The intervention by Trump officials is the latest example of the administration undercutting its own medical experts working to combat the pandemic that has killed more than 210,000 Americans. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn has been attempting to shore up public confidence in the FDA's vaccine review for weeks, vowing that career scientists, not politicians, will decide if the shots are safe and effective for mass vaccination.
But President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that a vaccine could be authorized before Election Day, even though top government scientists working on the administration's vaccine effort have stated that that timeline is very unlikely.
Last week seven former FDA commissioners blasted the administration for undermining the credibility of the FDA in a Washington Post op-ed and called for the release of the pending vaccine guidelines. The former FDA chiefs warned that public fears that a vaccine was rushed out for political reasons could derail efforts to vaccinate millions of Americans.
The senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the action, said the White House was intent on getting a safe vaccine to market and wanted to make sure additional loopholes weren't added that would slow down the process.
Beyond the damaging optics of overruling its own FDA, the practical impact of the White House move against the guidelines could be relatively limited.
Only one drugmaker, Pfizer, has suggested it could have data on the safety and effectiveness of its vaccine before Election Day. And a number of variables would still have to align for the company to submit, and the FDA to review and greenlight, a vaccine application before Nov. 3. Pfizer's competitors Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are working on longer research timelines.
Additionally, FDA scientists have been discussing the contents of the guidelines publicly for weeks and have made clear that the recommendations have already been shared with each of the vaccine developers.
There's no there there to get all excited about this guidance, said Dr. Peter Marks, the head of FDA's vaccine division, in an online interview last week with the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research. The companies know what we're expecting. Instead, Marks said, releasing the guidelines was an attempt to help the public see what we're requiring of COVID-19 vaccines.
He added that the guidelines would explain that all upcoming vaccines would be reviewed by FDA's independent panel of outside vaccine advisers, before the agency makes its own final decision.
Marks explained Monday that the two months of safety follow-up for vaccines is important because the most serious side effects connected with shots often occur in the first several weeks after vaccination.
The safety profile of a vaccine that's going to be used in millions of people has to be incredibly clean, Marks said in an online discussion with the Journal of American Medical Association.
When asked about the potential timing for a first vaccine, Marks said an emergency authorization could come before the end of the year. The guidelines blocked by the White House are a type of nonbinding document that the FDA routinely uses to advise companies on research and regulatory standards for medical products.
The FDA released its initial expectations for COVID-19 vaccines in June. Among other metrics, the agency said that any vaccine would have to be at least 50% protective against the virus.
But the guidelines didn't spell out the conditions under which the FDA would use its emergency authorization powers to speed up the availability of a vaccine. Under emergency review, medical products face a lower standard than full that merely requires that their expected benefits outweigh their risks for use during a public health crisis.
The lack of specifics around using the emergency authorization for a vaccine became a flashpoint for outside experts, physicians and even politicians. FDA officials then began drafting a second guidance document with additional details.
Among other things, the guidelines would have made clear that any vaccine approved through the emergency pathway would still need to meet FDA's preset safety and effectiveness standards. Instead, the expedited process would be used to bypass certain logistical and regulatory hurdles, such as the thousands of pages of manufacturing documentation normally required for a traditional vaccine application.
Emergency authorization for a vaccine would likely limit initial use to medical and other frontline workers, nursing homes and people most at risk of catching or becoming seriously ill from the virus.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.