Talk:Janssen COVID-19 vaccine

Rename to "Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine"

I added "Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine" to the lead so this is immediately more identifiable as the correct article to laypeople. Should "Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine", or similar, not be the article's name per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:RECOGNIZABLE? Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine#Rename to Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and Talk:Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine#Requested move 16 December 2020 had similar discussion which resulted in such a change. I'll ping No such user who was involved with both. Sorry if this request is inappropriate in some way, and I'm open to other opinions, but this page is extraordinarily likely to be of widespread public interest if/when it is FDA-approved for emergency use (and the FDA's decision on that appears to be rather soon). It would probably be a good idea if its page were more immediately identifiable to people searching for information about it. A wide and diverse array of news outlets refer to this vaccine with this name or very similar ones (e.g. "Johnson & Johnson's vaccine" in the NYT or "J&J’s COVID vaccine" in Fortune). Chillabit (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd support that. Neutrality^talk 04:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm speedy-moving it. After the Pfizer RM, I moved several other COVID vaccine articles to common names, since the generic ones are downright cryptic and unhelpful for general public (and, I suppose, most medical specialists as well). I agree that the page is of extraordinarily interest and moving it right away will be beneficial for readers and encyclopedia. No such user (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree this is best name. That was the title I started it under, modeling after Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Enwebb (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine content additions

Hello Chillabit, I noticed your post about renaming the article. The post also inspired a few ideas to improve the accessibility to related information such as Adenovirus vaccines and the JNJ/Janssen clinical protocol. These suggestions are based on Enwebb's decision to model the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine article with other COVID-19 vaccine articles.

Below are the concepts. What are your thoughts Chillabit, Neutrality, Enwebb, and No such user?

1. Add a See also section to the article after the Deployment and impact section, then add two links to the proposed See also section.

• Adenovirus vaccine
• Adenoviridae

2. Add two links to the External links section.

• Johnson & Johnson’s clinical protocol
• Global information about Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine

3. Add Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine article link to the Johnson & Johnson Template box in the "Related section".

Best --Chefmikesf (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Chefmikesf, per WP:SEEALSO As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. Adenoviridae is present in the lead, so it would not go in a see also. I have no problem adding a see also section with adenovirus vaccine, which is not currently linked. Enwebb (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, excepting the detail Enwebb objected to. Though I'm not certain the vaccine would go under the "Related" section in the template box rather than the consumer products section or something... that might be something to consider. Chillabit (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Enwebb That makes sense to leave Adenoviridae out of the proposed section. Chillabit my initial thought was Related but if you think it fits in the product brands section, let's add it to Pharmaceuticals.--Chefmikesf (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably makes the most sense, does it have some shorter brand name? That template box seems to be using short brand names. If nothing else, "COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen" while not ideal is short(er) but recognizable? I'm not certain what's best in this instance. Maybe Ad26.COV2.S or something to that effect after all? Chillabit (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chillabit, I took some time to think about our conversation and I think my original recommendation makes the most sense. The Johnson & Johnson COIVID-19 vaccine is distributed on a not-for-profit basis so it doesn't fit in the product brands section. Also, the vaccine name should be consistent for the reader on Wikipedia. That said, I'd recommend using the full article name, Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in the Related section of the template box. What are your thoughts? --Chefmikesf (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too. --Chillabit (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, Do you mind making the update?--Chefmikesf (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Should be on there now. --Chillabit (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Stem Cell Controversy

There is some controversy arising from concerns over stem cell use (in the development?) of the J&J vaccine. See, for example: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/johnson-johnson-vaccine-rekindles-religious-dilemma-morality-fetal/story?id=76204922 and many others. J&J has made a policy statement that may be relevant here. See: https://www.jnj.com/about-jnj/policies-and-positions/our-position-on-human-pluripotent-stem-cell-research It would be useful to address this issue in the article. Clarify the use of stem cells, the stem cell type, stem cells used as a research vehicle as differentiated from an ingredient, and perhaps information, misinformation, disinformation, and hype related to this topic. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Fauci interview + vaccine photo?

There is a Fauci interview about this vaccine on the Commons, see here. I am not sure what we could use this for, any ideas? I had figured it is worth a shot to bring this up, maybe someone else has an idea. Also, if someone finds a usable (i.e. not strictly copyrighted) photo of the vaccine, we could use that to illustrate. --Chillabit (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Never mind that last sentence, I believe I have found some usable photos. I'll have them in the article shortly. --Chillabit (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, seems like the license isn't compatible with Wikipedia after all, at least according to a bot on the Commons. Looks like the hunt is still on for a good photo. A cropped version of this was the photo I wanted to use, if you're curious. --Chillabit (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine efficacy

"This vaccine is based on a similar technology to Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccine, using human adenovirus it is more similar to Sputnik V, but is less effective." We cant just compare the vaccines by the percetange of the clinical trials, they took place in different countries, different time, in different wave of the Sars-Cov-2 and faced possible different basic mutation in the community 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ραμνουσία (talk • contribs) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I added to the sentence: "..according to the first clinical trials might be.." Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and additions to the Authorization and eligibility by country map

Hello again Chillabit, Neutrality, Enwebb, and No such user,

I noticed a few inaccuracies on the Authorization and eligibility by country map and authorization section on the article and found sources to improve both sections. Could you look at these?--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• South Africa is misrepresented as approved. South Africa is a COVAX recipient.

• EU granted conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) for the JNJ vaccine. This is equivalent to Emergency Use Authorization. Could we add color for CMA or categorize them as EUA? Please see the quote explaining CMA from the EU website. “A conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) is an authorisation of medicines on the basis of less complete data required for normal marketing authorisation. Such a CMA may be considered if the benefit of a medicine's immediate availability to patients clearly outweighs the risk linked to the fact that not all the data are yet available. However, it also ensures that this COVID-19 vaccine meets the EU standards, as for all other vaccines and medicines.”

• Switzerland approved vaccine emergency authorization
• Jordan approved vaccine emergency authorization
• Libya approved vaccine emergency authorization

References

EU conditional marketing authorisation is not equivalent to an EUA. It is equivalent to accelerated approval. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

JJ Vaccine Issues

• In N. Carolina, several sites halted vaccination due to adverse reactions from JJ vaccine such as people fainting. People were hospitalized after getting its vaccine.
• In Colorado, people also have adverse reactions from the JJ vaccine such as people fainting. People were hospitalized after getting its vaccine.
• See More vaccine sites halt Johnson & Johnson shots after adverse reactions at fox8 (4-8-2021), apnews.com

SWP13 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

SWP13, thanks for pulling those sources together. I would be opposed to including that very recent coverage in the article until there's been time to sort out the facts. Some NC sites have announced they'll resume J&J soon:

UNC Health to resume Johnson & Johnson vaccine after CDC reports no safety issues Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Added about the FDA and CDC Joint Statement on recommending to pause it over a rare type of blood clotting that has caused a death, we might want to add these if they mention them. Coasterghost (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

About the blood clotting, it's worth noting that:

A) All of the six affected women were under-50s (between 18 and 48) — This makes me suspect birth control as a potential culprit, personally, but who knows.

B) A similar thing happened with the Oxford vaccine, and the two vaccines work in a similar way (viral vector, adenovirus) — which is however a bit of an odd coincidence.

If a causal link is established, it will probably be a very rare one. We'll see how this goes, I suppose. --Chillabit (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

200 million doses to EU, 100+ million to USA, 10+ million to Canada, South Africa?

Summary of orders and deliveries on 21 April 2021, as written on Wikipedia now.

• A commitment to deliver at least 200 million doses to the EU in 2021. But how much will be delivered for example in first half of 2021??
• USA, February 2021: the company could deliver 100 million doses in the first half of 2021. Pause of use still continues as of 21th April 2021.
• The Canadian government has placed an order with Johnson & Johnson for 10 million doses, with an option to purchase up to 28 million more
• South Africa? Order size? Still paused using it?

This information is not easily readable on Wikipedia, could we create a table of this?

--ee1518 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Authorization and eligibility by country map

The Authorization and eligibility by country map in the Regulatory approval process section is incorrect, since it displays EU and EFTA countries colored in blue, therefore incorrectly indicating that an Emergency Use Authorization has been issued. All of the EU member states, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland should thus be colored in purple, as to correctly reflect the state of the vaccine's authorization in those countries (Conditional Marketing Authorization for EU, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, (Temporary) Marketing Authorization for Switzerland). Lorenzo Diana (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The map is being maintained in List of COVID-19 vaccine authorizations, so I think it's best to discuss this in Talk:List of COVID-19 vaccine authorizations. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Include "Jansen" name in head section

This vaccine is almost exclusively known by the "Jansen" name in some countries' public media. I would suggest it be included in the introduction for easier identification, and possibly in the title as well. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm Jansen is used nowhere. But Janssen is very much used officially at least in USA.

--ee1518 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Clinical trial results for different strains

This is from refence #1 of the article:

https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=14a822ff-f353-49f9-a7f2-21424b201e3b

18 CLINICAL TRIAL RESULTS AND SUPPORTING DATA FOR EUA

Efficacy Against COVID-19

• Moderate COVID-19 was defined based on the following criteria: the individual must have experienced any one of the following new or worsening signs or symptoms: respiratory rate ≥20 breaths/minute, abnormal saturation of oxygen (SpO2) but still >93% on room air at sea level, clinical or radiologic evidence of pneumonia, radiologic evidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), shortness of breath or difficulty breathing OR any two of the following new or worsening signs or symptoms: fever (≥38.0°C or ≥100.4°F), heart rate ≥90 beats/minute, shaking chills or rigors, sore throat, cough, malaise, headache, muscle pain (myalgia), gastrointestinal symptoms, new or changing olfactory or taste disorders, red or bruised appearing feet or toes.

(So even cough means moderate covid-19 here, not mild covid. I guess mild covid would be completely asymptomatic then, only PCR would be positive. As a healthy person can have 37.x°C temperature without sickness)

• Severe/critical COVID-19 was defined based on the following criteria: the individual must have experienced any one of the following at any time during the course of observation: clinical signs at rest indicative of severe systemic illness (respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/minute, heart rate ≥125 beats/minute, oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤93% on room air at sea level, or partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) <300 mmHg), respiratory failure (defined as needing high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), evidence of shock (defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure <60 mmHg, or requiring vasopressors), significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), death.

In the United States, 96.4% of strains were identified as the Wuhan-H1 variant D614G;

in South Africa, 94.5% of strains were identified as the 20H/501Y.V2 variant (B.1.351 lineage);

in Brazil, 69.4% of strains were identified to be a variant of the P.2 lineage and 30.6% of strains were identified as the Wuhan-H1 variant D614G. As of February 12, 2021, SARS-CoV-2 variants from the B1.1.7 or P.1 lineages were not found in any of the sequenced samples.

	Onset	Moderate to Severe/Critical (95% CI)	Severe/Critical (95% CI)
US	at least 14 days after vaccination	74.4% (65.0; 81.6)	78.0% (33.1; 94.6)
	at least 28 days after vaccination	72.0% (58.2;81.7)	85.9% (-9.4; 99.7)
Brazil	at least 14 days after vaccination	66.2% (51.0; 77.1)	81.9% (17.0; 98.1)
	at least 28 days after vaccination	68.1% (48.8; 80.7)	87.6% (7.8; 99.7)
South Africa	at least 14 days after vaccination	52.0% (30.3; 67.4)	73.1% (40.0; 89.4)
	at least 28 days after vaccination	64.0% (41.2; 78.7)	81.7% (46.2; 95.4)

In the previous table the "14 days" is a bit more reliable than "28 days", because the CIs = confidence intervals are narrower.

14 days US: 81.6-65.0=16.6%

28 days US: 81.7-58.2=23.5%

14 days Brazil: 77.1-51.0=26.1%

28 days Brazil: 80.7-48.8=31.9%

14 days SA: 67.4-30.3=37.1%

28 days SA: 78.7-41.2=37.5%

--ee1518 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine → Janssen COVID-19 vaccine – Following WP:MEDTITLE and WP:MEDORG, the WHO, the CDC and the NHS seem to prefer Janssen instead of Johnson & Johnson. Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support WP:COMMONNAME appears to be more likely reason behind the move as the company itself sometimes referred as "Janssen". 180.243.211.196 (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support with note The single-dose vaccine is actually made by J&J subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals, causing some countries and its media to refer the vaccine as "Janssen COVID-19 vaccine" or simply "Janssen vaccine". In addition, Janssen vaccine has been already a WP:COMMONNAME in some language's Wikipedia version, so i don't there is much reason to move that. 116.206.35.8 (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 03:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Abrilando232 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support: per nom. OSSYULYYZ (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support: WP:COMMONNAME Dede2008 (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nominator and WP:COMMONNAME. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Efficacy against Delta Variant

I saw the warning on the Edit Page, so I did not want to change anything. Here is the Politico Article describing the Efficacy of the Janssen Vaccine for the Delta Variant J&J shot effective against Delta variant in large South Africa study OSSYULYYZ (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@OSSYULYYZ: here is the bioRxiv preprint and official press release from J&J. I think we must wait till the preprint gets peer-reviewed and published. 2409:4061:19E:2954:D93:4991:3E2F:CA50 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This is about neutralizing activity, not efficacy. It's already been in the article for a while. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I ended up adding the efficacy result without having seen this conversation. I think it's okay to add it as long as the data is described as preliminary. After all, this information is very necessary and there is still no better source. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Necessary? How so? WP:NOTNEWS, WP:MEDMOS --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It should be quite obvious: for the individual, knowing their own risk situation after vaccination; for society, knowing how much the vaccine alleviates the burden of the pandemic on the health system.[1]

An efficacious vaccine is essential to prevent further morbidity and mortality. [2]

If a vaccine has high efficacy, a lot fewer people in the group who received the vaccine got sick than the people in the group who received the placebo. [3]

Monitoring vaccine effectiveness is critical to: Optimize use of limited resources, Demonstrate impact of vaccine on health outcomes (justify cost), Optimize vaccine uptake, Stimulate development of improved vaccines [4]

Some people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will still get sick because no vaccine is 100% effective. Experts continue to monitor and evaluate how often this occurs, how severe their illness is, and how likely a vaccinated person is to spread COVID-19 to others. [5]

Also: Vaccine acceptance improved when the efficacy increased beyond 70%. [6]

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

References

J&J vaccine works on B cells better than RMA (Pfizzer vaccine)

Listening to interesting https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018840431 interview with Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.. He said that the J& J vaccine works on the antatabine producing B cells and had proved to be more effective over time than the RmA Pfizer virus that works on the T cells

If ever there was a time for great humility in the world of science, it's now says Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He's been on the front line of COVID strategy from day one, and now more than two years later, he says the virus is still throwing curve balls all the time. He's working with a team of imminent scientists on the roadmap for what's next and shares the latest science on the new variants, long COVID, vaccines for children and how the world must learn to live with COVID.

Sorry about the messiness of this post but I think this is important scientific information

06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.53.207.122 (talk)

https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine-demonstrates-85-percent-effectiveness-against-hospitalization-in-south-africa-when-omicron-was-dominant

• A homologous (same vaccine) booster shot of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) demonstrated 85% effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospitalization. During the months studied (mid-November to mid-December) the frequency of Omicron increased from 82 to 98 percent of COVID-19 cases in South Africa.

• Janssen was more efficient than Pfizer as a 3rd dose against omicron (blood test results):

* A second, separate analysis of the immune response to different vaccine regimens, conducted by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), demonstrated that a heterologous booster (different vaccine) of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in individuals who initially received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine generated a 41-fold increase in neutralizing antibody responses by 4 weeks following the boost and a 5-fold increase in CD8+ T-cells to Omicron by 2 weeks.
* A homologous boost with BNT162b2 generated a 17-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies by 4 weeks following the boost and a 1.4-fold increase in CD8+ T-cells by 2 weeks.
* The Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine boosted median Omicron-reactive CD8+ T-cells by 5.5-fold, and Omicron-reactive CD4+ T-cells by 3.1-fold, while the homologous (BNT162b2) regimen boosted both Omicron-reactive CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells by 1.4-fold.

---

• Janssen might be even more efficient with double dose as studied in phase 1/2 studies:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034201

--ee1518 (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)