oxford vacinne easier to use than pfizer

[3NUMBAS]

Health

Oxford coronavirus vaccine expected to be easier to roll out than Pfizer jab

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-expected-easier-175246355.html

 

The Oxford vaccine is expected to be easier to store and distribute throughout the UK than the Pfizer jab - if and when it is proved to be safe and effective.

No 10 has ordered millions of doses from the two leading candidates, with experts saying that the government will need a “toolbox” of vaccines to bring the pandemic under control, though concern has been raised over the logistical challenges of storing and transporting the Pfizer jab.

The vaccine needs to be kept at -70C up until the day it is used to maintain the integrity of the doses’ genetic material.

This is expected to complicate the rollout of doses to GP clinics and care homes, which do not have the refrigerator technology required to maintain such low temperatures.

Because of this, the Oxford vaccine - which can be stored at between 2C and 8C - is expected to be easier to administer in the community and therefore provider the bedrock of the UK’s vaccination programme.

Whereas Pfizer’s jab makes uses of cutting-edge RNA technology to provoke an immune response in humans, the Oxford vaccine utilises an engineered viral vector to train the body in neutralising any future infection from Sars-CoV-2 - the virus that causes Covid-19.

Edited November 12, 2020 by 3NUMBAS

[partington]

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I'm in Chiang Rai, but it is very thoughtful of you.

The OP is an interesting topic, the logistics of keeping a vaccine at -70C probably means the Oxford vaccine will be favored for mass distribution.

However there is no data yet available on whether the Oxford vaccine is effective in preventing infection.

 

Obviously everyone hopes that the results will be positive, but this is not yet known.

[AlexRich]

Hopefully it will be a game changer and help end this awful period in everyone’s lives. I hope never to see another pandemic in my lifetime. I’m fed up with it!

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, partington said:

However there is no data yet available on whether the Oxford vaccine is effective in preventing infection.

 

Obviously everyone hopes that the results will be positive, but this is not yet known.

Odds are the Pfizer vaccine is more effective, and could be reserved for people such as politicians and front-line health professionals. Feel free to state your preferred recipients.

[sometimewoodworker]

2 hours ago, partington said:

However there is no data yet available on whether the Oxford vaccine is effective in preventing infection.

 

Obviously everyone hopes that the results will be positive, but this is not yet known.

There is data from the stage 1 & 2 trials. They have shown that it is effective and safe, however the stage 3 trials that is a massively larger one and is needed to check the effects on a more general and complete population profile is still a little time from publication.

[sometimewoodworker]

2 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Hopefully it will be a game changer and help end this awful period in everyone’s lives. 

The vaccines will definitely do that.

 

2 hours ago, AlexRich said:

I hope never to see another pandemic in my lifetime.

Regrettably unless you are planning on a short life that maybe a futile wish.

 

2 hours ago, AlexRich said:

I’m fed up with it!

As are we all, BUT even if the vaccines were proved effective today it’s going to be many many months before there can be much change. 

[partington]

14 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

There is data from the stage 1 & 2 trials. They have shown that it is effective and safe, however the stage 3 trials that is a massively larger one and is needed to check the effects on a more general and complete population profile is still a little time from publication.

This data only shows immunogenicity- that the vaccine causes an immune response: the production of antibodies.

 

No data on its effectiveness in reducing infections and thus the disease has yet been released.

[partington]

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Odds are the Pfizer vaccine is more effective, and could be reserved for people such as politicians and front-line health professionals. Feel free to state your preferred recipients.

I'm interested-on what information are you basing your assessment of the comparative effectiveness of each vaccine?

 

 

[sometimewoodworker]

9 hours ago, partington said:

This data only shows immunogenicity- that the vaccine causes an immune response: the production of antibodies.

Humm and your information and knowledge of stage 1 and 2 trial methodology is?

 

9 hours ago, partington said:

No data on its effectiveness in reducing infections and thus the disease has yet been released

The simple fact that the vaccine has progressed to stage 3 trials gives the fact that it is producing an immune response.
 

No drugs will go through to stage 3 that don’t do that due to the immense costs of stage 3. The data from stage 3 is being collected and analysed (not for the fact that it works, that is proven) for the degree of effectiveness in the different groups of subjects that have received it and the comparison of that to the placebo recipients. 

[partington]

On 11/14/2020 at 12:30 AM, sometimewoodworker said:

Humm and your information and knowledge of stage 1 and 2 trial methodology is?

 

The simple fact that the vaccine has progressed to stage 3 trials gives the fact that it is producing an immune response.
 

No drugs will go through to stage 3 that don’t do that due to the immense costs of stage 3. The data from stage 3 is being collected and analysed (not for the fact that it works, that is proven) for the degree of effectiveness in the different groups of subjects that have received it and the comparison of that to the placebo recipients. 

 I have already stated clearly that the Oxford vaccine has been shown to produce an immune response but not yet  to protect against the disease.  I'm not sure whether you didn't read this properly or don't understand it.

 

You are simply wrong if you think that an immune response automatically guarantees efficacy in protecting against the disease.

 

This is confirmed by all the summaries at the time when the generation of the immune response was first reported. For example https://www.tropicalmedicine.ox.ac.uk/news/new-study-reveals-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response

 

 

"The results of the Phase I/II trial published in the scientific journal, The Lancet, indicate no early safety concerns and induces strong immune responses in both parts of the immune system.

The vaccine provoked a T cell response within 14 days of vaccination (white blood cells that can attack cells infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus), and an antibody response within 28 days (antibodies are able to neutralise the virus so that it cannot infect cells when initially contracted).

During the study participants who received the vaccine had detectable neutralising antibodies, which have been suggested by researchers as important for protection, and these responses were strongest after a booster dose, with 100% of participants' blood having neutralising activity against the coronavirus. The next step in studying the vaccine is to confirm that it can effectively protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection."

[partington]

Also this (sorry can't use edit function for some reason or would have added to previous post)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/27/covid-vaccine-uk-oxford-university-astrazeneca-works-in-all-ages-trials-suggest

 

"Stephen Evans, a professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, cautioned that no conclusions about the efficacy of the vaccine should be drawn until the data had been published.

 

 At 75, I've volunteered for a Covid vaccine trial. It could set people free

Francis Beckett 

 

 

Read more

“In order to comment properly on this we need to see the data,” he said. “It is encouraging that the investigators suggest that the immune responses measured in the blood seem to show efficacy both above, as well as below, age 70. The later phase trials are needed to see if the immune responses translate into clinical efficacy in preventing infection. These will involve much larger numbers and it is wise to not be too optimistic until those trials have completed.”

Raised antibody levels in the blood indicated but did not guarantee protection from the virus multiplying in the body, he said."

 

 

[sometimewoodworker]

12 minutes ago, partington said:

I have already stated clearly that the Oxford vaccine has been shown to produce an immune response but not yet  to protect against the disease.  I'm not sure whether you didn't read this properly or don't understand it.

You seem not to understand the quoted material. I’ve retired from teaching so can’t be bothered with those who can’t understand and proceed to the logical conclusions from the information presented.

 

Suffice to say that it’s been shown to reduce infection (provide a degree of protection). Stage 3 will provide evidence of it safety in a large population and the degrees of reduction in infection etc.
 

Several vaccine candidates have had the stage 3 trials stopped due to unacceptable side affects. 

Edited November 16, 2020 by sometimewoodworker

[partington]

You are just wrong.

 

The Oxford vaccine has NOT been shown to reduce infection, and these are the results that are so eagerly awaited.

[sometimewoodworker]

Just now, sometimewoodworker said:

You seem not to understand the quoted material. I’ve retired from teaching so can’t be bothered with those who can’t understand and proceed to the logical conclusions from the information presented.

 

Suffice to say that it’s been shown to reduce infection. Stage 3 will provide evidence of it safety in a large population and the degrees of reduction in infection etc.
 

Several vaccine candidates have had the stage 3 trials stopped due to unacceptable side affects. 

 

1 minute ago, partington said:

You are just wrong.

 

The Oxford vaccine has NOT been shown to reduce infection, and these are the results that are so eagerly awaited.

BS you clearly can’t understand academic language and the extremely careful use of language in it.

[partington]

My "inability to understand academic language" did not seem to get in the way of being awarded a Ph.D in Cell Biology, nor a 30 year career as a research biologist.

 

I'll leave it to objective readers to look at the quotes and links I have supplied, and your statements, and decide who is the one deficient in understanding what's being said!

[Stocky]

Moderna have just announced results from phase 3 trials indicate their vaccine is 94.5% effective. Importantly it can be stored for a month in a standard fridge, is fine at room temperature for 12 hours, or 6 months at -20C.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/16/moderna-covid-vaccine-candidate-almost-95-effective-trials-show

[mommysboy]

On 11/12/2020 at 10:13 PM, Lacessit said:

I'm in Chiang Rai, but it is very thoughtful of you.

The OP is an interesting topic, the logistics of keeping a vaccine at -70C probably means the Oxford vaccine will be favored for mass distribution.

if it works!

[mommysboy]

On 11/16/2020 at 7:39 PM, partington said:

You are just wrong.

 

The Oxford vaccine has NOT been shown to reduce infection, and these are the results that are so eagerly awaited.

 

Yes, in absolute terms, you are right.

 

But they don't just open an envelope at the end of the trial. Surely they'll be monitoring results in real time?  The latest statement suggested that they are nearing the number of results to confirm efficacy.  Anything around 70% would be good. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 11/16/2020 at 7:42 PM, sometimewoodworker said:

 

BS you clearly can’t understand academic language and the extremely careful use of language in it.

Partington is correct and you've got it wrong, I'm afraid.

 

Here is a quotation from one of the Oxford researchers, from a paper published in the Lancet just yesterday, where he confirms that it is not yet shown that the vaccine protects people from the disease.

 

Quote

Dr Maheshi Ramasamy, Investigator at the Oxford Vaccine Group and Consultant Physician said:

 

‘We were pleased to see that our vaccine was not only well tolerated in older adults; it also stimulated similar immune responses to those seen in younger volunteers.

 

The next step will be to see if this translates into protection from the disease itself.’

 

Oxford vaccine elicits robust immune response

[partington]

On 11/17/2020 at 4:04 PM, mommysboy said:

 

Yes, in absolute terms, you are right.

 

But they don't just open an envelope at the end of the trial. Surely they'll be monitoring results in real time?  The latest statement suggested that they are nearing the number of results to confirm efficacy.  Anything around 70% would be good. 

No. It's a double-blinded trial (neither the vaccinated or the vaccinators are told who has a placebo and who has the real vaccine) until a separate set of people unblind the results.

 

The study protocol states clearly before the trial starts exactly when and under what conditions the results can be unblinded.

 

For example when a specifically pre-stated number of subjects have become infected [in the Pfizer vaccine's case this was 94, I believe].

 

The Oxford group don't know when their pre-stated conditions will be met, so have no control over when they are allowed to unblind the data.

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 11/17/2020 at 11:04 PM, mommysboy said:

But they don't just open an envelope at the end of the trial.

Actually, as @partington says, that's pretty much exactly what they do - except it's an independent Data Monitoring Committee that "opens" it and not those conducting the trial.

On 11/17/2020 at 11:04 PM, mommysboy said:

Surely they'll be monitoring results in real time?

Again, no they don't (and can't). If they could, it wouldn't be a double-blinded trial.

[mommysboy]

Wow, efficacy confirmed at 70-90% depending on dosage.  A World saver for sure since it can easily be bought and used effectively by developing countries.  Eight times cheaper than the other two, which are also a logistical nightmare.  Well done Oxford!

[rabas]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Wow, efficacy confirmed at 70-90% depending on dosage.  A World saver for sure since it can easily be bought and used effectively by developing countries.  Eight times cheaper than the other two, which are also a logistical nightmare.  Well done Oxford!

I believe it was 62% or 90% depending on the dosage.  reference  70% was the average over the group, most of whom got the 62% dosage. Oddly, the 62% group got two full doses one month apart. The smaller 90% group was given only a half dose followed by a full dose. There may be reasons that group only got the half dose.

 

Either way, an average of 70% (or 90% if they can do it) is great news considering it is easier to work with.  The world will need all the vaccines it can get.

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

I believe it was 62% or 90% depending on the dosage.  reference  70% was the average over the group, most of whom got the 62% dosage. Oddly, the 62% group got two full doses one month apart. The smaller 90% group was given only a half dose followed by a full dose. There may be reasons that group only got the half dose.

 

Either way, an average of 70% (or 90% if they can do it) is great news considering it is easier to work with.  The world will need all the vaccines it can get.

 

It's counter intuitive but the best result seems to be a low dose, followed by a full dose 1 month later.

[jaizan]

They were taking covid test swabs on a weekly basis, so there is continual collection of data.      As this would be for both vaccine and placebo groups, they presumably won't know which is which until they decide to review the data.

 

Also notable is no reports of severe infection, but they did not report how many severe infections were in the placebo group.     

If the demographics of the sample were similar to the population as a whole, the placebo group ought to  have had severe infections and terminal infections.   However, the trial is on "healthy" volunteers, which must influence the results.

[rabas]

47 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

It's counter intuitive but the best result seems to be a low dose, followed by a full dose 1 month later.

 

It may be because Oxford uses a classic live vaccine based on a weakened human adenovirus to stimulate an immune response to nCoV-SARS2. The body could develop some immunity to the adenovirus, which weakens the immune response to nCoV-SARS2.  A large first dose might prevent the second dose working as well. Oxford's vaccine

 

I think the Russians use 2 different adenovirus strains to prevent that. Oxford's virus is more advanced.

Edited November 23, 2020 by rabas

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts and replies reported and removed.

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

13 hours ago, rabas said:

It may be because Oxford uses a classic live vaccine based on a weakened human adenovirus to stimulate an immune response to nCoV-SARS2

Sorry but that's not quite accurate. The Oxford vaccine uses an artificially-generated representation of the genetic code for the virus's spike protein inside a non-replicating chimpanzee adenovirus. See full details on the link below.

 

Oxford CoVid-19 vaccine

 

The chimpanzee adenovirus was chosen precisely because a human adenovirus vector would likely be attacked and destroyed by the immune system of anyone who had previously had that particular adenovirus, before the body could react to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein code inside it and start creating the desired antibodies.

 

The fact that the body might start creating antibodies to the chimpanzee adenovirus vector on the first dose could still have something to do with it, though.

Edited November 24, 2020 by GroveHillWanderer

[mommysboy]

The most important thing is that all these vaccines appear to be totally effective at preventing serious infection/hospitalization.  Top marks all round.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Sorry but that's not quite accurate. The Oxford vaccine uses an artificially-generated representation of the genetic code for the virus's spike protein inside a non-replicating chimpanzee adenovirus. See full details on the link below.

 

Oxford CoVid-19 vaccine

 

The chimpanzee adenovirus was chosen precisely because a human adenovirus vector would likely be attacked and destroyed by the immune system of anyone who had previously had that particular adenovirus, before the body could react to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein code inside it and start creating the desired antibodies.

 

The fact that the body might start creating antibodies to the chimpanzee adenovirus vector on the first dose could still have something to do with it, though.

You are correct that they start with an adenovirus that mainly infects chimpanzees. It is altered and referred to as a weakened adenovirus designed to not cause infections in humans for the purpose making vaccines, this is what I was referring to.

 

Here is a write up on Oxford's results from microbiologist Beth Mole at ARSTechnica. She too speculates that the immune system may react to the adenovirus viral vector.

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-shows-success-heres-how-it-stacks-up-to-others/

 

The vaccine involves having genetic material coding for the notorious SARS-CoV-2 spike protein carried into the body by a relatively benign virus. In this case, the virus is a weakened type of adenovirus—a pathogen that can cause common colds and other mild infections in humans and some animals. The adenovirus used is one that mainly infects chimpanzees

 

She also revealed that 2,741 participants got the half-dose regimen that was 90% effective while  8,895 participants got the full-dose regimen that was  62%.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by rabas