> The DSMB expressed concern that AstraZeneca may have included outdated information from that trial, which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data
[because... the data reviewed does not appear to cover the California varient, etc...]
The fact that it is kept vague and not including a reason is not helpful and leads to speculation on how terrible AZ are for not being able to submit proper data. They do confirm that this question has nothing to do with the blood clots which this data helps disprove any proper link.
Otherwise, keeping things vague provides maximum room for maneuver for both groups to resolve the issue without either group losing too much face. This way things can get chalked up to "mis-understandings" of what the requirements were, and AZ can reclarify their data in light of these new requirements.
What’s going on over at AZ? I’m not claiming conspiracy, but clearly there was a miscommunication somewhere.
https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/pres...
“We will immediately engage with the independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB) to share our primary analysis with the most up to date efficacy data. We intend to issue results of the primary analysis within 48 hours.”
This wouldn't be the first I have seen News Agencies deliberately avoid carrying comments because the PR on the other side of the table happened to not respond "immediately" or "in time" etc;