Talk:COVID-19 vaccine

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

DNA vaccine[edit source | edit]

I read this article in the NYTimes about the Inovio DNA vaccine candidate. Can we add its information here? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/13/science/vaccine-coronavirus-inovio.html

UAE launches world's first phase III clinical trial of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine[edit source | edit]

Following a ceremony held today via video conference between Abu Dhabi and Beijing, health authorities from the United Arab Emirates have announced the commencement of the world鈥檚 first phase III clinical trial of a COVID-19 inactivated vaccine. Official announcement from the UAE state news agency is here. http://www.wam.ae/en/details/1395302850674

Can someone add this to the table in the main page? I am not sure if we have all the information required to fill out the main table but I believe we should populate parts of it? To me, it slots in slightly better than something like Moderna or Oxford since the press release here is coming from a government agencies vs just the companies themselves but still isn't as solid as Cansino Ad5-nCoV which is the only vaccine so far to publish the phase 1 report. I'm open to some thoughts on where this should go. If I don't hear back, I will add this to the main page.

Some additional information I found through the developer CNBG's website. https://www.cnbg.com.cn/content/details_12_5557.html

"On April 12, the new crown inactivated vaccine developed by China Bio-Wuhan Biological Products Research Institute entered the world's first phase I/II clinical trials. On April 27, the new crown inactivated vaccine developed by China Bio Beijing Institute of Biological Products also entered Phase I/II clinical trials. A total of 2240 people were enrolled in the Phase I/II clinical studies of the two vaccines. On June 16, the Phase I/II clinical trial blinding results of Wuhan Institute of Biological Products showed that the safety after vaccination was good, and there were no serious adverse reactions. After different procedures and different doses of vaccination, the vaccine group produced high-titer antibodies. After two doses on the 0,28 day program, the neutralizing antibody positive conversion rate reached 100%. The results of the Phase I/II clinical trials of the Beijing Institute of Biological Products will be blinded on June 28. Prior to this, 180 volunteers including the principal leaders of the party and government of the fourth-level enterprise of Sinopharm Group took the lead to be vaccinated with the new crown inactivated vaccine. The pre-test of volunteers showed that the antibodies of the subjects had completely reached the level of resistance to the new crown virus, and the protection rate was 100 %; Recently, more than 1,000 Sinopharm cadres and employees have voluntarily vaccinated, and all of them have shown that the vaccine is safe and effective, and the incidence and degree of adverse reactions are much lower than the various vaccines that have been marketed."

This is google translating from mandarin chinese, so I don't know how translation is impacting the content.

Another cool vaccine tracking site[edit source | edit]

https://www.covid-19vaccinetracker.org/ JuanTamad (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2020[edit source | edit]

Please update the status of the vaccine trials, using the following NYT link as evidence/verification: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html Wolferal (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wolferal - you could do the work to cross-reference the NYT tracker with those above under "A few differences...", then confirm with the US CT.gov and the EU registry that trials are actually "recruiting", which means they have started (there is considerable inconsistency among trackers). Two conspicuous observations: 1) vaccine developers are using press releases of plans for future trials to be visible publicly among the competition (possibly satisfying investors or geopolitical interests), and 2) only one developer (CanSino) has revealed results on adverse effects, immune response, and effective doses from Phase I-II trials, while the competitors (skeptically) may have no good results to brag about. Rule of thumb in vaccine or drug development: peer-reviewed, published results expose research successes and blemishes, while no publication may indicate absence of success and embarrassment. Zefr (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: ~ Amkgp 馃挰 16:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

AZD1222 Phase of Trial[edit source | edit]

It is currently listed as Phase I/II. But in looking at the trackers, maybe it needs updated? New York Times tracker listed it "The vaccine is in a Phase II/III trial in England and Phase III trials in Brazil and South Africa." Likewise the Regulatory Focus tracker lists it also as Phase II/III. Only the statnews tracker still lists it as Phase I. Desertborn (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually I see this was discussed already above, so nevermind then. I see on clinicaltrials.gov it is not recruiting yet. And I don't see it at all in the EU site. That being said, however, if the trial is in Brazil and South Africa would it even show on either of those? Desertborn (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
True that trackers are recording this Oxford advance in trial phase, but are they only following Oxford publicity? The Oxford trial leaders registered with CT.gov (updated 27 May) (no EU registration, as best as I can tell) which says the Phase I-II is active (can be interpreted as ongoing) with no results reported yet on this trial, and no new registry number or description of a Phase III trial; what's going on? What are the results for toxicity, immune response, effective dose? What vaccine or drug developer moves ahead with a candidate into a high-cost, international Phase III program without bragging about its excellent Phase I-II results? Perhaps Oxford-AZ can do this because they have considerable cash to burn and no board, investors or public pressure demanding full disclosure, while most of the competitor developers are publicly-held companies having legal commitments to disclosure. I'm open to a consensus decision but remaining skeptical, recognizing that most vaccines fail in Phase I-II trials.
We can make an editor-consensus decision and vote on where the Oxford trial stands, and use it as a bellwether for recording future progress on trial status for other vaccine candidates.
Combination of factors about recording in the article an advance to a Phase III trial: 1) at least two reputable trackers giving the same status information; 2) Phase I-II results published in a reputable journal for vaccine safety, immune efficacy, and dose; 3) registration with CT.gov, the EU registry, or Chinese registry for the Phase III trial; 4) registry information should describe the Phase III design and state "recruiting" or "active, not recruiting" (meaning it is full and underway).
@Zefr: I found the EU registry. EudraCT Number 2020-001228-32. It was under the old name ChAdOx1 instead of AZD1222. It shows the trial as Phase II/III with status of ongoing. But I defer to you if this means it has started. Desertborn (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll add, it sure seems like they are recruiting given you can volunteer to participate on their site, and individual locations such as this one even state which groups are recruiting. Given that is their site so note the same as listed on a registry. But the fact that someone can fill out and submit a pre-screening questionnaire does seem like something... Desertborn (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed vote to editors: it is sufficient to record a vaccine developer's progress to a Phase III trial based on press releases and two or more tracker reports.

  • Oppose - a developer will submit its Phase III trial to a registry, basing its design on published safety, efficacy, and dose, and announce and date in the registry that it is "recruiting" (all are evidence of organizational, multinational, and expensive financial commitments). We should wait for the hard evidence. Zefr (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support as the Phase III trial is registered in the EU registry and they are clearly recruiting participants. Also in view of 2 of 3 trackers showing it as Phase II/III. My support is tentative since I am still hoping to hear comments from Zefr on the EU registry, in case I am misunderstanding it. Desertborn (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Desertborn - there are 124+ editors watching this article, so the decision about how to describe the status of the Oxford trial should not be left to only you and me (and their own press releases). Oxford-AZ are a respected vaccine team, but may be proceeding to the Phase III trial without the usual peer-reviewed disclosure of whether they have worrisome toxicity and/or insufficient immunogenicity. Not all trackers (and not CT.gov) show them recruiting, but reputable sources - like the WHO and London School - do. It's a mystery to see a cost-heavy trial advanced to testing in thousands of volunteers without knowing and publicly sharing the safety, efficacy, and immunogenic dose for the vaccine candidate, which I fear may be a dud (in the past, 90% of infectious disease vaccine candidates die in Phase I-II, and there are no licensed coronavirus vaccines). I'm open to consensus of the editor community, which is why I posed the vote. Zefr (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
zefr Thanks, and I agree with you on this talk page being the place to discuss. It's just I didn't want to vote until hearing your opinion of the EU registry addition, since you seem knowledgeable on this subject. It appears that you prefer to have the results from Phase I peer reviewed and available, which makes sense. Thank you for sharing as that is what I was wondering, if you still felt the same or not. Frankly I am thinking of changing my vote but I'll wait for others to weigh in. Desertborn (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh claims to develop vaccine[edit source | edit]

Dear all, I have found some sources which claim a Bangladeshi company Globe Biotech Limited to develop a vaccine upto preliminary stage. I think it is important to show a developing conuntry like Bangladesh on the race to undertake Coronavirus. Here are some references:

Thank you all. - AdiBhai (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

ICMR/BBIL Covaxin[edit source | edit]

I removed the following content from the lead section about ICMR/BBIL Covaxin, for which Phase I trials have not even begun:

Indian Council of Medical Research will release the first indigenous COVID-19 vaccine Covaxin in India by 15 August 2020.[1][2][3][4][5]

References
  1. "ICMR aims to launch indigenous Covid-19 vaccine by August 15". Deccan Herald. 2020-07-03. Retrieved 2020-07-03.
  2. "India's First Coronavirus Vaccine May Be Launched By August 15". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2020-07-03.
  3. Mehrotra, Vani (2020-07-03). "Covaxin: India plans to launch first coronavirus vaccine by August 15". www.indiatvnews.com. Retrieved 2020-07-03.
  4. "Coronavirus Vaccine: India's second COVID-19 vaccine produced by Zydus Cadila cleared for human trials - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2020-07-03.
  5. "We shall overcome! Anil Singhvi hails Bharat Biotech bid to launch Coronavirus Vaccine by 15th August". Zee Business. 2020-07-03. Retrieved 2020-07-03.

The content was added by DarpSinghh. I reverted it because adding it to the lead section gives it undue weight, considering that there are other vaccines that are already in Phase III. DarpSinghh, please discuss here with other editors (like Zefr) about whether and where it would be appropriate to add this information in the article, as well as the wording. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)