Oxford/AZ reports overall reduction in PCR positivity of 54.1%, but only 2% "vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection."

Confused?

Allow me to explain with crudely drawn pictures why the overall findings are still quite positive. 1/8
Let's start by imagining the base case (no vaccine). SARS-CoV-2 infections fall into a range of categories: severe, moderate, mild, or asymptomatic.
(Categories not perfectly to scale for all of this, don't @ me). 2/8
Vaccines protect against disease in two major ways.
- They can prevent infection entirely.
- Or they may not prevent infection, but they prep your immune system so that you don't develop symptoms. Usually it is some combination of the two. 3/8
If the vaccine worked to prevent symptoms but did nothing to prevent infection, this is what we could see. No severe disease, reduced moderate and mild buckets. But see how much LARGER the asymptomatic (blue) portion is. These were "converted" to asymptomatic infections. 4/8
This is still a useful vaccine in that it reduces the severity of disease, but it is a worst case scenario in terms of transmission because these infected people could still transmit to others (though maybe being asymptomatic means you are also less likely to transmit... TBD) 5/8
But note how that blue section GREW. Well what we observed for Oxford/AZ was something different. The asymptomatic (blue) section stayed more or less the same size, while the other sections shrunk. But note that there are still fewer infections overall, e.g. 54% reduction. 6/8
An even stronger result would be the following, where we see ALL categories shrink in size, including the asymptomatic infections. Then the estimated "efficacy against asymptomatic infection" would be higher. That's not what we saw, but that's okay. 7/8
I hope this explains how we can see no change in the number of people who are asymptomatic, but still have an overall positive picture of the vaccine's impact on transmission. For this reason, I don't think "efficacy against asymptomatic infection" is very interpretable. 8/8
RIP Blue highlighter.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Natalie E. Dean, PhD

Natalie E. Dean, PhD Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @nataliexdean

29 Jan
With Novavax results, a welcome addition of another efficacious vaccine. The more, the merrier. Though the observed lower efficacy in South Africa is discouraging (and exactly how much lower is hard to tell given uncertainty), I’m glad we have these data in hand. 1/5
Well-conducted placebo controlled trials can give us the clearest read on how these vaccines are working against different variants. It was fortuitous to have these two trials in the UK and South Africa that we can compare in this way. We want to know what we’re dealing with. 2/5
Fortunately the vaccine is working well against the UK variant. But as we see in South Africa (and in laboratory studies with other vaccines), we cannot assume that vaccines are equally effective against all variants. We will need to continually monitor their effectiveness. 3/5
Read 5 tweets
13 Jan
A few tweets on a topic that keeps coming up in discussion. There are many different types of vaccine efficacy - efficacy against infection, against transmission, against disease, and against severe disease - and these can vary for a single vaccine. How are they related? 1/5
Efficacy against infection will by necessity be lowest, because if a vaccine protects you from infection, it also protects you from transmitting to others and getting symptoms. We have a little data on this from Moderna and Oxford, but will get more from antibody testing. 2/5
Even if a vaccine does not prevent infection, it could make you less infectious by reducing viral load, reducing duration of infectiousness, or by preventing symptoms like coughing/sneezing. This effect is hard to measure without contact tracing or cluster randomized studies. 3/5
Read 5 tweets
29 Dec 20
Our group's household secondary attack rate meta-analysis has gained traction, but not for the reasons I'd hoped for. We did not conclude "no asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic spread" of SARS-CoV-2. A short explanation of what we did observe. 1/7
jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
Using only the household studies included in our main analysis, we conducted a sub-analysis breaking out index cases designated as symptomatic versus asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic. We observe lower transmission from this latter group, though there was much less data. 2/7
Since we are relying upon other studies in the literature, we were unable to separate out fully asymptomatic index cases (never develop symptoms) from pre-symptomatic index cases. But others have tackled this problem directly. Their conclusions below. 3/7
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Read 7 tweets
22 Dec 20
As @hankgreen nicely points out, we have to be careful that "we don't know whether the vaccine reduces transmission" doesn't morph into "the vaccine doesn't reduce transmission." How do we communicate this uncertainty? A few thoughts. 1/7
First, vaccine efficacy against infection can't be higher than vaccine efficacy against disease. If something prevents infection, it also prevents disease. But vaccines can work by preventing symptoms, and so give an extra boost to efficacy against disease. 2/7
So while we expect vaccine efficacy against infection to be lower, we aren't sure how much. We have a bit of data from the UK/Oxford and Moderna trials showing reduced infection, but we are waiting on antibody testing data from these and other trials. 3/7
Read 7 tweets
8 Dec 20
Out in @TheLancet, results from the Oxford/AZN trials, including more detail on the low dose results. Notably, the low dose recipients "received their second dose after a substantial gap." Only 0.8% received a second dose within 8 weeks of the first. 1/5
thelancet.com/lancet/article…
Recall that the low dose results were only from adults 18-55, only during a short time window, and only in the UK. Per reviewer request, they restricted the standard dose analysis to a similar group. We still see separation (middle rows), but with more uncertainty. 2/5
Overall, the 62% result for the standard dose regimen appears robust, and meets pre-specified criteria (>50%). But I am still not sure what to make of the low dose result. Is it the longer gap between doses? The low dose? Both? And there remains no data for older adults. 3/5
Read 6 tweets
25 Nov 20
With respect to the AstraZeneca vaccine, I am guessing people think my objection is to science by press release, and that I want a peer-reviewed publication. But no, not really. What I want is reliable and definitive evidence to inform policies impacting millions. 1/4
If the answer is that AstraZeneca needs to go back and add a new half-dose arm to their trials so that they can prospectively evaluate its efficacy in diverse subgroups, then we have to carefully consider the value of a peer-reviewed publication at this moment. 2/4
We’ve written about this in @NEJM. Basically, there are risks to publishing results that are “promising but inconclusive.” Though it seems slower at the time, in the long run it is better to generate the conclusive evidence while we still can. 3/4
nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!