2018121
各専門家のコメントは、その時点の情報に基づいています。
SMCで扱うトピックには、科学的な論争が継続中の問題も含まれます。
新規データの発表や議論の推移によって、専門家の意見が変化することもありえます。
記事の引用は自由ですが、末尾の注意書きもご覧下さい。

海外専門家コメント

次世代結核ワクチンMVA85A、オックスフォード大が動物実験データを不正に過大評価?

・これは、2018年1月13日にジャーナリスト向けに発行したサイエンス・アラートです。

・記事の引用は自由ですが、末尾の注意書きもご覧下さい。

<海外SMC発サイエンス・アラート>

次世代結核ワクチンMVA85A、オックスフォード大が動物実験データを不正に過大評価? :海外専門家コメント

BMJ誌は、BCGの追加免疫用のブースターワクチンMVA85Aについて、「開発を手がける英オックスフォード大学が、資金を獲得しヒトへの臨床試験に進むために、動物でのデータを不正に過大評価した」とする記事を掲載しました。南アフリカでは、2009年より乳幼児約2800人にMVA85Aを接種する臨床試験が始まっているとのことです。記事は1月10日付のBMJに掲載。この件についての海外専門家コメント(原文)をお送りします。

 

論文リンク

BMJ
Oxford vaccine study highlights pick and mix approach to preclinical research
http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.j5845

 

Prof Andrew Pollard

Professor of Paediatric Infection and Immunity, University of Oxford

原文 

“This investigation ignores an important aspect of vaccine development, which is not well understood by those who don’t work in vaccine development. Before any vaccine is given to humans, national regulators in Europe and the United States require investigators to provide data showing that the vaccine is safe and that it might potentially work using appropriate animal models. However, it is well recognised by vaccine developers and experts on the immune system that immune responses in animals don’t necessarily predict whether a vaccine will work when tested in people. Animals are not humans. This means that there are many examples of vaccines that appeared to work well in animals but failed in human trials. It is also likely that there will be some products which were dropped as a result of poor results in animals that might had protected humans.“

Prof Anne Cooke

Vice-President of the British Society for Immunology

原文

“Vaccines, which work by boosting a specific immune response against an infectious agent, are one of the most effective public health interventions and have saved millions of lives.  The development of a safe and effective vaccine takes many years and needs to go through many different stages of testing, including work on cells, testing on animals and finally clinical trials on humans.  

“At each stage of development, it is important that experiments are meticulously and rigorously designed and analysed to allow us to be confident in their findings and allow proper evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the drug by academics and ethical committees. This is particularly true for pre-clinical experiments (i.e. those involving animals) and clinical trials conducted on humans. While the scientific community aims to reduce the number of animals used in research, this is currently a crucial step in testing a new drug before it is given to humans in clinical trials.  Experiments carried out on animals should always have a clear aim and adhere to the principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement) to minimise animal numbers and suffering.  Studies should only progress to clinical trials in humans if there is clear evidence from animal models showing safety and efficacy of the drug concerned.

“The development of new vaccines has potential to deliver huge public health benefits to tackle diseases that affect millions of people worldwide.  To realise this potential, as researchers working in this field, we have a responsibility to ensure that the experiments we carry out are rigorous and that we are transparent and open with the scientific community and the public about their results.” 

Dr Marcus Dorner

Non-Clinical Senior Lecturer in Immunology, Imperial College London

原文 

“Even though the outcome of this study, which was conducted according to the standard of practice, is disappointing, it is important to keep in mind that vaccine trials especially are very challenging. Even though numerous species were tested, the natural hosts for Tuberculosis are humans. Even though model systems exist, they do not always accurately recapitulate every aspect of TB infection in humans.  

“It is often difficult to compare results from preclinical studies involving not only vaccine, but also novel drug candidates to those ultimately observed in humans. This is largely due to genetic and immunological differences between the animal species used in those studies and humans. The required evaluation in several species aims at “normalising” these differences and to prevent missing adverse effects. Nevertheless, one must appreciate that mice are not humans and clinical trials are unfortunately often the only definitive proof for efficacy or safety. However, studies in animal models have their deserved place in the drug and vaccine development process in that they allow the exclusion of clearly ineffective or unsafe candidates. Several recent studies have revealed that novel approaches and “out-of-the-box” thinking are needed to improve the selection and shortlisting process prior to engaging in clinical trials in humans. This was also appreciated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who recently recommended the use of “humanised mice” for drug safety and efficacy. This is based on reconstituting a human immune system or a human liver in an immunodeficient mouse, thus enabling the evaluation of safety and efficacy in a platform containing actual human cells. This, combined with more stringent experimental design and regulatory guidance could help improve the decision-making process for novel clinical trials.”

 

Prof Mike Turner

Head of Infection and Immunobiology, Wellcome

原文 

The MVA85 clinical trials were all conducted to the highest standard and complied with all requirements of the relevant regulatory bodies and ethical oversight committees in three countries. The decision to test this candidate vaccine was correct and based on robust, positive data from smaller trials in humans that showed that the candidate vaccine was safe and that it might be effective. 

“The efficacy trial demonstrated no safety concerns but found that the vaccine candidate was not effective in preventing TB infection. Lessons from this trial have informed the development of the next-generation vaccines, as well as TB diagnosis in infants. 

“Human trials do not always generate the same results as animal testing, which is why results in animal models are typically only one of a set of considerations in determining whether to move research forward.  After the safety of the vaccine had been tested, animal studies continued in order to provide further understanding into the mechanics of how the vaccine works. This knowledge can help researchers make a better vaccine in the future.”

 

Dr Vicky Robinson

Chief Executive, National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs)

原文 

“This makes uncomfortable reading even though many of the issues raised are not new. The need for transparency in animal research has never been greater, not least for ensuring public confidence. The focus of everyone involved in animal research must be on high quality studies that are properly designed and reported. Integral to this is a much greater emphasis on challenging upfront whether the experiments are absolutely necessary and on ensuring that the information obtained can actually be used, and indeed reliably used, by others including academics, regulators and the pharmaceutical industry.”

 

記事のご利用にあたって

マスメディア、ウェブを問わず、科学の問題を社会で議論するために継続して
メディアを利用して活動されているジャーナリストの方、本情報をぜひご利用下さい。
「サイエンス・アラート」「ホット・トピック」のコンセプトに関してはコチラをご覧下さい。

記事の更新や各種SMCからのお知らせをメール配信しています。

サイエンス・メディア・センターでは、このような情報をメールで直接お送りいたします。ご希望の方は、下記リンクからご登録ください。(登録は手動のため、反映に時間がかかります。また、上記下線条件に鑑み、広義の「ジャーナリスト」と考えられない方は、登録をお断りすることもありますが御了承下さい。ただし、今回の緊急時に際しては、このようにサイトでも全ての情報を公開していきます)【メディア関係者データベースへの登録】 http://smc-japan.org/?page_id=588

記事について

○ 私的/商業利用を問わず、記事の引用(二次利用)は自由です。ただし「ジャーナリストが社会に論を問うための情報ソース」であることを尊重してください(アフィリエイト目的の、記事丸ごとの転載などはお控え下さい)。

○ 二次利用の際にクレジットを入れて頂ける場合(任意)は、下記のいずれかの形式でお願いします:
・一般社団法人サイエンス・メディア・センター ・(社)サイエンス・メディア・センター
・(社)SMC  ・SMC-Japan.org

○ この情報は適宜訂正・更新を行います。ウェブで情報を掲載・利用する場合は、読者が最新情報を確認できるようにリンクをお願いします。

お問い合わせ先

○この記事についての問い合わせは「御意見・お問い合わせ」のフォーム、あるいは下記連絡先からお寄せ下さい:
一般社団法人 サイエンス・メディア・センター(日本) Tel/Fax: 03-3202-2514

専門家によるこの記事へのコメント

この記事に関するコメントの募集は現在行っておりません。