Allocation and Prioritization of Vaccine Dose Administration Schedules: Cover more people or Adhere to Immunization Protocol
Curators:
- Justin D. Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC,
- Prof. Marcus W. Feldman, PhD, Stanford University
- Prof. Stephen J. Williams, PhD, Temple University
- Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Founder 1.0 LPBI, 2.0 LPBI and Launcher of Coronavirus Portal
This curation has four parts:
Part 1:
Waiting on the Covid booster would allow more people to be vaccinated sooner.
- By Michael Segal, MD, PhD
Part 2:
Expert Opinion by Clinical Authority in Practice of Cardiac Imaging:
- The Voice of Dr. Justin D. Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC
Part 3:
Expert Opinion by Scientific Authority in Population Biology
- The Voice of Prof. Marcus W. Feldman, PhD
Part 4:
Summary
- The Voices of Prof. Stephen J. Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Introduction
We agree the protocol should not be changed
Quote Tweet
Pearl Freier@PearlFFDA’s Peter Marks explained why the 2 dose regimen for Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine shouldn’t be changed to 1 dose in attempt to reach more patients while there’s limited supply. Aside from 95% effectiveness w/ 2 dose regimen based on clinical data, he said no one knows how long 1/n
Replying to
1 dose would be effective for & no one knows if only given 1 dose if patient would get an immune response that “would just dwindle” “And we know that can happen because we know already that people who get very mild covid-19 tend to lose their immune responses pretty quickly.” 2/n
one dose of vaccine where we don’t know what’s really happening.” Peter Marks/FDA said (6 min mark) youtube.com/watch?v=uePet5 (Research!America Alliance Member Meeting with Dr. Peter MarksWith several COVID-19 vaccine candidates under FDA review, Dr. Peter Marks, Director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), joined us …youtube.comReplying to
It will be really interesting to learn more about the immune response from J&J’s one dose regimen.
Part 1:
Waiting on the Covid booster would allow more people to be vaccinated sooner.
By Michael Segal, MD, PhD
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-shot-instead-of-two-at-saving-lives-11607643152
A Shot (Instead of Two) at Saving Lives
Waiting on the Covid booster would allow more people to be vaccinated sooner.
By Michael Segal
Dec. 10, 2020 6:32 pm ET
Recent days brought good news and bad news about coronavirus vaccines. The developments could add up to months of delay in getting most Americans inoculated. But there’s a way to make use of the good news to speed up herd immunity.
The bad news is that in July the U.S. passed up an opportunity to secure by June 2021 more than 100 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, now expected to receive emergency-use authorization in the next few days. Instead, officials followed a balanced-portfolio strategy that reserved as many as 300 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, whose prospects are unclear.
The good news is that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines performed at the upper end of expectations, with 95% efficacy after two doses. And intriguingly, Pfizer’s submission to the Food and Drug Administration shows that the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing disease had largely kicked in by two weeks after the first dose, and there was no dramatic increase in efficacy after the booster was given three weeks later.
The protocol in Pfizer’s clinical trial was to give all participants two doses. The FDA is likely to approve this protocol, and standard procedure is to prescribe a drug according to protocol. But we are in a pandemic and supplies of vaccine are inadequate. There’s an alternative: vaccinating as many people as possible with a first dose and waiting on the booster until supplies are plentiful.
The Pfizer study wasn’t designed to put a number on first-dose efficacy, but the data in Pfizer’s “cumulative incidence curves” suggest at least 75% efficacy for two weeks after one dose. The question is whether to use the 100 million doses on 50 million people, of whom two doses would protect roughly 47.5 million, or to give one dose each to 100 million people and protect at least 75 million.
States have the authority to allocate vaccines as they choose, but they’re unlikely to deviate from the study protocol unless a federal authority—whether the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or a coronavirus “czar”—suggests this as an option.
Even under such an approach, some essential personnel—such as doctors and nurses who work directly with coronavirus patients and health aides who work in multiple nursing homes—should get two doses as soon as possible, given their high-risk role in the pandemic response.
The U.S. will have more than these 100 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine. Some will come from Moderna, and the federal government could use the Defense Production Act to snatch some Pfizer doses that the company contracted to sell to other countries. Even so, supply will be constrained at first, and officials need to think clearly and flexibly about how to allocate the limited doses that will be available soon.
Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina expressed his disappointment with society’s decision making during the pandemic: “I’m just astounded by the dysfunction, the willingness to just stay the course as hundreds of thousands of people die, and the unwillingness to innovate in literally any way.” Here’s a simple innovation that could save many lives.
Dr. Segal is a neurologist and neuroscientist.
Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the December 11, 2020, print edition.
Part 2:
Expert Opinion by Clinical Authority in Practice of Cardiac Imaging:
The Voice of Dr. Justin D. Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC
From: Justin MDMEPhD <jdpmdphd@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 10:40 PM
To: “Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN” <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: I NEED YOUR EXPERT OPINION on Mickey Segal’s WSJ op-ed on vaccine dose allocation
Michael Segal proposes off-label use of the Pfizer 2-injection Covid-19 vaccine, based on data that suggested “75% protection at 2 weeks.” There was no controlled study reported of any sustained benefit from the single injection beyond 2 weeks, because those who received a first injection of vaccine received the designed booster at 2 weeks. Dr. Segal suggests it would be irresponsible to use the medication in the manner designed and tested. Instead, he could have proposed a study to determine the duration and degree of benefit from a single dose injection. However, one might argue that could delay the release of an effective regimen for the possibility that his proposed 1 dose regimen might be adequate for some, and possibly for more than the two weeks observed. Even if his guess is correct on both counts, both in his guess that the partial benefit at two weeks might be adequate and that it might last longer than the observed two weeks, it could still be deemed irresponsible to impose his guess for obvious reasons. His guess might be wrong, and could deprive many of the regimen that was validated as effective. Diverting an effective validated regimen to a guess could put many in harms way who would have been protected by the designed 2 dose regimen. He admits to low confidence in his recommendation when he proposes that essential workers should get the validated 2-dose regimen. Why does his recommendation stop there – why not propose a quarter dose to 4 times as many, or 1/8 dose to 8 times as many? Why apply the argument just to the two-dose regimen? He could also guess that a half dose of the single injection successful vaccines might be adequate. The motivation to second guess supply choices and doses is understandable, but it is not sound, as it is just a guess, not a validated regimen.
In addition, he also argues for 20-20 hindsight in the government distributing funds to mulitiple vaccines, instead of disproportionate purchase from Pfizer. Trials are limited in size, and further data will be collected on those vaccinated. Balanced investment may save more lives, not fewer, depending on those outcomes.
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:20 PM Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu> wrote:
Dear Dr. Pearlman,
Please send me 1/2 –1 page as a Critic of
- Mickey Segal’s WSJ op-ed on vaccine dose allocation, below
Part 3:
Expert Opinion by Scientific Authority in Population Biology
The Voice of Prof. Marcus W. Feldman, PhD
From: Marcus W Feldman <mfeldman@stanford.edu>
Date: Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 6:52 PM
To: “Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN” <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Mickey Segal’s WSJ op-ed on vaccine dose allocation
RE Segal’s note:
We need more details on the longer term efficacy of the one-dose regimen. Once we have such data, the question of whether 100 million one-dose treatments will be more protective of the population than 50 million two-dose treatments can be addressed. The question of how many hospitalizations and/or deaths would be avoided by going straight to the one-dose regimen can’t be answered. Both approaches leave unanswered whether the transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person is reduced. I would estimate that we need 300 million 2-dose treatments to vaccinate all under 16 year olds.
On Dec 13, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu> wrote:
Dear Prof. Feldman,
Please send me 1/2 –1 page as a Critic of
- Mickey Segal’s WSJ op-ed on vaccine dose allocation, below
Part 4:
Summary
The Voices of Prof. Stephen J. Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
The Voice of Prof. Stephen J. Williams, PhD
In light of just approved Moderna vaccine, AstraZenaca & JNJ forthcoming vaccine and the approved Pfizer BioNTech coverage should be over 200 million in US, making rationing of second booster shot unnecessary. However, there is still a concern among the developing and underdeveloped nations that access to these vaccines will be restricted.
The following curation are articles related to this matter from the AAAS and CDC.
CDC advisory panel takes first shot at prioritizing who gets the first shots of COVID-19 vaccines
By Jon CohenDec. 1, 2020 , 8:25 PM
Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation.Health care workers and elderly people living in long-term care facilities should receive top priority for COVID-19 vaccines in the United States if, as expected, one or more becomes available next month in limited supply. That’s what a group that advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on such fraught issues decided today in a near-unanimous vote.
After hearing detailed presentations from CDC scientists who explained the rationale for this specific prioritization scheme, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 13 to one to support their proposal. Under the scheme, the first phase of vaccination, known as 1a, would begin with about 21 million health care workers and about 3 million adults who live in long-term care facilities. As spelled out in the 4-hour-long virtual meeting, these groups are at highest risk of becoming seriously ill or dying from COVID-19, and protecting them first, in turn, reduces the burden on society.
“I agree strongly with the decision of the committee,” says Stanley Perlman, a veteran coronavirus researcher and clinician at the University of Iowa who advised ACIP but is not part of it. “The discussions were incredibly thoughtful with everyone recognizing that we needed to make difficult choices. Of course, these allocation issues will become irrelevant once there are enough doses of useful vaccines.”
‘Just beautiful’: Another COVID-19 vaccine, from newcomer Moderna, succeeds in large-scale trial
By Jon CohenNov. 16, 2020 , 7:00 AM
Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation.
SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSLETTER
Get more great content like this delivered right to you!
Now, there are two. Another COVID-19 vaccine using the same previously unproven technology as the vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech, the U.S. and German companies that reported success on 9 November, appears to work remarkably well. And this time, the maker, U.S. biotech Moderna, is releasing a bit more data to back its claim than the other two companies.
An independent board monitoring Moderna’s 30,000-person vaccine trial met on Sunday and reported to the company and U.S. government health officials that only five people in the vaccinated group developed confirmed cases of COVID-19, whereas 90 people who received placebo shots became ill with the disease. That’s an efficacy of 94.5%, the company reported in a press release this morning. Although the clinical trial measurement may not translate into an equally high level of real-world protection, the success indicates the vaccine is Iikely more than effective enough to stop the pandemic if it can be widely distributed.
“That efficacy is just beautiful, and there’s no question about the veracity of it either,” says Lawrence Corey, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center who co-led the clinical trials network that is testing the vaccine.
Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine ready to ship pending FDA approval -U.S. health chief
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on Thursday said nearly 6 million doses of Moderna Inc’s experimental COVID-19 vaccine were poised to ship nationwide as soon as it secures Food and Drug Administration approval. Azar, in an interview on CNBC, said federal health officials had allotted 5.9 million doses to send to the nation’s governors, who are managing each state’s distribution. “We’re ready to start shipping this weekend to them for rollout Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of next week. We’re ready to go,” he said. An FDA panel of outside advisers is weighing the safety and effectiveness of Moderna’s vaccine candidate at a meeting on Thursday. The agency will weigh the committee’s conclusions in making its approval decision.
The strategy seems to have been produce multiple vaccines from multiple sources which reduce the strain on manufacturing of required doses.
However, many underdeveloped nations as well as developing nations are worried about the nationalism of access to these vaccines. Please read below:
Abstract
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (AfSD) has the vision to leave no one behind, particularly low-income countries. Yet COVID-19 seems to have brought up new rules and approaches. Through document and critical discourse analysis, it emerges that there has been a surge in COVID-19 vaccines and treatments nationalism. Global solidarity is threatened, with the USA, United Kingdom, European Union and Japan having secured 1.3 billion doses of potential vaccines as of August 2020. Vaccines ran out even before their approval with three candidates from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca having shown good Phase III results in November 2020. Rich countries have gone years ahead in advance vaccines and treatments purchases. This is a testimony that the 2030 AfSD, especially SDG 3 focusing on health will be difficult to achieve. Low-income countries are left gasping for survival as the COVID-19 pandemic relegates them further into extreme poverty and deeper inequality. The paper recommends the continued mobilisation by the World Health Organisation and other key stakeholders in supporting the GAVI vaccine alliance and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (COVAX) global vaccines initiative that seeks to make two billion vaccine doses available to 92 low and middle-income countries by December 2021.
Others have voiced their concerns on this matter:
Reserving coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines for global access: cross sectional analysis
From: BMJ2020 Dec 15;371:m4750. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4750.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the premarket purchase commitments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) vaccines from leading manufacturers to recipient countries.
Design: Cross sectional analysis.
Data sources: World Health Organization’s draft landscape of covid-19 candidate vaccines, along with company disclosures to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, company and foundation press releases, government press releases, and media reports.
Eligibility criteria and data analysis: Premarket purchase commitments for covid-19 vaccines, publicly announced by 15 November 2020.
Main outcome measures: Premarket purchase commitments for covid-19 vaccine candidates and price per course, vaccine platform, and stage of research and development, as well as procurement agent and recipient country.
Results: As of 15 November 2020, several countries have made premarket purchase commitments totaling 7.48 billion doses, or 3.76 billion courses, of covid-19 vaccines from 13 vaccine manufacturers. Just over half (51%) of these doses will go to high income countries, which represent 14% of the world’s population. The US has reserved 800 million doses but accounts for a fifth of all covid-19 cases globally (11.02 million cases), whereas Japan, Australia, and Canada have collectively reserved more than one billion doses but do not account for even 1% of current global covid-19 cases globally (0.45 million cases). If these vaccine candidates were all successfully scaled, the total projected manufacturing capacity would be 5.96 billion courses by the end of 2021. Up to 40% (or 2.34 billion) of vaccine courses from these manufacturers might potentially remain for low and middle income countries-less if high income countries exercise scale-up options and more if high income countries share what they have procured. Prices for these vaccines vary by more than 10-fold, from $6.00 (£4.50; €4.90) per course to as high as $74 per course. With broad country participation apart from the US and Russia, the COVAX Facility-the vaccines pillar of the World Health Organization’s Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator-has secured at least 500 million doses, or 250 million courses, and financing for half of the targeted two billion doses by the end of 2021 in efforts to support globally coordinated access to covid-19 vaccines.
Conclusions: This study provides an overview of how high income countries have secured future supplies of covid-19 vaccines but that access for the rest of the world is uncertain. Governments and manufacturers might provide much needed assurances for equitable allocation of covid-19 vaccines through greater transparency and accountability over these arrangements.
The Voice of Adina Hazan, PhD
I have a few issues with the proposal and the asserted outcomes:
The author suggests that back in July 2020 “the U.S. passed up an opportunity to secure by June 2021 more than 100 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine…[by] follow[ing] a balanced-portfolio strategy”. By stating that the U.S. “passed up an opportunity” at that time when all available evidence could not indicate which vaccine would prove successful is taking a “hindsight is 2020” approach. Instead, an all-or-nothing portfolio in July 2020 for one vaccine over another would have been at best unwise and at worst could have passed up the “right” vaccine.
In addition, the author’s core suggestion is that every person in America and the world needs the vaccine at the same time, aka as soon as possible. Considering the incredibly striated outcomes of patients that contract COVID-19, this is not the case. We know that males up until 85 years old with have a much worse prognosis than women, for example1. In addition, all data suggests that the lowest risk group is children, with a death rate in the U.S. of 0.1%1. Trying to vaccinate all children with a vaccine whose long-term effects are, at this time, unknown, for a disease with such a low death rate is not urgent and may warrant waiting for more evidence. Instead of trying to inoculate everyone as fast as possible, the two-dose approach that is currently implemented ensures that those most at risk receive the maximum protection, instead of leaving them at higher risks even after vaccination. In this way, the vaccine will do what it was originally intended to do: protect the most vulnerable immediately, and in turn begin to alleviate the strain on the overall population as a result of this disease.
- S. CDC website (Deaths by Age Group, 12/18/2020)
The Voice of Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
- I recommand to adhere to administration protocol.
- I agree with Dr. Joel Jertock:
It is very clear that the current COVID vaccination protocols call for two shots, three weeks apart, for maximum protection.
Limiting personnel to a single shot, “to spread the available vaccines further” just means wasting those doses. It is similar to taking an antibiotic for only 5 days instead of the recommended 10 days, “to make the pills last longer.”
References on Vaccine Development
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aptubman
Arav Gandhi
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
zraviv06
zs22
Leave a Reply