Astrazeneca/Oxford get a poor grade for transparency and rigor when it comes to the vaccine trial results they have reported. This is not like Pfizer or Moderna where we had the protocols in advance and a pre-specified primary analysis was reported. 1/5

AZN is evaluating their vaccine in multiple trials across the world, yet these are not embedded under a unified protocol. In fact, the trials seem to be quite different by country, in terms of populations, subgroups, etc. Based on the publicly available details I've seen. 2/5

With the exception of the US-based trial, I am not aware of details on how these trials are being monitored. Is there a centralized DSMB? Are they combining the accrued data? They seem to have combined events across Brazil and UK. Why not the other countries? 3/5

And reporting out a secondary analysis that was not pre-specified (since it seems to be based on a dosing error) is not desirable. If they seek to get the half-dose approved, they should wait until they have a compelling result. Otherwise, we can land in "evidence limbo." 4/5

All of this to say, I really don't know what to make of the results, but as @Dereklowe and others have said, I'm glad this is not the first vaccine to read out, because it is awfully confusing for experts and non-experts alike. 5/5