A combination shot would make it easier for people to get vaccinated against Covid and the flu at the same time.

Moderna’s combined Covid and flu shot outperformed the existing standalone vaccines for both viruses, according to the results of a phase 3 clinical trial published Wednesday in theJournal of the American Medical Association.

The vaccine uses the same messenger RNA technology as Moderna’s approved Covid vaccine.(There are no approved mRNA-based flu shots.)

The trial, funded by Moderna, included more than 8,000 adults ages 50 and older who were enrolled in October and November 2023. For people ages 50 to 64, the new vaccine was compared to Moderna’s Covid vaccine and the flu shot Fluarix. For people 65 and older, it was compared to the Covid vaccine and a different flu shot, called Fluzone, which is a stronger dose typically given to older adults. The trial participants either got the existing shots, or the new combination vaccine plus a placebo shot. (This way, both groups got two injections.)

  • 0101100101@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The trial, funded by Moderna

    We did a trial which decided the governments around the world need to give us lots of money again and are releasing this information to drive up share price.

    • Higgs boson@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Trials are how drugs get approved and made. The article has a link to the study. If you disagree with the science, by all means, please elaborate.

      I understand you want to display cynicism towards both drug companies and governments. Would you prefer they not offer this vaccine for sale? Personally, I’d prefer just the one shot because I usually get both, but you do you.

    • MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      What did you think was going to happen? Another company or university would graciously fund and conduct a trial of Moderna’s product for no reason?

      If conducting a regulated clinical trial and having the results independently reviewed by government agencies in each market they seek to enter is not sufficient, I think you’ve already made up your mind.

        • Ledericas@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          thats how vaccine trials are funded, by the company and subsidized by the govt and other research groups. many times it can end in failure, in any of the phases, 1,2,3, and may never see the light of day again.

          hence why hear all these potential cancer, or rare disease treatments, and then never surfaces again.

        • MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          FDA, EMA, and PMDA to name a few. Do you not know the basics about the thing you seem to have a very strong opinion about?

          • 0101100101@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            65% of FDAs funding of human trials comes from the companies it regulates, 91.5% of EMAs budget is from charges and fees. And couldn’t be bothered to look up PMDAs.

            Research reviews are not flawless. Do you not know the very thing you seem to have a strong opinion about.

            • MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              For agencies that are “funded” by the companies they regulate, they sure give them a hard time and cost them a lot of money. Even the biggest pharmas spend a significant amount of resources erring on the side of caution over even minor details, so as to not have a regulator throw out their results and tell them to do it again. Which does happen sometimes.

              Of course no research review is flawless. If your standard is flawless, you’re deliberately setting an impossible standard for no discernable concrete benefit. But it’s rigorous, public, and the regulators have the authority to pull treatments off the market if post-approval research has troubling results. Which they do sometimes.

              This sort of asinine concern trolling is a serious danger to public health. It would be one thing if it was valid criticisms, of which there are plenty, combined with realistic proposals for alternatives. But it never is, and now we have nearly or previously eradicated diseases making a comeback.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m no expert on drug trials, but I’m relatively sure they contract that shit out to competent firms.

        • turmacar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          A company going through the regulatory trial and approval process is not evidence of wrongdoing or bribery. The problem wasn’t Boeing paying for the fuel and pilots to test planes, it was that they said “we promise we tested everything and it was good” and nobody looked at the paperwork.

        • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Who else would pay for it?

          Are you aware of any countries that will dish out money to drug companies to trial their drugs?

          If so, I’ll start an LLC and a lab. I gotta whole lotta drugs I’d like to try out. And no shortage of friends who’d love to work full time on the government payroll to try a bunch of expiermental drugs…