The collective voice of early phase COVID-19 vaccine trial participants: Insights for improving confidence in novel vaccines.

In early 2020, adult volunteers were invited to participate in a first-in-human trial of the COVID-19 vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in the United Kingdom (UK) at the height of the global pandemic when there was uncertainty regarding vaccine efficacy and side-effects. We conducted a retrospective survey of these uniquely situated individuals to gain insight into their views about the risks, motivations, and expectations of the trial and potential vaccine deployment. Our data from 349 respondents show that these volunteers were educated to a high-level with a clear understanding of the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as an appreciation of the role of science and research in developing a vaccine to address this global problem. Individuals were primarily motivated with altruistic intent and expressed a desire to contribute to the scientific effort. Respondents appreciated that their participation was associated with risk but appeared comfortable that this risk was low. Through our analysis, we highlight these individuals as a group with strong levels of trust in science and a sense of societal responsibility, and therefore are a potential valuable resource to improve confidence in novel vaccines. Vaccine trial participants could offer a credible collective voice to support positive messaging around vaccination.

Co-producing Human and Animal Experimental Subjects: Exploring the Views of UK COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participants on Animal Testing

Preclinical (animal) testing and human testing of drugs and vaccines are rarely considered by social scientists side by side. Where this is done, it is typically for theoretically exploring the ethics of the two situations to compare relative treatment. In contrast, we empirically explore how human clinical trial participants understand the role of animal test subjects in vaccine development. Furthermore, social science research has only concentrated on broad public opinion and the views of patients about animal research, whereas we explore the views of a public group particularly implicated in pharmaceutical development: <italic>experimental subjects</italic>. We surveyed and interviewed COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK, on their views about taking part in a vaccine trial and the role of animals in trials. We found that trial participants mirrored assumptions about legitimate reasons for animal testing embedded in regulation and provided insight into (i) the nuances of public opinion on animal research;(ii) the co-production of human and animal experimental subjects;(iii) how vaccine and medicine testing, and the motivations and demographics of clinical trial participants, change in an outbreak;and (iv) what public involvement can offer to science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Science, Technology & Human Values is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Vaccine nationalism and internationalism: perspectives of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine nationalism has become a key topic of discussion during the development, testing, and rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. Media attention has highlighted the ways that global, coordinated access to vaccines has been limited during the pandemic. It has also exposed how some countries have secured vaccine supply, through bilateral purchase agreements and the way pharmaceutical companies have priced, negotiated, and delivered these supplies. Much of the focus of this debate has been on the vaccine supply 'winners' and 'losers', but the voices of public opinion have been more limited. METHODS: We explore the concepts of vaccine nationalism and internationalism from the perspective of vaccine trial participants, using an empirical perspectives study that involved interviews with phase I/II COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK. We surveyed and interviewed participants between September and October 2020 about their views, motivations and experiences in taking part in the trial. RESULTS: First, we show how trial participants describe national and international ideas about vaccination as intertwined and challenge claims that these positions are mutually exclusive or oppositional. Second, we analyse these viewpoints further to show that vaccine nationalism is closely connected with national pride and metaphors of a country's scientific achievements. Participants held a global outlook and were highly supportive of the prioritisation of vaccines by global need, but many were also pessimistic that such a solution could be possible. CONCLUSION: Trial participants constitute an informed public group, with situated public expertise that the global community could draw on as an expert opinion. We argue that vaccine nationalism is strongly attached to national character and, therefore, it is more difficult for ownership of a vaccine to be though of as international.

T cell and antibody responses induced by a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in a phase 1/2 clinical trial.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused a global pandemic, and safe, effective vaccines are urgently needed1. Strong, Th1-skewed T cell responses can drive protective humoral and cell-mediated immune responses2 and might reduce the potential for disease enhancement3. Cytotoxic T cells clear virus-infected host cells and contribute to control of infection4. Studies of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 have suggested a protective role for both humoral and cell-mediated immune responses in recovery from COVID-19 (refs. 5,6). ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) is a candidate SARS-CoV-2 vaccine comprising a replication-deficient simian adenovirus expressing full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We recently reported preliminary safety and immunogenicity data from a phase 1/2 trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (NCT04400838)7 given as either a one- or two-dose regimen. The vaccine was tolerated, with induction of neutralizing antibodies and antigen-specific T cells against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Here we describe, in detail, exploratory analyses of the immune responses in adults, aged 18-55 years, up to 8 weeks after vaccination with a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in this trial, demonstrating an induction of a Th1-biased response characterized by interferon-γ and tumor necrosis factor-α cytokine secretion by CD4+ T cells and antibody production predominantly of IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses. CD8+ T cells, of monofunctional, polyfunctional and cytotoxic phenotypes, were also induced. Taken together, these results suggest a favorable immune profile induced by ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, supporting the progression of this vaccine candidate to ongoing phase 2/3 trials to assess vaccine efficacy.

Phase 1/2 trial of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with a booster dose induces multifunctional antibody responses.

More than 190 vaccines are currently in development to prevent infection by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Animal studies suggest that while neutralizing antibodies against the viral spike protein may correlate with protection, additional antibody functions may also be important in preventing infection. Previously, we reported early immunogenicity and safety outcomes of a viral vector coronavirus vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), in a single-blinded phase 1/2 randomized controlled trial of healthy adults aged 18-55 years ( NCT04324606 ). Now we describe safety and exploratory humoral and cellular immunogenicity of the vaccine, from subgroups of volunteers in that trial, who were subsequently allocated to receive a homologous full-dose (SD/SD D56; n = 20) or half-dose (SD/LD D56; n = 32) ChAdOx1 booster vaccine 56 d following prime vaccination. Previously reported immunogenicity data from the open-label 28-d interval prime-boost group (SD/SD D28; n = 10) are also presented to facilitate comparison. Additionally, we describe volunteers boosted with the comparator vaccine (MenACWY; n = 10). In this interim report, we demonstrate that a booster dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is safe and better tolerated than priming doses. Using a systems serology approach we also demonstrate that anti-spike neutralizing antibody titers, as well as Fc-mediated functional antibody responses, including antibody-dependent neutrophil/monocyte phagocytosis, complement activation and natural killer cell activation, are substantially enhanced by a booster dose of vaccine. A booster dose of vaccine induced stronger antibody responses than a dose-sparing half-dose boost, although the magnitude of T cell responses did not increase with either boost dose. These data support the two-dose vaccine regime that is now being evaluated in phase 3 clinical trials.