The VRBPAC meeting shows how FDA okays *indications*: a drug must prove efficacy for a defined health condition. But this is defined for individual patients. For vaccines the fxn of stopping infection chains is ignored.
Thus FDA is ill suited for the booster question.
CDC could have solved this problem by simply issuing guidance about who can get a Pfizer booster via the off-label pathway.
Sure, if they wanted, they could ask ACIP first. If CDC were to present the right data, ACIP would approve.
But asking FDA means PH was not considered.
Put another way FDA and CDC may demand different burdens of proof due to their different missions, with FDA requiring incontrovertible evidence of efficacy and safety (unless you're Biogen), while CDC should promote anything easy that can promote public health.
Thus it's too bad the WH didn't anticipate FDA advisors and staffers applying SOP to limit boosters. Either they should have asked FDA to formulate PH criteria in this special case in a deviation from SOP, or they should have gone with a CDC-driven offlabel Pfizer boost strategy.
Finally it makes you realize how damn lucky we were that Pfizer and Moderna performed their trials so quickly and actually met all FDA efficacy, safety, manufacturing and documentation requirements before the first epidemic winter.
We may not be so lucky with the next epidemic, so it would be good to create FDA public health emergency evaluation procedures to use for new vaccines and treatments that are needed urgently and have non-autonomous benefits.
One speed and one SOP does not fit all situations
An obvious solution: a joint FDA-CDC task force for vaccines, another for treatments, each small for rapid discussion and decision-making, but able to demand data collection and statistical analysis from FDA or CDC staff if desired.
In stories such as below from @politico, you can see how the different takes on vaccines from FDA and CDC officials, stemming from their traditionally distinct health missions, has confused press reports on boosters.
Americans are confused, but haven't realized the confusion derives from a FDA-CDC mission gap.
Critical for HHS secretary or POTUS to realize this, describe the problem to the public, and propose how to fix it with a combined mission definition that coordinates left+right hands
Our current approach is like launching D-Day by letting army and navy formulate and carry out plans independently, with veto power over the other's plan. Result is paralysis.
Leadership needs to ID the problem and force agencies to work together in a task force (not committees).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2) The editorial takes the form of a metaanalysis of vaccine efficacy, but it's the worst statistical malpractice I've ever seen. Fortunately it's short (one figure of 4 panels), so hopefully we can get through it quickly and point out the major issues.
Panel A: What is this??? Studies are grouped by efficacy ranges of 50-80, 80-90, and 90-100 for disease, then their average efficacy for all disease and severe disease are plotted. Why??? I'll try to be polite but I'm upset by this. It's an insult to human intelligence.
And before anyone complains the CIs are overlapping, that's a sophomoric complaint. Remember that's the 95% CI, and 95% is an arbitrary bar. Also there are other data that show J&J's lower effectiveness on hospitalization, such as below (pre-Delta)
You may recall on August 6 the SA trial announced 71% effectiveness against Delta hospitalization, but didn't say anything about effectiveness against disease, which is the default metric and the one used if you are gonig to report only one number.
Some surmised that effectiveness against Delta disease must be very unimpressive, or else it would have been reported alongside the hospitalization numbers on 8/6 (which were already unimpressive).
🧵We discussed how mucosal antibodies function to block SARSCoV2 infection. A study on this just posted from my Stanford colleague Michal Tal and UToronto collaborator Jennifer Gommerman.
Interesting: RNA and J&J make Abs in saliva, but neutralizing levels only detected with RNA
2) First, as a reminder, the role of mucosal antibodies (thought mostly to be IgA, but we'll revisit that in a moment) is to block viruses, once they land on your mucous membranes, from entering your cells.
1) There was an ACIP meeting today, but nothing newsworthy happened. CDC briefing materials (as posted at cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/…) are limiting the ability of ACIP to independently and intelligently assess data.
2) Most concerning, CDC continues to withhold J&J data by omitting it entirely or lumping it together with the 10x larger Pfizer+Moderna data so it becomes a rounding error. No wonder ACIP is not able to make any recommendations specifically for J&J cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/…
3) But the data exist, and is becoming increasingly in plain sight, showing higher case and hospitalization rates for J&J than for Pfizer and Moderna in the real world against Delta
In a recent thread I posited that mechanisms of antibody production, viral resistance, and somatic hypermutation can explain why pre-Delta vaccines block most Delta infections but not peak virus levels once infected, yet still limit late disease.
Most neutralization of SARSCoV2 infection is performed by antibodies against the spike (S) protein, and the vaccines used in the US include only S and no other parts of SARSCoV2, so we'll concentrate on S as the antigen, i.e. the protein targeted by antibodies or T cell receptors
Your body has millions to billions of resting/naive B cells, each with an unique surface-bound antibody or immunoglobulin (Ig), just waiting to find their match to foreign particles. You also have T cells with unique T cell receptors (TCRs) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…