Britain opts for mixed vaccines, confusing experts

Representatives from Public Health England and AstraZeneca did not respond to requests for comment.

The Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines introduce a protein called pico into the body that, while not infectious, can teach immune cells to recognize and fight the real coronavirus.

But vaccines transmit their immunological lessons through different methods and do not contain equivalent ingredients. While the Pfizer vaccine depends on a molecule called messenger RNA, or mRNA, packaged in fatty bubbles, AstraZeneca vaccines are designed around a virus shell that delivers DNA, a cousin of mRNA.

Both vaccines should be distributed in two-dose regimens, administered three or four weeks apart. Although the first injections of each vaccine are considered somewhat effective in preventing Covid-19, it is the second dose – intended to be a kind of molecular review session for the immune system – that closes the protective process.

Although it is possible that exchanging one vaccine for another could still teach the body to recognize the coronavirus, it is still a scientific bet. With different ingredients in each vaccine, people may not benefit as much from a second injection. Mixing and matching can also make it difficult to collect clear data on the safety of the vaccine.

Without evidence to support it, the hybrid vaccination approach looks “premature,” said Saad Omer, a vaccine expert at Yale University. Still, it is not without precedent: health officials like the CDC previously said that if it is impossible to administer doses of a vaccine from the same manufacturer, “providers must administer the vaccine they have available” to complete an injection schedule.

In a controversial move, the British government also decided this week to anticipate the launch of its vaccine, delivering as many first doses as possible to people – a move that could delay the second injection by up to 12 weeks.

Rapid deployment can offer partial protection to more people from the virus in the short term. But some experts, including Dr. Moore, fear that this, too, could be unwise and could put vulnerable populations at risk.

Source