Chinese COVID Vaccine Therapies are Less Effective, Causing Concern

Posted on 04/12/2021


More dangerous coronavirus variants are spreading worldwide as some vaccine therapies are proving to be not as effective. China has admitted that its COVID-19 vaccines are less effective at stopping the coronavirus. Countries from Brazil, Indonesia, Philippines, and Hungary have snapped up Chinese COVID vaccines. Chinese candidates have generally reported much lower efficacy results compared to Pfizer Inc., Moderna Inc., and Russia’s Sputnik shot. Sinovac Biotech Ltd.’s vaccine was sent to Indonesia and Brazil. In April, The Philippines received the second batch of Sinovac Biotech’s CoronaVac vaccines purchased from China.

Sinovac’s COVID-19 therapy vaccine CoronaVac was 50.7% effective against symptomatic COVID-19 in a Brazil trial. The trial tested the shot with more than 12,000 healthcare employees. Brazil is being plagued with the P.1. variant of the coronavirus. With regard to Turkey, the CoronaVac was 83.5% effective in a study of more than 10,000 participants aged between 19 and 59.

mRNA

Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism.

In addition, because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved outside the context of authorization for emergency use, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products. Moreover, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one pharmaceutical product to the next, and may be difficult to predict.

In Moderna’s recent 10-K, they write, “There have been few approvals of gene therapy products in the United States or foreign jurisdictions, and there have been well-reported significant adverse events associated with their testing and use. Gene therapy products have the effect of introducing new DNA and potentially irreversibly changing the DNA in a cell. By contrast, mRNA is highly unlikely to localize to the nucleus, integrate into the DNA, or otherwise make any permanent changes to cell DNA. Consequently, we expect that our investigational medicines will have a different potential side effect profile from gene therapies.

Regulatory requirements governing gene and cell therapy products have evolved and may continue to change in the future, and the implications for mRNA-based therapies are unknown. For example, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within CBER to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and convenes the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. In the European Union, mRNA has been characterized as a gene therapy medicinal product, which falls within a broader category known as Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products, or ATMPs, which are subject to additional regulatory requirements. In certain countries, mRNA therapies have not yet been classified or any such classification is not known to us; specifically, in Japan, the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency has not taken a position on the regulatory classification. Notwithstanding the differences between our mRNA investigational medicines and gene therapies, the classification of some of our mRNA investigational medicines as gene therapies in the United States, the European Union, and potentially other countries could adversely impact our ability to develop our investigational medicines, and could negatively impact our platform and our business. For instance, a clinical hold on gene therapy products across the field due to risks associated with altering cell DNA irreversibly may apply to our mRNA investigational medicines irrespective of the mechanistic differences between gene therapies and mRNA.

Adverse events reported with respect to gene therapies or genome editing therapies could adversely impact one or more of our programs. Although our mRNA development candidates and investigational medicines are designed not to make any permanent changes to cell DNA, regulatory agencies or others could believe that adverse effects of gene therapies products caused by introducing new DNA and irreversibly changing the DNA in a cell could also be a risk for our mRNA investigational therapies, and as a result may delay one or more of our trials or impose additional testing for long-term side effects. Any new requirements and guidelines promulgated by regulatory review agencies may have a negative effect on our business by lengthening the regulatory review process, requiring us to perform additional or larger studies, or increasing our development costs, any of which could lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent advancement or approval and commercialization of our investigational medicines, or lead to significant post-approval studies, limitations, or restrictions. As we advance our investigational medicines, we will be required to consult with these regulatory agencies and advisory committees and comply with applicable requirements and guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of some or all of our investigational medicines.”

    Get News, People, and Transactions, Delivered to Your Inbox