vaccine reduced the probability of a new dementia diagnosis over a follow-up period of seven years by 3.5 percentage points (95% CI: 0.6 - 7.1, p=0.019), corresponding to a 19.9% relative reduction in the occurrence of dementia. Besides preventing shingles and dementia, the herpes zoster vaccine had no effects on any other common causes of morbidity and mortality.

In exploratory analyses, we find that the protective effects from the vaccine for dementia are far stronger among women than men. Randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal population groups and time interval for administration of the herpes zoster vaccine to prevent or delay dementia, as well as to quantify the magnitude of the causal effect when more precise measures of cognition are used. Our findings strongly suggest an important role of the varicella zoster virus in the etiology of dementia.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.23.23290253v1
 
The root causes of dementia are still largely unclear, and the medical community lacks highly effective preventive and therapeutic pharmaceutical agents for dementia despite large investments into their development.

Dementia arises from a number of different conditions and causes not all of which are irreversible and some of which are better understood than others. Presumably it would be helpful to know if the 20% reduction related to any specific form of dementia.

The article says:
Given the neuropathological overlap between dementia types and the difficulty in distinguishing dementia types clinically31–33, we defined dementia as dementia of any type or cause in our primary analyses. In exploratory analyses, we analyzed the effect of the zoster vaccine separately for vascular dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia of unspecified type. We considered an individual to have developed dementia if there was a new diagnosis of dementia in our electronic health record data (which includes all diagnoses made in primary or secondary care) or dementia was listed as a primary or contributory cause of death on the death certificate

… … … As such, the relative effect sizes by dementia type are more informative. We find that the relative effect sizes (Alzheimer’s disease: 17.9%, dementia of unspecified type: 19.1%, and vascular dementia: 18.8%) are similar across the three types of dementia (Supplement Table S2). These findings, however, are merely suggestive because there is likely substantial misclassification and overlap between dementia types in our data.

which I did not expect. A significant number of patients had a diagnosis of both Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia. However I remain concerned about how accurate/reliable electronic medical records are.

[Edited to add first quote to add final two sentences]
 
Last edited:
which I did not expect. A significant number of patients had a diagnosis of both Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia. However I remain concerned about how accurate/reliable electronic medical records are.

My mother developed dementia soon after she developed shingles in her mid 70s. She was never vaccinated. The shingles went away on it's own after 6 weeks but she told me about an experience she had where she felt like a lightening bolt went through her head one day. I didn't know what make of it b/c she didn't talk much about her health, she was healthy all her life.

She was diagnosed by one doctor as having vascular dementia, the CT scan image showed that she had multiple broken blood vessels in her brain, a few months later she could no longer talk. Another doctor dx her with Alzeimers.
 
Does shingles vaccination cut dementia risk? Large study hints at a link

"Vaccination against shingles might also prevent dementia, such as that caused by Alzheimer’s disease, according to a study of health records from around 300,000 people in Wales. The analysis found that getting the vaccine lowers the risk of dementia by 20%. But some puzzling aspects of the analysis have stirred debate about the work’s robustness.

The study was published on the medRxiv preprint server on 25 May and has not yet been peer reviewed.

“If it is true, it’s huge,” says Alberto Ascherio, an epidemiologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who was not involved in the study. “Even a modest reduction in risk is a tremendous impact.”"

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01824-1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My mother developed dementia soon after she developed shingles in her mid 70s. She was never vaccinated. The shingles went away on it's own after 6 weeks but she told me about an experience she had where she felt like a lightening bolt went through her head one day. I didn't know what make of it b/c she didn't talk much about her health, she was healthy all her life.

She was diagnosed by one doctor as having vascular dementia, the CT scan image showed that she had multiple broken blood vessels in her brain, a few months later she could no longer talk. Another doctor dx her with Alzeimers.
Mij your description reminds me of a famous mountaineer [Hamish Macinnes] who developed dementia following an infection - he recovered but had to recreate his memories.

@Peter Trewhitt no biomarkers for "different" types of dementia so one possible explanation is that the current classification doesn't separate pathology?
 
Mij your description reminds me of a famous mountaineer [Hamish Macinnes] who developed dementia following an infection - he recovered but had to recreate his memories.

@Peter Trewhitt no biomarkers for "different" types of dementia so one possible explanation is that the current classification doesn't separate pathology?
Radom thought - if the dementia population had a common pathology then you'd think GWAS would clearly pick that up. The APOE [Alzheimer] gene was identified relatively early on (via GWAS) but it took a number of large GWAS studies (combined data) before two further [clearly immune related] genes were identified. So if this study holds up then 20% common pathology still requires large GWAS?
 
Now published:

A natural experiment on the effect of herpes zoster vaccination on dementia

Markus Eyting, Min Xie, Felix Michalik, Simon Heß, Seunghun Chung & Pascal Geldsetzer

Published: 1 April, 2025

[Line breaks added]


Abstract
Neurotropic herpesviruses may be implicated in the development of dementia. Moreover, vaccines may have important off-target immunological effects. Here we aim to determine the effect of live-attenuated herpes zoster vaccination on the occurrence of dementia diagnoses.

To provide causal as opposed to correlational evidence, we take advantage of the fact that, in Wales, eligibility for the zoster vaccine was determined on the basis of an individual’s exact date of birth. Those born before 2 September 1933 were ineligible and remained ineligible for life, whereas those born on or after 2 September 1933 were eligible for at least 1 year to receive the vaccine.

Using large-scale electronic health record data, we first show that the percentage of adults who received the vaccine increased from 0.01% among patients who were merely 1 week too old to be eligible, to 47.2% among those who were just 1 week younger. Apart from this large difference in the probability of ever receiving the zoster vaccine, individuals born just 1 week before 2 September 1933 are unlikely to differ systematically from those born 1 week later.

Using these comparison groups in a regression discontinuity design, we show that receiving the zoster vaccine reduced the probability of a new dementia diagnosis over a follow-up period of 7 years by 3.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.6–7.1, P = 0.019), corresponding to a 20.0% (95% CI = 6.5–33.4) relative reduction. This protective effect was stronger among women than men.

We successfully confirm our findings in a different population (England and Wales’s combined population), with a different type of data (death certificates) and using an outcome (deaths with dementia as primary cause) that is closely related to dementia, but less reliant on a timely diagnosis of dementia by the healthcare system10.

Through the use of a unique natural experiment, this study provides evidence of a dementia-preventing or dementia-delaying effect from zoster vaccination that is less vulnerable to confounding and bias than the existing associational evidence.

Link | PDF (Nature) [Open Access]
 
From July 2023, a criticism of the preprint:

Shingles vaccine & dementia prevention: too good to be true? by Ellie Murray

TL;DR: Below, I am sharing my full review. But some of you may just want to skip to the punchline. Is this study to good to be true? I argue, yes. Why? The method the authors used only works in a very specific set of circumstances, and those circumstances don’t seem to be happening here. For this analysis to be interpretable as telling us anything about the vaccine, there needs to be no difference in life circumstances between people born at the end of August 1933 and people born in the beginning of September that same year. But these groups *are* different and in an important way — children born Sept 2 1933 potentially received up to 12 months of extra education than children born August 31 1933. That’s a problem, because dementia and (less) education are almost certainly linked!
 
Last edited:
The paper seems to cover the main point above that the September 1st cutoff might affect dementia rates because of differing schooling length before and after. They showed that there was no such difference in dementia surrounding the same month and day in prior birth years, only the year that included the vaccine eligibility cut off.
We undertook four additional types of analysis, all of which provide evidence against another intervention having used the identical day-month-year combination (2 September 1933) as was used as the date-of-birth eligibility threshold for the zoster vaccine rollout. First, we show that the 2 September 1933 date-of-birth threshold does not affect the probability of taking up other preventive health interventions (Supplementary Fig. 11). Second, we examined whether the day–month (that is, 2 September) date-of-birth cut-off used for zoster vaccine eligibility was also used by other interventions that affect dementia risk. We did so by implementing the identical analysis as for 1 September 2013 (the actual date on which the zoster vaccine program started) for 1 September of each of the three years before and after 2013. Thus, for example, when shifting the start date of the program to 1 September 2012, we compared those around the 2 September 1932 date-of-birth threshold with the follow-up period starting on 1 September 2012. As an additional check that enabled us to maintain the length of the seven-year follow-up period used in our primary analyses, we shifted the program start date to 1 September of each of the 6 years preceding (but not after) 2013. As expected, for both of these checks, we find a significant effect on dementia occurrence only for the date-of-birth cutoff (2 September 1933) that was actually used by the zoster vaccination program (Supplementary Figs. 12 and 13). Third, we find that there is no difference in the seven-year incidence of dementia between age cohorts around the 2 September 1933 date-of-birth threshold for the seven-year period before the zoster vaccine rollout (Supplementary Fig. 14). Fourth, using data from the 2011 Census, we show in Supplementary Figs. 15–17 that there are no discontinuities across the 2 September 1933 threshold in the proportion of individuals in Wales who reached a particular level of education.
 
Last edited:
Merged

Authors:
  • Maxime Taquet
  • John A. Todd
  • Paul J. Harrison

Abstract​

AS01-adjuvanted shingles (herpes zoster) vaccination is associated with a lower risk of dementia, but the underlying mechanisms are unclear. In propensity-score matched cohort studies with 436,788 individuals, both the AS01-adjuvanted shingles and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines, individually or combined, were associated with reduced 18-month risk of dementia. No difference was observed between the two AS01-adjuvanted vaccines, suggesting that the AS01 adjuvant itself plays a direct role in lowering dementia risk.


Published: 25 June 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41541-025-01172-3

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting, thanks!

One possibility is that they independently reduce dementia risk by preventing their respective infections, shingles and RSV. [...] However, the fact that a protective effect is seen within a few months of vaccination (as was observed in our previous study5) argues against this possibility as it seems unlikely that enough infections would be prevented during such a short time frame to explain the magnitude of the protection against dementia.

This seems like it could be important. They thought preventing the shingles infection was helping prevent dementia, but this is pointing to a specific ingredient found in multiple vaccines instead.
 
I think a big problem with these studies is that someone who gets a Shingles or RSV vaccine is not, on average, like a person who does not.

Either, the person who is vaccinated is well enough organised, capable of deciding to do something to maintain their health, making the appointment and getting themselves there. They probably regularly visit the doctor for their other health needs. In which case, they are still thinking well and are regularly seen by a doctor, and so are, at worst, some years off getting diagnosed with dementia.

And/or, the person who is vaccinated lives in a situation where someone is looking after their health needs and getting vaccinations done, and so they are also being closely monitored for signs of dementia. So again, if they had dementia, they would probably have already been diagnosed with it. I imagine in a retirement home, there is more funding for a resident with dementia, so it would be in the retirement home's interests to get the diagnosis fairly quickly.

Contrast that with someone who doesn't get the vaccine. Someone in the first stages of dementia and living on their own will be struggling to hold everything together, and probably won't be thinking about discretionary activities such as getting a vaccine. If the unvaccinated person is living with a spouse or a child who isn't able to arrange for the vaccine or doesn't believe in vaccines, then they probably aren't getting to the doctor often either, and may not be being closely monitored for signs of dementia.


If a person who is vaccinated has any signs of dementia, they probably will have already been diagnosed with it already. So, for them, the chance of being diagnosed in those next 18 months is only the chance of a new onset that moves very swiftly.

Whereas, a person who is not vaccinated may already have quite significant signs of dementia but be undiagnosed. So, for them, the chance of being diagnosed in those next 18 months is the chance of an onset in quite a lot of years prior as well as the next 18 months.
 
I think a big problem with these studies is that someone who gets a Shingles or RSV vaccine is not, on average, like a person who does not.
That's what makes the natural experiment of the first study above useful. A large portion of the people who didn't take the vaccine didn't take it because they weren't allowed to.
Adults born immediately after the 2 September 1933 date-of-birth eligibility cut-off had a 47.2 percentage point higher probability (from 0.01% to 47.2%) of ever receiving the herpes zoster vaccine than those born immediately before this cut-off date.
I think what they did was more sophisticated, but a crude way to test the effect of vaccine on dementia is just seeing how much dementia occurs in the group before September 2 and the group after. The main difference is a different proportion of people who took the vaccine based on whether they were allowed to take the vaccine. Not socioeconomic factors.
 
Back
Top Bottom