Live blog of #VRBPAC meeting by @HelenBranswell and @matthewherper

First interesting info is that VE for BA2 hospitalization ("what we should care about" since we gave up on stopping disease) is at best 71% after 3 doses. Far worse than the 95% that we had to original strain Image
@HelenBranswell @matthewherper Live blog link, thx to Helen and Matthew for condensing the important points: statnews.com/2022/06/28/tra…
And in the biggest shocker of any VRBPAC I've seen, Novavax showed up. We're used to them not being invited to the party.

And not only did they show up, they actually presented new data on Omicron including BA1 BA2 and BA5.

And it was very impressive data too

h/t @doctorvasan Image
@doctorvasan What's even more interesting is that Novavax was willing to *say* that their vaccine seems to offer broader protection in front of the FDA. In the past they seemed wary of making this claim lest they get objections from Pfizer or FDA, two entities you don't want to upset Image
I had noticed that Novavax's drop in antibody titers (either receptor inhibition or pseudovirus neutralization) going from original strain to Omicron BA1 looked less severe than with RNA in the 12/2021 study. But for a long time that was the only study.
If you don't reproduce a finding quickly, people start to doubt whether it was a fluke. It seems with today's data that the finding of Novavax working better on variants holds up, and extends to BA4/5 too.
Why Novavax can gives broader responses is unclear but I proposed better presentation of the more conserved S2 domain of the spike protein, because Novavax abolished the S1-S2 cleavage site.
The proteins encoded by RNA vax preferentially present S1. Even now, most studies treat this as a feature, as most neutralization activity is against S1 (including RBD). But because variants easily evolve out those epitopes, this may have become a weakness
Predictably, Dr. Offit doubts the need for any update at all. Of course just talks about severe disease. No consideration for long COVID, morbidity, people becoming variant incubators, or lost productivity.

You can replace him with a tape recorder and have the same effect. Image
And 👏🙏 @JamesEKHildreth who actually is thinking for himself: using data to come up with a fair recommendation, not just taking cuese from government or company officials. Did the same on AMDAC. His integrity and ability are unusual. We need him in a true decision-making role. Image
Oh please, not this again. Are we never going to improve our vaccines because we don't want to admit old ones are outdated?

Should we stop improving cars because it will make people who can only afford old cars feel bad? Image
BTW, in case you haven't noticed, VRBPAC meetings are just like twitter discussions. Same arguments, some cogent and relevant, some not. Only a few weeks later.

You can probably write a program that parses twitter threads to predict what will be said at the next VRBPAC
And the vote is yes we should update our vaccines.

Completely unnecessary. WHO already said so and VRBPAC itself said so >2mo ago in early April!

FDA seems to use VRBPAC for political cover and journalist education, not for any decision-making

Two dissenters though. We already know who one of them is. Might as well give him voting card with only one entry: No Image
But seriously, the lack of info on tangible progress on the regulatory side since the April 6 meeting is disappointing. There everyone agreed there should be a regular process for updating vaccines, but nearly 3 months later it doesn't seem like we have a process.
In fact we seem to have reduced our expectations for a regular process; last time there was talk of setting up a flu-like system for WHO guidance, then VRBPAC rubber-stamping and FDA issuance of RFAs. Today we heard FDA wonders if we should be more targeted than WHO.
So it seems for another year we will have ad-hoc applications by companies followed by FDA saying yes if you're Pfizer, wait for Pfizer if you're Moderna, and wait indefinitely if you're Novavax.
Details on the timeline: August if BA1 or original-BA1 bivalent. October if FDA orders a switch to BA2 and/or BA4/5.
politico.com/news/2022/06/2… Image
As I said earlier, I think a switch to only BA4/5 (4 and 5 are the same S protein) would be unwise because BA2 is still going around. Also many people haven't gotten either BA1 or BA2, so they would be susceptible to BA2, in addition to BA4/5.
FDA has the data on how well Pfizer and Moderna's BA1 vax do on BA2 and BA4, so they may decide with that. If FDA wants a change to BA4±2, they can guide that BA1 may not be approvable due to failure to address the medical need, whereas BA4±2 might be if done by a certain time.
This way FDA can lead on public health policy while using the procedures of the FDA, which are designed to approve or disapprove companies' applications to sell drugs based on evidence of safety and efficacy
Some background to understand the above: BA1 and BA2 appear close antigenically; immunization by one provides decent immunity to the other. BA2.12 and BA4/5 are more distinct due to mutation of some major neutralizing epitopes even if they are close in sequence to BA2

• • •

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

Keep Current with Michael Lin, MD PhD 🧬

Michael Lin, MD PhD 🧬 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 @michaelzlin

Jun 29
Critical news on rebound rates on Paxlovid and molnupiravir revealed last week

The MOV rate is scary and disproves Merck's claim that MOV kills the virus efficiently. It means mutated viruses are transmitting in 8% of cases, just when you don't expect it

This was the kind of study we asked Merck to do, or FDA to require them to do. They refused. Now it's done by academics, and supports my fear that not all the mutated viruses are dying. That makes 5% of MOV patients stealth incubators of SARSCoV2 variants

washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/1…
In one of my tweets I said the Phase 2 Sci Trans Med paper made a claim that virus was eliminated in 5 days, when its own data showed RNA positivity in 7.5% of patients 1 mo after MOV and 6% of patients progressed to hospitalization in Phase 3. Image
Read 9 tweets
Jun 29
Fauci should be questioning not only FDA and CDC guidance but also Pfizer's claimed 2% rebound rate
One recalls @Bob_Wachter's spouse also did not find the rebound mild and indeed progressed to PASC
Seems only sensible to hypothesize that the rebound rate is higher in those who are more susceptible to disease progression, who have weaker immunity. These are the same people Paxlovid will help the most but it seems we can't rely on Paxlovid alone; we need better vaccines.
Read 10 tweets
Jun 27
A @nytimes article quotes a couple of scientists favoring BA4/5 boosters over BA1-2. But with BA2 not dead yet, it would be selected for by a BA4/5-only booster. So best booster may be BA2+BA4/5. We'll see if anyone brings up that idea at VRBPAC tomorrow.
nytimes.com/2022/06/27/us/…
But Moderna and Pfizer only have data for BA1 boosters. For a booster to be ready by sometime in September, they'd need a go-ahead and promise of purchase in early July. For that to happen a few unprecedented things would have to occur:
VRBPAC would have to play the role of a variant selector, which they've never done. Doesn't seem like the group you want deciding for 320M Americans. They only serve part time and records show some of them lack detailed knowledge of virology, immunology, or COVID19 vax results.
Read 10 tweets
Jun 22
Reposting this table on relative VE against detected disease or infection of the original RNA vaccine son original vs Omicron (originally posted April 5)

The Omicron here is BA.1. Things get worse for BA.4 and BA.5, which is why we want some Omicron booster soon
VE of original vax (2 or 3 doses) to different variants can be related to relative neutralizing activity, such as at science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…

You can see 3x Pfizer does okay on BA.1 and BA.2, but worse on BA.4/5.
And while avg nAb levels on BA1 and BA2 look okay after 3x Pfizer, it's variable. This is because those nAbs are produced by mutation of memory B cells expanded by Wuhan vax; this is a random process and many won't be so lucky, which is why VE for BA2 isn't as high as for Wuhan.
Read 11 tweets
Jun 21
Remember how some scientists wrote a letter of concern about how Sputnik trial data reported in Lancet looked too perfect to be real?

Yesterday @K_Sheldrick and colleagues published a statistical analysis concluding the data are indeed fictitious
Concerns were first raised in 2020:

cattiviscienziati.com/2020/09/07/not…
Then reiterated in 2021:

thelancet.com/journals/lance…
Read 6 tweets
Jun 19
Wasn't just CDC; a certain famous virologist said the same. Seemed policymakers were so bedazzled by trial results they forgot that immune responses wane

Hence dropping masks and variant vaxxes in favor of July 4 2021 COVID freedom bash

Wonder why nobody's warnings got through
Because I remember where the receipts are:

Famous virologist:
And famous PH official, now COVID19 czar (the "largely true" part is largely untrue):
Read 4 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(