Who funded the research behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine? - Approximating the funding to the University of Oxford for the research and development of the ChAdOx vaccine technology (preprint)

ObjectivesThe Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or Vaxzevira) builds on nearly two decades of research and development (R&D) into Chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aims to approximate the funding for the R&D of the ChAdOx technology and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, and assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms. DesignWe conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct the funding for the R&D of the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly-accessible grant databases. We filed Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D. ResultsWe identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between 01/2002 and 10/2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from funding acknowledgement statements. Government funders from overseas were mentioned 158 (27.4%), the U.K. government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%) times. Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions, amounts were available in the public realm for 121 (21.0%) mentions. Based on the FOIs, until 01/2020, the European Commision (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and CEPI (17.5%) were the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D. From 01/2020, the U.K. Department of Health and Social Care was the single largest funder (89.3%). The identified R&D funding was {pound}104,226,076 reported in the FOIs, and {pound}228,466,771 reconstructed from the literature search. ConclusionsOur study identified that public funding accounted for 97.1-99.0% of the funding towards the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. We furthermore encountered a severe lack of transparency in research funding reporting mechanisms. Strengths and limitations of this studyO_LIThis is the first study that analysed the R&D funding and funders contributing to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and the underlying ChAdOx technology. C_LIO_LIWe used multiple sources and methods to approximate the R&D funding of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine and ChAdOx technology. C_LIO_LIWe cross-matched award numbers with all publicly-accessible databases by major funders of R&D. C_LIO_LIFreedom Of Information requests were a useful method to identify R&D funding, but face limitations in their scope of data collection. C_LIO_LIIntegration of the two data sets was not possible due to insufficient grant information and lack of award numbers in funding acknowledgement statements in peer-reviewed articles. C_LI

Infection and mortality of healthcare workers worldwide from COVID-19: a scoping review (preprint)

Objectives To estimate COVID-19 infections and deaths in healthcare workers (HCWs) from a global perspective. Design Scoping review. Methods Two parallel searches of academic bibliographic databases and grey literature were undertaken. Governments were also contacted for further information where possible. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the review and the need to report the most up-to-date information for an ever-evolving situation, there were no restrictions on language, information sources utilised, publication status, and types of sources of evidence. The AACODS checklist was used to appraise each source of evidence. Outcome measures Publication characteristics, country-specific data points, COVID-19 specific data, demographics of affected HCWs, and public health measures employed Results A total of 152,888 infections and 1413 deaths were reported. Infections were mainly in women (71.6%) and nurses (38.6%), but deaths were mainly in men (70.8%) and doctors (51.4%). Limited data suggested that general practitioners and mental health nurses were the highest risk specialities for deaths. There were 37.17 deaths reported per 100 infections for healthcare workers aged over 70. Europe had the highest absolute numbers of reported infections (119628) and deaths (712), but the Eastern Mediterranean region had the highest number of reported deaths per 100 infections (5.7). Conclusions HCW COVID-19 infections and deaths follow that of the general world population. The reasons for gender and speciality differences require further exploration, as do the low rates reported from Africa and India. Although physicians working in certain specialities may be considered high-risk due to exposure to oronasal secretions, the risk to other specialities must not be underestimated. Elderly HCWs may require assigning to less risky settings such as telemedicine, or administrative positions. Our pragmatic approach provides general trends, and highlights the need for universal guidelines for testing and reporting of infections in HCWs.