Manufacturer Pfizer calls it “a great day for science and humanity.” An initial, interim analysis shows that the vaccine that Pfizer developed together with the German biotech company BioNTech against the coronavirus is “90 percent effective”.
The drug has not yet been approved for use: this will not happen until the end of this month at the earliest, when the pharmaceutical company has provided more data on the safety of the vaccine. Nevertheless, independent vaccine watchers are also delighted.
“This vaccine sets the bar very high for the candidates who are still in the pipeline,” says Cécile van Els, immunologist at RIVM and professor of vaccinology at Utrecht University. “It’s not like we all got vaccinated early next year. But this result does put an enormously positive dot on the horizon, “says professor of immunology at the Amsterdam UMC Marjolein van Egmond.
The vaccine is one of six vaccinations on which the European Union already took an option last summer. In concrete terms, this means that the Netherlands can expect 7.8 million doses of the vaccine if it is approved for the market, with the prospect of an additional 3.9 million doses. All together, that is enough to vaccinate almost six million Dutch people, because the vaccination consists of two injections.
In recent months, Pfizer has tested the corona vaccine on a total of 43,538 subjects in the US, Brazil, Argentina and Germany. After 94 cases of illness, Pfizer can now say that the vaccine is 90 percent effective. That would mean that 85 people were infected in a non-vaccinated group, compared to nine in an inoculated group.
Pfizer does not want to give details yet. “But Pfizer is a large, well-respected company. They also know that if they come up with some message that is not correct afterwards, they will shoot in their own foot, “says Van Egmond. “A victory for innovation, science and the power of global collaboration,” is how BioNTech founder Ugur Sahin calls the new results.
There are also arm punches. For example, Pfizer has to continue testing for a while: the efficacy can only be definitively analyzed in 164 cases of disease. We also have to wait for the security data. The company will not provide these for a few weeks. But in previous experiments, the vaccine did not produce more serious side effects than some headache and some irritation around the puncture site.
Difficult to apply in warm areas
The question is how long the protection of the vaccine will actually last, says Van Els. “These are results shortly after the immune response has been triggered. The question is, of course, whether the test subjects will still be protected in six months. ”Van Egmond also points out some logistical disadvantages of the vaccine: the drug must be stored at minus 70 degrees, which makes it difficult to use in warm and remote areas, and the two injections must be administered carefully.
“But on the other hand, this result shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel,” emphasizes Van Egmond. “All pessimistic comments about the fact that it has never been possible to make a vaccine against HIV, or that we also do not have a vaccine against the common cold, can now be dropped.”
The vaccine works according to a new idea: inject a little genetic material into humans that makes body cells around the puncture site somewhat resemble coronavirus, so that the immune system becomes alarmed. That alone is what makes the Pfizer result so encouraging: no one was entirely sure it worked.
In addition, there are two more vaccines in the pipeline that use the same trick: the drug of the American start-up Moderna and that of CureVac. The EU has already placed a pre-order for those vaccines, which would amount to an additional 11.9 million doses of vaccine for the Netherlands. The results of both companies are expected after the turn of the year.
A piquant detail is that Pfizer is revealing its results just after the US presidential election instead of just before – something incumbent President Donald Trump regularly announced. But there is no question of intent, Pfizer emphasizes: the 94 cases of illness required for a statistically sound judgment were simply not there before.
