It's a matter of approach. The Swiss are independent (their MHRA is SwissMedic) They, like the MHRA are incredibly thorough. Each territory is 95% aligned but with certain nuances. For example, the Japanese (in my experience) ask a lot about carcinogens, they will generally ask for additional information around the work done to prove they are not present or below the Theoretical Threshold for Concern as we call it, typically ~10-15 parts per million.
If the MHRA didn't ask for this (we don't know, they've been reviewing since October and information on pre-existing conditions would be available largely at the point of initial study recruitment with further evidence being added to the dossier as it's acquired through the clinical trial). Ultimately the MHRA has said that there were no serious side effects reported (and no side effects outside of normal vaccine administration side effects which lasted more than a day(?)). From this the MHRA is likely to infer therefore with the knowledge of pre-existing conditions of the clinical trial participants that there's no concern. They may have also asked for the additional info and got it. We won't know that.
Don't hold your breath on the full report. I've never seen one and therefore assume they don't provide them. A certificate is issued to the company who owns the process for drug manufacture and it's good to go. In my opinion one of the most clandestine things about the whole process and certainly a potential area for improvement.
My experience of difficulty to register a new drug by territory (hardest first):
1. Japan/Swizerland/UK
2. Europe/America
3. Rest of the world
4. China