Government warned it could face ‘tough choices’ over coronavirus vaccines

THE Government could face some “tough choices” if the vaccine produced by Astrazeneca and Oxford University is found to be less effective than others, a former Department of Health director of immunisation has said.

Professor David Salisbury said ministers would need to think “very carefully” about their handling of the vaccine if its efficacy was lower than for other jabs such as those from Pfizer/biontech and Moderna.

The Astrazeneca/oxford vaccine is currently being assessed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for use in the UK.

Data from two arms of its phasethree trial, announced last week, gave a combined efficacy of

70 per cent.

A half dose followed by a full dose was found to be 90% effective in protecting against Covid-19, according to a subset of data, but the figure was 62% for people given two full doses.

The 90% finding was based on a dosing regimen given to 2,741 people, while the two dose arm of the trial involved 8,895 people.

Astrazeneca has said it will carry out a further global clinical trial to assess the 90% dosing regimen, which it acknowledged was as a result of a dosing error.

Mrt Salisbury told Radio 4’s Today programme there could be issues if the 90% finding did not hold up.

It comes after some scientists, including in America, questioned the validity of the data, including the fact the 90% dosing regimen was only on people aged 55 and under.

“I think this has to be unpicked and it may not be possible to do that with the amount of patients that have been recruited so far,” said Mr Salisbury.

“If this vaccine came through at truly 90% and it is a cheaper vaccine and it requires much less rigorous cold chain (storage) than the RNA vaccines (from Pfizer and Moderna), then that would be a great result.

“But if it comes through at 62% and the other vaccines that are coming through so far are 90%, then I think you have to think very carefully what do we do with

100 million doses of a product that isn’t protecting as well as the alternatives.

“I think there are some tough choices.”

Asked whether the MHRA might say 62% was not good enough when the World Health Organisation had set the bar at 50% for an effective vaccine, and Astrazeneca has said the jab protects against serious illness, Mr Salisbury said: “I think they will judge it on the basis of the criteria that were set.

“I think we will have handling issues about a lower efficacy vaccine when there’s higher efficacy ones available.”

He suggested the most effective vaccines may be prioritised for older and more vulnerable people.

But he added: “The implication is, if this can be a 90% efficacy vaccine, that’s fantastic. If it’s truly 60%, then we’ve got to think very carefully about it.”