Skip to main content

The AstraZeneca adenoviral Covid-19 vaccine: What potential role does it have?

The results of the AstraZeneca adenoviral ChAdOx1 nCoV-190 vaccine trial published in the Lancet today are encouraging, even if the overall efficacy of 70% is lower than the 90-95% being reported for mRNA vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna; and from the Russian Sputnik adenoviral vector vaccine. 

The AstraZeneca vaccine is cheaper than the mRNA vaccines and can be stored in a conventional vaccine fridge. Hence, it is an easier vaccine to use in primary care and community settings, including in low and middle income countries. The most commonly reported adverse reactions were fatigue, headache, feverishness, and myalgia. More serious adverse events were rare; none of which were thought to be due to either of the vaccines used in the study. 

Based on these results, once the vaccine is approved by the MHRA, I would like to see it rapidly adopted by the NHS. The vaccine is highly suited for use in UK primary care as it can be stored in general practices and given to patients either opportunistically or in dedicated vaccination clinics. It can also be more easily used in care homes and for housebound patients than the mRNA vaccines.

There is ongoing research looking at vaccine combinations and if this research shows positive results, people may benefit from a second vaccine, such as an mRNA vaccine, after receiving an adenoviral vaccine. One caveat for all the Covid-19 vaccines is that we don’t yet know how long the immunity they generate will last. We also don't yet know if they stop people being infectious. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
1 comment
Read more

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and  uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abolishing NHS England will make only modest savings

Abolishing NHS England and reducing Integrated Care Board (ICB) staffing by 50% may appear substantial, but the projected savings - around £500 million annually if fully achieved - would represent only a modest increase (approximately 0.25%) in annual NHS funding in England, given the NHS England budget is approaching £200 billion per year. Evidence from past NHS reforms (like the 2012 Health and Social Care Act) shows mixed results; some efficiency gains but often offset by new layers of complexity elsewhere in NHS structures. Without parallel initiatives to streamline administrative processes, improve efficiency, and enhance clinical productivity, such structural changes to NHS England and ICBs alone will not significantly improve frontline clinical care or health outcomes. Administrative costs, while important to minimise, make up a relatively small proportion of the overall NHS budget. Genuine productivity gains will therefore require systematic reforms aimed at reducing unnecessar...
Post a Comment
Read more