The decision, revealed on Friday in an official statement on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, has been criticized by a number of charities who say it means many people who are immunocompromised will have no choice but to avoid contact with loved ones the faces. fear of catching Covid. “We are deeply disappointed to learn that today the government has announced that it does not intend to buy Evusheld. Many in our community will be left frustrated and vulnerable,” said Helen Rowntree, director of research at Blood Cancer UK. He said the charity was calling on the government to outline its reasoning and review the decision. “Evusheld has been used for months in countries such as the US and Israel and there is a lot of evidence to show that this drug can reduce the chance of dying from Covid in those who are most vulnerable,” Rowntree said. “Today’s decision will mean that many people who are immunocompromised will have no choice but to isolate themselves from their loved ones.” While people who are immunocompromised, such as those with blood cancer or undergoing chemotherapy, have been prioritized for Covid vaccines, research shows they are less likely to produce a strong immune response to the vaccines. Evusheld is produced by the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca and contains two long-acting monoclonal antibodies that help prevent the coronavirus from entering cells, thus offering protection against infection. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approved Evusheld for use in the UK in March this year. Archie Bland and Nimo Omer take you to the top stories and what they mean, free every weekday morning Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The Department of Health and Social Care said the decision not to supply doses of Evusheld was due to a lack of data on how long the protection offered by the treatment compared to the Omicron variant. “We are determined to support the most vulnerable as we live with Covid and immunocompromised patients are prioritized for other treatments, access to free tests and vaccinations,” a government spokesman said. “We are continuing to explore the market for promising treatments that could prevent infection, to add to the antibody and antiviral treatments already offered on the NHS. We remain in close contact with all interested parties.” Fiona Loud, director of policy at Kidney Care UK, said more than one in 10 people who were previously considered clinically extremely vulnerable were still shielding in May. “We are very disappointed to hear that Evusheld will not be considered for people who are not well protected by the vaccine. A lack of transparency and communication has left many unable to understand the process that went into making this decision, and patients tell us they are heartbroken after waiting so many months to hear if this licensed treatment will be available. We call on the government to reconsider,” he said. UK Covid infection levels appear to be falling but remain high. Another wave of Covid is expected later in the year. Loud said: “Despite vaccination and anti-viral treatments, the data shows that the immunosuppressed group is still most at risk of dying from Covid, and while infections remain high, it is clear that urgent action is needed, especially for people who feel forgotten. the rest of the country is back to normal. The pandemic is far from over for kidney patients. We need action now before the winter months ahead.” Professor Danny Altmann, an immunologist at Imperial College London, said he agreed with the feeling of frustration. “For the millions of clinically vulnerable people in the UK, the idea that we are now 13 months into ‘freedom’ is a cruel travesty,” he said. “In many countries around the world, licensed monoclonals are a key element of their safety net. It is a bit difficult to judge what the divergent assessment of evidence was that led to such a different outcome for the vulnerable in the UK.’
