FDA Bid For Tougher Vaccine Standard Hits Snag At The White House

Stephen Hahn, commissioner of food and drugs at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), wears a protective covering during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing in Washington, DC, on Jun... Stephen Hahn, commissioner of food and drugs at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), wears a protective covering during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing in Washington, DC, on June 30, 2020. - Fauci and other government health officials updated the Senate on how to safely get back to school and the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Photo by Al Drago / various sources / AFP) (Photo by AL DRAGO/AFP via Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The Food and Drug Administration is attempting to tighten the standards for a COVID-19 vaccine, but the plan appears to have run into a political blockade at the White House.

Experts and former regulatory officials told TPM that any move by the FDA to issue guidelines toughening standards for an emergency vaccine approval were likely running up against two recent Trump administration policies designed to gum up the works in an administration that’s willing to contort everything to its short-term political advantage.

FDA officials reportedly began to draft guidance this month that would heighten the requirements for emergency approval of a COVID-19 vaccine, potentially extending the timeline for such an approval by months. Notably, that would put approval after the 2020 election — a date the President has frequently touted for a vaccine.

The tightened guidelines could serve to prevent the FDA from sacrificing its credibility on a pre-election vaccine that Trump has pressured the agency to approve. New guidelines would also provide a useful way of gauging how regulators are weighing the balance between the urgency of approving a vaccine to combat the spread of COVID-19 and the need to determine that any new shot works safely.

The guidelines were already reportedly under review by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget this week. But on Wednesday, President Trump threw more gasoline on the already-raging fire of vaccine politicization by suggesting that he wouldn’t approve the guidelines.

“That has to be approved by the White House,” Trump said of the FDA standards. “That sounds like a political move.”

But as with many things in Trumpworld, it’s far from clear what is bluster and what is reality.

“I’m not really interested in what the White House’s opinion is, and it should not have an opinion about this — this should be an entirely professional decision made within the FDA,” said Dr. William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease at Vanderbilt University Medical School. 

Last year, the Trump administration required the FDA to submit all proposed guidance changes to the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to determine whether it’s a “major” change that would then require congressional review.

On top of that, HHS Secretary Alex Azar issued a memo, reported last week by the New York Times, which arrogates decision-making power over new FDA regulations into his own hands.

The result is that top political officials have a much deeper reach into the regulatory process than they did previously, with the OMB having a much larger role.

Secretary Azar said on Thursday morning that “what the FDA is looking at now is additional guidelines for the manufacturers, who might come in for emergency approval.”

The guidance would reportedly ask vaccine manufacturers who are seeking an emergency authorization to “follow participants in late-stage clinical trials for a median of at least two months, starting after they receive a second vaccine shot” and would mandate that there be at least five severe cases of COVID-19 in the vaccine trial’s placebo group, as well as some COVID-19 cases in older people, before the FDA issues emergency approval.

Schaffner told TPM that though the guidelines would not “raise the bar substantially higher,” they would “make it less likely that any decision would be impetuous.”

The guidance’s review by OMB, and Trump’s remarks about blocking it, come after multiple instances during the Trump administration in which the office has served explicitly political ends.

Most famously, OMB played a key role in withholding $250 million in military aid to the Ukrainian government last year.

The office refusing to approve the tighter COVID-19 vaccine regulations would, in light of President Trump’s comments Wednesday, come as further evidence of Trump seeking a pre-election vaccine before safety and efficacy data was available to show whether and how the shot works.

“The medical community is as nervous as the general population is about the precipitous decision-making here,” Schaffner remarked.

Latest Muckraker

Notable Replies

  1. This is a smart move by FDA to cover their ass
    . Set up reasonable standards for a vaccine that ideally would go to 80+% of the population, then leak them before approval
    . WH disapproves rule and a weaker–or no–rule issues.
    . WH forces an early EUA for a vaccine
    . NO ONE takes the vaccine.

  2. So much fudging. William Haseltine doesn’t hold back.

    One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance.

    It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation.

  3. Proctologist Don and patient.

  4. “That sounds like a political move.” :roll_eyes:

    IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU, PUMPKINSPICE!!

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

74 more replies

Participants

Avatar for meri Avatar for mattinpa Avatar for eggrollian Avatar for christianhankel Avatar for murgatroid Avatar for bonvivant Avatar for leftcoaster Avatar for fiftygigs Avatar for tena Avatar for jinnj Avatar for mumbles Avatar for jonney_5 Avatar for dommyluc Avatar for 21zna9 Avatar for buckson Avatar for pmaroneyb Avatar for michaelryerson Avatar for cub_calloway Avatar for bwillator Avatar for godwit Avatar for gargoyle Avatar for anon84323658 Avatar for Volvo_Birkenstock Avatar for LeeHarveyGriswold

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: