The world desperately needs to be able to believe in AstraZeneca's coronavirus vaccine, and the never-ending confusion over its clinical data isn't helping, Axios' Sam Baker reports. The big picture: The extraordinary public dispute between the company and independent experts risks undermining patients' trust, experts said, even if the vaccine turns out to work well. Driving the news: The independent review board overseeing clinical trials for AstraZeneca's vaccine, developed in partnership with Oxford University, protested to the NIH after the company said in a press release that the product had proven 79% effective. - Those experts told federal officials they thought the company had sliced the data in a way that overstated the vaccine's effectiveness.
The other side: AstraZeneca has said it will release a fuller analysis soon, and that it'll show results consistent with what it claimed in its press release. What they're saying: "I think everybody is sort of stunned," said Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins. "There are billions of eyeballs on these data." - The public rift between a drug company and independent reviewers is highly unusual. And it's all the more frustrating, experts noted, because this particular trial was designed in part to help quell some of the uncertainty AstraZeneca caused with its other studies.
- "It's one thing for a drug company or sponsor to bungle this on the first go but this is the second time this company has released information that was inaccurate and confusing, and it's incredibly frustrating," said Jonathan Kimmelman, a bioethicist at McGill University.
Between the lines: If AstraZeneca oversold its findings, it'll create a perception that it needed to juice the numbers. If outside experts overreacted to a minor statistical issue, it'll keep a cloud hanging over an effective vaccine. Either way, it's bad news. Go deeper. |
No comments:
Post a Comment