Dataset Information

Reserving coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines for global access: cross sectional analysis

ABSTRACT: Abstract

Objective

To analyze the premarket purchase commitments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) vaccines from leading manufacturers to recipient countries.

Design

Cross sectional analysis.

Data sources

World Health Organization’s draft landscape of covid-19 candidate vaccines, along with company disclosures to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, company and foundation press releases, government press releases, and media reports.

Eligibility criteria and data analysis

Premarket purchase commitments for covid-19 vaccines, publicly announced by 15 November 2020.

Main outcome measures

Premarket purchase commitments for covid-19 vaccine candidates and price per course, vaccine platform, and stage of research and development, as well as procurement agent and recipient country.

Results

As of 15 November 2020, several countries have made premarket purchase commitments totaling 7.48 billion doses, or 3.76 billion courses, of covid-19 vaccines from 13 vaccine manufacturers. Just over half (51%) of these doses will go to high income countries, which represent 14% of the world’s population. The US has reserved 800 million doses but accounts for a fifth of all covid-19 cases globally (11.02 million cases), whereas Japan, Australia, and Canada have collectively reserved more than one billion doses but do not account for even 1% of current global covid-19 cases globally (0.45 million cases). If these vaccine candidates were all successfully scaled, the total projected manufacturing capacity would be 5.96 billion courses by the end of 2021. Up to 40% (or 2.34 billion) of vaccine courses from these manufacturers might potentially remain for low and middle income countries–less if high income countries exercise scale-up options and more if high income countries share what they have procured. Prices for these vaccines vary by more than 10-fold, from $6.00 (£4.50; €4.90) per course to as high as $74 per course. With broad country participation apart from the US and Russia, the COVAX Facility—the vaccines pillar of the World Health Organization’s Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator—has secured at least 500 million doses, or 250 million courses, and financing for half of the targeted two billion doses by the end of 2021 in efforts to support globally coordinated access to covid-19 vaccines.

Conclusions

This study provides an overview of how high income countries have secured future supplies of covid-19 vaccines but that access for the rest of the world is uncertain. Governments and manufacturers might provide much needed assurances for equitable allocation of covid-19 vaccines through greater transparency and accountability over these arrangements.

SUBMITTER: So A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7735431 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeople with epilepsy (PwE) were concerned about the safety of the novel 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) vaccines.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the side effects experienced by PwE following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines and to identify the causes of vaccine hesitation.MethodsWe administered a questionnaire to PwE, who visited the epilepsy clinic at Ibn Sina Hospital in Kuwait during the first two working weeks of April 2021. It included socio-demographic, epilepsy status, and vaccination data. In addition, we asked those who were not vaccinated yet about the reasons and their plan.ResultsA total of 111 PwE were surveyed, with 82 being vaccinated and 29 being unvaccinated. Out of the 82 vaccinated, 66 (80.5%) reported at least one side effect. Patients who received the Pfizer BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) (first, second dosage); and the Oxford-AstraZenecaa chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1nCoV-19) (first dose) had the following reactions: Pain at the injection site (40%, 67.6%), 43.8%, fatigue (47%, 32.4%), 46.9%, Headache (33.3%, 35.3%), 34.4% and Myalgia (40%, 35%), 50% respectively. Local site effects, including pain (67.6% vs. 40%, p = < 0.001) and redness (26.5% vs 6.7%, p = 0.019), were more statistically significantly after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine compared to the first dose of the same vaccine. While there was no significant difference in systemic side effects frequencies between the two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. The systemic side effects were more statistically significantly after the first dose of ChAdOx1nCoV-19 compared to the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine and those included fever (56.3% vs 13.3%, p = < 0.001), chills (37.5% vs 6.7%, p = < 0.001), myalgia (50% vs 40%, p = < 0.001) and arthralgia (25% vs 6.7%, p = 0.021). The local site reactions were not significantly different between the first doses of both vaccines. Among the subgroup who had vaccine-related side effects, 66.7% were females, 90.9% were 55 or younger, 63.6% were on polytherapy, 74% had side effects for one day or less, and 95% were symptoms free by the end of the first-week post-vaccination. Symptoms were mild in 68% of the patients and moderate in 29.3%. Most patients (93.9%) did not report seizure worsening after vaccination. The relative risk of seizure worsening after the first and second doses of BNT162b2 and the first dose of ChAdOx1nCoV-19 vaccines was 1.027 (95% CI 0.891-1.183), 1.019 (95% CI 0.928-1.119), and 1.026 (95% CI 0.929-1.134) respectively. After the first dose of BNT162b2, one patient reported the development of status epilepticus. Among the non-vaccinated group, 34.9% were still indecisive, while 37.9% rejected the vaccination. Fear of adverse effects (42.9%) and fear of epilepsy worsening (23.8%) were the main reasons for vaccine hesitation.ConclusionsThis study shows that the two vaccines under consideration (BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1nCoV-19) have a good safety profile and a low risk of epilepsy worsening among a cohort of PwE in Kuwait.

Project description:ObjectivesMultiple mechanisms have been proposed to explain disease severity in coronavirus disease 2019. Therapeutic approaches need to be underpinned by sound biological rationale. We evaluated whether serum levels of a range of proposed coronavirus disease 2019 therapeutic targets discriminated between patients with mild or severe disease.DesignA search of ClinicalTrials.gov identified coronavirus disease 2019 immunological drug targets. We subsequently conducted a retrospective observational cohort study investigating the association of serum biomarkers within the first 5 days of hospital admission relating to putative therapeutic biomarkers with illness severity and outcome.SettingUniversity College London, a tertiary academic medical center in the United Kingdom.PatientsPatients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsEighty-six patients were recruited, 44 (51%) with mild disease and 42 (49%) with severe disease. We measured levels of 10 cytokines/signaling proteins related to the most common therapeutic targets (granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, interferon-α2a, interferon-β, interferon-γ, interleukin-1β, interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, interleukin-6, interleukin-7, interleukin-8, tumor necrosis factor-α), immunoglobulin G antibodies directed against either coronavirus disease 2019 spike protein or nucleocapsid protein, and neutralization titers of antibodies. Four-hundred seventy-seven randomized trials, including 168 different therapies against 83 different pathways, were identified. Six of the 10 markers (interleukin-6, interleukin-7, interleukin-8, interferon-α2a, interferon-β, interleukin-1 receptor antagonist) discriminated between patients with mild and severe disease, although most were similar or only modestly raised above that seen in healthy volunteers. A similar proportion of patients with mild or severe disease had detectable spike protein or nucleocapsid protein immunoglobulin G antibodies with equivalent levels between groups. Neutralization titers were higher among patients with severe disease.ConclusionsSome therapeutic and prognostic biomarkers may be useful in identifying coronavirus disease 2019 patients who may benefit from specific immunomodulatory therapies, particularly interleukin-6. However, biomarker absolute values often did not discriminate between patients with mild and severe disease or death, implying that these immunomodulatory treatments may be of limited benefit.

Project description:Morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 has increased exponentially, and patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease are at risk for poor outcomes. Several lines of evidence suggest a potential role for CV therapies in COVID-19 treatment. Characteristics of clinical trials of CV therapies related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov have not been described.MethodsClinicalTrials.gov was queried on August 7, 2020 for COVID-19 related trials. Studies evaluating established CV drugs, other fibrinolytics (defibrotide), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were included. Studies evaluating anti-microbial, convalescent plasma, non-colchicine anti-inflammatory, and other therapies were excluded. Trial characteristics were tabulated from study-specific entries.ResultsA total of 2,935 studies related to COVID-19 were registered as of August 7, 2020. Of these, 1,645 were interventional studies, and the final analytic cohort consisted of 114 studies evaluating 10 CV therapeutic categories. Antithrombotics (32.5%; n = 37) were most commonly evaluated, followed by pulmonary vasodilators (14.0%; n = 16), renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system-related therapies (12.3%; n = 14), and colchicine (8.8%; n = 10). Trials evaluating multiple CV therapy categories and CV therapies in combination with non-CV therapies encompassed 4.4% (n = 5) and 9.6% (n = 11) of studies, respectively. Most studies were designed for randomized allocation (87.7%; n = 100), enrollment of less than 1000 participants (86.8%; n = 99), single site implementation (55.3%; n = 63), and had a primary outcome of mortality or a composite including mortality (56.1%; n = 64). Most study populations consisted of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (81.6%; n = 93). At the time of database query, 28.9% (n = 33) of studies were not yet recruiting and the majority were estimated to be completed after December 2020 (67.8%; n = 78). Most lead sponsors were located in North America (43.9%; n = 50) or Europe (36.0%; n = 41).ConclusionsA minority (7%) of clinical trials related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov plan to evaluate CV therapies. Of CV therapy studies, most were planned to be single center, enroll less than 1000 inpatients, sponsored by European or North American academic institutions, and estimated to complete after December 2020. Collectively, these findings underscore the need for a network of sites with a platform protocol for rapid evaluation of multiple therapies and generalizability to inform clinical care and health policy for COVID-19 moving forward.

Project description:BackgroundProtests and police fieldwork provide a high-exposure environment for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. In this cross-sectional analysis, we investigated the seroprevalence among a police cohort, and sociodemographic, work, and health-related factors associated with seropositivity.MethodsStudy participants were invited for serological testing of SARS-CoV-2 and to complete online questionnaires. Serum neutralization titers toward the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (expressing D614G) and the Alpha and Beta variants were measured in seropositive study participants.ResultsA total of 978 police personnel representing 35% of the entire staff participated from February to March 2021. The seroprevalence was 12.9%. It varied by geographic region, ranged from 9% to 13.5% in 3 regions, including the city; and was 22% in Bernese Seeland/Jura with higher odds for seropositivity (odds ratio [OR], 2.38 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.28-4.44], P=.006). Job roles with mainly office activity were associated with a lower risk of seropositivity (OR, 0.33 [95% CI, .14-.77], P=.010). Self-reported compliance with mask wearing during working hours was 100%; 45% of seropositive vs 5% of seronegative participants (P<.001) reported having had contact with a proven coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case living in the same household prior to serological testing. The level of serum antibody titers correlated with neutralization capacity. Antibodies derived from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection effectively neutralized the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, but were less effective against the Alpha and Beta variants.ConclusionsThe seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies of police officers was comparable to that reported in the general population, suggesting that the personal protective equipment of the police is effective, and that household contacts are the leading transmission venues. The level of serum antibody titers, in particular that of anti-spike antibodies, correlated well with neutralization capacity. Low antibody titers acquired from natural infection were not effective against variants.Clinical trials registrationNCT04643444.