Moderna's Super-Vaccine for Flu and Covid Works—Now Politics Could Sink It
A new trial suggests a combination vaccine may offer equal or better protection against both flu and covid-19 compared to current vaccines.
Moderna's mRNA-based flu and covid-19 vaccine could provide the best of both worlds—if it's actually ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
This week, scientists at Moderna published data from a Phase III trial testing the company's combination vaccine, codenamed mRNA-1083. Individuals given mRNA-1083 appeared to generate the same or even greater immune response compared to those given separate vaccines, the researchers found. But the FDA's recent policy change on vaccine approvals, orchestrated by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, could imperil the development of this and other future vaccines.
The trial involved 8,000 people split into two age groups: those between the ages of 50 and 64, and those over 65. People were randomly given mRNA-1083 (plus a placebo) or two already approved flu and covid-19 vaccines.
The vaccine seemed effective across both age groups, with mRNA-1083 participants showing at least the same level of humoral immune response (antibody-based) to circulating flu and covid-19 strains as participants who were given the separate vaccines. On average, this response was actually higher to the flu strains in particular among those given mRNA-1083. The experimental vaccine also appeared to be safe and well-tolerated, as the authors explained in their paper, published Wednesday in JAMA.
The study results are certainly encouraging, and typically they would pave the way toward a surefire FDA approval. But the political situation has changed for the worse. The Department of Health and Human Services recently mandated an overhaul of the vaccine approval process, one that will require all new vaccines to undergo placebo-controlled trials to receive approval.
While many experimental vaccines today are placebo-tested (including the original covid-19 vaccines), it's unclear whether this order will also apply to vaccines that can be compared to existing vaccines, like the combination mRNA-1083 vaccine, or to vaccines that have to be regularly updated to match fast-evolving viruses like the flu and covid-19.
Some vaccine experts have said that these changes are unnecessary and potentially unethical, since it could leave some people vulnerable to an infection that already has a vaccine. The new rule also might delay the availability of upcoming seasonal vaccines, particularly the current covid-19 shots.
A potentially important wrinkle for the mRNA-1083 vaccine is that no mRNA-based vaccine for the flu is currently approved. That reality could very well be all that the FDA needs to demand further placebo-controlled trials. RFK Jr. and other recent Trump appointees have also been highly skeptical of mRNA-based vaccines in general, despite no strong evidence that these vaccines are significantly less safe than other types. Kennedy, who has a long history of supporting the anti-vaccination movement, has even wrongly declared that the mRNA covid-19 vaccine was the 'deadliest vaccine ever made.'
Moderna stated last week it doesn't expect its mRNA-1083 vaccine to be approved before 2026, following the FDA's request for late-stage data showing the vaccine's effectiveness against flu specifically. But it's worth wondering if even that timeline is now in jeopardy under the current public health regime.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
39 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Israel-Backed Gaza Aid Group Suspends Operations for Second Day
An Israel- and US-backed mechanism to distribute food in Gaza suspended operations for a second day following a series of deadly incidents near its sites that drew international criticism. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a Swiss-based nonprofit, launched in Gaza last week following a months-long Israeli blockade of the territory, and says it has handed out enough food staples for millions of meals. But the roll-out has been dogged by overcrowding and at least one incident in which Israeli forces, citing a security threat, fired toward Palestinians headed to a GHF aid center.
Medscape
42 minutes ago
- Medscape
Catching Resistance Early: Can New Breast Cancer Drug Help?
CHICAGO — Can spotting an emerging ESR1 mutation early and changing first-line drugs before progression improve outcomes in patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer? Interim findings from the SERENA-6 trial suggest that may be the case. Patients who switched from a first-line aromatase inhibitor to camizestrant, an investigational next-generation oral selective estrogen-receptor degrader, at the first signs of an emerging ESR1 mutation demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival compared with those who continued their initial regimen. Notably, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing allowed investigators to identify ESR1 mutations, which emerge at the time of disease progression in about 40% of patients on a first-line aromatase inhibitor and lead to treatment resistance. Camizestrant, which has shown activity in patients who develop ESR1 mutations, helped improve first-line outcomes and has 'potential to become a new treatment strategy,' according to co-principal investigator Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in medical oncology at the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England, who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. Results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine . This trial also demonstrated 'the clinical utility of ctDNA monitoring to detect and treat emerging resistance in breast cancer,' said Turner. While praising the findings, others were not convinced that the SERENA-6 results warrant a change in practice yet. 'Based on first-line progression-free survival alone, this could represent a new regulatory approval path,' said invited discussant Angela DeMichele, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. But, DeMichele cautioned, 'I cannot recommend the SERENA-6 strategy at this time.' One key reason, DeMichele noted, is that it's too early to tell whether this strategy improves overall survival. If camizestrant is approved based on progression-free survival and quality of life, DeMichele wondered, is it worth going through the ctDNA testing process if the drug doesn't help patients live longer? Paolo Tarantino, MD, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School in Boston, echoed this sentiment in a tweet on X: 'Outstanding results, though not ready for clinical practice (yet),' adding that it will also be 'important to take into account financial, psychological, and systemic costs of the strategy.' Using ctDNA to Track Resistance In the study, 3256 patients who had received at least 6 months of treatment with aromatase inhibitors and CDK4/6 therapy (palbociclib, ribociclib, or abemaciclib) received ctDNA testing with Guardant360 CDx every 2-3 months at the time of routine staging exams. Overall, 315 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected and had no radiologic evidence of disease progression were randomly assigned to either switch from the aromatase inhibitor to 75 mg of camizestrant daily (n = 157) or continue their aromatase inhibitor/CDK4/6 regimen (n = 158). (An additional 233 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected were not included for a variety of reasons, including disease progression and consent withdrawal.) At the planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 16.0 months in the camizestrant group and 9.2 months in the aromatase inhibitor group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.44; P < .00001). At 24 months, only 5.4% of patients who had continued their initial first-line treatment had not progressed compared with 30% of patients on camizestrant. The progression-free survival findings were consistent across clinically relevant patient subgroups. Patients who switched to camizestrant also showed improved time to deterioration in global health status and quality of life — a median of 23.0 months vs 6.4 months in the aromatase group (aHR, 0.53). At the time of the interim analysis, overall survival data were immature, with 20 deaths in the camizestrant group and 19 in the aromatase inhibitor group (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.48-1.73). As for time to second progression, there were 38 events in the camizestrant group and 47 events in the aromatase group, but the findings were also immature. As for adverse events, 60% of patients in the camizestrant group had a grade 3 or higher event, 10% of which were deemed serious compared with 46% in the aromatase group, 12% of which were serious. Neutropenia (45% vs 34%, respectively) and anemia (5% in both groups) were the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events. Only 1% of patients on camizestrant discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Overall, Turner concluded that 'for people with HR-positive advanced breast cancer, the results of SERENA-6 show that camizestrant plus CDK4/6 inhibitor could be a new treatment option to use at the point of ESR1 mutation detection during treatment with first-line aromatase inhibitor plus CDK4/6 inhibitor — but before the cancer grows.' Despite the promising findings, DeMichele highlighted several key unanswered questions and challenges. Notably, will this strategy lead to longer overall survival and demonstrate clinical utility? Overall survival and time to second progression are currently not known, DeMichele said. The trial did not address whether first-line treatment gains would be lost if camizestrant was given in the second-line setting after anatomic progression. DeMichele also noted the high cost and potential anxiety associated with serial ctDNA testing. Overall, 'the full complement of financial, psychological, and systemic costs is needed to fully assess utility and feasibility for implementation,' she added. SERENA-6 was supported by AstraZeneca. Turner disclosed consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Inivata Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Relay Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, and Roche. DeMichele disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Pfizer.
Forbes
43 minutes ago
- Forbes
FDA's New AI Tool Cuts Review Time From 3 Days To 6 Minutes
AI at the FDA getty The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced this week that it deployed a generative AI tool called ELSA (Evidence-based Learning System Assistant), across its organization. After a low-profile pilot that delivered measurable gains, the system is now in use by staff across the agency, several weeks ahead of its original schedule. Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA's commissioner, shared a major outcome. A review task that once took two or three days now takes six minutes. 'Today, we met our goal ahead of schedule and under budget,' said Makary. 'What took one scientific reviewer two to three days [before] The FDA has thousands of reviewers, analysts, and inspectors who deal with massive volumes of unstructured data such as clinical trial documents, safety reports, inspection records. Automating any meaningful portion of that stack creates outsized returns. ELSA helps FDA teams speed up several essential tasks. Staff are already using it to summarize adverse event data for safety assessments, compare drug labels, generate basic code for nonclinical database setup, and identify priority sites for inspections, among other tasks. This last item, using data to rank where inspectors should go, could have a real-world impact on how the FDA oversees the drug and food supply chain and impacts on how the FDA delivers its services. Importantly, however, the tool isn't making autonomous decisions without a human in the loop. The system prepares information so that experts can decide faster. It cuts through the routine, not the judgment. One of the biggest questions about AI systems in the public sector revolves around the use of data and third party AI systems. Makary addressed this directly by saying that 'All information stays within the agency. The AI models are not being trained on data submitted by the industry.' That's a sharp contrast to the AI approaches being taken in the private sector, where many large language models have faced criticism over training on proprietary or user-submitted content. In the enterprise world, this has created mounting demand for "air-gapped" AI solutions that keep data locked inside the company. That makes the FDA's model different from many corporate tools, which often rely on open or external data sources. The agency isn't building a public-facing product. It's building a controlled internal system, one that helps it do its job better. Federal departments have been slow to move past AI experimentation. The Department of Veterans Affairs has started testing predictive tools to manage appointments. The SEC has explored market surveillance AI for years. But few have pushed into full and widespread production. The federal government has thousands of employees processing huge volumes of information, most of it unstructured sitting in documents, files, and even paper. That means AI is being focused most on operational and process-oriented activities. It's shaping up to be a key piece of how agencies process data, make recommendations, and act. Makary put it simply that ELSA is just the beginning for AI adoption within the FDA. 'Today's rollout of ELSA will be the first of many initiatives to come,' he said. 'This is how we'll better serve the American people.'
