THREAD
There’s much debate around the UK's recommended use of the AZ vaccine with a two-dose schedule and flexible timing of second dose. Some thoughts on the AZ recommendation (not Pfizer) based on available data with refs to some excellent threads. 1/
UK’s MHRA and JCVI are highly-experienced in vaccine assessments and recommendations, and they've surely weighed the benefits & risks of this recommendation carefully. That said, it would be good to see all the data underpinning their recommendation. 2/
In general, vaccines should be taken on a schedule tested in an efficacy trial. But it wasn’t possible to conduct the typical dose and schedule optimization prior to these Ph3 trials, and those trials provided valuable data to inform these recommendations. 3/
The UK recommends a two-dose schedule, with the second dose between 4-12 weeks. This *is not* a single dose schedule. Given the data provided, and in the setting of limited supply, overstretched hospitals, and emergence of a more transmissible variant, this seems justifiable. 4/
The UK has important data on the AZ Vx that wasn’t available for Pfizer & Moderna at FDA's VRBPAC, including:
* single-dose efficacy through 4+ months; and
* single-dose immunogenicity (12+ weeks). 5/
The data shows the AZ vaccine maintains efficacy in the setting of a delayed second dose, although it’s not clear how fast this wanes over time. Delay of the second dose provides a better booster effect as measured by antibody levels, which is seen with other vaccines. 6/
The second dose is important because it can drive a more robust and higher quality antibody response through a process called affinity maturation. It's well-understood that longer intervals can provide a better boost. 7/
In my view, the immediate priority is prevention of severe disease that drives deaths and the strain on health systems. Efficacy against severe disease is likely better than overall vaccine efficacy. Data after the first dose is promising although the numbers are small. 8/
There’s nothing magic about the (short) 28d interval between doses, which was presumably chosen to ensure rapid onset of protection in Ph3. Vaccine efficacy won't disappear overnight with a delayed 2nd dose - it will wane over time, if at all. Ph3 data supports that concept. 9/
Yes there are risks of waning immunity, non-compliance with the second dose, confusion among the public, etc. Many are implementation considerations that can be addressed with planning and strong communication. 10/
It will be critically important to collect efficacy data around this “flexible second dose” schedule, esp in older adults & against severe disease, to inform licensure and recommendations in countries around the world that are counting on the introduction of this vaccine. 11/
Yes the AZ/Oxford studies had a number of issues, but we must remember that this highly-complex development program was executed in less than a year. And that Pfizer & Moderna's Ph3 execution & vaccine efficacy created very high expectations for all subsequent programs. 12/
The bottom line is that every country needs to make difficult policy decisions with the data they have, not what they'd like to have. There's no perfect answer here, but now that a decision has been taken, the UK can focus on maximizing the benefit and mitigating any risks. 13/
I didn't address question of adjusting the mRNA vaccine schedule, mainly due to lack of data, and was glad to see @VirusesImmunity posted her expert thoughts on the topic. 14/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Rajeev Venkayya MD

Rajeev Venkayya MD Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rvenkayya

28 Dec 20
THREAD
As scientists race to understand the new COVID variants, we have a valuable tool at hand: multiple ongoing Phase 3 vaccine trials. These can provide valuable insights into vaccine protection as well as the natural epidemiology of the variants via the placebo arms. 1/
The first indication of whether vaccine protection is affected will come from the lab: neutralization studies assessing whether vaccine-induced antibodies are as effective at neutralizing the new variant as earlier strains of SARS-CoV-2. Similar activity will be reassuring. 2/
But neutralization assays only assess the antibody contribution to protection, and they won’t measure transmissibility of the new variant. Animal models can provide some information, but definitive answers will only come from clinical and epi studies. 3/
Read 11 tweets
12 Dec 20
I've participated in some great discussions on #COVID19 and #vaccines on #Clubhouse recently. I’ll use this thread to share some references I’ve mentioned and/or plan to bring up in future rooms. @joinClubhouse 1/

@JorgeCondeBio
First up is a new tool from @bhrenton that tracks #CovidVaccine allocations to US states, and *some* distribution sites, based on publicly-available sources and pending a federal tracking website. 2/

Next up is a link to the Black Coalition Against Covid (@BCAgainstCOVID), which I learned about when I was on a panel with its cofounder @DrReedTuckson. It has a number of good resources including a great town hall on COVID-19 vaccine development. 3/
Read 7 tweets
6 Dec 20
THREAD

Swiss cheese is great for explaining how to slow a virus, as @MackayIM's fantastic graphic shows.

There's a history. Dr. Carter Mecher first applied Swiss cheese to pandemics in 2006 at the White House. I told the story @statnews in April. 1/

statnews.com/2020/04/24/swi…
Carter came across James Reason's work in human failures and complex systems when he worked on patient safety at the Dept of Veterans Affairs.

Swiss cheese was a good way to explain the power of early coordinated NPIs in a pandemic, which was called "community mitigation." 2/
Community mitigation came out of @DrRHatchett's work to understand the impact of combined NPIs. In 2006 Richard commissioned NIH-funded MIDAS modelers (3 groups) to model NPIs at different points in time. 3/

@PNASNews @betzhallo @neil_ferguson @ilongini

pnas.org/content/105/12…
Read 6 tweets
1 Dec 20
Fully agree that a human challenge trial *would not* have resulted in an authorized/approved vaccine any sooner.

Disagree that every smart person was recommending a human challenge trial to speed up the approval process. 1/
It is not a simple undertaking to establish a human challenge model, particularly with a novel virus for which the pathophysiology is not well-understood and where a targeted therapeutic is not available for what could be a lethal disease. 2/
Safety is obviously a major issue to be worked out, and this is tightly linked to ethical considerations. Beyond this, it takes time to determine the baseline infection/disease parameters that you hope to modify with the vaccine. 3/ thelancet.com/journals/lanin…
Read 6 tweets
29 Nov 20
@bnallamo Fair question. Here are a few thoughts from a non-regulator. First, @US_FDA, led by Peter Marks and Operations Warp Speed, led by Moncef Slaoui, recognize that every day matters for HCWs and high-risk groups and are moving with extraordinary speed. 1/
@bnallamo @US_FDA An EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) for a vaccine is not the same as a therapeutic, given that the vaccine is being given to subgroups of people who are “healthy” and may or may not be exposed to the virus. The bar for safety & efficacy data is therefore higher than for Rx. 2/
@bnallamo @US_FDA The dataset is very large (44K participants), and thorough analyses of safety & efficacy take time. Moreover, the studies aren’t powered to conclude efficacy in the subgroups being considered for EUA, yet convincing benefit-risk assessments for those groups need to be shown. 3/
Read 10 tweets
12 Nov 20
THREAD
In light of the Pfizer #vaccine news, a natural question is whether it's feasible to develop “better” #COVID19 vaccines after the first ones are approved?

The answer is yes. It can be complicated but there are ways to do it. 1/

First let’s break this down into three questions:
▪️ Why might we want better vaccines?
▪️ Why would it be hard to study new vaccines?
▪️ What are the options for doing this? 2/
WHY MIGHT WE WANT BETTER VACCINES?

After we’ve seen full Phase 3 datasets on the first vaccines, we may desire better efficacy in certain populations, longer protection, greater impact on transmission, improved dosing schedule, or an improved safety profile. 3/
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!