Talk:COVID-19 vaccine

Requested move 13 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for this move. buidhe 06:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

---

COVID-19 vaccine → COVID-19 vaccine development – The new title would take into consideration the concerns from the previous RM about the current hypotheticality of the vaccine, while also remaining concise and becoming consistent with COVID-19 drug development. "Development" rather than "research" addresses any potential concerns (now or in the near future) that efforts have moved beyond just research and into development. Retaining "COVID-19" is consistent with the recent consensensus on COVID-19 article name protocol. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support as nom. I don't think the current title is terrible, but this would be a mild improvement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE and for consistency with titles for every other vaccine, including those for which variations are constantly in development (e.g. the Influenza vaccine). BD2412 T 04:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I am also going to request that the closing administrator put a six month moratorium on move requests for this article. This is the second move request in a short period of time, largely duplicative of the first. Further requests along this line in the near term are only likely to waste time. BD2412 T 17:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose i don't agree lower important to move this name. As per WP:CONCISE. 37.111.202.104 (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — 37.111.202.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BD2412 T 13:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support since "COVID-19 vaccine development" would imply no usable vaccine exists yet, which is currently the case. Saves a click. 24.53.240.117 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — 24.53.240.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BD2412 T 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Title carries a false implication that a vaccine exists. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • What do you think was administered to those 45 people in Seattle? BD2412 T 20:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. At least until a successful vaccine is developed. The title can always be changed when/if that ever happens. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose again. There is no mass distributed vaccine, but there are plenty of potential candidates, one of which might be the final vaccine. "Development" suggests that it's not currently being tested._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Isn't testing a phase of development? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - This same request was already closed less than a month ago with the consensus to keep the article title the same. I won't go over everything since the previous request already laid out a lot of the arguments but all I'll say is that the title is consistent with other vaccine related articles, such as the currently non-existent HIV vaccine, it's WP:CONCISE, and it makes even less sense to make this request now because as mentioned in the lead, there are now over 100 vaccine candidates in existence with multiple vaccines already in phase 1 studies. --TheSameGuy (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Consistent with other articles like HIV vaccine as other editors pointed out. Note that "it does not exist", but several vaccines are in clinical trial. --MarioGom (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral. I do agree that "COVID-19 vaccine" might suggest that such a vaccine indeed exists. Similar discussions to that effect have been had on what is now Talk:Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact, even though one of these events have more chance of happening in my opinion ;) – not saying which! One point against inclusion of 'development' would be that once the potential vaccine is developed, the page is no longer really about development, but has always meant to be about the vaccine itself. (or is it?) May I suggest "Potential COVID-19 vaccine"? Bert Macklin (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the name HIV vaccine does not suggest the existence of a safe and effective vaccine. Conciseness is key as mentioned above. Hekerui (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Note I've opened a broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Naming guidelines for articles on vaccines and drugs that do not yet exist, since this question exists in similar form for HIV vaccine and other articles. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose To be consistent will practically all other technologies that are in development including all vaccines (e.g. Universal flu vaccine), High Speed 2, Dyson sphere, Artificial womb etc. D Wells (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel that the title "COVID-19 vaccine" does not imply that the vaccine exists. It only implies that it's a topic worth writing about. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• support this would be better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Holy cow stop this - nothing has changed in the past week. This is abusing the process to re-request. Red Slash 02:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Research by Chen Wei team

I have created Chen Wei (medical scientist) § COVID-19 vaccine with some information about the vaccine on trial developed by Chen Wei team. According to the sources, it is one of the first to enter Phase I, and it might have been the first to enter Phase II. I'm not sure to which section of this article it belongs to though. --MarioGom (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Tracking progress

The section on preclinical research below is now either outdated or too selective among the 115+ vaccine candidates in development (CEPI, as of early April), so I am moving it here to archive. The Milken Institute tracker - updated a few times per week with publicly available sources in the right column - is the most dynamic, current landscape of vaccine candidates. I'm substituting a table of those candidates scheduled for 2020 starts of human safety testing (Phase I trial) in the article, and invite editors to participate in keeping it current. Zefr (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Preclinical research listed as of 20 April 20

• Around 24 January 2020 in Australia, the University of Queensland announced that it is investigating the potential of a molecular clamp vaccine that would genetically modify viral proteins in order to stimulate an immune reaction.
• Around 24 January 2020 in Canada, the International Vaccine Centre (VIDO-InterVac) at the University of Saskatchewan announced the commencement of work on a vaccine, aiming to start human testing in 2021.
• Vaccine development projects were announced at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention on 26 January 2020, and the University of Hong Kong on 28 January.
• Around 29 January 2020, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, led by Hanneke Schuitemaker, announced that it had begun work on developing a vaccine. Janssen is co-developing an oral vaccine with its biotechnology partner, Vaxart. On 18 March 2020, Emergent BioSolutions announced a manufacturing partnership with Vaxart to develop the vaccine.
• On 8 February 2020, the laboratory OncoGen in Romania published a paper on the design of a vaccine with similar technology to the one used for cancer neoantigen vaccination therapy. On 25 March the head of the research institute announced that they had finalized the synthesis of the vaccine and were beginning the tests.
• On 27 February 2020, a Generex subsidiary company, NuGenerex Immuno-Oncology, announced they were beginning a vaccine project to create an Ii-Key peptide vaccine against COVID-19. They wanted to produce a vaccine candidate that could be tested in humans "within 90 days."
• On 5 March 2020, Washington University in St. Louis announced its projects to develop a vaccine.
• On 5 March 2020, the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort Detrick and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Silver Spring, both in western Maryland, announced they were working on a vaccine.
• Around 10 March 2020, Emergent Biosolutions announced that it had teamed with Novavax Inc. in the development and manufacture of a vaccine. The partners further announced plans for preclinical testing and a Phase I clinical trial by July 2020.
• On 12 March 2020, India's Health Ministry announced they are working with 11 isolates, and that even on a fast track it would take at least around one-and-a-half to two years to develop a vaccine.
• On 12 March 2020, Medicago, a biotechnology company in Quebec City, Quebec, reported development of a coronavirus-like particle under partial funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. The vaccine candidate is in laboratory research, with human testing planned for July or August 2020.
• On 16 March 2020, the European Commission offered an €80 million investment in CureVac, a German biotechnology company, to develop a mRNA vaccine. Earlier that week, The Guardian reported that the US President Donald Trump had offered CureVac "'large sums of money' for exclusive access to a Covid-19 vaccine", against which the German government protested.
• On 17 March 2020, American pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced a partnership with German company BioNTech to jointly develop a mRNA-based vaccine. mRNA-based vaccine candidate BNT162, currently in pre-clinical testing with clinical trials expected to begin in April 2020.
• In Italy on 17 March 2020, Takis Biotech, an Italian biotech company announced they will have pre-clinical testing results in April 2020 and their final vaccine candidate could begin human testing by fall.
• In France on 19 March 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced a US$4.9 million investment in a COVID-19 vaccine research consortium involving the Institut Pasteur, Themis Bioscience (Vienna, Austria), and the University of Pittsburgh, bringing CEPI's total investment in COVID-19 vaccine development to US$29 million. CEPI's other investment partners for COVID-19 vaccine development are Moderna, Curevac, Inovio, Novavax, the University of Hong Kong, the University of Oxford, and the University of Queensland.
• On 20 March 2020, Russian health officials announced that scientists have begun animal testing of six different vaccine candidates.
• Imperial College London researchers announced on 20 March 2020 that they are developing a self-amplifying RNA vaccine for COVID-19. The vaccine candidate was developed within 14 days of receiving the sequence from China.
• In late March, the Canadian government announced C$275 million in funding for 96 research projects on medical countermeasures against COVID-19, including numerous vaccine candidates at Canadian companies and universities, such as the Medicago and University of Saskatchewan initiatives. Around the same time, the Canadian government announced C$192 million specifically for developing a COVID-19 vaccine, with plans to establish a national "vaccine bank" of several new vaccines that could be used if another coronavirus outbreak occurs.
• On 2 April 2020, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine reported on testing of PittCoVacc, a possible COVID-19 vaccine in mice, stating that "MNA delivered SARS-CoV-2 S1 subunit vaccines elicited potent antigen-specific antibody responses [in the mice] that were evident beginning 2 weeks after immunization."
• In Canada on 16 April 2020, the University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy announced design of a DNA-based vaccine candidate as a possible nasal spray. Using bacteriophages, the DNA will be designed to replicate inside human bacteria to produce harmless virus-like particles, which may stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

Please move this paragraph: BNT162 (BioNTech; Fosun Pharma; Pfizer) RNA April–May to the upper table "Clinical trials started in 2020" cause its now on Phase 1. Source: https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/rheinland-pfalz/mainz/biontech-impfstoff-coronavirus-100.html (German language) OR https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52386012 on paragraph 3 Max042020 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Done - thanks! Not clear that it has started recruiting, however it is at least as far along as the Oxford trial, which is included in the table. Hildabast (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Marking as answered. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The vaccine by SinoVac has entered Phase I trial. Please move it from the table for pre-trial candidates to the table for clinical trials. Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3080929/coronavirus-clinical-trial-begins-third-vaccine-candidate-china

Also another vaccine is approved for clinical trial starting in April. It's another inactivated vaccine candidate developed by the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products under the China National Pharmaceutical Group (Sinopharm) and the Wuhan Institute of Virology under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Please enter the candidate in the pre-trial table. Source: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-04/14/c_138976125.htm and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-drug-treatment-uk-china-astrazeneca-a9463506.html 98.207.237.179 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - added to Ph I-II table. The Sinopharm-Wuhan candidate is not yet listed on the Milken tracker or the WHO candidate list dated 20 Apr 20. Seems reasonable to me that the table of "scheduled" candidates be updated weekly. Zefr (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Zefr, for moving the SinoVac candidate to trial table. Note that the vaccine would combine Dynavax’s CpG 1018, the adjuvant contained in U.S. FDA-approved HEPLISAV-B vaccine. Source: http://investors.dynavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/dynavax-and-sinovac-announce-collaboration-develop-coronavirus

Wait, looks like the SinoVac + Dyravax's CpG 1018 is another candidate currently in pre-trial, as it is listed separately in WHO's pre-trial candidate list. I guess you guys can help to put it in the pre-trial table.

Actually The Sinopharm-Wuhan (WIV) candidate is already listed both in Milken tracker (#10, page 38) and the WHO candidate list (#3, right above the entry for SinoVac). It's another combined phase1-2 trial, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=52227. Thanks! 98.207.237.179 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Supercomputing section is neither focussed on main topic nor NPOV

The section on supercomputing use appears to be based on press release type material. A lot of the projects referenced are not vaccine related (e.g. they are epidemiology). It irrelevantly mentions that one of the sponsors is a billionaire; assuming the reference to the person is necessary at all, that information should be on on the linked page for the person. It seems to concentrate on commercial organisations (e.g. it doesn't mention the protein folding projects being distributed to volunteers). It is poorly structured, in particular, it is structured by organisations, not by the type of work, and ends up saying the "same sorts of things", to link the type of work, rather than listing them out in full (at the very least this could break if someone adds more things to the defining reference).

On balance, I think the article would be better with the whole section removed. The appropriate place for the information is probably the relevant detailed articles on the particular vaccine projects that use a specific such resource, or in articles on enabling technologies mentioned from the specific pages.

David Woolley (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed this, and I note that this information was added and removed once before, as there is no mention of the use of supercomputers to create a vaccine in the sources provided. BD2412 T 15:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

If I may ask, where might any computer information related to the vaccine be located? More pertinently, would it be acceptable to create an article on the effects of COVID-19 on computing? Perhaps as a section on Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology? COVID-19 drug development? Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, so far as I have seen reported in sources, computers are not playing a different role in COVID-19 vaccine development than they have for any other vaccine. The removed section related to use of supercomputers to develop therapies, which would be covered under COVID-19 drug development, if anywhere. BD2412 T 01:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. I have created a new discussion section on the main WikiProject Talk page regarding a course of action. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Milken Institute tracker and other clinical trial updates

The Milken Institute has - as best as I can see - the most frequently updated (at least 2x/week) tracker for all COVID-19 vaccine candidates, a report that had been a thorough, although somewhat awkward, PDF for the past weeks, but is now a dynamic Google spreadsheet, today's version shown here. Presuming it enables viewing of updates in real time, the Milken tracker will be a "live" update source going forward. Wondering what other editors think about using this as a source for tracking progress of vaccine candidates in all stages of development, as it is still awkward to use on a cell phone (or even a widescreen desktop), and its sources are hidden behind another click, but I think it's a substantial resource for keeping an eye on progress. For comparison, the next-best sources are either "draft landscape" of vaccines in development from WHO (often seems out of synch with public information), and occasional tracking reports, such as the April 9 CEPI report which is difficult to judge for its current accuracy. Fyi, there is a new COVID-19 literature tracker from the US National Library of Medicine, called "LitCovid", shown here. Background on why this is relevant, WP:NOW. Zefr (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that it's a good idea to use a constantly updating file stored on Google Docs to replace a published PDF file from the Milken Institutes own website. There's no way for readers/editors to know if the Google Docs link is official or not and another issue is that because it is editable, the information in the file may no longer back up the claims made in the article. Things may be added, removed, or changed in the document and may not be reflected in the article. Also, I don't know if the file can be edited by anyone with the link but if so, that poses another problem on its own. --TheSameGuy (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I doubt there will be another PDF updated with new information - it's too static. The tracker revision as a spreadsheet - which can only be viewed or downloaded offline (cannot be edited publicly) - is described here, where the site says: "It is divided into filterable and sortable tabs, with each tab dedicated to a different area of research: one offers the overarching outlook of all treatments and vaccines, one tracks treatments, one tracks vaccines, and so on. There is also a section where all of the data is collated and visualized via charts and graphs. The document is designed to be explored and organized for easy reference, plus it can be downloaded for offline use." I'm assuming a Google solution was chosen to allow live filters and graphs to display the frequently updated data. Not really another universal solution for such useful online features for worldwide viewing, as best as I can tell. The tracker site also emphasizes that "The tracker is not an endorsement of one approach or treatment over another, but simply a list of treatments and vaccines currently in development," and it provides sources that we're all looking to use for the article. Don't know of any public source that offers all these advantages to view vaccine development. Zefr (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As per the discussion at Talk:COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Milken_Institute_tracker_and_clinical_trial_updates, I don't support using this or tracking trials in this sort of detail. Let's stick to stuff like the Nature article mentioned, as per WP:MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

At present emergency situation , Vaccine ( Active immunization) production may take some movement why don’t we encourage “Passive Immunization” ?immediate action, why don’t we encourage the injection “ Human Covid-19 Immunoglobulin’s Injection“

"Human Covid-19 Immunoglobulin Injection" patented by MRPA Corporation, at "Office of the control general of Patents, Government of India". This doctors group Applied "for clinical trial" approval for "Human Covid-19 Injection" to the Government of India .

Under chairmanship OF Dr Sreehari.Y, MRPA Corporation, Hyderabad, A Group of doctors invented a new a treatment method. The company finished research and hopes to get the approval for trials within a week. The injection manufactured based on principal Passive immunization.

The IgG Immunoglobulin’sstart work immediately after injection, and neutralizes the Virus.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2020/apr/30/hyderabad-firm-awaits-approval-for-covid-injection-trial-2137160.html

https://www.aaaai.org/Aaaai/media/MediaLibrary/PDF%20Documents/Practice%20and%20Parameters/IVIG-March-2017.pdf

https://www.nyoooz.com/news/hyderabad/1440050/hyderabadfirm-awaits-approval-for-covid-injection-trial/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1537-2995.1966.tb04713.x

https://epaper.newindianexpress.com/2653374/The-New-Indian-Express-Hyderabad/30-04-2020#clip/51442323/92283b06-0233-4b7b-8ae1-2e04786ef158/912.0000000000001:330.53025302530267

(Doctor Andrew Baldwin MD (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC))