AstraZeneca released updated data on its COVID-19 vaccine, saying that a more recent analysis shows that the vaccine is 76 percent effective against symptomatic COVID-19. It is a slight drop from the 79 percent that the company released in an announcement earlier this week. That figure was based on outdated data, US health officials said in an unusual public statement rebuking the company.
The original effectiveness was based on a provisional analysis using data collected until February 17. But adding more data collected after that date showed that the vaccine may have been 69 to 74 percent effective, according to a letter from the independent panel that monitored the clinical trial and reported by THE Washington Post. The panel “strongly recommended” that these figures be reported as well.
The new result is a few percentage points higher, but a discovery in that range would still have been a good result and much higher than the 50 percent efficacy limit that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it wanted from the COVID- vaccines. 19 last fall. A federal official said THE Washington Post that AstraZeneca’s decision to publish only the highest number earlier this week was like “telling your mom that you got an A on a course, when you got an A on the first test, but an C on the general course”.
Releasing scientific data in a press release instead of in a scientific article means that outside experts cannot examine the allegations. The companies responsible for the first three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States also reported the results of their clinical tests in press releases. Their data was sustained, but experts still criticized this strategy. The patched AstraZeneca data entry shows why they were so cautious.
The updated data indicates that this vaccine is probably a good vaccine and will have an important role to play in the worldwide fight against COVID-19. It is cheap compared to the Moderna and Pfizer / BioNTech vaccines, can be stored at room temperature and has been marked as the main injector for vaccinating low-income countries.
But last year, it was defined more by controversy than good science. The company was not transparent with regulators when the trial had safety issues, for example, and its clinical trial had errors and opaque methodology. The US clinical trial should clear up the confusion. Instead, the failure to release data has added to the confusion, just as public health officials are trying to build confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.