Is the AstraZeneca vaccine a victim of its reputation?

-

Utrecht, Robin / pre action / SIPA

  • Many European countries are suspending vaccination with AstraZeneca after the appearance of blood clots in some people who have received a dose of the British vaccine.

  • Doesn't the principle of "precaution" evoked turn into over-prudence?

  • The decision of these countries is highly contested, as the incidence of blood clots in the unvaccinated population is higher than that of the population who received a dose of AstraZeneca.

The AstraZeneca vaccine continues its Stations of the Cross in Europe.

After the delays in deliveries, the side effects observed and the first studies questioning its effectiveness in the face of variants, the British vaccine against the coronavirus has now been suspended in Denmark, Norway and Iceland since Thursday.

A decision taken because of fears related to the formation of blood clots, also called thrombosis, and contested by France and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

20 Minutes

takes stock of the situation.

What are we talking about ?

Denmark has suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine "after reports of serious cases of blood clots forming in people who have been vaccinated," the country's health authorities said.

A measure above all of "precaution" she specified.

It is according to this same precautionary principle that Norway and Iceland have followed, and now Bulgaria and Thailand.

"Considering the number of people vaccinated, it is difficult for me to believe that there is a real problem, but it is important that a thorough investigation is carried out", told AFP, Allan Randrup Thomsen, professor. of Virology at the University of Copenhagen.

The decision also follows the death of a 49-year-old Austrian nurse who succumbed to "serious bleeding disorders".

A death that had led six European countries (Austria, Italy, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Luxembourg) to suspend vaccinations with the specific batch of vaccine that contained the dose administered to the nurse, and which included one million vaccines delivered to 17 European countries.

What does the European Medicines Agency (EMA) say, which authorized AstraZeneca?

According to the EMA, 30 cases of thrombosis have been reported as of Wednesday in people vaccinated in the area it covers (European Union, Norway and Iceland), for more than five million people who have received at least one dose from AstraZeneca.

"The information available to date indicates that the number of thromboembolisms in vaccinated people is not greater than that observed in the entire population," assured the EMA in a statement.

There is also no indication that these thromboembolisms are linked to vaccination.

The annual incidence of deep vein thrombosis would be 120 per 100,000 in France and 60 to 100 per 100,000 internationally.

The 30 cases out of the five million vaccinated Europeans would give an incidence of 0.6 per 100,000 inhabitants.

“It is therefore a disconnected decision, especially since given this incidence, it seems impossible to define that the vaccine is responsible for this effect.

We could have taken five million other Europeans and found a similar or even greater incidence, ”defends Eric Billy, researcher in immuno-oncology.

The World Health Organization also said that "there is no reason not to use" the AstraZeneca vaccine on Friday.

Are you getting paranoid about AstraZeneca?

An incidence almost 100 times lower than normal and a reaction that is not necessarily correlated which leads to a suspension of the vaccination… Are we becoming oversight regarding AstraZeneca because of its bad reputation, to the point now of overreacting?

“There was an overreaction from the local health authorities.

Of course, it is the role of pharmacovigilance to properly monitor all events for a population undergoing treatment, but as long as the incidence is lower than the incidence in the normal population, there is no reasons to stop the vaccine ”, estimates Eric Billy.

The researcher notes that the UK has vaccinated at least ten million people with AstraZeneca without seeing any major impact.

He also recalls the enormous benefit / risk of AstraZeneca and that the case fatality rate of the coronavirus is much higher than the rate of thrombosis observed during vaccinations (which once again, is not necessarily due to the additional vaccination. ).

More than an offense of dirty reputation for AstraZeneca, Eric Billy depicts “a period when we over-race for everything and where we overreact.

There is a lack of perspective, poor overall management and very poor communication.

"

This decision by the Nordic countries is not without consequences, in particular on the reputation of AstraZeneca.

"It is a deleterious decision because it plays negatively on the image of the AstraZeneca vaccine and on that of vaccines in general, whereas it is a treatment which has been proven and that it is currently our only solution", points Eric Billy, who recalls that studies show AstraZeneca to be more than 90% effective in severe forms: “You have to use the AstraZeneca vaccine for what it is, an excellent vaccine.

"

What has France decided?

France maintains vaccination with AstraZeneca.

"The benefit provided by vaccination is considered greater than the risk at this stage," said Olivier Véran on Thursday at a press conference, specifying that he had entered the National Medicines Safety Agency.

This agency recommended this Friday the continuation of vaccination with AstraZeneca.

Health

Vaccination: Olivier Véran believes that there is "no need to suspend" injections with AstraZeneca

Health

Coronavirus in Denmark: Government suspends AstraZeneca vaccine as a precaution

  • epidemic

  • Vaccine

  • Vaccination

  • Covid 19

  • Coronavirus

  • Health