Jump to content

Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Technical details

Does anyone have the technical details for mRNA-1273? There seems to be so little information available here and even in regulatory documents and on drug sites, but here's what our description of the Pfizer vaccine now looks like:

  • The modRNA sequence of tozinameran is 4,284 nucleotides long, with a molecular weight of approximately 1388 kDa. It consists of a five-prime cap; a five prime untranslated region derived from the sequence of human alpha globin; a signal peptide coding region (bases 55–102); an optimized sequence which encodes a mutated version of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, containing two proline substitutions (K986P and V987P, designated "2P") that cause it to adopt a shape that stimulates neutralizing antibodies (bases 103-3879); the three prime untranslated region (bases 3880–4174); and a poly(A) tail comprising 30 adenosine residues, a 10-nucleotide linker sequence, and 70 other adenosine residues (bases 4175-4284). The sequence contains no uridine residues; they are replaced by 1-methyl-3′-pseudouridine.*

Seems like this would be of utmost importance considering the novelty of mRNA drugs and the wide variations across platforms.   — C M B J   23:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a somewhat more detailed description of the Moderna mRNA-based vaccine:
"The mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate, manufactured by Moderna, encodes the S-2P antigen, consisting of the SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein with a transmembrane anchor and an intact S1–S2 cleavage site. S-2P is stabilized in its prefusion conformation by two consecutive proline substitutions at amino acid positions 986 and 987, at the top of the central helix in the S2 subunit. The lipid nanoparticle capsule composed of four lipids was formulated in a fixed ratio of mRNA and lipid." Reference: Jackson LA, Anderson EJ, Rouphael NG, et al. (2020) An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 - Preliminary Report. New England Journal of Medicine, 383:1920-1931. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483.--Jpmcgrath729 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
In the Wiki article, "SM-102" is undefined. Perhaps the editors can use the information from Phase 3 protocol specifications ([1]) on pg. 28, defining SM-102 abbreviation as "heptadecan-9-yl 8-((2-hydroxyethyl) (6-oxo-6-(undecyloxy) hexyl)amino) octanoate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.58.127.238 (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@CMBJ Same exact protein as BNT162b2 (1273 means full length spike including the WT signal peptide, the only mentioned modification is the PP mutation) but who knows we may have surprises. 2A01:E0A:852:9590:CD83:B063:D892:4A25 (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following to the Design section, based on the references I've indicated:

The vaccine encodes a version of the spike protein called 2P -- that includes two stabilizing mutations in which the regular amino acids are replaced with prolines -- developed by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Vaccine Research Center.[1][2][3][4]   — MarcAirhart   17:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Which country?

Wikipedia doesn’t state which country has developed Moderna covid vaccine. It is an important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.4.27 (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The vaccine was codeveloped by researchers at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID, Bethesda, MD, USA) and at Moderna, Inc. (Cambridge, MA, USA).--Jpmcgrath729 (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename to Moderna COVID-19 vaccine

Per Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, shouldn't this article be renamed to Moderna COVID-19 vaccine? I don't think this needs an RM (given the discussion at Talk:Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine#Requested move 16 December 2020, and pinging No such user who closed the RM), I think identical arguments apply? Britishfinance (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Thanks for the ping. I'm going to move it too, for the same WP:COMMONNAME reasons; I don't think having this at mRNA-1273 can sustain scrutiny under our AT policies. No such user (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thanks for that! Britishfinance (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna safety update

This document was released on Friday.

COVID-19 vaccine safety update for COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna: February 2021.[5]

References

  1. ^ "The tiny tweak behind COVID-19 vaccines". Chemical & Engineering News. 29 Sep 2020. Retrieved 30 Sep 2020.
  2. ^ "A gamble pays off in 'spectacular success': How the leading coronavirus vaccines made it to the finish line". Washington Post. 6 December 2020. Retrieved 9 Dec 2020.
  3. ^ Kramer, Jillian (31 December 2020). "They spent 12 years solving a puzzle. It yielded the first COVID-19 vaccines". National Geographic.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ Corbett, Kizmekia; Edwards, Darin; Leist, Sarah (5 Aug 2020). "SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Development Enabled by Prototype Pathogen Preparedness". Nature. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2622-0. PMC 7301911. PMID 32577634.
  5. ^ COVID-19 vaccine safety update COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 5 February 2021.

Not a Controversy

I don't think this is a controversy: "Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from the initial trials used to obtain Emergency Use Authorization." There were probably no people from many other categories. If the company even tried to recruit pregnant women there'd be a media storm. No pregnant women would enroll anyway. This should be moved to the section that describes the trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8380:5020:C0F8:BBD7:13E6:648C (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a tendency to manufacture "controversy", when none exists here. I think it's probably done in good faith in an effort to promote balance in an article, but it's misguided and comes off as inauthentic. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Moved to Clinical trials chapter. Zach (Talk) 18:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section

"In February 2021, Moderna said that it was expecting $18.4 billion of its Covid-19 vaccine sales.[92] "

What, specifically, is the implied controversy here? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well spotted. Fixed it. Zach (Talk) 16:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Making 18 BILLION DOLLARS is ***INCOMPATIBLE*** with Socialism. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Date format

Given that this particular article subject was developed by an American company, shouldn't the date formatting on the article follow American standard? (e.g., "On December 18, 2020, mRNA-1273 was issued an Emergency Use Authorization...") Antoshi ☏ ★ 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

More factual info about side effects?

A non serious skin reaction seen at 7 days following the Moderna vaccination

I write as a pro-vaccine person who enthusiastically received my first dose of the Moderna vaccine six days ago.

The article barely mentions side effects (two minor references). Wikipedia as a neutral and factual forum is a good place to provide factual and documented/sourced info about any side effects.

For example, this NEJM article that just appeared documents a significant effect for about 1% of patients: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2102131 .

72.174.46.173 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As per WP:MEDRS we should use reviews rather than studies, which are primary sources Zoozaz1 talk 14:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Added this image which is relatively common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

More doses from vials and longer usage times

Moderna Provides Storage Update & Announces the U.S. FDA Authorizes Up To 15-Doses Per Vial of its COVID-19 Vaccine


Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine


FDA Makes Two Revisions to Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization to Help Increase the Number of Vaccine Doses Available


"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced two revisions regarding the number of doses per vial available for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. The first revision clarifies the number of doses per vial for the vials that are currently available, in that the maximum number of extractable doses is 11, with a range of 10-11 doses. The second revision authorizes the availability of an additional multi-dose vial in which each vial contains a maximum of 15 doses, with a range of 13-15 doses that can potentially be extracted."

2600:1000:B037:628E:54F0:F946:E988:7034 (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Worldwide distribution?

I was looking for information how the Moderna vaccinations are distributed worldwide (per country). Would be worth to add? --Christianh (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

EU Authorisation

EU is coloured blue on the Authorisation map, but is listed under Full Authorisation in the list below the map. Which one is correct? – 78.59.24.14 (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Funding

I've added a funding section to the article, similar to the one on the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine article. I did my best to get a diversity of references and to imitate the style and tone from the other article, but I'm a fairly new editor so I'd appreciate if someone could take a look. --Tufts2017 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Full-length spike protein?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine

"It is composed of nucleoside-modified mRNA (modRNA) encoding a mutated form of the full-length spike protein"

Has also the Moderna vaccine a full-length spike protein? If yes, it should be mentioned in Moderna Wikipedia page.

I suppose the Pfizer article is now a bit unaccurate, maybe it should be corrected to:

full‐length sequence of spike protein, so it is not about size of the protein, but lenght of the codon sequence?


--ee1518 (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2021

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: Not moved; consensus is that the article titles policy should take precedence over the manual of style on medicine-related articles.

These two requested moves pose the same question — whether the title of COVID-19 vaccine articles should be the international nonproprietary name (INN) (per the article titles section (MEDTITLE) of the manual of style on medicine-related articles) or the name of the company (or companies) which developed the vaccine concatenated with "COVID-19 vaccine" (which has been argued to be in accordance with the commonly recognisable names section (COMMONNAME) of the article titles policy). Both articles' title is currently the latter. The arguments made in each discussion were also very similar. Therefore, I am closing these discussions as one discussion.

There was not much question on what the manual of style or the article titles policy recommend — in this case, the INN or the company-name concatenation, respectively. Rather, much of the discussion was on which of these takes precedence. While the article titles policy is a policy and the manual of style is a guideline, the manual of style on medicine-related articles is much more specific (and there is no policy giving explicit advice on medical titles). Some opinions were that the manual of style takes precedence due to its specificity. Opposing opinions were varied; some argued that the INNs were not widely used enough in reliable medical sources; others made the point that the company-name concatenations were the common names in (non-medical) reliable sources by a large margin.

While medical guidelines are often stronger than other subject-specific guidelines because it is crucial that Wikipedia provides reliable information in this area (like those for biographies of living people), policies still override guidelines. In this case, the consensus appears to be that the article titles policy is stronger than the manual of style on medicine-related articles, so the company-name concatenations should be used instead of the INNs, and the pages should be not moved.

— (closed by non-admin page mover) Tol | talk | contribs 22:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Moderna COVID-19 vaccine → Elasomeran – Move to the drug's international nonproprietary name, naturally with a redirect in place and other common names mentioned in the lead section. Our WP:MEDTITLE guideline governs the naming of Wikipedia articles about drugs, and I find no convincing reason why this particular drug, however popular in 2021, should be an exception.

For clarity, MEDTITLE stypulates: The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name). — kashmīrī TALK 14:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, it would make sense to ping the participants of the ongoing similar discussion on Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine so they may share their opinions, whether they support or oppose – @Ftrebien, OSSYULYYZ, Calidum, and Berchanhimez:. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2021 (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.

Table footnotes

@Gonnym: regarding your recent reverts (first, second), table footnotes using predefined groups next to the table are acceptable according to WP:REFGROUP and H:PREGROUP and you can see this in good articles like OPEC and Windows XP, remaining unchanged in this usage for a long period of time. Therefore, it is incorrect to classify my edits as pushing an agenda. I admit that in my first edit it was not good practice to include footnotes in a table cell, though it is not uncommon, see Philadelphia English, for example. But why do you consider the second edit to be bad practice? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Because the piece of text in question is a note, meaning, it's relevance to the text is secondary. If it was more important, the note should be replaced with prose text right under the table, explaining it. But since it's a note, it belongs in a note section. The article already has a note section. Placing the notes in the middle of the page is just incorrect. What other pages do is irrelevant here. The table you gave as an example, isn't 100% correct. It is missing column and row scopes for example. Gonnym (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
But since it's a note, it belongs in a note section. Like in Windows XP? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Placing the notes in the middle of the page is just incorrect. So why do articles that meet good article criteria using this type of footnote remain unchallenged for so many years? Scientific articles often do this in tables. This saves the reader from having to jump to another location many times when parsing a table. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
If it was more important, the note should be replaced with prose text right under the table, explaining it. It can get complicated as more research is published filling different data points. Although it is not an issue at the moment for this particular vaccine. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The table you gave as an example, isn't 100% correct. It is missing column and row scopes for example. It's true, but it's not part of the tutorial and it is also very rare, so I doubt there are any implications for the issue of table footnotes. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

For many months, table footnotes have also been used in the following articles, which are being actively edited and revised by many every day:

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, what's your point? Some articles do it one way, others do it another. Some do it better, others worse. See MOS:NOTES where the section specifically talks about a note section. Notice this sections is under the level 2 heading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Standard appendices and footers, see how it says When appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article. Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, what's your point? This saves the reader from having to jump to another location many times when parsing a table. So, precision and brevity. Perhaps some of the notes that apply to the entire table can be moved to prose (such as the notes in the table caption), but not all, as in the case of notes on studies that provide several (but not all) data points. It might be easier to see this in Novavax (same notes for multiple cells, but not all) and Janssen (some notes for rows, some for columns). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, from 3rd Opinion here. I lean towards not placing the notes next to the table. I am not against adding notes next to the table as a rule, sometimes notes are important to comprehend data in a table, but this is not the case. Also, I would like to note that the argument "it happens in other articles" is pretty weak. Reason is that many errors happen in other articles. Had an argument like that survived, it would help spreading errors. Each article is build by the editors following firstly their common sense and secondly policies and guidelines of WP. Trying to mimic MoS or other patterns of other articles is not the way forward.Cinadon36 21:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestive evidence of vaccine efficacy (serum studies)

Whywhenwhohow reverted [3] my addition [4] of a systematic meta-analysis of studies of serological neutralization to support the phrase: "a systematic meta-analysis of published results found that Moderna's mRNA-1273 vaccine is effective against the Delta variant with a slightly reduced neutralizing effect." The editor asserted that the source was not a MEDRS.

I'd like to point out the assertion that this data cannot be used as evidence of effectiveness is inherently flawed. The study [5] is systematically analyzing studies which take serum from vaccinated patients, and test it against the delta variant. That's a clinical effectiveness study. As a guy who got his PhD doing these studies, and regularly reviews these studies, it is absolutely considered "supporting evidence of effectiveness" to have serum taken from the people who got the vaccine, and test it against live virus, evaluating "neutralization." This is exactly how the influenza vaccine is approved every year. A neutralization titer of a certain level is considered a "correlate of protection" in these established viruses (like flu) but is considered "suggestive" evidence of protection in novel viruses. I would be amenable to changing the text to "suggests that the vaccine may be effective" if that is the concern. My initial wording may have been too WP:BOLD. Because it does suggest that the vaccine is effective. Only observational cohort studies or RCTs can truly prove it definitively, and only then for a single point in time. You also don't need to trust me on all of this, you can trust these MEDRS sources:

The CDC: [6]

National regulatory authorities, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, require RCTs to be conducted and to demonstrate the protective benefits of a new vaccine before the vaccine is licensed for routine use. However, some vaccines are licensed based on RCTs that use antibody response to the vaccine as measured in the laboratory, rather than decreases in influenza disease among people who were vaccinated.

The WHO: [7]

For some types of vaccines the ICP may be the type and amount of immunological response that correlates with vaccine-induced protection against infection (e.g. hepatitis A and B vaccines). The ICP may be mechanistic (i.e. causative for protection, such as antibody that results in virus neutralization or serum bactericidal antibody) or it may be non-mechanistic (i.e. a non-causative immune response that is present in persons protected by vaccination but is not the cause of protection, such as serum immunoglobulin G [IgG] against varicella-zoster virus [VZV] in the context of prevention of herpes zoster).

These reviews which describe this method to measure/investigate effectiveness of viral vaccines (both routine and novel): [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Should we should, therefore, include this systematic review [16] in citing the following? a systematic meta-analysis of published results suggests that Moderna's mRNA-1273 vaccine may be effective against the Delta variant with a slightly reduced neutralizing effect. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I know that the effect of neutralizing antibodies is a strong correlate of immune protection, but I don't think it is correct to call that evidence of efficacy (or, by extension, effectiveness). But you can argue that, due to the strong correlation between neutralizing antibodies and efficacy seen in COVID-19 vaccines, high efficacy against Delta is likely. Based on this study,[17] the WHO, in its weekly situation reports (see epidemiological update 49 [18]) has recently adopted an approximate relation between efficacy and the measured fold change in neutralizing activity. The study you pointed out[19] says, about Delta, that Fifty percent neutralization titre was decreased up to 8.4 fold as compared with the reference strain which the WHO considers similar to a change of −30% to −20% in efficacy, which in previous weekly reports was described as a "moderate reduction" by the WHO. But, the true efficacy may be outside this range. In addition, on Table 4, the study reports other serological assays with a smaller fold change. In WHO's epidemiological update 49, they also reported a smaller fold change for Moderna against Delta based on many studies, which helps support the claim that it is likely effective. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Genetic Material addition Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Genetic Code

The genetic code of the vaccine has been reverse engineered by Stanford scientists and has been disclosed to the public with a silense consent by Moderna. The Stanford scientists saved drops of the COVID-19 vaccine destined for the garbage can, reverse engineered them, and have posted the mRNA sequence in Github for the scientific community to explore: https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273. the vaccine is also posted in Pubmed: (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32756549/) What is apparent when compared to the Pfizer genetic material which was also reverse engineered is that the two vaccines have a similar first part while the Moderna vaccine has extra 585 bases which encode the haemoglobin. Wikicontri-x (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikicontri-x, Hi, I think you may have used an alignment tool incorrectly. When I compared the two sequences using ClustalW [20], it's clear that the two vaccine sequences are nearly completely identical. It is the Pfizer vaccine which is slightly longer, by 152 base pairs.
This corresponds to a slightly longer 3' untranslated region for Pfizer. See here also for the comparison of the people who published the sequences. Nothing unusual about this finding, though. And we already discuss the reason for it in the this section of the Pfizer vaccine article. Basically, BioNTech added some bases from another gene which is known to increased protein expression and mRNA stability in transit.
I think what may have happened for you is that you may have copied and pasted the sequence into a comparison program which already contained the sequence for hemoglobin, a common "starting" sequence for such website-based sequence comparison programs.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Add as fully approved?

It's fully approved in the US now for those 18 and older. Could someone please update (and the associated articles on the status of Covid vaccines)? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/01/31/covid-vaccine-mandate-cases-deaths/9278653002/ Difbobatl (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Storage

"In February 2021, the restrictions on the Pfizer vaccine were relaxed when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) updated the emergency use authorization (EUA) to permit undiluted frozen vials of the vaccine to be transported and stored at between −25 and −15 °C (−13 and 5 °F) for up to two weeks before use.[42][50][51]"

Very interesting. But it's all about the Pfizer vaccine and seems to have no relevance to Moderna.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.115.69 (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Japan

ADD: Adverse effects: In early December 2021, the Japan Health Ministry recommended men Men aged 12-29 to choose Pfizer-Covid-19 Vaccine over Moderna due to a higher incident of myocarditis and pericarditis in men who received the Moderna vaccine. Health Ministry Ofifcials did not explain what could have caused this. However gealth officials debated, according to NHK, whether they should recommend the Pfizer vaccine for all young men. Conclusion reached that due to heart inflammation cases also linked to Pfizer, although much lower rate than Moderna COVID‑19 vaccine, they decided to let men aged 12-29 to choose either at their discretion. [1] Achezet (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/1813/

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

It is misinformation that the HEK 293 cell line was created from an elective abortion. Human embryonic kidney 293 cells, derived from a spontaneous miscarriage or a pregnancy that was terminated in order to save the life of the mother. This is undeniable because at the time of the fetus' death abortion was illegal in the Netherlands.[1] 2603:8000:4A06:A6D8:B8C7:7DF9:B23:1443 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done irrelevant. Alexbrn (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kelley, Monique. "Abortion Was Illegal - HEK 293 Is Not Unethical". Pro-Life Approved. Pro-Life Approved.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

Change:

A bivalent version of the vaccine containing elasomeran/elasomeran 0-omicron (Spikevax Bivalent Zero/Omicron)[46] is approved for use in Australia.[13]

to:

A bivalent version of the vaccine containing elasomeran/elasomeran 0-omicron (Spikevax Bivalent Zero/Omicron)[46] is approved for use in the UK[New citation], and pending approval in Australia.[13]

New citation: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-bivalent-covid-19-booster-vaccine-approved-by-uk-medicines-regulator 110.174.65.51 (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Aaron Liu (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Certain and verly likely facts

@recent deletion: It's a - certain - fact that Moderna's vaccine has been discontinued for younger people in countries like Germany, France and Sweden due to the - very likely - increased rate of myocarditis. Even if one doubts the increased rate (like many people once doubted climate change) one cannot deny the fact that vaccination has been restricted due to this concern.--Myosci (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Certain facts
  • "Beschluss der STIKO zur 13. Aktualisierung der COVID-19-Impfempfehlung". 18 November 2021. Retrieved 3 October 2022. Die STIKO empfiehlt für die COVID-19-Grundimmunisierung bei unter 30-Jährigen nur noch den mRNA-Impfstoff Comirnaty von BioNTech/Pfizer, da in dieser Altersgruppe das Risiko einer Myokarditis nach Impfung mit dem mRNA-Impfstoff Spikevax von Moderna höher ist als mit Comirnaty. Ebenso wird in der im Epidemiologischen Bulletin 46/2021 veröffentlichten 13. Aktualisierung der COVID-19-Impfempfehlung empfohlen, Personen im Alter unter 30 Jahren, die bereits eine 1. Impfstoffdosis Spikevax erhalten hatten, bei der 2. Impfung mit Comirnaty zu impfen." [The STIKO now recommends only the mRNA vaccine Comirnaty from BioNTech/Pfizer for basic COVID-19 immunization in persons under 30 years of age, since in this age group the risk of myocarditis after vaccination with the mRNA vaccine Spikevax from Moderna is higher than with Comirnaty. Similarly, the 13th update of the COVID-19 vaccine recommendation published in Epidemiologic Bulletin 46/2021 recommends that persons younger than 30 years of age who had already received a 1st vaccine dose of Spikevax be vaccinated with Comirnaty at the 2nd vaccination.]
Verly likely facts

Very likely means that it is not 100.0% sure but well above the treshold of high significance, see e.g. the large NHS study: doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970. --Myosci (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  • In 42 842 345 people receiving at least 1 dose of vaccine, 21 242 629 received 3 doses, and 5 934 153 had SARS-CoV-2 infection before or after vaccination. Myocarditis occurred in 2861 (0.007%) people, with 617 events 1 to 28 days after vaccination.
    • Risk of myocarditis was increased in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of ChAdOx1 (incidence rate ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.09–1.62])
    • and a first, second, and booster dose of BNT162b2 (1.52 [95% CI, 1.24–1.85]; 1.57 [95% CI, 1.28–1.92], and 1.72 [95% CI, 1.33–2.22], respectively) but was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54–7.87], respectively).
    • The risk of myocarditis was higher 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (11.76 [95% CI, 7.25–19.08]) and persisted after a booster dose (2.64 [95% CI, 1.25–5.58]).
    • Associations were stronger in men younger than 40 years for all vaccines. In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]).
    • In women younger than 40 years, the number of excess events per million was similar after a second dose of mRNA-1273 and a positive test (7 [95% CI, 1–9] versus 8 [95% CI, 6–8]).

Emphasis added --Myosci (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

So a risk ratio of 11.76 (95% CI 7.25 to 19.06) compared to 1.57 (95% CI: 1.33 to 2.22)! This is a very hughe difference. The propability that this was only by chance is practically zero. The study would have to have systematic flaws. But there's no basis to assume this. Do the British people have so much more confidence in the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine than the Moderna vaccine that they only go to the doctor when they have (servere!) symptoms after the Moderna vaccine shot and not after the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine shot? That would be very doubtful and on such a far-fetched possibiliy one cannot dismiss such a profound statistical finding! --Myosci (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
And there is a interesting difference between the 2nd and 3rd shots. In BNT 2nd shot: RR=1.57 vs. 3rd shot: RR=1.72 and Moderna's 2nd shot RR=11.76 vs 3rd shot: 2.64. Why did the rate in Moderna decline so much? Well, the 3rd Moderna shot has only 50 µg of modRNA vs. 100 µg of for the 2nd (and 1st) shot. And BNT has only 30 µg for 1st, 2nd and 3rd shot. So it's perhaps not the vaccine formula itself but the much higher dosis in mRNA-1273 primary vaccination that makes the difference!--Myosci (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the reintroduction wasn't deleted the subsections above in small. --Myosci (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moderna_COVID-19_vaccine/Archive_1&oldid=1245238538"