A thread on conditional authorisation (used by EU) versus emergency use authorisation (used by UK & US) for vaccines - a topic that I think is going to be more explored in the coming days given the AstraZeneca news out of Germany today.
First off: what's the difference?
Each type of vaccine approval comes with pros and cons:
🐇Emergency is faster but it's risky - requires less data and makes govs liable instead of pharma if anything goes wrong.
The 27 national authorities decided EMA should use conditional approval back in October, at a time when the extent of the 2nd wave & new strains wasn't yet known.
The UK & US chose emergency approval - controversial in US at the time because it looked like Trump was rushing it.
As 2nd wave hit in Nov/Dec, several EU countries started getting nervous.
But notably, all of them had the ability to give emergency use authorisation before the EMA's conditional approval. None of them chose this.
The UK, which was still under EU rules, did choose this route.
The assumption at the time was the few extra weeks required for conditional approval wouldn't make a big difference in a one-year vaccination campaign.
And, crucially, the EU believed its contracts meant pharma companies couldn't give away their promised doses in the mean time.
But MEP Peter Liese said this morning that while BioNTech/Pfizer honoured this commitment to be ready to go as soon as EMA approved, it appears #AstraZeneca hasn't.
Seems AZ gave away doses promised to the EU to those who used earlier emergency approval.
If the assumption that pharma companies would still be ready with the promised doses even if a longer more-robust approval method was used has been proven wrong, is it time for EU, or EU countries, to switch to emergency approval?
For his part, Liese says he still believes emergency use authorisation is not a good idea.
New revelations today about AZ data for over-65s may reinforce that.
But the AZ delivery scandal and the prospect of a #VaccineWar with UK will tempt some EU countries to emergency-approve like Hungary has with #SputnikV.
If they can't trust companies to honour their delivery schedules, speed may now trump safety concerns.
This is what can happen when you portray vaccine approval by independent regulators as part of the vaccine rollout "race".
A race to the bottom where speed trumps certainty, where decisions are rushed to make sure the company you've contracted with doesn't give away your doses.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think all of the focus on one % figure in the German media reports about this over the past days obscured the larger point: Germany is not comfortable giving this shot to the only category of people who are receiving it right now.
Given this new development in Germany, I would guess that EU Medicines Agency approval for the #AstraZeneca vaccine tomorrow is now seriously in doubt.
If EMA doesn't approve, does it render the whole #VaccineWar thing suddenly moot?
Update from MEP @PeterLiese, health spokesman for the largest party in the EU Parliament (thread):
He maintains #AstraZeneca is treating people in EU as "2nd class citizens" and that doses have gone from the EU to the UK.
"They gave 3 different explanations in less than a week"
Carrot: He's says objections are with AZ behaviour, not vaccine's efficacy
"There's been a lot of talk about AZ being a bad vaccine - very strange fake news in German media. It's definitely not true"
"If someone offered me AZ, and it’s my turn, I wouldn’t hesitate for a minute"
“The AstraZeneca vaccine has not as good data as the vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna but still it is a good vaccine. In October, we would have been happy to have a vaccine that has an efficiency well above 50%."
Barnstorming press conference from EU Health Commissioner @SKyriakidesEU, responding to #AstraZeneca suggestion UK gets vaccine priority because it signed deal earlier.
"In our contract it is not specified any country, or the UK, has priority because it signed earlier."
"Let me be crystal clear: the 27 EU member states are united AstraZeneca needs to deliver on its commitments in our agreement. We are in a pandemic."
"The view that the company is not obliged to deliver because we signed a best effort agreement is neither correct or acceptable."
"We reject the logic of first-come-first-served. That may work at the nieghbourhood butchers, but not in contracts," says the EU's health chief.
"There is no priority clause in the advance purchase agreement, and no hierarchy of the 4 production plants - 2 in EU and 2 in UK."
The EU Commission says that it helped finance the development of the #AstraZeneca#COVID19, and in return it was supposed to get guaranteed access to 300m doses.
Now, the Commission suggests those doses appear to have been given to someone else.
The EU may prevent Pharma companies from exporting vaccines made in facilities in EU countries that have been promised to the EU.
Questions are also being asked why AZ didn't apply for EU authorisation until 12 January. EU approval expected Friday.
Commission President @vonderleyen told #Davos2021 this morning the pharma companies "must honour their obligations".
But what are those obligations? We don't know exactly because neither EU or UK are making these contracts public.
Update from the European Commission: they are indeed considering export notifications for vaccines.
"This is not about blocking, this is about knowing what the companies will export,” says a spokesman.
But what if the EU doesn’t like the information that has been notified?
The spokesman will not elaborate at this time about whether the export notification could then result in an export restriction.
But based on what they’re saying (and also what national ministers are saying), that does seem to be the plan. Otherwise what’s the point of notifying?
“The EU and others helped with money. Large sums were invested to build research capacities and production facilities early...and now the companies must deliver.”