HomeNewsTrendsHealthICMR discredits BHU study on Covaxin safety for methodological flaws

ICMR discredits BHU study on Covaxin safety for methodological flaws

Study participants were contacted telephonically one year after vaccination and their responses were recorded without any confirmation with clinical records or by physician examination

May 20, 2024 / 16:07 IST
Dr Bahl said the study had no control arm of unvaccinated individuals for comparing the rates of events between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups

Dr Bahl said the study had no control arm of unvaccinated individuals for comparing the rates of events between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups

The Indian Council of Medical Research Director General Dr Rajiv Bahl on Monday criticised a recently published study on the long-term safety analysis of the Covaxin in adults and adolescents for its poor methodology and design, and clarified the article misleadingly and erroneously ”acknowledges” ICMR.

Dr Bahl said the study had no control arm of unvaccinated individuals for comparing the rates of events between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Hence, the reported events in the study cannot be linked or attributed to COVID-19 vaccination. The ICMR is not associated with the study and has not provided any financial or technical support for the research, Dr Bahl said.

The ICMR is not associated with the study and has not provided any financial or technical support for the research, Dr Bahl said. The ICMR DG has written a letter to the authors of the paper and Editor of the journal to immediately remove the acknowledgement to ICMR and publish an erratum.

A research paper, titled ’Long-Term Safety Analysis of the BBVl52 Coronavirus Vaccine in Adolescents and Adults: Findings from a l-Year Prospective Study in North India’ stated that nearly one-third of the 926 participants in the study who received Bharat Biotech’s anti-Covid vaccine Covaxin reported ’adverse events of special interest,’ or AESI.

Dr Bahl said that ICMR was acknowledged for research support without any prior approval of or intimation to ICMR, which is inappropriate and unacceptable. He stated that ICMR cannot be associated with this poorly designed study which purports to present a ”safety analysis” of Covaxin due to several critical flaws.

COVID-19 Vaccine

Frequently Asked Questions

View more
How does a vaccine work?

A vaccine works by mimicking a natural infection. A vaccine not only induces immune response to protect people from any future COVID-19 infection, but also helps quickly build herd immunity to put an end to the pandemic. Herd immunity occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population becomes immune to a disease, making the spread of disease from person to person unlikely. The good news is that SARS-CoV-2 virus has been fairly stable, which increases the viability of a vaccine.

How many types of vaccines are there?

There are broadly four types of vaccine — one, a vaccine based on the whole virus (this could be either inactivated, or an attenuated [weakened] virus vaccine); two, a non-replicating viral vector vaccine that uses a benign virus as vector that carries the antigen of SARS-CoV; three, nucleic-acid vaccines that have genetic material like DNA and RNA of antigens like spike protein given to a person, helping human cells decode genetic material and produce the vaccine; and four, protein subunit vaccine wherein the recombinant proteins of SARS-COV-2 along with an adjuvant (booster) is given as a vaccine.

What does it take to develop a vaccine of this kind?

Vaccine development is a long, complex process. Unlike drugs that are given to people with a diseased, vaccines are given to healthy people and also vulnerable sections such as children, pregnant women and the elderly. So rigorous tests are compulsory. History says that the fastest time it took to develop a vaccine is five years, but it usually takes double or sometimes triple that time.

View more
Show

He said the study does not even provide background rates of observed events in the population, making it impossible to assess the change in incidence of observed events in the post-vaccination period.

Baseline information of study participants is missing. He said the study does not even provide background rates of observed events in the population, making it impossible to assess the change in incidence of observed events in the post-vaccination period. Baseline information of study participants is missing. The study tool used is inconsistent with ’Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI)’ as defined in the reference provided in the paper for AESI. The method of data collection has a high risk of bias, he said.

The method of data collection has a high risk of bias, he said. Study participants were contacted telephonically one year after vaccination and their responses were recorded without any confirmation with clinical records or by physician examination, he pointed out. Dr Bahl also noted that similar acknowledgements to ICMR have been made in previous papers without permission, raising concerns about the authors’ practices.

”The authors have been urged to immediately rectify the acknowledgment to ICMR and publish an erratum. Additionally, they are asked to address the methodological concerns raised. Failure to do so may prompt ICMR to consider legal and administrative action,” he said.

The Editor has been asked to retract the paper which implicitly makes conclusions on vaccine safety which are not supported by evidence. The Editor has been asked to retract the paper which implicitly makes conclusions on vaccine safety which are not supported by evidence. The study, conducted by researchers from the Banaras Hindu University from January 2022 to August 2023, stated that nearly 50 per cent of 926 study participants in the study complained of infections during the follow-up period, predominated by viral upper respiratory tract infections.

Serious AESI, which included stroke and Guillain-Barre syndrome, were reported in one per cent of individuals, the study, which looked at long-term safety of the BBV152 (Covaxin) vaccine in adolescents and adults, claimed. Serious AESI, which included stroke and Guillain-Barre syndrome, were reported in one per cent of individuals, the study, which looked at long-term safety of the BBV152 (Covaxin) vaccine in adolescents and adults, claimed. The study involved 635 adolescents and 291 adults, who received the BBV152 vaccine.

PTI
first published: May 20, 2024 04:03 pm

Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!

Subscribe to Tech Newsletters

  • On Saturdays

    Find the best of Al News in one place, specially curated for you every weekend.

  • Daily-Weekdays

    Stay on top of the latest tech trends and biggest startup news.

Advisory Alert: It has come to our attention that certain individuals are representing themselves as affiliates of Moneycontrol and soliciting funds on the false promise of assured returns on their investments. We wish to reiterate that Moneycontrol does not solicit funds from investors and neither does it promise any assured returns. In case you are approached by anyone making such claims, please write to us at grievanceofficer@nw18.com or call on 02268882347