Was going to add, that institutions such as the Robert Koch do have a remit to assess the data dispassionately, so its looking at it without an eye on the impact of the disease or on public health, just a thorough review of the data
Provided there are no safety concerns in that age group then there is nothing to stop approval., and then hopefully the healthcare provider is willing to pay for lower efficacy
The issue I see in those circumstances is why would you give a less effective vaccine to the highest risk group? Unless its to keep them out of hospital which is a strong rationale
“There is no basis for the claims of very low efficacy of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine which have been circulating in the media. The results of the clinical trials have already been published transparently in 5 peer-reviewed scientific publications showing similar immune responses in younger and older adults and a good safety profile, and high efficacy in younger adults. Furthermore, the preliminary efficacy data in older adults supports the importance of this vaccine for use in this population.”
A spokesman for AstraZeneca, said:
“Reports that the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine efficacy is as low as 8% in adults over 65 years are completely incorrect. In the UK, the JCVI supported use in this population and MHRA included this group without dose adjustment in the authorisation for emergency supply. In November, we published data in The Lancet demonstrating that older adults showed strong immune responses to the vaccine, with 100% of older adults generating spike-specific antibodies after the second dose.’”
Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics at the University of Bristol, said:
“I can confirm what is stated about the Lancet paper – I’m not an author on that manuscript but I’ve have read it
“Elderly people were recruited to the UK phase 3 relatively late and were relatively well shielded, so there were few cases of COVID that had occurred at the time of submission of data to MHRA for approval.”
“There may have been more by the time of EMA submission.”
We do need to differentiate between ‘wrong’ media claims of 8% effectiveness in older populations, and the German data review. The devil is also in the detail. The Robert Koch institute in that article do not suggest its less effective in 65+, they simply state that there is insufficient data to determine its clinical effectiveness in that age group… This suggests its a statistical argument, hence my supposition about the powering of the study… I dont have time (or inclination) to read the details, but that would be my initial take… of course, the media do have a tendency to get things wrong and then it takes on life of its own… and sadly fuels antivaxxer nut jobs…
I am sure I read yesterday that this seemed from a reporter misinterpreting 8% of the study population being over 65 with it being only 8% effective in those over 65… which does not surprise given how Journos are…
Agreed but with the mass immunisation using the Ox/AZ now ongoing the required results from the under-represented age group will quickly be remedied. All the tests show good results for antibodies in the over 64s so I have no qualms receiving the Ox/AZ jab.
Me neither, no safety issues and good efficacy and importantly 100% effective on the hospital reductions endpoint… This is simply a statistical issue with the study imho.
Um hang on that 8% was Mondays snafu.
Germany admitted that they said 8% efficiency in over 65’s and apologised.
They meant to say only 8% of test subjects were over 65.
Those recent posts continue to mix sample size with immunity efficiency and only add to more confusion or you are posting old quotes
Yep but if they want it “belt and braces” then let them have it but it seems they’ve forgotten there’s a Pandemic going on and any delay to satisfy statistics means more deaths.
Well its not easy… there are already lower efficacy and safety thresholds depending on the severity of the disease or induction especially when it comes to level of risk… eg there are drugs approved that do have a risk of associated death but are for terminal late stage cancer patients, so its a risk worth taking.
But for a mass vaccination program, it is important to follow well established protocols. Even where the risk of a adverse event or safety might be extremely low, what the Koch Institute shave effectively said is that in the study, there were too few in the age group to determine the effectiveness and that also will mean safety.
I would still take it, but it is their job to review the data dispassionately. Its someone else stop determine how they act on it
They should always be applied Slowey. That is to ensure when decisions are made, they are not open too later accusations of lack of information or transparency.
You can still make a decision in the interests of lives saved, but no one should take those decision without understanding that data might be incomplete or not statistically significant.
At least they are taking small steps towards an exit strategy. IF we could have a lunch/stay over we could head out to the mountains but with current weather making journey times insane, it simply ain’t gonna happen
A sad announcement today from Jolyon Maugham of the Good Law Project, who has been preparing a legal case against the Government regarding the awarding of PPE contracts. Truly shocking, this is the true face of “democratic” UK. This is a government saying quite clearly and unequivocally that it’s above the law.
