Doctors repeat that “the best vaccine it is the one that applies ”. The phrase (correct) encourages vaccination beyond one, in order to boost herd immunity. But the reality of Covid imposes other roughnesses: many vaccinated with Sputnik and with Cansino they are restless about the lack of international endorsement of those doses, which could prevent them from entering countries like the United States. However, Sputnik and Cansino they would not be in the same conditions.
Of the thumbs down you’re getting Sputnik a lot has been said. This chronicler is far from clarifying the details of a geopolitical scale that is not very equitable, nor why messages are informally launched from Russia on Twitter, such as the promise of a imminent authorization from WHO.
However, little and nothing was said about the immunized Cansino.
Vaccination against the coronavirus with doses of the Cansino unit dose. / AFP
–
In Argentina they are just under 70,000 people. You have to add the 3,700 volunteers of the phase 3 study that was carried out in the country, conducted by the renowned infectologist Pedro Cahn, who explained to Clarion that until now does not handle information about an early approval of the WHO, but clarified: “I know from the people of Cansino that the process is progressing. The data is being analyzed and they await approval at any time ”.
When is “anytime“? There is an official WHO spreadsheet where this issue is quite clarified.
Smooth sailing
The grid is nothing other than the monitoring of WHO evaluations, vaccine by vaccine. It has ten columns. The first indicates the order number. In the first and last place are two vaccines that almost outline an ode to the geopolitical reading of the complex world of pharmaceuticals: Pfizer, in the first place, and the Cuban Sovereign vaccine, in the last, the number 23.
Returning to Cansino and Sputnik, the first five columns do not revert much interest: the manufacturer is detailed (with the acronym EUL, for Emergency Use Licence); the name of the vaccine; an item that is named as “NRA” (the acronym for National Regulatory Authority, or registered national regulatory authority, which includes the FDA or the EMA, among others); and, finally, the type of platform (mRNA, non-replicative viral vector and others, etc.).
The big differences start in the column that follows, labeled with the acronym EOI, by Expression of Interest. The consignment column if the expression of interest was accepted by WHO.
Almost all vaccines (including Cansino) have a check mark indicating “ok”. Sputnik, no.
The Gamaleya Center received a not very clear legend that expresses “additional information sent”.
In a similar situation (without that approval) are four other vaccines: the Russian EpiVacCorona, the Chinese Recombinant Novel Coronavirus Vaccine (CHO Cell) and SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine (Inactivated), and the aforementioned Sovereign, made in Cuba.
Deadlines
The following columns are also an indication that Cansino, compared to Sputnik, could be cleared – sooner rather than later – by the WHO.
In the item “Holding a previous meeting to the presentation ”, Sputnik gets a reference that alludes to a bogged down evaluation: “Several meetings were held and they continue to be held.” Cansino, on the other hand, has the box checked, which indicates that this instance has already been completed.
The next column clarifies whether the vaccine dossier was accepted for review. They rate Gamaleya the same as a bad student: “Incomplete continuous shipment.” In the case of Cansino, it is clarified that the “accumulated” data (because new information is continuously added) began to be sent on the August 9, 2021.
Eduardo Lopez, a renowned infectologist at the “Ricardo Gutiérrez” Children’s Hospital, one of the doctors in charge of the Cansino study in Argentina and the group of government advisers on the pandemic, explained that “for the times, it is logical that they have not yet given any statement on approval ”.
For the doctor, “this process lasts between three and six months“, So” we are within expectations. ” In fact, he said, “it depends on different factors, but it is very likely that before the end of the year it will be approved by the WHO“.
Nobody rules out (neither López nor Cahn) that Cansino -vaccine in unit dose- is approved with the suggestion of testing, also, the reinforcement with a second dose.
In both cases, they would consider it positive, they said. In fact, the two-dose strategy is being tested in phase 3 in the country, Cahn explained, as are two other studies he is conducting himself: one of the “heterologous” type, with Cansino acting as second dose of Sputnik, and another for HIV patients.
To be continue…
The last two columns of the grid are worth looking at. The eighth indicates the “Assessment status”. The Russian vaccine gets the phrase “waiting for the continuous presentation to be completed.” To Cansino, the auspicious message “on going”.
The last item indicates the date when WHO will make the decision, although they clarify that it is an estimate, since “it depends on all the data being sent and the evaluators’ questions being answered”.
In the case of Sputnik, that column only adds uncertainty. Also, a certain point to the developer sloppiness in the proper presentation of the papers.
The locker says “The target date will be set once all data is submitted and the inspection observations follow-up is complete.”.
But the Cansino makers have a bean going for them. They are three letters, common in these processes. “TBC“, the acronym of to be confirmed. In other words, the approval date will be confirmed.
PS
