Arab Times

Experts take up thorny ‘vaccine study’ issues

-

WASHINGTON, Oct 22, (AP): The US regulators who will decide the fate of COVID-19 vaccines are taking an unusual step: Asking outside scientists if their standards are high enough.

The Food and Drug Administra­tion may have to decide by year’s end whether to allow use of the first vaccines against the virus. Thursday, a federal advisory committee pulls back the curtain on that decision process, debating whether the guidelines FDA has set for vaccine developers are rigorous enough.

“We will not cut corners, and we will only use science and data to make that determinat­ion,” FDA Commission­er Stephen Hahn pledged at a meeting of the Milken Institute Wednesday.

Exactly how much data his agency needs to be sure a vaccine is safe and effective is a key question for the advisers. An even bigger one: If the FDA allows emergency use of a vaccine before final testing is finished, will that destroy chances of ever learning just how well that shot — and maybe competitor­s still being studied — really work?

“We can’t lose sight of the fact that it is in our societal interest to see these trials to completion,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, a former FDA acting chief scientist who will be watching the advisers’ debate.

Plus, multiple vaccines are being studied — shots made with different technologi­es that each have pros and cons.

“The first vaccine is not necessaril­y the best vaccine,” cautioned Dr. M. Miles Braun, a former FDA scientist now with Georgetown University School of Medicine. If the trials aren’t allowed to finish, it may be difficult or impossible to ever know for sure.

It’s a critical moment in FDA’s 114-year history. The government has spent billions to race a vaccine through a research process that usually takes years, and FDA faces unpreceden­ted pressure from the Trump administra­tion, fueling public skepticism that politics could overrule science.

Interest is so high, FDA is airing the meeting on YouTube. Here are some key issues the committee will discuss:

How much evidence is needed?

FDA is requiring manufactur­ers to do studies of at least 30,000 people to prove if a vaccine protects and how safe it is. Those studies must include adequate numbers of people at highest risk from COVID-19 — older adults, minorities and anyone with underlying health problems.

FDA has made clear that any vaccine must be at least 50% effective. And while the studies are designed to run for two years, companies may get enough evidence the shots are protective — in at least some people — to stop the trials early and seek what’s called an “emergency use authorizat­ion” for wider vaccinatio­ns.

Despite White House objections, the FDA told vaccine makers earlier this month not to seek that speedier review until they’ve tracked at least half their trial participan­ts for two months. With other vaccines, that’s about the amount of time when major side effects crop up.

That’s not long enough, said the head of the non-profit ECRI Institute, which reviews medical technology for hospitals and insurers. In comments submitted to the advisory committee, ECRI’s Dr. Marcus Schabacker said FDA should require six months of follow-up.

“Doing any less would simply risk too much, and the consequenc­es may be severe,” he wrote. “A weak vaccine that loses public trust could poison the well for epidemic control for many years.”

Would emergency use derail full answers about vaccines?

Normally when a study ends because of evidence that a vaccine is working, the participan­ts who got dummy shots are offered the real thing.

But if FDA allows emergency use of a COVID-19 vaccine, that’s not the same as having full proof the shot works, Borio cautioned.

And if the participan­ts in the placebo group are immediatel­y offered the real shot, researcher­s may not be able to get answers about all the high-risk groups in the study - or tell how long the vaccine’s protection lasts, a process expected to take many more months.

But Pfizer Inc., which with Germany’s BioNTech is developing one of the leading candidates, told FDA that if it’s granted emergency use authorizat­ion, it “would have an ethical obligation” to alert study participan­ts who got a placebo and allow them vaccine access. The company wants FDA to look into “other scientific­ally and statistica­lly sound methods” to determine long-term safety and effectiven­ess.

Pfizer’s stance is likely to face pushback. The Infectious Diseases Society of America states that FDA’s panelists “should insist” that vaccine developers “present a compelling case” for how they will complete their trials if FDA grants early authorizat­ion of their vaccine.

Clearing a vaccine based on premature or faulty data “could cause more harm” by “further eroding public confidence in all vaccines,” the group said.

It’s an unpreceden­ted dilemma. The FDA has previously allowed emergency use of only one vaccine, a decades-old shot that in 2005 was authorized to prevent anthrax poisoning.

This time around, multiple COVID-19 vaccines are in the pipeline. Pfizer competitor Johnson & Johnson cautioned that early FDA clearance of one vaccine could “jeopardize integrity” of other ongoing trials if patients decide to drop out to seek the first cleared shot instead.

The company asked regulators to explain what options are available to ensure completion of all ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials.

What about long-term safety monitoring?

Even a study of 30,000 people cannot spot a side effect that only strikes 1 in 100,000. So the government is planning extra scrutiny of every COVID-19 vaccine to hit the market.

At first there will be limited doses given to just certain highrisk people — and those early recipients are to get text messages daily for the first week after vaccinatio­n, and then weekly out to six weeks, asking how they’re feeling.

NEW YORK: Critical Emergency Also:

Do I need to wear a mask if I’m 6 feet away from others?

Health experts recommend wearing masks in public and keeping your distance from others in most cases, but whether you should do both could depend on the situation.

“There’s no invisible force field at 6 feet,” said Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease expert at George Mason University.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says spread of the virus beyond 6 feet is uncommon but more likely in poorly ventilated spaces. Some health experts say the virus can spread more easily than the agency indicates, and suggest wearing masks even in prolonged outdoor gatherings when people are more than 6 feet apart.

Other factors could also influence whether it’s best to keep your distance while also wearing a mask. When people raise their voices or pant - such as when they sing, shout or exercise - they can expel more respirator­y droplets or aerosols, and send them traveling farther through the air. The longer you’re in a situation with potential for exposure to the virus, the greater your risk of infection.

“The reason this stuff is so confusing is people want clear answers, and there’s not a straightfo­rward answer,” said Lisa M. Lee, a public health expert at Virginia Tech.

 ??  ?? Hahn
Hahn

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Kuwait