Doctor Manop reveals the results of the Hong Kong medical team Open the research summary document indicating that the Pfizer vaccine can stimulate the creation of antibody better than the Sinovac vaccine.
On June 26, Prof. Dr. Manop Phithakpakorn, Head of the Precision Medical Research Center Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital Post a message on your personal Facebook page. Publication of research results from a team of doctors from Hong Kong who concluded that the Pfizer vaccine can stimulate antibody production better than the Sinovac vaccine, stating that
Last week, many people saw the news, a team of researchers from HKU presented data conclusively suggesting that people who received the Pfizer x BioNTech vaccine had higher immunity than Sinovac, but did not see any actual study results.
Two days prior to early release in the Hong Kong Medical Journal comparing anti-spike antibody and surrogate neutralizing antibody levels of healthcare workers receiving Pfizer or Sinovac vaccine after the first dose. and after two injections, approximately 200 people per group
The results showed that antibody levels measured by three techniques (Roche, Genscript and Abbott) in the plasma of Pfizer vaccinated subjects were significantly higher than that of Sinovac. The same height, or slightly higher than the person who received two full Sinovac shots. And those who received two full doses of Pfizer and were tested with the Roche and Genscript test kits would likely be so high they hit the ceiling of measurement. This makes it difficult to compare the antibody levels of those who received the Sinovac vaccine, but when looking at the antibody levels measured with the Abbott assay, the antibody levels of those who received two doses of Pfizer were approximately 11 times higher than those of Sinovac.
Comparative studies between Sinovac and Pfizer vaccines are rare, as few countries currently have large amounts of both vaccine brands. Hong Kong is a good place to do this study. This is because the proportion of people vaccinated with both types of vaccines is the same. While this is not an exact measure of vaccine effectiveness (VE), it is a good surrogate.
Please read the full text here. https://www.hkmj.org/earlyrelease/hkmj219605.htm
Shortly thereafter, Dr. Nithipat Jearakul, Head of the Department of Respiratory Disease and Tuberculosis Department of Internal Medicine Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital Mahidol University Go to post a message asking.
“How do you explain the surrogate NA by Genscript of 94.4 and 100%, even with a P 0.0194, is it clinically important/?”
Prof. Dr. Manop went to answer the question. “It’s difficult to translate, sir, because Genscript has a low cut off point for positive results, which translates into a high percentage of positive results (94.4% vs 100% here, simply seroconversion rate). But the problem with interpreting even surrogate NAb is that this cut-off means that the vaccine is valid. In the original paper, the cut-off point was set at 30% inhibition, but the cut-off point was for NAb dectection, not saying that 30% inhibition would. enough to prevent us from getting infected. It is very difficult to apply this to predicting the ability of vaccines to prevent disease. So now just look at The higher the better, either the level is AU/mL or see % inhibition https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-020-0631-z Like that, teacher It’s like cutting an A grade. There may be two people who get A grades from 80% and 99% raw.