AstraZeneca vaccine, the United States doubts about the announcement of the latest results

AstraZeneca vaccine

After the announcement by AstraZeneca on the confirmation of the 79% efficacy of its anti-Covid vaccine in the United States, the American authorities intervene with a "very unusual" note calling the company to collaborate transparently with the committee of independent evaluation

(photo: Getty Images) Not even 24 hours after the announcement of the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, which in its press release reported the positive results of the vaccine trial for Covid-19 in the United States, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Niaid) of the US National Institute of Health (Nih) has issued a note reporting the concerns of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (the independent committee that oversees the trial) regarding the information released: they could be based on outdated data and not reflect the actual efficacy data.

The problem of efficacy

AstraZeneca's anti-Covid vaccine is o It has never been approved in dozens of countries around the world, and the data that continues to accumulate suggests that it is a safe and effective product. As recently reiterated by the experts of the European Medicines Agency (Ema), the advantages of vaccination with AstraZeneca far outweigh any risks, and the effectiveness rates from the United Kingdom put the European vaccine practically on par with vaccines. to Pfizer and Moderna.

Saying how effective it is, however, still seems to be a big problem for the pharmaceutical company, at least in the United States, where it seems more evident than ever that relations with regulatory authorities aren't exactly idyllic, perhaps due to AstraZeneca's repeated miscommunications during the first vaccine trial last year.

A very unusual note

The statement released by Niaid a few hours after the announcement of Astrazeneca would be proof of this. Experts in clinical trial processes and regulatory procedures have in fact defined a very unusual note: independent evaluation committees generally collaborate closely with clinical trial sponsors, they can request updated data reports, monitoring, and companies await the conclusion of the expert analyzes before proceeding with public communications. An established procedure, which however seems to have gone wrong between the DSMB and AstraZeneca and which forced Niaid to underline that "the authorization and guidelines for the use of the vaccine in the United States will be determined by the Food and Drug Administration (Fda ) and by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention after a careful review of the data by independent advisory committees ".

The release does not make the study

AstraZeneca's announcement did not report details on the analysis, in fact: it did not indicate the observation period, nor did it specify how many cases of infection had occurred in the vaccinated group compared to the control group. For all these and other details, the publication of the study and the review by the international scientific community were expected.

The company, however, had declared that it continued to analyze the data to prepare the application in a short time of approval to the Fda. But in the light of what happened, the process seems very uncertain.


Politics - 23 minutes ago

The reasons for the vaccine clash between the EU and the UK

adsJSCode ("nativeADV1", [[2,1]], "true", "1"); Medicine - 27 minutes ago

What if the Covid vaccine becomes a pill?

adsJSCode ("nativeADV2", [[2,1]], "true", "2"); Tech - 6 hours ago

Public transport cameras in France will check who is not wearing a mask

Topics

Coronavirus vaccine AstraZeneca-Oxford Coronavirus vaccine globalData.fldTopic = "Coronavirus , AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, Coronavirus vaccine "

You may also be interested in

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

---

AstraZeneca’s U.S. coronavirus vaccine trial data may have been ‘outdated,’ ‘incomplete,’ NIH agency says

© Rachel Wisniewski/Reuters The logo for AstraZeneca is seen outside its North America headquarters in Wilmington, Del., on Sunday.

In an extraordinary turn of events, an independent panel that safeguards the integrity of clinical trials wrote to AstraZeneca and U.S. government officials late Monday expressing concern and disappointment that the drugmaker presented “outdated and potentially misleading” data on its coronavirus vaccine making the shots appear more effective than shown by fuller data.

The letter, from 11 leading statisticians, infectious-disease physicians and ethics experts appointed by the National Institutes of Health to review the trial data for all the major coronavirus vaccines supported by the federal government, says the company’s decision puts the vaccine in the most favorable light — a grave scientific misstep that could erode trust in the vaccine.

The letter is a rare window into the typically confidential interactions between a company and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board that polices the integrity of the data.

“The DSMB is concerned that AstraZeneca chose to use data that was already outdated and potentially misleading in their press release,” the letter states. “The point that is clear to the board is that the [vaccine efficacy number] . . . they chose to release was the most favorable for the study as opposed to the most recent and most complete. Decisions like this are what erode public trust in the scientific process.”

The letter goes on to explain that while the company announced its vaccine was 79 percent effective on Monday, the panel had been meeting with the company through February and March and had seen data showing the vaccine may be 69 to 74 percent effective, and had “strongly recommended” that information should be included in the news release.

Federal officials were taken aback by the letter from the board. One said the AstraZeneca results were the equivalent of “telling your mother you got an A in a course, when you got an A in the first quiz but a C in the overall course.” Another said the disclosure by the board would inevitably hurt the company’s credibility with U.S. regulators.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the issue.

Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview that he was “shocked” by the letter and the serious concerns it brought to light. On Monday, before receiving news of the letter, Fauci had said “numbers don’t lie” and that the vaccine looked good.

“The irony of this is that it’s very likely a very good vaccine, and this sort of thing does nothing but cloud the picture. I don’t think it reflects on the vaccine,” Fauci said. “I think it reflects on how the data has rolled out.”

On Monday, Oxford and AstraZeneca appeared to have redeemed months of scientific missteps and poor communication when it announced via news releases and interviews that its 32,000-person clinical trials in the United States, Chile and Peru showed its vaccine was 79 percent effective in protecting volunteers from symptomatic covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus — and that it was 100 percent effective against severe illness.

The 79 percent efficacy figure in the AstraZeneca trials was higher than earlier clinical trials run by Oxford in Brazil, Britain and South Africa for the same vaccine, which found the shots 62 percent effective. The vaccine has been approved for use in ongoing inoculation campaigns in Britain and Europe. Millions of people have gotten their first dose.

Adrian Hill, one of the scientists at Oxford who developed the vaccine, said in an e-mail that this was “extroardinary behavior” by a data and safety monitoring board.

“Talk about efforts to maintain confidence in vaccines,” Hill wrote. “What is going on?!”

But U.S. officials said the data and safety monitoring board and the company had been going back and forth for weeks over how AstraZeneca was handling the data. They said the board advised the company to use a later data analysis with more cases but that the company did not follow the recommendation. The board was dismayed to see the company’s news release on Monday highlighting the 79 percent overall efficacy, the officials said.

The letter from the data and safety monitoring board was sent to the NIH and officials of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority Monday evening, officials said. Some pushed hard for it to be released as soon as possible so that it wouldn’t leak. Also, said one of the officials, the White House “did not want the 79 percent story to go unchecked.”

Even before the trial results were released Monday, some federal officials were concerned about the efficacy of the two-dose AstraZeneca shot because a previous trial showed the effectiveness was lower than the efficacy for the one-dose Johnson & Johnson shot. That sparked debate about how the AstraZeneca vaccine would fit into the U.S. vaccine strategy, especially with supplies of the Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines becoming more plentiful.

[Live updates on the coronavirus pandemic]

In its statement, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases urged AstraZeneca to work with the independent monitors “to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible.”

In a brief statement, AstraZeneca said its efficacy results published Monday “were based on a pre-specified interim analysis with a data cut-off of 17 February. We have reviewed the preliminary assessment of the primary analysis and the results were consistent with the interim analysis. We are now completing the validation of the statistical analysis.”

The pharmaceutical company said it would “immediately engage” with the independent data and safety monitoring board to discuss the most up-to-date efficacy data. AstraZeneca promised a more detailed analysis within 48 hours.

AstraZeneca said Monday it would apply for emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in coming weeks. The U.S. government has preordered 300 million doses of AstraZeneca vaccine, but with three others vaccines already approved it is not clear what role the AstraZeneca shot will play in the United States.

Some researchers described the reaction by the U.S. scientists — and the public airing over the meaning of the AstraZeneca data — as highly unusual.

Stephen Evans, a professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told reporters Tuesday it is not unknown for a data monitoring board to disagree with investigators over the interpretation of trial results.

“It is usually done in private, so this is unprecedented in my opinion,” Evans said.

Others speculated it may be a technical issue that can be resolved quickly.

AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine was designed to be a cheap, easy-to-administer dose that would protect not just citizens of wealthy nations but also those in the most vulnerable countries.

But collaboration between Oxford researchers and one of the world’s biggest drug companies, has been plagued with missteps as other vaccine rollouts gain speed.

First, there was confusing basic science, then missed delivery targets. Last week, a confidence-sapping pause in Europe followed reports of rare blood clots among a handful of the vaccinated.

And now comes push-back from independent monitors over AstraZeneca’s interpretation — and claims — of effectiveness in the U.S. clinical trials.

The concerns raised by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board did not mention any concerns it had that AstraZeneca had downplayed possible side effects.

The European Medicines Agency, which regulates drugs in the European Union, declared the vaccine safe and effective and said it was not linked to a rise in the overall risk of blood clots. But the European agency did not rule out a possible link to rare cases of clotting in the brain, known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.

While most European countries that paused the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine last week have restarted their programs with additional warnings to patients about risk factors, Scandinavian nations have held back.

The Norwegian medical regulator said Sunday that two more people among about 120,000 people in the country that had recently received the AstraZeneca vaccine had died, taking the total to four. They were among six people hospitalized for unusual forms of blood clots after receiving the vaccine.

The medical regulator said it could not rule out that the cases were related to the vaccine. It said the unusual pattern of side effects, which includes blood clots, bleeding and a low platelet count, had not been reported with other coronavirus vaccines in the country.

Loveday Morris in Berlin contributed to this report.