"The absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs:
#vaccinatie
thelancet.com/journals/lanmi…
#vaccinatie
thelancet.com/journals/lanmi…
1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines."
"There are many lessons to learn from the way studies are conducted and results are presented. With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy."
Pfizer: RRR of 94% in Israel, RRR of 95% in trial.
ARR of 0·46% in Israel, which translates into an NNV of 217 (when the ARR was 0·84% and the NNV was 119 in the phase 3 trial).
ARR of 0·46% in Israel, which translates into an NNV of 217 (when the ARR was 0·84% and the NNV was 119 in the phase 3 trial).
"This means in a real-life setting, 1·8 times more subjects might need to be vaccinated to prevent one more case of COVID-19 than predicted in the corresponding clinical trial."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
