Vaccines in the future.

Astra Zeneca had developed their vaccines to trial stage by February 2020, just a couple of months after the world woke up to Covid 19
(Thanks for early info to @557 )
Yet it took until December 2020 to get approval. The result of this delay 140,000 UK deaths, over half a million in the states.
So my question:
Is there any way to circumvent this slow pace next time round?

 

Probably one of the most important topics at this point in the pandemic. I don’t know what the answer is. We could go really fast but risk a fiasco like the Cutter poliovirus vaccine debacle. Of course with the resistance to making vaccine technology open source again that problem wouldn’t likely occur again.

I suppose if this happens again in our lifetime governments can bend or change the “rules” on trials and authorizations to move faster at will. We already saw that in the case of Covid allowing animal and phase 1 human trials run simultaneously instead of requiring animal testing conclude before human trials. Otherwise we could pressure government to put “faster” policies in place now. In the US I don’t think a clear majority would support that but that’s just my opinion.

What about something like our new loosening of “right to try” regulations in the US? Let people use an unapproved vaccine if they want to. Make them sign a waver and jam a needle in their arm. You would have a large sample trial right off the bat.

At the end of the day I think the potential fallout from a rushed product harming people will keep timetables about where they are now. We cut corners but not ones that put anyone in danger. I don’t see a clear place to cut further without inducing a lot more risk.

 

I agree that many people would not be okay with that. I know some now that won't get vaccinated because of that fear.

 

When I was following this in the UK. one of the things that stood out to me was the amount of time it took to study the data from each trial, so I feel this could be speeded up.
On top of this I think we could consider the knowledge we have on the type of drugs we are testing. Many of the conversations on here were around not knowing the long term effects of the vaccine, but long term effects of drugs are associated with ones you take for a long time (such as blood pressure tablets)
Could the trials be set up to reflect this type of thing, especially considering the result of delays is not a minor thing.

I like the idea of volunteering for trials, both my wife and I signed up for trials as soon as we could, but they were painfully slow, following the same protocol as every other drug trial regardless of the need and the type of drug being trialled.

 

Agree. I’m a bit perplexed at the unwillingness of the FDA to hurry along with EUA for passive vaccination with monoclonal antibodies. It seems like the data either supports using the product or it doesn’t. Twiddling of thumbs for weeks or months won’t change that.

Could you clarify specifically how that would work?

Do you think going faster would decrease acceptance rates to the point more lives would be saved by going slow? I tend to lean your way but then think of the outrage there would be from many if steps were skipped or rushed.

One huge advantage going forward is the mRNA platform will be a known quantity. Perhaps there will be less time lag between data release and authorization next time. And people may be more accepting since it is more of an accepted technology now.

 

Specifically the length of time after being given the vaccine/placebo that the test continued. 8 months to watch for the effects of a single dose of a drug.
I feel this was over cautious, that any side effects were going to show up pretty much straight away and certainly within weeks.
The reason we have long term drug trials is to look at the accumulative effect of a drug, but with a drug you only take once there is no accumulative effect.
But the trial rules are set regardless of the type of drug being tested or the number of doses likely to be given.

That might be the public perception, but then its down to the experts to explain their reasoning. Further to this I would add your voluntary scheme so that people who do trust the science can get vaccinated. This has two effects. 1, it reduces the number of those dying. 2, It provides growing evidence of the safety of the drug.
The other thing I found frustrating was the failure to balance risk and reward. When the Astra Zeneca vaccine killed one in a million of those who took it, no comparison was made with the number who died by not having the vaccine. Instead one was considered death by virus the other preventable death.

I don't think it was public reluctance that will delay our next vaccine, but red tape and over cautious bureaucrats.
We need to change the rules now, so that when the next virus arrives we are not accused of rushing the vaccine through.