Covid-19 Vaccine Strategy
Science and Technical Advisory Group
Minutes – Wednesday 23 September
Date & time
10:00 to 11:00AM, Wednesday 23 September
Attendees
Ian Town (Chair)
Justine Daw
David Murdoch (Deputy Chair)
Karl Ferguson
Ian Frazer
Stephanie Symynuk
Graeme Jarvis
Jonathan Lane
Peter McIntyre
Zachary Clarke
Nikki Moreland
Emily Robinson
Helen Petousis-Harris
John Taylor
James Ussher
Apologies
Nikki Turner
Matire Harwood
Item for discussion
Led by
Administration
1.
Apologies
Ian Town
Nikki Turner and Matire Harwood
2.
STAG Conflicts of Interest
Ian Town
The updated COI register was noted, with any COIs not listed to be declared.
3.
Scientific and Clinical Review (‘Science Review’) Panel membership c.f. STAG
Ian Town
membership
Current lists reviewed, added Dr John Taylor’s biography to membership list
Updates
4.
Communications programme
Karl Ferguson
Karl Ferguson (Vaccine Taskforce Communications & Engagement Pillar lead)
presented on development of the communications and engagement strategy,
which will be going to Vaccine Taskforce next week.
Main issues on which STAG input is requested include:
How we ensure the safety and science story is told accurately (i.e. to
engage the public and provide confidence in the vaccine(s) when the
time comes for the immunisation roll-out)
How we tackle the rise of misinformation
Discussion Included:
STAG members were positive about taking a proactive engagement
approach, as well as this being focused on a wide spectrum of public
communication.
There was agreement that science voices were an important part of
engaging with the public on the Vaccine programme.
As with all countries, New Zealand is seeking early access to safe and
effective vaccines. Globally, this means that countries are making
purchasing decisions ahead of a complete set of information.
It was important to remember that purchasing decisions do not imply
decisions have been taken to take delivery of and/or use the vaccine.
Expectation management will also be key. The STAG asked if the
overarching Vaccine strategy outcomes and priorities (i.e. universal
vaccine coverage or an initial focus on vaccines for health sector
professionals, essential workers, and vulnerable people etc.) been
clearly articulated yet to inform engagement and communications?
Q:
Is the Communications team linked with Science Media Centre?
A:
Yes, this is a critical channel for information and making sure that
information we prepare is suitable for those updates.
5.
Work programme
Justine Daw
The following documents were noted for the STAG’s awareness and comment.
Science Review process to support APA (purchasing) decision-making
-
Updated process, with high level questions to guide overall
consensus discussions and final documentation
Proposed technical questions for Science Briefings
-
Setting out specific issues to consider in advance of and during
science briefings
Discussion
6.
Clinical Trials
Ian Town
Update from Ian Town
The STAG was interested in the proposed work to capture summary information
on candidates of interest as trial results / data comes to light (
refer Item 8)
Dr Fran Priddy, involved in global vaccine development right through to Phase 3
and 4 trials, is now in NZ and working with VAANZ. It was agreed that the Chair
would meet with her to discuss clinical trial planning (e.g. should clinical trials be
offered to NZ, and also the relevance of being involved in particular trials).
7.
The Sputnik 5 Vaccine
Ian Town
Update from Ian Town
The Honorary Consul in New Zealand had been corresponding regularly
about the potential for NZ to purchase the Sputnik vaccine(s). MFAT
have signalled that NZ is targeting a small set of candidates to begin
with in order to enable us to purchase safe and effective vaccines that
are able to be approved by MedSafe at the earliest opportunity.
Discussions have also indicated that there previously wasn’t enough
public information to assess on this candidate. Now that more data is
available, we propose to formally run the vaccine through the standard
APA Assessment Framework.
2
STAG discussion:
The vaccine looks potentially plausible, but there’s zero safety data to
assess to date and this is a concern.
One of the other issues to consider is the apparent lack of regulatory
frameworks/processes for the Russian candidate that would enable
time-efficient MedSafe assessment and approval processes. E.g. as
manufacturing is only in Russia and they appear to have no track record
to date of manufacturing and supply for Western use, the Institute
would have to demonstrate that they’re in compliance with global
regulatory standards. Regulatory pathways are therefore unable to be
abbreviated for this candidate, meaning that the candidate would be
highly unlikely to be able to be an early arrival to NZ.
Action: STAG to be consulted on the framework assessment in due course.
8.
Proposed STAG Forward Work Programme
Justine Daw
Justine Daw confirmed that a rolling monthly planner has been set up, and will
be updated and circulated regularly. An overview of expected STAG/Science
Review Panel activity before the end of 2020 was also provided:
Input to decision-making on vaccine purchase, including
-
Ongoing supplier ‘Science Briefing’ process (incl. portfolio balance
assessments)
-
Inputs to multilateral purchasing decisions (COVAX)
Peer review of ‘science summaries’
-
Regular updates of overviews of priority target vaccine candidates
-
Commissioned ‘Issues summaries’, if resources allow, and as relevant
Any comments on the proposed science products would be welcomed. Aim is to
have up-to-date snapshots of what we know and the ‘known unknowns’. We will
have someone coming in part-time to lead work on these documents, and would
also ask the science advisor to review these before presentation to the STAG.
Also to note:
Two potential additional vaccine candidates (#6 and #7) are likely to land in
the priority target set in the next few weeks.
As per the recent announcement on COVAX, the Taskforce will be making
the same choices for COVAX candidates as we do for the APA candidates,
and so the science inputs will also be sought. Timeline information is not
yet well known for this activity.
Where there are emerging or new candidates, we may be asked by MFAT to
look at these (generic information from WHO through GAVI – similar to
science briefings) to reach a prompt decision on whether to opt in, or to
close off the option. ‘Opting in’ doesn’t mean NZ will purchase the
candidate, but it enables us to do so later on if this is the decision. We
would expect the COVAX “bundle” to be known from mid-October through
to Christmas.
Comment
-
It remains important to hold wider Pacific interests in mind. COVAX has
an element of proportionality for population. Candidates need to be
evaluated for suitability in the Pacific, particularly Realm countries, as
well as in NZ.
3
-
A number of the developers we’re already dealing with are in discussion
with COVAX – we can expect some cross over.
9. Questions for STAG comment
Justine Daw
Q:
Are STAG members interested in receiving the type of backgrounder
information developed mentioned at Item 8?
A:
Yes.
Action: Relevant information will be circulated to the STAG when available.
Q:
Are human foetus cel -lines likely to be important to vaccine purchasing
choices for NZ? If yes, why? If not, why not?
A:
No. Something to be aware of, but use in NZ is established.
We have experience in managing this issue (the Vatican has OKed use)
Q:
Is there any indication that human-adenovirus-vectored candidates run
a risk of lower immunogenicity (particularly those with 2 doses)?
A:
Yes, this may be why some are pushing 1 dose formulation? There’s a
review paper on this – to be forwarded to Chair [Complete]
Q:
Are novel (not yet approved) adjuvants likely to slow down candidate
approvals and/or roll-out in NZ?
A:
Not really, but possibly if the research for the adjuvant was not well-
established. Adjuvants tend to be approved as part of a vaccine (e.g.
ASO4) and boosting immune responses may help a vaccine to clear
infection as well as prevent disease.
Q:
Does the STAG have any early views on the candidates likely to enter
earliest into
widespread Phase 4 trials?
A:
Likely a protein based vaccine (e.g. UQ vaccine).
Q:
Is it too early to understand the likely nature of ‘early candidate’
immunity type and duration? If not, can the STAG provide any
emergent/informal views as yet?
A:
The review article provides some indicative answers.
10.
Wrap Up
Ian Town
4
