https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60464559

Interesting little article there and hopefully a positive story coming down the tracks for a change about Lyme.

Unlike the background to UK Gov cancelling their Covid vaccine contract after bulk manufacture had already begun, following successful early stage trials. Valneva still hotly protest this cancellation and its impact.

I very much doubt Valneva would have started production for the UK when it wasn’t approved.
And TBH it isn’t required when Comirnaty (Pfizer) and Moderna (and AZ to an extent) are already proven.
As it turns out it probably would have been a waste of money.

@Sharkbait, sorry I think you may be missing the point- they had already begun mass production on the back of the UK Gov contract, after the successful stage 1 trial; Valneva were originally programmed to provide the dose3 /boosters for the UK population in early winter 2021 as their whole virus vaccine is broader spectrum and more likely to effectively counter new variants than either Pfizer, A-Z or Moderna. We may yet come to regret this cancellation big time, depending on what the next Covid variant is capable of.
UK Gov reneged on the deal and ordered more of the others to use as boosters, that’s why Valneva are raging.

Anyway, this is meant to be a good news story; I’m hoping the Lyme vaccine works and we can promote it among our pals in the MTB, running, climbing etc community as a viable preventative measure.

A previous Lyme vaccine (lymerix) was withdrawn some time ago due to limited (80%) efficacy. The bar has been set for efficacy, safety and tolerability. There are also a passive vaccination program being developed to administer antibodies in lieu of vaccine.

No reason why Valneva shouldn’t be successful, being multivalent it ought to have broad coverage. But we have been here before…

TiRed, out of interest why is 80% bad?

As a layman, it would seem thats atleast a good portion protected?

I’m on the Valneva trial and the staff were left blindsided by the government’s decision. I’m not quite sure wh the phase 3 trials are taking so long to be approved, all signs have been good for a long time.

I’m not quite sure why the phase 3 trials are taking so long to be approved, all signs have been good for a long time.

I could hazard a guess.

French owned company, doing both research & manufacturing in Scotland. What’s not to like for Westmonster..?

TiRed, out of interest why is 80% bad?

20% (26% in the reported phase III study?) of the immunised population get infected? That seems poor for a vaccine. Especially one that requires 3 doses.

Most likely reason for withdrawal was small profits or a negative NPV. Though the comment on limited safety data for the most at risk population is interesting.

On the COVID-19 vaccine cancellation 🤷🏻‍♂️, not sure how to read that as such things can be reported through a haze of spin.

Also unclear is the reporting of the health secretary saying it won’t be approved yet it still being under review by MHRA (BMJ 2021;375:n2839).

Even with several vaccines approved, there’s room for more. And considering that most people in the world are not vaccinated the scope for sales is reasonable.

I very much doubt Valneva would have started production for the UK when it wasn’t approved.

You don’t go from approval to millions of doses overnight. Someone has to take the risk once you’ve reached a certain point in the pipeline and believe approval will come. I don’t think the upset was actually about UK Gov saying, “to be honest we don’t really need this one” – it was they said, “we don’t believe it will get approval” with seemingly no actual basis for that.

And TBH it isn’t required when Comirnaty (Pfizer) and Moderna (and AZ to an extent) are already proven.

Variety is not necessarily a bad thing. If the RNA vaccines need modifications for a new variant then vaccines which are likely to induce immune responses to more than the spike protein are potentially helpful. Its a trade off the RNA vaccines may be quicker to change but its not instant, the traditional vaccines may be slower to develop in the first place but MAY be less susceptible to small changes in the virus.

AND by not being based on novel RNA technology some vaccine hesitant people may be more easily persuaded – a vaccine based on established vaccine technology that’s taken a long time to get to market has a lot going for it to get perhaps another 5% of the population vaccinated.

As it turns out it probably would have been a waste of money.

But as a large part of the production would be in Scotland presumably not a total waste of money as quite a chunk of the cash would get recycled back through the local economy?

20% (26% in the reported phase III study?) of the immunised population get infected? That seems poor for a vaccine. Especially one that requires 3 doses.

yes but why? If the polio* vacine was only 80% effective it would still be better to get 80% protected no?

*I appreciate that polio and lymes aren’t comparable in meaningful way just an example.

yes but why? If the polio* vacine was only 80% effective it would still be better to get 80% protected no?

*I appreciate that polio and lymes aren’t comparable in meaningful way just an example.

I guess there’s factors that might be relevant for lyme:
– no person to person transmission; 80% for communicable diseases would have a bigger benefit for the rest of the population (assuming it reduces transmission)
– inevitably people will change behaviour after vaccination, so feel confident – less frequent tick checks/removal, less alert to symptoms etc.
– potentially harder to diagnose disease in vaccinated people? if diagnostics detect antibodies and vaccine produces antibodies but not full immunity how do you tell the sick from the vaccinated?
– when diagnosed early, lyme can often be fairly effectively treated

80% is great – the minimum for approval for a vaccine is only 50%. Sadly we’ve been spoilt with measles and lately SARS-COV-2. I don’t work on vaccines and Lymerix was before my time, but I think it was pulled largely for commercial reasons. Nobody wanted it after safety scares and short follow-up periods. The post-marketing surveillance studies showed no safety issues even in those with arthritis, but once something has a negative perception, it’s hard to turn the ship around.

And as stated, it’s easy to treat when diagnosed. Perhaps focusing on antibody detection would be better. The antibody I liked to is even cooler since it targets tick blood not humans. We’re just the vector to deliver the medicine to the tick 😀