8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      New placebo-controlled Covid-19 vaccine trials are ethically questionable; it's now about comparative effectiveness and availability of registered vaccines

      brief-report
      , MD PhD
      Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Now that a number of vaccines against Covid-19 are approved by a number of internationally authoritative regulators for use in a variety of target groups, an important ethical issue is whether investigators of new candidate vaccines should still assign participants to placebo groups, thereby withholding them the protection that already available vaccines can offer [1]. It could be argued that continuation of this research practice is warranted as long as there are insufficient vaccines for most people, including potential trial participants. However, that is neither a strong nor an ethically appropriate argument as increasing the production of already available vaccines is the fastest way to vaccinate everyone. A methodological comment in favour of continuing placebo-controlled studies could be that published trial results until now [2,3] were generally focused on reduction of laboratory confirmed Covid-19 rather than severe clinical Covid-19 complications and mortality, and interruption of transmission [4]. But given the urgent pandemic circumstances it is arguable that the efficacy and safety of these vaccines have been sufficiently demonstrated for starting their use. Not only because of the plausibility that reduction of primary infections is likely to imply reduction of its complications, but also because delaying decision making on vaccination until definitively conclusive evidence on severe outcomes is collected may allow much additional mortality, severe morbidity, and potentially even more harmful virus variants to occur worldwide. Policy makers and practitioners have the responsibility to make transparent decisions in a context of some uncertainty, followed by post-marketing evaluation based on further follow-up [5]. One could also argue that it is unwise and unethical to discontinue ongoing studies that may provide knowledge and in which many participants have already been enrolled. However, that does not take away the serious ethical objections to placebo administration when approved vaccines are available. But it seems reasonable that studies in which participants have already received a placebo complete their follow-up until sufficient quantities of authorized vaccines are available. At the same time, that implies that companies that have nót yet started phase-3 studies must discontinue initiatives for placebo-controlled trials. That would apply to many dozens of candidate vaccine projects [6]. The only (albeit not easy) ethically responsible and clinically useful route for new vaccine trials is now to compare candidate vaccines directly, head-to-head, with – preferably the most effective and safe - registered vaccines, with effectiveness against both classic and new virus variants as outcome. This requires constructive cooperation between companies [7]. The broader socio-ethical and global health question is: why should a lot of time and resources still be spent on research with yet uncertain outcomes, aimed at gaining a market share, while the world urgently needs a much larger production of vaccines already shown to work? The latter can be achieved by also using production facilities of companies that are currently still working on candidate vaccines that may not be successful, come too late, or are unlikely to be more effective than the best available vaccines for the original or new variants of the virus [8]. This requires transparent access to scientific and technical knowledge about registered vaccines for other manufacturers, whether or not enforced by the international community [9]. This is obviously justified given the billions of dollars and euros spent by governments and the European Union to support the development of Covid-19 vaccines. In addition, industry has profited from vast public investments in scientific, clinical and public health infrastructures for the development and evaluation of the vaccines, as well as for their deployment and monitoring. Does this put investment in innovation at risk, as is often heard from industry? I do not think so. Many company employees want to serve public health, and science and society will be willing to invest in new vaccines more than before. Nor has it ever been convincingly demonstrated that innovation is only possible in a system of protected knowledge monopolies in a shareholder-driven economy. Furthermore, in line with the significant public investments already made, an international public fund could be set up to provide development opportunities for all vaccine initiatives, including non-profit ones, which are considered promising by independent experts. A further counter-argument sometimes heard is that new trials could yield cheaper vaccines. But even if that would be true, should pricing considerations - in addition to the ethical issue of giving placebo instead of an available effective vaccine - lead to (too) late availability of possibly less effective vaccines that will most likely be distributed to low-income countries? Instead, the international community should provide resources to deploy highly effective vaccines worldwide as quickly as possible to combat the pandemic successfully and minimize the time for potentially more dangerous virus mutants to occur. Moreover, with more concerted action on a global scale and extensive procurement, significant price reductions, as justified given the enormous amount of public money invested, can be better achieved. In conclusion, the international medical research community must make clear that the time has come to no longer allow new placebo-controlled Covid-19 vaccine trials, and that the research focus should shift towards investigating comparative effectiveness of new candidate vaccines versus already registered ones. At the same time, WHO, the European Union, governments and industry should now collaborate to maximize the production of already registered vaccines as soon as possible. This would also substantially simplify and strengthen worldwide long-term monitoring of rare and late adverse effects. Declaration of Competing Interest None

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

            Abstract Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Epidemiol
                J Clin Epidemiol
                Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.
                0895-4356
                1878-5921
                16 March 2021
                16 March 2021
                Affiliations
                [0001]Department of General Practice, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University/Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
                Article
                S0895-4356(21)00078-0
                10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.006
                7962582
                7a3841de-669f-4bf1-bc38-bb9e7a9d9191
                © 2021 The Authors

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Commentary

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article