AstraZeneca job and the value of fragmented decision making | Coronavirus Epidemic News

Elena Hugney was sure of one thing when she entered a Cavid-19 vaccination center in the Italian city of Palermo last week: she was not going to allow injections with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Certainly, when a health worker approached him with a shot developed by the Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical giant and Oxford University, the 755-year-old was convinced of his conviction. After Hooghly refused to leave, a doctor finally failed again four hours later and gave him a shot of the Modena vaccine.

“By no means do I want to convey that I recommend for the mother to be inactive.”

Divided by many more around the world – Hooghly felt this confusion and the effects of the many Mistops that have long held a vaccine identified as the best hope in the world to kill the carnivirus can be seen later. Experts say cluttered clinical trial data and all aspects of production have tarnished AstraZeneca Jab’s reputation, with experts saying recent reports have further fueled public confidence by linking them to rare blood clots.

Both the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have consistently emphasized that the benefits of this vaccine outweigh the risks of side effects and advise against any restrictions on its use. Nevertheless, national health authorities have come forward with their own risk and benefit assessments, which have led to markedly different conclusions – ranging from limiting the use of vaccines to different ages to even fully abolishing them.

Experts warn that such fragmented decisions could undermine public confidence-building efforts and have unintended consequences in countries that lack access to vaccines other than the Australasian vaccine, whose latest clinical trials in the United States have shown 76 percent efficacy.

Penny Ward, a visiting professor of pharmaceutical medicine at King’s College London, said: “It’s not clear why some countries made such decisions, especially when regulators didn’t recommend age-based restrictions.”

“There has been a lot of heat, but this vaccine is clearly effective in preventing death and hospitalization due to little exposure,” he added.

European medical regulators emphasize that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh any risks [File: Alessandro Garofalo/Reuters]

The possible link between blood clotting and the AstraZeneca vaccine was first identified in Norway in early March, followed by cases in Germany and the Netherlands. The searches encouraged at least 16 European countries Suspended or limited Their AstraZeneca vaccine rollout is pending further investigation.

In the United Kingdom, the country’s health authorities, as of April 5, had received 100 cases of blood clots, 22 of which were fatal. The country had supplied more than 20.6 million first doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine at the time. After a review, the UK regulator found that the risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 was higher for all ages but for those under the age of 30 than the risk of serious harm from the vaccine, for which it suggested the use of alternative jobs.

As part of this, EMA Dr. Of the total 34 m levels administered in the European Union, 53 were observed in the United Kingdom in the April observational system for CVST and abdominal veins (SVT). Most cases occur in women under 60 years of age within two weeks of reading the first shot.

The regulator said on April 7 that it had conducted an in-depth review of CV2 CVST and 24 SVT cases, of which 16 were fatal. It said its analysis showed that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks and that there was no evidence of age-specific risks.

The United Kingdom, which already has about 50 per cent of its population already in the vaccine rollout, has opted for a more flexible approach to switching to the vaccine only for those under 30 years of age. [File: Tolga Akmen/AFP]

Still, Germany Experts say the decision to suspend the administration for those under the age of 60 is consistent with the country’s health authorities’ “more conservative approach”.

Italy did the same, while France and Belgium controlled the use of the vaccine for those under 55 years of age. Spain, meanwhile, has decided to limit its use to people between the ages of 60 and 70, leaving their itching scars.

Despite little clinical data to support the efficacy of the blended product, German and French health authorities went further with the suggestion of using a separate vaccine for follow-up shots of those who had the first dose of AstraZeneca Jab.

Norway has suspended use of the vaccine pending further investigation, with Denmark being the first country on Wednesday to completely remove it from its national vaccination program.

Explaining their argument, the Danish authorities said that they could take such a step without risking the possibility of blood clots because the epidemic curve is now largely under control, as well as the country has developed access to COVID-19 vaccines by Pfizer and Moderner.

In fact, it is this access to alternative proposals that supports some of the decisions of these rich countries regarding the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“We have a large number of other vaccines in Germany, so we can only use AstraZeneca doses for those over 60,” said Johannes Oldenberg, professor of transfusion medicine at Forest University.

“Thus, we can use all our vaccine resources while minimizing the risk of complications,” he added.

However, as the coronavirus epidemic continues to spread around the world (the number of global infections recorded every week has almost doubled), experts warn that those who have more access to vaccines should think beyond their domestic audience and lack the responsibility to get the message across. Countries are fighting over.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that one in four high-income countries receives a vaccine compared to an average of 500 in low-income countries.

The AstraZeneca vaccine, a less expensive to buy “non-profit” product and easier to save than other jobs, is seen as the key to achieving the vaccine’s equity, as it is a global measure designed to ensure the poor share jobs. Kovacs aimed to supply 100,000 million shots, mostly AstraZeneca vaccines, to about 40 African countries.

“When the information comes out and you poison an idea like the safety of a vaccine, it’s hard to withdraw,” said Abdullah Jiraba, an epidemiologist and research scientist at the African Population and Health Research Center in Nairobi.

However, Jiraba noted that in Kenya, a country affected by a resurgence of the virus and where only 0.7 percent of people received a single dose of the vaccine, people would “fight side effects rather than need an ICU bed and not find one”.

Regina Osih, a physician and infectious disease specialist at the Arum Institute in Johannesburg, said there should be a “common approach” to tackling such challenges.

“What happened in the United Kingdom and the United States has consequences for other countries as well,” he said, referring immediately to South Africa’s decision. Take a break It uses the single shot Johnson and Johnson vaccine after the U.S. JAB administration suspended it.

U.S. officials said the move was made “with caution,” following reports of six cases of blood clots, one of which turned out to be fatal. To date, the U.S. has provided about seven million doses of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.

The United States has already tapped about 37 percent of the population, South Africa has rarely reached 0.5% of its population, and there has been a supply challenge since the introduction of the AstraZeneca vaccine in February following reports of limited effectiveness against an influential variant.

“People were already tired; Now the number of rejections will increase with the serious consequences of our efforts to vaccinate, ”Osih said.

“This epidemic has shown us that there is no global solidarity,” he said, “and everyone is on their own.”

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *