Incentivizing at‐risk production capacity building for COVID‐19 vaccines

Our study analyzes capacity management for promising vaccine candidates before regulatory approval (i.e., at‐risk capacity building) in the presence of production outsourcing and different operational challenges: misaligned interests, possible ex post negotiations, asymmetric information between developers and manufacturers, and government involvement. We develop analytical models to compare two vaccine production modes: (1) the integrated mode (a single company determines the at‐risk capacity and produces in‐house) and (2) the outsourcing mode (a manufacturer determines the at‐risk capacity and a developer determines a funding level to share the capacity‐building cost). Our study reveals that outsourcing can achieve a higher at‐risk capacity only if it can achieve sufficient cost savings compared to the integrated mode. Our research also proves that both vaccine production modes tend to underinvest in the at‐risk capacity. Following this, we suggest measures to improve the at‐risk capacity building in both vaccine production modes. Our signaling game model reveals that a developer with high competence cannot always send credible signals of its true competence level to the manufacturer. Our incomplete contract model verifies that the relative performance of the two vaccine production modes is robust when ex post negotiation occurs under the outsourcing mode;however, the two parties may show incompatible preferences for the ex post negotiation. Our study also analyzes the optimal allocation of government financial support to development funding and capacity funding to incentivize at‐risk capacity building. We present comprehensive guidelines for the different stakeholders to collectively contribute to ramping up the at‐risk capacity of promising vaccines.

The Prevalence of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Among Children in Beijing Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: Mycoplasma pneumoniae (M. pneumoniae) is an important pathogen of community acquired pneumonia. With the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the prevalence of some infectious respiratory diseases has varied. Epidemiological features of M. pneumoniae in children from Beijing (China) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were investigated. Methods: Between June 2016 and May 2021, a total of 569,887 children with respiratory infections from Children's Hospital Affiliated to Capital Institute of Pediatrics (Beijing, China) were included in this study. M. pneumoniae specific-IgM antibody in serum specimens of these patients was tested by a rapid immunochromatographic assay kit. The relevant clinical data of M. pneumoniae-positive cases were also collected, and analyzed by RStudio software. Results: The results showed that 13.08% of collected samples were positive for M. pneumoniae specific-IgM antibody. The highest annual positive rate was 17.59% in 2019, followed by 12.48% in 2018, 12.31% in 2017, and 11.73% in 2016, while the rate dropped to 8.9% in 2020 and 4.95% in 2021, with significant difference. Among the six years, the positive rates in summer and winter seasons were significantly higher than those in spring and autumn seasons (p < 0.001). The positive rate was the highest in school-age children (22.20%), and lowest in the infant group (8.76%, p < 0.001). The positive rate in boys (11.69%) was lower than that in girls (14.80%, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in different seasons, age groups, or genders before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that an M. pneumoniae outbreak started from the summer of 2019 in Beijing. After the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in the end of 2019, the M. pneumoniae positive rates dropped dramatically. This may be due to the restrictive measures of the COVID-19 pandemic, which effectively controlled the transmission of M. pneumoniae. The relationships between M. pneumoniae positive rates and season, age, and gender were not statistically significant before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Incentivizing at-risk production capacity building for COVID-19 vaccines

Our study analyzes capacity management for promising vaccine candidates before regulatory approval (i.e., at-risk capacity building) in the presence of production outsourcing and different operational challenges: misaligned interests, possible ex-post negotiations, asymmetric information between developers and manufacturers, and government involvement. We develop analytical models to compare two vaccine production modes: (1) the integrated mode (a single company determines the at-risk capacity and produces in-house);and (2) the outsourcing mode (a manufacturer determines the at-risk capacity and a developer determines a funding level to share the capacity building cost). Our study reveals that outsourcing can achieve a higher at-risk capacity only if it can achieve sufficient cost savings compared with the integrated mode. Our research also proves that both vaccine production modes tend to underinvest in the at-risk capacity. Following this, we suggest measures to improve the at-risk capacity building in both vaccine production modes. Our signaling game model reveals that a developer with high competence cannot always send credible signals of its true competence level to the manufacturer. Our incomplete contract model verifies that the relative performance of the two vaccine production modes is robust when ex-post negotiation occurs under the outsourcing mode;however, the two parties may show incompatible preferences for the ex-post negotiation. Our study also analyzes the optimal allocation of government financial support to development funding and capacity funding to incentivize at-risk capacity building. We present comprehensive guidelines for the different stakeholders to collectively contribute to ramping up the at-risk capacity of promising vaccines. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved