FOI release

Freedom of Information request the authorisation of the Pfizer/BioNTech and the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines (FOI-21-322)

Published 28 May 2021

Thank you for your email.

The authorisation of the Pfizer/BioNTech and the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines was done through an expedited rolling review. A ‘rolling review’ can be used to complete the assessment of a promising medicine or vaccine during a public health emergency in the shortest time possible. This is done as the packages of data become available from ongoing studies on a staggered basis. The temporary authorisation under Regulation 174 permits the supply of identified vaccine batches, based on the safety, quality and efficacy data submitted to MHRA. These authorisations do not constitute a marketing authorisation.

All vaccines are tested through three phases of clinical trials to ensure they meet the gold standard. Phase 1 trials are with a small group of people to make sure there are no safety concerns and determines the appropriate dosage for the best immune response. Phase 2 trials are conducted on a larger group of people to check the vaccine works consistently and that the immune response is sufficient. Phase 3 trials test the vaccines on thousands of people for scientists to assess if the vaccine is producing immunity that will prevent disease. Usually, these phases are run in sequence, but in an effort to find a safe and effective Covid-19 vaccine as quickly as possible, once safety has been ascertained through Phase 1, Phases 2 and 3 are being run in parallel. Extensive checks and balances are required at every stage of the development of a vaccine, and this is no different for a Covid-19 vaccine. No stages in the vaccine development processes were bypassed.

Information on the study conducted using the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and its results are available in a peer-reviewed journal, the New England Journal of Medicine. A link to this is provided below:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=featured_home

The approval for use of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines in the UK followed a rigorous scientific assessment of all the available evidence on quality, safety and effectiveness by the UK regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The MHRA expert scientists and clinicians reviewed data from the laboratory pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and quality controls, product sampling and testing of the final vaccine, and also considered the conditions for its safe supply and distribution. The decision was made with advice from the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM), the government’s independent expert scientific advisory body. Regarding the MHRA approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech and the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines, further information (including information for healthcare professionals and recipients of the vaccine, and Public Assessment Reports [PARs] for each vaccine) are available on the MHRA website. Links to these are provided below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

Further to the above, the Moderna vaccine was granted a marketing authorisation by MHRA on 31 March 2021. Further information on this is provided below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna

In addition, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have granted a marketing authorisation for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Further information on this is provided below:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

The Information for Healthcare Professionals for each vaccine, accessible via the above links, contains a list of the ingredients in each vaccine (section 6.1). Prospective vaccine recipients should share this with their healthcare professional to ensure that they are not allergic to any of these ingredients. Anyone due to receive their vaccine should continue with their appointment and discuss any concerns or medical history of serious allergies with the healthcare professional prior to administration.

The MHRA is collecting data concerning any adverse reactions observed to vaccine treatment through our Yellow Card Scheme. We are regularly publishing Yellow Card data associated with COVID-19 vaccinations. Yellow Card data for drugs is routinely published on the Yellow Card website, with vaccine data available on request. However, for COVID-19 vaccinations we are proactively publishing details of adverse drug reactions received, including MHRA assessment of the data to provide context. Please note this data is updated weekly.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions

Throughout this global pandemic, we have always been guided by the latest scientific advice. Having studied evidence on both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has advised that we should prioritise giving as many people in at-risk groups their first dose, rather than providing two doses in as short a time as possible.

The four UK Chief Medical Officers agree with JCVI that at this stage of the pandemic prioritising the first doses of vaccine for as many people as possible on the priority list will protect the greatest number of at risk people overall in the shortest possible time and will have the greatest impact on reducing mortality, severe disease and hospitalisations and in protecting the NHS and equivalent health services.

This is because the evidence shows that one dose of either vaccine provides a high level of protection from Covid-19.

For both vaccines, data provided to MHRA demonstrate that whilst efficacy is optimised when a second dose is administered both offer considerable protection after a single dose, at least in the short term. For both vaccines the second dose completes the course and is likely to be important for longer term protection.

The NHS across the UK will prioritise giving the first dose of the vaccine to those in the most high-risk groups. Everyone will still receive their second dose and this will be within 12 weeks of their first. The second dose completes the course and is important for longer-term protection.

The JCVI’s independent advice is that this approach will maximise the benefits of both vaccines allowing the NHS to help the greatest number of people in the shortest possible time. It will ensure that more at-risk people are able to get meaningful protection from a vaccine in the coming weeks and months, reducing deaths and starting to ease pressure on our NHS.

The following Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) webpage for the independent report ‘Optimising the COVID-19 vaccination programme for maximum short-term impact’ from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) provides the rationale for the government’s implemented dosing strategy:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prioritising-the-first-covid-19-vaccine-dose-jcvi-statement/optimising-the-covid-19-vaccination-programme-for-maximum-short-term-impact

Further, the scientific basis from the JCVI concerning the current evidence on efficacy after single doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford/AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines is available in the public domain and is provided below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prioritising-the-first-covid-19-vaccine-dose-jcvi-statement

Please note that there are no plans to make the Covid-19 vaccine compulsory. The UK operates a system of informed consent for vaccinations.

Regarding your specific questions:

a. & b. MHRA holds no information for specific age groups, gender, ethnicity, health conditions, body mass index etc on the “the chance of me dying from COVID-19 without receiving a vaccine” or “the chance that I will end up in hospital with life-threatening complications as a result of COVID-19, without receiving a vaccine.” or indeed the chance of developing long COVID. This is not within the MHRA’s remit. MHRA is responsible for authorising medicinal products. We have no responsibility for the vaccine schedule or how the vaccines are rolled out into the community.

c. Please see the information MHRA has provided above concerning the current approved vaccines.

d. Regarding information on progress of the market authorisation of the other vaccinations within the next calendar year, MHRA neither confirms nor denies that it holds information falling within the description specified in your request. The duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of Section 41 (Information provided in confidence) and Section 43 (Commercial interests) of that Act. This should not be taken as an indication that the information you requested is or is not held by the department.

Section 41 is an absolute exemption and no consideration of the public interest is required, except to state that we consider its disclosure to constitute an actionable breach of confidence.

Section 43 is a qualified exemption and a consideration of the public interest should be made. We have considered the public interest and cannot see any public interest argument that outweighs the commercial harm in alerting competitors to whether a rival product is trying to come onto the market or not. Examples of public interest arguments would be a major public health risk or a major procedural failure or irregularity.

Unfortunately, we are unable to provide medical advice on individual cases, so I would encourage you to discuss any concerns with your doctor or pharmacist, who will be in the best position to advise you. It is a key role of the MHRA to provide doctors with advice on the safe use of medicines; however, the final responsibility for the clinical care of the patient remains with the doctor given their clinical expertise and knowledge of your medical history.

If you disagree with how we have interpreted the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with regards to your request, you can ask for the decision to be reviewed. The review will be carried out by a senior member of the Agency who was not involved with the original decision.

If you have a query about the information provided, please reply to this email

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date you receive this response and addressed to: [email protected] 

Due to the ongoing Covid-19 situation, we are not able to accept delivery of any documents or correspondence by post or courier to any of our offices

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you were to remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal review, you would have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Please bear in mind that the Information Commissioner will not normally review our handling of your request unless you have first contacted us to conduct an internal review. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU