Germany and France suspend Moderna vaccination for People < 30 years Old
What Should the US Do?
Germany and France have decided that because of the excess risk of myocarditis the Moderna vaccination should not be given to people less than 30 years old. News reports suggest that myocarditis is 5 times more common with Moderna than Pfizer at these ages. Given that Pfizer is available, tolerating the excess harms of Moderna for people in this age group is obviously unsound policy. Accordingly, Germany and France have made the right decision.
There are 4 immediate policy implications for the United States, if we have the courage to heed them.
First, the USA has to grapple with the question: Are we truly committed to maximizing the benefit and minimizing the harms of vaccination? Throughout this pandemic, I struggled to understand US decision making. When we learned that J&J vaccination was linked to thrombosis (VITT) preferentially in women <40, and given that alternative vaccines were available, I argued we should suspend vaccination in that age group for that product, but this was notably not pursued by regulators. We should not make the same error here.
For that reasons, the USA must immediately follow suit with Germany and France. It is unjustified to continue administering Moderna for people < 30 when the excess risk is known, and a safer alternative exists. Drug safety expert and Professor of Medicine Walid Gellad concurs:
This decision shows that it is possible to learn additional safety information after product launch that can better tailor the use of vaccines to maximize benefit and minimize harm. Now reconcile this fact with the language used by many professionals when products are debuted, which are unequivocal and fail to acknowledge uncertainty. I would strongly suggest we temper our comments about vaccines among kids 5 to 11 until further data comes forward.
The decision has immediate implications for ongoing vaccination efforts. We should be randomizing people, who have elected to undergo vaccination, to variations in dose and timing of dose 2 for the Pfizer vaccine. This should happen for anyone under the age of 40, and particularly for kids aged 5 to 11. Ongoing studies should attempt to see if toxicity can be mitigated with reduced dose or prolonged interval between doses. It makes little sense to scale up a suboptimal dosing regimen, and post-market RCTs are possible here.
With kids 5 to 11, there remains massive uncertainty as to the harms (there may be harms, but there might also not be— we simply don’t know). Testing variations in dose and schedule is logical. Already 1 million children (5 to 11) have gotten dose 1. A trial can be run among willing participants and randomize some people to get dose 2 on schedule (21 days), some on day 60, some on day 180, and some can forgo dose 2 entirely, and within months we will know which strategy is best. Ironically, not conducting a trial like this is a real experiment. It means we will continue a massive vaccination campaign with little idea if our dosing and timing is optimized for benefit/ harm balance.
We need to see troponin levels and cardiac MR performed on 10,000 random recipients of vaccination at all ages to document if subclinical myocarditis exists. We urgently need long term follow up on patients with myocarditis to see if a fraction (even a tiny one) develops long term sequelae.
Europe has made fewer unforced errors than the USA. They did not mask 2 year olds without data; They were (and still are) more reluctant to vaccinate younger individuals, and they take myocarditis seriously. We have a lot to learn from them on how to balance drug efficacy with safety.
Thank you for this. There is a persistent pattern of delayed responses to vaccine safety signals here in the US. This is probably because our system is is limited in being able to pick up adverse events. We have consistently taken our cues from Europe.
I am not so sure the Moderna mRNA vaccine is causing more cases of myocarditis in the US. Just looking at VAERS numbers (I know these are not vetted, but they are the only public info we have) Pfizer has a unadjusted myocarditis rate of 31/1 million doses. Moderna is 15/million and Janssen is 13/million. Pfizer's rate may be higher because they are authorized for use from age 5 upward.
During the October 22 ACIP meeting a myocarditis update showed the rates of myocarditis by age and vaccine.
16-17 males and females the risk was 37.4/million second dose Pfizer.
18-24 males and females for both Moderna and Pfizer at 18-20/million second dose.
When males were stratified for age 12-15 were 39.9/million second dose Pfizer.
16-17 males 69.1/million second dose Pfizer.
18-24 males 36.8/million second dose Pfizer and 38.5/million second dose Moderna
I think the data is suggesting both mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis in young males equally whether 30 micrograms or 100 micrograms of mRNA.
I agree there needs to be studies looking more deeply at this problem.
I might be reading this wrong, but is the first sentence of the last paragraph backwards?