52 International The EconomistFebruary 8th 2020
2 “plug-and-play” vaccine design and manu-
facturing technologies that can be used for
a number of pathogens. This allows the ge-
netic sequence of a particular pathogen to
be slotted into an existing molecular plat-
form that forms the basis of the vaccine.
In the past, laboratory work on a vaccine
required stocks of the actual virus. It would
be treated to make it harmless but still able
to tickle the immune system into produc-
ing antibodies—proteins that fight off the
wild virus if it attacks. Working with a
deadly virus is tricky, naturally. It requires
special containment facilities and exhaus-
tive procedures to prevent it from escaping
or infecting scientists.
Gene sequencing has made this process
quicker, safer and easier. Researchers can
build synthetic versions of parts of viruses
to work on vaccines without needing com-
plete samples of the pathogens.
Scientists have produced vaccines
against other viruses, including Zika, Ebola
and two other coronaviruses—sars(Severe
Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and mers
(Middle East Respiratory Syndrome)—us-
ing such technology. The vaccine research
on these two cousins of the Wuhan virus
has come in handy in recent weeks.Going viral
Once a vaccine has been developed in a lab-
oratory, it is sent to a factory where it is
turned into a sterile vaccine mix. This is
then put into vials and tested to ensure it is
not contaminated before clinical trials in
humans can be carried out. Many of these
tests are done in petri-dishes; the process
takes several months. Genetic sequencing
can do the job much faster. By sequencing
the dnaof everything in a vial of vaccine
and examining the result, scientists can
spot traces of viruses that should not be
present. Vaccine research groups in Britain
are in talks with the country’s medicines
regulator about an approval process for
such alternative testing methods.
The development of a vaccine can be
speeded up if bottlenecks in the process are
eliminated, says Sarah Gilbert. She leads a
group at Oxford University which is work-
ing on a vaccine against the Wuhan virus.
Her group has developed a template for
vaccines that can be adapted quickly for
new pathogens. The researchers can make
the first small quantities of a new vaccine
in just six to eight weeks. In the past the
process would have taken up to a year. The
other groups trying to come up with a vac-
cine for the Wuhan virus are using similar
methods involving templates that have al-
ready been proven to work.
Faster regulatory approval can also
speed vaccines through clinical trials. Even
as it started making the vaccine, Dr Gil-
bert’s group began putting together an ap-
plication for clinical trials for it. The group
plans to apply for an expedited ethical andregulatory review, which can be granted
within days as it was for clinical trials of
the Ebola vaccine conducted in Britain in- Normally, the process takes about
three months, says Dr Gilbert.
Even if a vaccine is developed and ap-
proved, the rapid rise in cases of the Wuhan
virus in China and its spread to other coun-
tries has created a new urgency: planning
ahead for ways to make massive quantities
of a vaccine quickly. There are not many
factories that can mass-produce vaccines,
so new vaccines often wait in a long queue.
Aware of this problem, the American gov-
ernment has built dedicated manufactur-
ing facilities that can produce vaccines rap-
idly for emergencies. Britain is doing
something similar.
When cepiwas planning its work, those
involved were thinking about epidemics
(outbreaks limited to one country), not
pandemics (global epidemics), explains
Richard Hatchett, the head of the group.
Last week cepiput out a call for vaccine
candidates for the Wuhan virus that can be
manufactured on a large scale with exist-
ing capacity. On February 3rd it brought on
board as a partner gsk, a big drug firm,
which has agreed to lend its highly effec-
tive adjuvant to a new vaccine. An adjuvant
is a special ingredient that makes vaccines
more efficient by boosting the immune re-
sponse—which means that fewer doses of
the vaccine or a lower concentration of its
core ingredient is needed for vaccination.
Even if a vaccine can be produced in suf-
ficient quantities, getting it to the people
who need it, regardless of where they live,
can still be a problem. In theory, a vaccine
for the Wuhan virus would go to those most
at risk, such as health workers, the elderly
and those with conditions that appear to
make the virus more lethal, such as pa-
tients with immune deficiencies. The pro-
blem is that politics often intervenes dur-
ing a pandemic, and governments that are
the home to vaccine-making facilities can
requisition some of it for their own use, cit-
ing national defence or security.
This is a problem Mr Hatchett knows all
too well; he worked at the White House on
medical preparedness during a flu pan-
demic in 2009. The outbreak had a very low
mortality rate, but exporting any vaccine
before it was available to American citizens
quickly became a vexed issue. Mr Hatchett
is working with the whoto try to ensure
that the Wuhan virus vaccine is made at a
number of different sites around the world
including ones in small countries which
would quickly be able to meet the needs of
their entire populations.A jab in the dark
The issues surrounding any potential vac-
cine make questions about medicines to
treat those who have become gravely ill
particularly acute. Licensed medicines to
treat coronaviruses do not currently exist,
but experimental drugs are in develop-
ment, with some early data on their use.
One that has been highlighted as promis-
ing is called remdesivir, which is made by
Gilead, a drug firm. Two randomised con-
trolled trials will start enrolling patients in
mid-February. Remdesivir was developed
to treat Ebola but in laboratory tests has
been shown to be effective against a range
of viruses. A combination of two drugs
usually used in hivtreatment also looks
promising and is already being tried on pa-
tients, says Vasee Moorthy who helps set
research and development priorities at the
whoduring epidemics.
Randomised controlled trials—in
which some people are given the drug be-
ing tested and some are given a placebo—
are the gold standard of scientific evidence.
These will probably go ahead in the coming
weeks when it is clear which drugs seem
most promising. Trials with hospitalised
patients will probably involve a placebo
arm. Everyone in the trial would receive in-
tensive care but some would also be given
the drug being tested. This is because no
one yet knows whether the new drugs,
which may have side effects, do more harm
than good. The most gravely ill patients
may also be allowed to try untested drugs.
Only so much preparation is ever possi-
ble in advance of a new disease. A drug or
vaccine’s efficacy can only be tested during
an outbreak. The urgency behind the
search for treatments for the Wuhan virus
is understandable. Such efforts were effec-
tive in the case of Ebola. People are willing
to rush vaccines and drugs into use for a
disease with a fatality rate around 70%, as
Ebola’s was. The calculus is different for
one that kills 2% (or less) of those infected.
Should hasty decisions lead to products
that are not completely safe, people’s faith
in vaccines could be damaged. If so, the
harm done to the world’s health could rival
the worst feared of the Wuhan virus. 7