Now Russia claims its Covid vaccine is 92% effective

Russia has today claimed its coronavirus vaccine is 92 per effective, which would make it better than the jab being developed by Pfizer.

Declaring early results just two days after the American pharmaceutical company, it said out of 20 infections recorded so far only two were in people who had received a Sputnik V — the name of the country’s jab.

The country’s Minister of Health, Mikhail Murashko, heralded the results as revealing Sputnik V’s is an ‘efficient solution to stop the spread of coronavirus’.

But scientists questioned the findings — which were sent out in a press release by a London-based PR agency, warning there is ‘considerable uncertainty’ because of the small number of infections in the trial.

They also accused state officials of ‘mirroring’ the results of Pfizer, and one even said based on these early numbers the Covid-19 vaccine may actually only be 60 per cent effective.

Pfizer revealed on Monday that its experimental jab is 90 per cent effective, with the news sparking hope of an end to the pandemic. Britain has already bought 40million doses of the pharmaceutical giant’s vaccine.

Russia claimed the vaccine was effective in a press release sent by London-based PR firm Powerscourt, meaning scientists are not able to double-check the results.

Pfizer, which is working with German firm BioNTech on its vaccine, also decided to release the early efficacy data through a press release. 

Sputnik V was the first vaccine in the world to gain emergency approval in Moscow, but is yet to be rolled out in other countries.

Its results are based on 16,000 volunteers involved in the trial 21 days after they received their first shot.

But the vaccine requires two doses, according to officials, which should be administered 21 days apart. 

Around half of the individuals in the trial are receiving the vaccine, and the other half are getting a placebo, or an ineffective version.

Trials are split in this way to reveal whether a vaccine is effective. If there are fewer cases among people who received the vaccine, this suggests it protects them from getting ill.

But sometimes infections occur in people that have received a vaccine because no jab is 100 per cent effective.

There were no adverse effects reported for the vaccine, Russia said, but those receiving it reported pain at the injection site and flu-like symptoms for several days afterwards. 

Pfizer’s vaccine also requires two shots given three weeks apart, to ensure immunity to Covid-19. 

It has a disadvantage compared to the Sputnik V because it needs to be stored at -70C (-94F), whereas the Russian vaccine can be stored in refrigerators. 

Professor Stephen Evans, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), said there is ‘considerable uncertainty’ in Russia’s claim because of the small number of Covid-19 cases reported in the study.

He warned that Russia would need to continue the trial for longer and record more Covid-19 infections to get reliable results.

But he said based on the current numbers Sputnik V may in fact only be 60 per cent effective. 

Professor Brendan Wren, also from the LSHTM, added that the results appeared to ‘mirror’ those of Pfizer, both in terms of percentage success of the vaccine and in terms of the sample size.  

Professor Eleanor Riley, an immunologist at the University of Edinburgh, urged the Russian state to remember that this is ‘not a competition’. 

‘I worry that these data have been rushed out on the back of the Pfizer/BioNtech announcement earlier in the week,’ she said.

‘The Sputnik data are based on only 20 cases of Covid-19 in the trial participants, compared to more than 90 cases in the earlier trial.

‘This is not a competition. We need all trials to be a carried out to the highest possible standards and it is particularly important that the pre-set criteria for unblinding the trial data are adhered to avoid cherry picking the data. 

‘Anything less than this risks a public loss of trust in all vaccines, which would be a disaster.’

Other scientists, however, sounded a cautious note of optimism and said they would await the publication of the full trial data.

Professor Ian Jones, an epidemiologist from the University of Reading, told MailOnline that it was possible the vaccine could work because it is based on the common cold virus – adenovirus – which is used to deliver a piece of Covid-19 genetic code to the body.

‘To be fair I don’t see why it should not be an effective vaccine as, in principle, all the adenovirus vaccines do the same thing,’ he said.

‘The low numbers would be the only definable issue right now, meaning the efficiency number could drop as they accrue more data. 

‘But for now I think it’s a case of credit when credit is due, whatever the past experience.’ 

Dr Stephen Griffin, associate professor of medicine at the University of Leeds, added that he felt it was right to be ‘cautiously optimistic’ about the vaccine and wait for official data to be published.

‘However, again it will be necessary to see the complete data set before making confident assessments of how well this, or other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines work and full assessment of safety must be made. 

‘In particular, we must understand whether these prevent infection itself or just severe symptoms, as well as if vaccines might continue shedding infectious virus. In addition, efficacy in different age groups, ethnicities and in patients with compromised immune systems will need to be determined before we can decide how best to deploy these hopefully world-changing medicines.’