Skip to main content

Measuring the long-term safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines

The news that two UK recipients of the Covid-19 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine suffered allergic reactions illustrates the need for accurate recording of any adverse events following administration of Covid-19 vaccines. As these vaccines are new, we don’t yet have long-term data on their safety and efficacy. This data is essential to help build public confidence in these vaccines and ensure take-up of the vaccines is high; not just in the UK but globally as well. The data will also help identify how frequently vaccination is needed to ensure vaccine recipients retain their immunity to Covid-19. 

The UK is well-placed to collect this data. We have a National Health Service that has developed computerised medical records for use in general practices on a population of around 67 million people. These electronic medical records provide longitudinal data on people’s health and medical experiences. They can now also be linked to other data; such as hospital admissions records and mortality records, as well as to the results of Covid-19 tests, increasing their value for monitoring the safety and efficacy of the new Covid-19 vaccines. 

The comprehensive nature of these medical records and the large population they cover mean that they can be used to look at safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines in specific populations. This could be, for example, by age, sex, medical history or ethnic group. It would also be possible to look at more serious health outcomes and death rates by linkage to other data sets. Hence, planning how we would use these data is essential and needs to start now. 

The use of these data will be facilitated by the recently developed clinical codes for Covid-19 vaccines for recording information in electronic medical records. These codes include, for example, codes for whether people attended or did not attend for their vaccination appointment; whether they declined to be vaccinated; and whether they had a clinical contra-indication to being vaccinated. Other codes allow recording of the specific vaccine that was administered, which will be essential for comparing the long-term safety and efficacy of different Covid-19 vaccines. 

The data from electronic medical records can be supplemented by the reporting of any suspected adverse events by health professionals to the MHRA via the Yellow Card Scheme. Vaccine recipients should also be encouraged to report any reactions directly to the MHRA a well as to their doctor. This allows the MHRA to build up information on the safety profile of the new Covid-19 vaccines and advise patients and the public of any potential problems.


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...
Post a Comment
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...
Post a Comment
Read more