The recommendation comes a day after the committee recommended a booster of the, which uses a different technology than J&J and requires two doses initially. The FDA is to follow the committee’s advice on that vaccine soon. The FDA and CDC have previously authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech booster for people over age 65 and for adults who are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 and its complications, such as people with underlying and other essential workers whose jobs may put them at increased risk of exposure and therefore more severe COVID-19.
From the start, J&J’s was less productive than the ones from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. J&J’s request was complex, and the committee had to decide whether to recommend the booster two or six months after the single dose. Still, the committee supported the vaccine because it provided practical benefits during a pandemic. Unlike the , J&J’s requires only a single shot, and the vaccine does not need to be shipped and stored in ultra-cold conditions. Still, it can be kept frozen at average freezer temperatures. Those are significant advantages for reaching many of the world’s population, especially in lower-resource countries.
At the committee meeting, J&J presented data showing that after the comparatively lower immune response generated after its single dose, a second booster dose given twoenhanced that response. That data prompted most of the members to question whether the J&J shot should have been a two-dose vaccine to begin with. “I think this was always a two-dose vaccine,” said Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at of Philadelphia and a committee member. “It’s hard to recommend the single-dose [now] given the two-month data.” He noted that had the two-month data on immune responses to the second dose been available when the companies initially requested an emergency use authorization (EUA) back in February; the committee likely would have recommended the rather than one. That’s why the committee ultimately voted to authorize a booster dose beginning at two months for anyone after getting a first shot of the J&J vaccine.
The data get more complicated, however. At the FDA meeting on Friday, J&J researchers presented studies showing that their vaccine provides continuous and robust protection against COVID-19 disease that lasts up to eight months following the single vaccination., while the efficacy of their vaccine starts lower—at around 74%, compared to the 94% and 95% efficacy recorded for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively—J&J’s efficacy remains stable for months while both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have documented drops in virus-fighting antibody levels starting about six months after the second dose.
One of the committee members, Dr. Hayley Gans, professor of pediatrics at Stanford University, noted the apparent paradox inherent in J&J’s request for authorization of a booster: if a single dose of J&J provided this sort of consistent protection, especially against severe disease, why would a booster be needed? In response, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, noted that the data on J&J’s efficacy might not be as robust as the companies suggested, citing recent CDC studies indicating vaccine efficacy as low as 50% a few months after vaccination. “There is more data out there than we are seeing,” Marks said. “All of the data do not that retains excellent activity overtime against all forms of the disease, or even against severe forms of the disease.”
They are fThe recurring theme of the review of booster shots is finding the balance between the rigorous scientific evidence that regulatory agencies like the FDA require and the real-world urgency of meeting the threat of an ongoing pandemic. Based on currently available data, committee members have consistently raised questions about the goal of boosters, given that the existing regimens seem to provide adequate protection against severe disease. The question for the committee was to weigh how comfortable they are with the protection offered by original dosages and how preemptive they want to be in having boosters ready for the public to head off waning immunity before it hits the point where more vaccinated are getting infected and getting severely ill—especially in the context of.
In theory, one goal of the additional shots could be to raise immunity levels so that people are less likely to transmit the. Another goal would be to throw up a higher wall of immunity against new variants of SARS-CoV-2, especially the now-dominant Delta strain, which accounts for nearly all new infections around the world—booster shots , and under the idea that a rising tide lifts all ships, the more antibodies that the body makes against SARS-CoV-2, the more likely that some of those will be able to block different variants. Still, there isn’t strong enough data to show that the vaccine does that. Indeed, the J&J team presented data showing that adding a second dose, especially six months after the first, raised vaccine efficacy to around 90%.
And their data also suggested that the immunity generated by its vaccine has a “unique immune profile with antibody titers peaking later, broadly reactive against multiple strains [of the virus] variants, and that persist,” said Dr. Penny Heaton, head of global therapeutics at Janssen Research & Development. That means that the immunity could potentially be longer-lasting or more durable than that. Dr. Dan Barouch, professor of medicine at Harvard who developed the vaccine in collaboration with J&J, noted that the vaccine “induced a distinct, complex immunologic profile with robust durability.”
As part of that argument, the companies highlighted what they see as the defining feature of their vaccine: the triggering of the T-cell response, which is a sort of an immunologic backup to the immediate SWAT team of antibodies that the body deploys when it first encounters a new virus; antibodies can flood the zone quickly but tend to wane after time if the virus isn’t constantly present. On the other hand, the T-cell responseand then recognize the threat if it reappears, thus enabling the body to mount reactions more quickly in an ongoing fashion. A booster dose could amplify this process’s size in people immunized with the J&J .
Before dispersing, the committee also heard results from the just-published and highly anticipated study led by theon mixing and matching doses of the three currently authorized vaccines. While the research did not directly compare different combinations, the results support that giving people a from a vaccine different from the one they were initially immunized on was safe and effective. In fact, for the people who originally received the J&J vaccine, getting a boost with an mRNA vaccine-like those made by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech—led to than getting a second dose of the same vaccine.
Those results highlighted the evolving nature of what scientists know about theand how best to optimize the shots. Anticipating a steady flow of new studies and new data, some of which may lead to the , committee members discussed how the FDA would manage expanding the current booster authorizations to the broader population of adults not currently eligible for the boosters (those without health conditions or in high-risk settings), and eventually children.
With the ever-evolving body of knowledge on types of boosters is recommended for different populations: anyone who received the J&J vaccine initially is eligible to get a champion. At the same time, for those immunized with Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech, only those over age 65 or 18-64 with health conditions or in high-risk jobs are eligible., the committee stressed that the FDA must remain flexible and transparent in its decisions. For example, each of the three
Moving forward, “I hope we can present it in a way that’s not confusing to the public,” said committee member Dr. Stanley Perlman, professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa. “We follow the science, but people who aren’t doing this think the constantly changing. We can do this in a way that doesn’t look like we are always changing the rules.”