1) FDA has already communicated with sponsors

2) FDA already has this authority. "Guidance" just tells people how to expect FDA to interpret that authority

3) This may raise the stakes of Azar over-ruling FDA if the agency asks for additional data. (Still unlikely)
4) CBER director Peter Marks has been talking about what he wants to see for a while now. Some of the EUA standards are in another guidance. Marks has also asked for ~2 months of safety data follow-up.

5) Expect the Advisory Committee meeting on the 22nd to weigh in on this.
6) If the sole reason for the hold on this guidance is the 2-month follow-up, that sure looks like the White House is pushing this solely for a vaccine "win" by Election Day

7) Key Q: Will companies wait the additional weeks before submitting to enhance likelihood of an EUA?
7 ctd) Because if I'm a company, I'm less willing to piss off the FDA than I am the White House.

8) The pressure on the FDA in the coming weeks is going to ramp up every. single. day. Especially once a vaccine is submitted for an EUA.
And maybe the most important question of all:

9) How fast can the FDA review an application for authorization? Assuming they're already reviewing lots of this data pre-submission (like it does for some cancer drugs), could it be weeks? Days?
You can follow @AlecGaffney.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: