Tag: #johnsonandjohnson

Person receiving vaccine.

Why Do Differences in Clinical Trial Design Make It Hard to Compare COVID-19 Vaccines?

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

Cross-posted from Written Description, where it originally appeared on June 30, 2021. 

By Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Nicholson Price, Rachel Sachs, and Jacob S. Sherkow

The number of COVID-19 vaccines is growing, with 18 vaccines in use around the world and many others in development. The global vaccination campaign is slowly progressing, with over 3 billion doses administered, although the percentage of doses administered in low-income countries remains at only 0.3%. But because of differences in how they were tested in clinical trials, making apples-to-apples comparisons is difficult — even just for the 3 vaccines authorized by the FDA for use in the United States. In this post, we explore the open questions that remain because of these differences in clinical trial design, the FDA’s authority to help standardize clinical trials, and what lessons can be learned for vaccine clinical trials going forward.

Read More

Patient receives Covid-19 vaccine.

What’s the Difference Between Vaccine Approval (BLA) and Authorization (EUA)?

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

Cross-posted from Written Description, where it originally appeared on June 3, 2021. 

By Jacob S. Sherkow, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Nicholson Price, and Rachel Sachs

Recently, Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna announced that they are seeking full FDA approval for their mRNA COVID-19 vaccines — filing, in FDA parlance, a Biologics License Application (BLA). Johnson & Johnson plans to file its own BLA later this year. But currently, all three vaccines are being distributed under a different FDA mechanism, the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). What’s the difference, under the hood, between these two mechanisms? Why would these companies want to go through the BLA process? And what tools can policymakers use to make the EUA to BLA shift better?

Read More

a pill in place of a model globe

When it comes to opioids, it’s all about turf.

Stephen Wood Leave a comment

By Stephen Wood

When it comes to selling opioids, turf matters. Access to customers and geography play a role in the day to day sales of opioids. This often means selling in areas where there is a wanting and willing customer base with funds to spare. It also means picking a spot, a corner, where enforcement is low or where corruption can overcome most legal problems. The delivery can’t be too conspicuous. It needs to be hidden from plain sight, done in the shadows or alleyways where no one is looking. It’s a craft and when done right can lead to fistfuls of cash in the hands of the distributor, the dealer.

This may sound like a street-level drug deal, but it isn’t. It’s the tactic many American pharmaceutical companies are taking in response to increased regulation on prescription opioids. Like the stealth and shadowy moves of a street-level dealer, American pharmaceutical companies have moved their turf to new, mostly naïve markets to sell their wares. They have done this to escape the federal regulations that have limited their market; a response to the opioid crisis that has seen hundreds of thousands of lives affected by substance use disorder or lost to overdose.

Read More