cyberman
Full Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 37,331
Does this work as a treatment or just prevention? Could you get the jab if youre starting to become really unwell and have it help you push through?
Source please?Apparently not one person in the trial had severe symptoms after the first dose, no matter what that first dose was.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...zeneca-covid-vaccine-approved-by-uk-regulatorSource please?
I’m wondering how they have sufficient data as they’d have to measure COVID cases before the second dose and would like to know what the infection rate there is.
It’d be nice to see the source data..The advice will be to give as many people a possible their first dose as soon as possible - but not to rush to give the second dose at 4 weeks. They're still recommending a second booster dose but suggesting a delay of up to 12 weeks is ok.
That's actually consistent with the AZ report that a second dose at 8-12 weeks gives the best efficacy results.
Crucially it's being reported that a single dose will rapidly give people some immunity, and will reduce the number becoming seriously ill.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671
I think thats sound. Vaccinate as many people as possible and a lot of time to close the loop with the boosterThe advice will be to give as many people a possible their first dose as soon as possible - but not to rush to give the second dose at 4 weeks. They're still recommending a second booster dose but suggesting a delay of up to 12 weeks is ok.
That's actually consistent with the AZ report that a second dose at 8-12 weeks gives the best efficacy results.
Crucially it's being reported that a single dose will rapidly give people some immunity, and will reduce the number becoming seriously ill.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671
The advice will be to give as many people a possible their first dose as soon as possible - but not to rush to give the second dose at 4 weeks. They're still recommending a second booster dose but suggesting a delay of up to 12 weeks is ok.
That's actually consistent with the AZ report that a second dose at 8-12 weeks gives the best efficacy results.
Crucially it's being reported that a single dose will rapidly give people some immunity, and will reduce the number becoming seriously ill.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671
Full dose I believe.Do we know if the regime is a full dose or a half dose 1st?
Based on article approval seems for 2 full doses.Do we know if the regime is a full dose or a half dose 1st?
Surely they havent been testing for 7-8 months to suggest 2 shots 3 months apart results in a long term immune response..
if their best set of results is from getting 2 full doses 3 months apart, are they saying a shot triggers an immune response that lasts about 3 months and you have to get another full shot after 3 months?
There was a single dose cohort right? It’d be nice to see the severe case count in that arm. Like someone above said, I’d be happy to see the severe cases fall as a first step.Based on the information in the publication, the time interval between first and second dose was fairly random. So they have no idea of the optimal timing of the second dose. It’s also possible that the highest efficacy was more down to timing than dose. The MHRA will have seen every possible cut of the data and there’s bound to still be gaps. The approach does make sense to me. Go with the full dose asap (because we saw a dose response in phase II) and give the second dose up to 12 weeks later.
There was a single dose cohort right? It’d be nice to see the severe case count in that arm. Like someone above said, I’d be happy to see the severe cases fall as a first step.
I think it's more a case that the longevity is unknown. They can look at antibody levels and T cells etc, and they can see that there's still immunity there - which apparently there is. What they can't prove is how that affects real world efficacy.Surely they havent been testing for 7-8 months to suggest 2 shots 3 months apart results in a long term immune response..
if their best set of results is from getting 2 full doses 3 months apart, are they saying a shot triggers an immune response that lasts about 3 months and you have to get another full shot after 3 months?
Shouldn't they already be rolled out if he government were so confident in getting it approved?If AZ can supply 2 millions vaccines a week, that’s how many people we should be vaccinating a week. If this pandemic has shown anything though, it’s that this Government don’t have a great record when it comes to logistics.
An important thing to note about this is it still takes a couple of weeks for the protection to kick in after the first dose.Immunity will start to build from the moment you get the first dose. We don't know the details but I think we can be confident that it is far from being unprotected.
If AZ can supply 2 millions vaccines a week, that’s how many people we should be vaccinating a week. If this pandemic has shown anything though, it’s that this Government don’t have a great record when it comes to logistics.
I'm hoping that we'll see a campaign to vaccinate the people giving the jabs as well. The Pfizer apparently starts working fast - so that's probably the way to go. It'll be interesting to see how they propose to dispense the two vaccines. I'm guessing the Pfizer will be hospital dispensed and the AZ will be everywhere else.If AZ can supply 2 millions vaccines a week, that’s how many people we should be vaccinating a week. If this pandemic has shown anything though, it’s that this Government don’t have a great record when it comes to logistics.
There was a single dose cohort right? It’d be nice to see the severe case count in that arm. Like someone above said, I’d be happy to see the severe cases fall as a first step.
This interim analysis of the efficacy and safety of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across three countries: COV001 (phase 1/2; UK), COV002 (phase 2/3; UK), COV003 (phase 3; Brazil), and COV005 (phase 1/2; South Africa). The interim efficacy is being assessed by a prespecified global pooled analysis combining data from COV002 and COV003. The safety of the vaccine is being assessed using data from all four studies (appendix 1 pp 3–4). Three of the studies are single blind and one is double blind (COV005). Primary efficacy was assessed in participants who received two doses of the vaccine. All four studies included participants who received two doses, with a booster dose incorporated into the three trials that were initially designed to assess a single-dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 compared with control (COV001, COV002, and COV003) after review of the antibody response data from COV001.
During the Phase I/II trial the vaccine has been evaluated in more than 1,000 healthy adult volunteers aged between 18 and 55 years in a randomised controlled trial. A subset of these volunteers (10 people) received two doses of the vaccine. Between April 23, 2020 and May 21, 2020, 1077 volunteers, received the vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a placebo MenACWY vaccine. There were no serious adverse health events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19.
“We saw the strongest immune response in the 10 participants who received two doses of the vaccine, indicating that this might be a good strategy for vaccination,” Professor Pollard continues.
I hope this article isn't true. If this is really all the AZ boss has to go on when he told The Times about finding the sweet spot, then I truly hate their PR department:
https://www.livemint.com/science/he...11609181643451.html?__twitter_impression=true
That's basically suggesting that another cut of the trial group into another thin slice (those who got the second dose between two and three months of the first) gives them their new results. I don't like the methodology, nor do I like the implication - 3 months? That's a hell of a long time unless there is significant protection after the first.
I honestly prefer the straightforward, "60% is better than nothing," approach. Particularly as AZ haven't told us what efficacy they get after a single dose.
I'm hoping that we see something cleaner in the actual data that gets released (this week?). Any other claims should be the basis for ongoing trials, not for some kind of sales pitch. If having a safe, ready to rollout product at 60%, is going to save lives then that's the story that needs telling.
Seriously, if this was a Russian or Chinese vaccine, we wouldn't be touching it with a barge pole.
I'm all for doing sub-sets of groups where we test it at different doses and intervals to see if there is some optimisation, but they need to be separate studies and not "serendipity".
The vaccine is 60% effective at the strength they have tested properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671However, unpublished data suggests that leaving a longer gap between the first and second doses increases the overall effectiveness of the jab.
There was not enough clear data to approve the half-dose, full-dose idea.
All the vaccines are expected to be equally effective against the new variants of the virus that have emerged.
No single dose cohort in their phase II/III trials, the single dose was only tested among a much smaller sample size in phase I/II. Here's their phase III publication with the relevant segment:
This is what they said about the dosage back in July:
So we don't know what kind of protection the 1 dose offered because they just assessing its safety profile and immunogenecity at that point. We know it is safe but their conclusion was essentially that it didn't generate a satisfactory immune response. Hence why they changed three trials from a single dose to a double dose only after checking out this data. They decided not to even leave one arm to test the one dose option.
And for Pfizer, the first dose was almost half as effective (52%) before the second dose. If that was true for this one, and Oxford are only going with their 62% effective plan (the half dose is off the table until US trials), then 30% efficacy is right on the threshold of being deemed too ineffective for distribution.
“Call in the Army” is always such a cringe expression but it’s the perfect example of when that should be used. The forces have amazing logistics for all their faults. The entire operation should be handed over and dealt with entirely between them and AZ.
In reality what will happen is Hancock will want to have a big hand in it, will delegate the logistics to a Tory peer’s shoe lace manufacturing firm which has no factories or warehouses and will only use the Army for administering. There will then be stories of the Army on standby but never getting a call to actually do any work as we deliver 500,000 doses a week and find out that the government has actually handed over 1.5m doses per week to the EU in exchange for 3m tonnes of Ling and Rock Salmon per year to add to the UK quotas.
I just post half speculative info here so that you can come in and correct me with awesome citations and relevant data.
I would correct you on the last point though. Pfizer measured the single dose efficacy from day 0 to get the 52 percent number. Their FDA submission had a single dose efficacy measure after day 14 when the vaccine kicks in fully, and it had a 90 percent efficacy. I will find the source for this later and provide it to you.
Does this work as a treatment or just prevention? Could you get the jab if youre starting to become really unwell and have it help you push through?
Good question. Anyone ?
There are two clinical trials of an AZ antibody cocktail underway in the UK at present.What you want instead is the monoclonal antibodies. Instead of sparking your own immune system into action with the antigen, which eventually sends out the call for antibodies to attack it, monoclonal antibodies are extra antibodies that get to work straight away to support the immune system. They recognise the virus and attack it. That's what Trump got. Very expensive so not a suitable treatment to turn the tide here.
Won't work as a treatment because it's just doing what your immune system is already doing at that point, and your immune system has a big head start. The indications are the Pfizer vaccines properly kick in for most people after 2 weeks, at which point the disease has already gotten to a critical level. AstraZeneca's seems to work a bit later, and even if Moderna's works a bit quicker, it will always be behind your immune system.
The vaccine just inserts the key antigen into your body without any of the elements of the virus that spread the disease, but if you already have the disease, you already have the exact same antigen and the immune system is already working away to fight it. It doesn't give your immune system any additional support, it just gives it an early heads up without any of the actual virus threat. The vaccines do generate a greater immune response than exposure to the virus in some cases, for some vaccines, but the time delay makes that kind of redundant.
What you want instead is the monoclonal antibodies. Instead of sparking your own immune system into action with the antigen, which eventually sends out the call for antibodies to attack it, monoclonal antibodies are extra antibodies injected into your body that get to work straight away to support the immune system. That's what Trump got. Very expensive so not a suitable treatment to turn the tide here.
In the UK, the role for it that they're looking at would be very specific I think. Mostly people who can't take a vaccine, or who have no response to vaccines - that's particularly patients undergoing certain cancer treatments and some other subsets of people with compromised immune systems or auto-immune disease.Thanks. I suppose the treatment Trump got wouldn’t be available at scale to the general public, at least not for some time.
The advice will be to give as many people a possible their first dose as soon as possible - but not to rush to give the second dose at 4 weeks. They're still recommending a second booster dose but suggesting a delay of up to 12 weeks is ok.
That's actually consistent with the AZ report that a second dose at 8-12 weeks gives the best efficacy results.
Crucially it's being reported that a single dose will rapidly give people some immunity, and will reduce the number becoming seriously ill.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671
There are two clinical trials of an AZ antibody cocktail underway in the UK at present.
The first a pre-infection mix that could do the job of a vaccine in people who vaccines are ineffective on (compromised immune systems)
https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/uk-stud...razenecas-covid-19-antibody-combination/26275
The other a just-got-infected mix for people who've tested positive or who are at extremely high risk (vulnerable person in a household with someone who has tested positive) - but who aren't yet seriously ill (similar to the Trump situation)
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...nt-illness-in-those-recently-exposed-12172623
Trials of antibody mixes on people who are already seriously ill have basically stopped for now. Not enough evidence that they work - some suspicion that they might contribute to virus mutations in hospitalised patients.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...professionals-on-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca
The table at 5.1 is a bit unreadable..
The level of protection gained from a single dose of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca was assessed in an exploratory analysis that included participants who had received one dose. Participants were censored from the analysis at the earliest time point of when they received a second dose or at 12 weeks post dose 1. In this population, vaccine efficacy from 22 days post dose 1 was 73.00% (95% CI: 48.79; 85.76 [COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca 12/7,998 vs control 44/7,982]).