Talk:Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GenQuest (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 17 July 2021 (→‎Merger proposal: Close:M). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Does it contain Adjuvant?

Wikipedia now says:

"As per the official datasheet, no further components or ingredients, including other adjuvants, should be included in the vaccine.[1]"

What do you mean by other? Does it contain adjuvant? The wikipedia article should mention does it contain an adjuvant or not.

What about other covid-19 vaccines that are in wide use, for example AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson&Johnson, SinoPharm = SinoFarm? Which of them contain, or do not contain adjuvants and what adjuvants do they contain?

--ee1518 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answers merely by googling them. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell what query was used to look up the answer in Google? I mean, I am not a pro in medical field so I wouldn't be able to even properly google the correct term. Uchyot (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried simple queries like "does [vaccine name] contain adjuvant?" or simply "adjuvant [vaccine name]". From the results, only WP: MEDRS sources should be chosen. As the pandemic is still very recent, it is often impossible to find systematic reviews with the desired information; so, primary or secondary sources would be accepted as long as they are reliable, although pre-prints should generally be avoided. One way to find out if a source is reliable is to check SCImago. Another is to limit oneself to perennial sources. Viral vector vaccines, such as Sputnik V, generally do not require adjuvants,[1] so if no adjuvants are listed in the components,[2] one should not expect to find any. Adjuvants are typical in inactivated vaccines and subunit vaccines but rare in other types of vaccines. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pushparajah D, Jimenez S, Wong S, Alattas H, Nafissi N, Slavcev RA (2021-03-01). "Advances in gene-based vaccine platforms to address the COVID-19 pandemic". Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 170. Elsevier: 113–141. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2021.01.003. ISSN 0169-409X. Retrieved 2021-05-11. Viral vector vaccines confer high gene transduction capabilities due to the natural ability of viruses to infect host cells. These vaccines do not require adjuvants due to the presence of viral components that stimulate the innate immune system.
  2. ^ Turner PJ, Ansotegui IJ, Campbell DE, Cardona V, Ebisawa M, El-Gamal Y, et al. (2021-02-01). "COVID-19 vaccine-associated anaphylaxis: A statement of the World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Committee". World Allergy Organization Journal. 14 (2). doi:10.1016/j.waojou.2021.100517. ISSN 1939-4551. PMC 7857113. PMID 33558825. Retrieved 2021-05-11. Tris (hydroxymethyl) aminomethane, sodium chloride, sucrose, magnesium chloride hexahydrate, Sodium EDTA, polysorbate 80, ethanol, water for injection

The note of concern

I am wondering why the "note of concern" written as a reply to the lancet study is not mentioned. A number of Wikipedia's in different languages do mention it, and - without any medical, only statistical knowledge on my part - he concerns raised do seem in need of explanation. See https://cattiviscienziati.com/2020/09/07/note-of-concern/ for the note, for another Wikipedia see for example the German version of this article. --2A02:8109:9AC0:1E40:69CB:CE26:5006:2BD9 (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:MEDRS as far as I know. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00899-0/fulltext#%20

Title: Data discrepancies and substandard reporting of interim data of Sputnik V phase 3 trial

Published: May 12, 2021

... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00894-1/fulltext#%20

Data discrepancies and substandard reporting of interim data of Sputnik V phase 3 trial – Authors' reply

Published:May 12, 2021

...

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/04/20/russias-claims-of-976-sputnik-v-efficacy-under-the-spotlight-a73669

"Updated: April 20, 2021 Russia’s Claims of Sputnik V's 97.6% Effectiveness Under the Spotlight Analysis by The Moscow Times and independent statistician Alexander Dragan, who has been closely tracking Russia’s vaccination statistics, suggests the real world effectiveness could be to 86-90% — slightly below the results Sputnik V’s Phase 3 clinical trials, which were published in The Lancet and showed an efficacy of 91.6%".

Looks like even the Sputnik V marketers don't firmly believe in 97.6% as they still mainly advertise the old 91.6% in Twitter:

"Sputnik V is the world’s first registered COVID-19 vaccine with over 91.6% efficacy, developed by Gamaleya Inst. Authorized in 65 countries".

https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine

--ee1518 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

CLOSED
Agree to merging of the article(s) as per wp:NOPAGE. Information should be in one spot, with any minor differences and other minutia explained in the article. GenQuest "scribble" 16:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Non-Administrative closure[reply]

The following discussion 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.

I propose that Sputnik Light be merged into this article, as that is just the first dose of Sputnik V. MiasmaEternalTALK 00:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I generally Oppose, although the vaccine is the same as Sputnik V, the vaccine need separate authorizations. Dede2008 (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It has to be separate the article from the vaccine authorization like 2 Sinopharm's COVID-19 vaccines (BBIBP-CorV and WIBP-CorV separated articles). Abrilando232 (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Perhaps in a somewhat distant future, when articles on COVID-19 vaccines begin to be consolidated into fewer articles. For now, I agree that, because it is researched and approved separately, it is better to keep it in its own dedicated article. It belongs to the important category of single-dose COVID-19 vaccines, all of which have a drastically simplified delivery process, so one can expect rapid adoption and probably different peculiarities than those of the double-dose Sputnik V. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there is no independent notability mandating an independent article, and the content can be merged in here. The side effects, efficacy (of dose 1 of this and that vaccine entirely) and other information are exactly the same - there is no sense duplicating that sort of thing over two pages. A section can easily be created here covering "Sputnik Light" and describing the differences. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - people will keep confusing "light" one-shot for "real" two-shot Sputnik V if those two are mixed in one article. I would be a shame if a reputable news source would confuse those two (or mix those two up intentionally in a headline; the "reading only headlines" is a problem nowadays). ALSO: the vaccine authorization part is important, since Sputnik V has own reputation/certification; while Sputnik Light has to go through the bureaus of bureaucracy anew. Uchyot (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The "Sputnik Light" stub could easily be incorporated as a subsection for the main article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NOPAGE this content makes best sense together. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It is part of the same topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportMarko8726 (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the idea for a merger is logical, but also could risk confusing or misinforming the readers due to the aforementioned concerns. I could be convinced to support this if somebody can take it upon themselves to rewrite the article under a section in such a way as to clearly differentiate the two and dispel any confusion. Goodposts (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No reason for an offshoot article. This won't (ever) be notable if Sputnik V didn't exist in the first place. A section at Sputnik V can be dedicated for this one-shot version. There's no reason for anyone to be confused about the two if we're going to explain their differences coherently. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No meaningful difference and Sputnik Light is really just marketting.
  • Support—indopug (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sputnik_V_COVID-19_vaccine&oldid=1034070243"