Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
SSRN; 2022.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-332455

ABSTRACT

Background: Many high-income countries have deployed third “booster” doses of COVID-19 vaccines to populations and some countries have started offering fourth doses. Methods: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase II trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines as third dose boosters. The current study invited participants who received BNT162b2 (BNT) as third dose in COV-BOOST to be randomised to receive a fourth dose of BNT or mRNA1273 (50 µg, half-m1273). The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. Results: Between 11 and 25 January 2022, 166 participants in the original BNT arm were randomised and received a fourth dose vaccine. The median age was 70.1 (interquartile range: 51.6-77.5) years with 51.8 % (n=86) female participants. The median interval between third and fourth dose was 208.5 (interquartile range: 203.25-214.75) days.Pain and fatigue were the most common local and systemic solicited adverse events for BNT and half-m1273. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose were related to study vaccine.The fold rises in anti-spike IgG pre- and post-fourth dose were 12.19 (95%CI: 10.37-14.32) and 15.90 (95%CI: 12.92-19.58) in BNT and half-m1273 arms respectively, with fold changes compared to the post third dose-peak of 1.59 (95%CI: 1.41-1.78) and 2.19 (95%CI: 1.90-2.52). T cell responses also boosted. Conclusions: Fourth dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well-tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity up to, and beyond peak levels achieved following third dose boosters (ISRCTN: 73765130).

2.
Nat Cancer ; 2022 Mar 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764216

ABSTRACT

Patients with hematological malignancies are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes due to compromised immune responses, but the insights of these studies have been compromised due to intrinsic limitations in study design. Here we present the PROSECO prospective observational study ( NCT04858568 ) on 457 patients with lymphoma that received two or three COVID-19 vaccine doses. We show undetectable humoral responses following two vaccine doses in 52% of patients undergoing active anticancer treatment. Moreover, 60% of patients on anti-CD20 therapy had undetectable antibodies following full vaccination within 12 months of receiving their anticancer therapy. However, 70% of individuals with indolent B-cell lymphoma displayed improved antibody responses following booster vaccination. Notably, 63% of all patients displayed antigen-specific T-cell responses, which increased after a third dose irrespective of their cancer treatment status. Our results emphasize the urgency of careful monitoring of COVID-19-specific immune responses to guide vaccination schemes in these vulnerable populations.

3.
Front Med Technol ; 3: 729658, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1635765

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The provision of high-quality personal protective equipment (PPE) has been a critical challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated an alternative strategy, mass deployment of a powered air-purifying respirator (PeRSo), in a large university hospital. Methods: We performed prospective user feedback via questionnaires sent to healthcare workers (HCWs) issued PeRSos, economic analysis, and evaluated the real-world impact. Results: Where paired responses were available, PeRSo was preferred over droplet precautions for comfort, patient response, overall experience, and subjective feeling of safety. For all responses, more participants reported the overall experience being rated "Very good" more frequently for PeRSo. The primary limitation identified was impairment of hearing. Economic simulation exercises revealed that the adoption of PeRSo within ICU is associated with net cost savings in the majority of scenarios and savings increased progressively with greater ITU occupancy. In evaluation during the second UK wave, over 3,600 respirators were deployed, all requested by staff, which were associated with a low staff absence relative to most comparator hospitals. Conclusions: Health services should consider a widespread implementation of powered reusable respirators as a safe and sustainable solution for the protection of HCWs as SARS-CoV-2 becomes an endemic viral illness.

4.
EClinicalMedicine ; 44: 101262, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1620636

ABSTRACT

Background: Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) encapsulated self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) is a novel technology formulated as a low dose vaccine against COVID-19. Methods: A phase I first-in-human dose-ranging trial of a saRNA COVID-19 vaccine candidate LNP-nCoVsaRNA, was conducted at Imperial Clinical Research Facility, and participating centres in London, UK, between 19th June to 28th October 2020. Participants received two intramuscular (IM) injections of LNP-nCoVsaRNA at six different dose levels, 0.1-10.0µg, given four weeks apart. An open-label dose escalation was followed by a dose evaluation. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for one week from enrolment, with follow-up at regular intervals (1-8 weeks). The binding and neutralisation capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody raised in participant sera was measured by means of an anti-Spike (S) IgG ELISA, immunoblot, SARS-CoV-2 pseudoneutralisation and wild type neutralisation assays. (The trial is registered: ISRCTN17072692, EudraCT 2020-001646-20). Findings: 192 healthy individuals with no history or serological evidence of COVID-19, aged 18-45 years were enrolled. The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious adverse events related to vaccination. Seroconversion at week six whether measured by ELISA or immunoblot was related to dose (both p<0.001), ranging from 8% (3/39; 0.1µg) to 61% (14/23; 10.0µg) in ELISA and 46% (18/39; 0.3µg) to 87% (20/23; 5.0µg and 10.0µg) in a post-hoc immunoblot assay. Geometric mean (GM) anti-S IgG concentrations ranged from 74 (95% CI, 45-119) at 0.1µg to 1023 (468-2236) ng/mL at 5.0µg (p<0.001) and was not higher at 10.0µg. Neutralisation of SARS-CoV-2 by participant sera was measurable in 15% (6/39; 0.1µg) to 48% (11/23; 5.0µg) depending on dose level received. Interpretation: Encapsulated saRNA is safe for clinical development, is immunogenic at low dose levels but failed to induce 100% seroconversion. Modifications to optimise humoral responses are required to realise its potential as an effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Funding: This study was co-funded by grants and gifts from the Medical Research Council UKRI (MC_PC_19076), and the National Institute Health Research/Vaccine Task Force, Partners of Citadel and Citadel Securities, Sir Joseph Hotung Charitable Settlement, Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Pierre Andurand, Restore the Earth.

5.
Lancet ; 399(10319): 36-49, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1557000

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Given the importance of flexible use of different COVID-19 vaccines within the same schedule to facilitate rapid deployment, we studied mixed priming schedules incorporating an adenoviral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [ChAd], AstraZeneca), two mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [BNT], Pfizer-BioNTech, and mRNA-1273 [m1273], Moderna) and a nanoparticle vaccine containing SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and Matrix-M adjuvant (NVX-CoV2373 [NVX], Novavax). METHODS: Com-COV2 is a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial in which adults aged 50 years and older, previously immunised with a single dose of ChAd or BNT in the community, were randomly assigned (in random blocks of three and six) within these cohorts in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a second dose intramuscularly (8-12 weeks after the first dose) with the homologous vaccine, m1273, or NVX. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations measured by ELISA in heterologous versus homologous schedules at 28 days after the second dose, with a non-inferiority criterion of the GMR above 0·63 for the one-sided 98·75% CI. The primary analysis was on the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done for all participants who received a dose of study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 27841311. FINDINGS: Between April 19 and May 14, 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9·4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (n=540, 47% female) or BNT (n=532, 40% female). In ChAd-primed participants, geometric mean concentration (GMC) 28 days after a boost of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in recipients of ChAd/m1273 (20 114 ELISA laboratory units [ELU]/mL [95% CI 18 160 to 22 279]) and ChAd/NVX (5597 ELU/mL [4756 to 6586]) was non-inferior to that of ChAd/ChAd recipients (1971 ELU/mL [1718 to 2262]) with a GMR of 10·2 (one-sided 98·75% CI 8·4 to ∞) for ChAd/m1273 and 2·8 (2·2 to ∞) for ChAd/NVX, compared with ChAd/ChAd. In BNT-primed participants, non-inferiority was shown for BNT/m1273 (GMC 22 978 ELU/mL [95% CI 20 597 to 25 636]) but not for BNT/NVX (8874 ELU/mL [7391 to 10 654]), compared with BNT/BNT (16 929 ELU/mL [15 025 to 19 075]) with a GMR of 1·3 (one-sided 98·75% CI 1·1 to ∞) for BNT/m1273 and 0·5 (0·4 to ∞) for BNT/NVX, compared with BNT/BNT; however, NVX still induced an 18-fold rise in GMC 28 days after vaccination. There were 15 serious adverse events, none considered related to immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Heterologous second dosing with m1273, but not NVX, increased transient systemic reactogenicity compared with homologous schedules. Multiple vaccines are appropriate to complete primary immunisation following priming with BNT or ChAd, facilitating rapid vaccine deployment globally and supporting recognition of such schedules for vaccine certification. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and National Institute for Health Research. NVX vaccine was supplied for use in the trial by Novavax.


Subject(s)
/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Immunization, Secondary/adverse effects , Immunization, Secondary/methods , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , /administration & dosage , /administration & dosage , Aged , /immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , /immunology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Single-Blind Method , United Kingdom , Vaccination/adverse effects , Vaccination/methods , /immunology
6.
Clin Transl Sci ; 15(2): 524-534, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1476158

ABSTRACT

The safety of novel therapeutics and vaccines are typically assessed in early phase clinical trials involving "healthy volunteers." Abnormalities in such individuals can be difficult to interpret and may indicate previously unrecognized medical conditions. The frequency of incidental findings (IFs) in healthy volunteers who attend for clinical trial screening is unclear. To assess this, we retrospectively analyzed data for 1838 "healthy volunteers" screened for enrolment in a UK multicenter, phase I/II severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) vaccine trial. Participants were predominantly White (89.7%, 1640/1828) with a median age of 34 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 27-44). There were 27.7% of participants (510/1838) who had at least one IF detected. The likelihood of identifying evidence of a potential, new blood-borne virus infection was low (1 in 238 participants) compared with identification of an elevated alanine transaminase (ALT; 1 in 17 participants). A large proportion of participants described social habits that could impact negatively on their health; 21% consumed alcohol in excess, 10% were current smokers, 11% described recreational drug use, and only 48% had body weight in the ideal range. Our data demonstrate that screening prior to enrollment in early phase clinical trials identifies a range of IFs, which should inform discussion during the consent process. Greater clarity is needed to ensure an appropriate balance is struck between early identification of medical problems and avoidance of exclusion of volunteers due to spurious or physiological abnormalities. Debate should inform the role of the trial physician in highlighting and advising about unhealthy social habits.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Incidental Findings , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Alanine Transaminase/blood , Body Mass Index , Female , Healthy Volunteers , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies
7.
Lancet ; 398(10309): 1417-1426, 2021 10 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1432164

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat. Antibiotics are very commonly prescribed for children presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness of antibiotics, both overall or among key clinical subgroups. In ARTIC PC, we assessed whether amoxicillin reduces the duration of moderately bad symptoms in children presenting with uncomplicated (non-pneumonic) LRTI in primary care, overall and in key clinical subgroups. METHODS: ARTIC PC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 56 general practices in England. Eligible children were those aged 6 months to 12 years presenting in primary care with acute uncomplicated LRTI judged to be infective in origin, where pneumonia was not suspected clinically, with symptoms for less than 21 days. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day or placebo oral suspension, in three divided doses orally for 7 days. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary) for up to 28 days or until symptoms resolved. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN79914298). FINDINGS: Between Nov 9, 2016, and March 17, 2020, 432 children (not including six who withdrew permission for use of their data after randomisation) were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group (n=221) or the placebo group (n=211). Complete data for symptom duration were available for 317 (73%) patients; missing data were imputed for the primary analysis. Median durations of moderately bad or worse symptoms were similar between the groups (5 days [IQR 4-11] in the antibiotics group vs 6 days [4-15] in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 1·13 [95% CI 0·90-1·42]). No differences were seen for the primary outcome between the treatment groups in the five prespecified clinical subgroups (patients with chest signs, fever, physician rating of unwell, sputum or chest rattle, and short of breath). Estimates from complete-case analysis and a per-protocol analysis were similar to the imputed data analysis. INTERPRETATION: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated chest infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective either overall or for key subgroups in whom antibiotics are commonly prescribed. Unless pneumonia is suspected, clinicians should provide safety-netting advice but not prescribe antibiotics for most children presenting with chest infections. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
Amoxicillin/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Respiratory Tract Infections/drug therapy , Administration, Oral , Amoxicillin/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Child , Child, Preschool , Double-Blind Method , England , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Primary Health Care , Treatment Outcome
8.
Sci Transl Med ; 13(620): eabj7211, 2021 Nov 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1443349

ABSTRACT

AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), a replication-deficient simian adenovirus­vectored vaccine, has demonstrated safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity against coronavirus disease 2019 in clinical trials and real-world studies. We characterized CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses induced by AZD1222 vaccination in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 296 unique vaccine recipients aged 18 to 85 years who enrolled in the phase 2/3 COV002 trial. Total spike protein­specific CD4+ T cell helper type 1 (TH1) and CD8+ T cell responses were increased in AZD1222-vaccinated adults of all ages after two doses of AZD1222. CD4+ TH2 responses after AZD1222 vaccination were not detected. Furthermore, AZD1222-specific TH1 and CD8+ T cells both displayed a high degree of polyfunctionality in all adult age groups. T cell receptor ß (TCRß) sequences from vaccinated participants mapped against TCR sequences known to react to SARS-CoV-2 revealed substantial breadth and depth across the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein for both AZD1222-induced CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses. Overall, AZD1222 vaccination induced a polyfunctional TH1-dominated T cell response, with broad CD4+ and CD8+ T cell coverage across the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
9.
Lancet ; 398(10303): 856-869, 2021 09 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1397746

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. METHODS: Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Equivalence Trials as Topic , Female , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Single-Blind Method , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology
10.
Lupus ; 30(10): 1541-1552, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1273204

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has had a huge impact on health services, with a high mortality associated with complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are at increased risk of viral infections, and recent data suggests they may be at an increased risk of poor outcomes with COVID-19. This may be particularly true for those on rituximab or high dose steroids. A huge international effort from the scientific community has so far resulted in the temporary authorisation of three vaccines which offer protection against SARS-CoV-2, with over 30 other vaccines being evaluated in ongoing trials. Although there has historically been concern that vaccines may trigger disease flares of SLE, there is little convincing evidence to show this. In general lupus patients appear to gain good protection from vaccination, although there may be reduced efficacy in those with high disease activity or those on immunosuppressive therapies, such as rituximab or high dose steroids. Recent concerns have been raised regarding rare clotting events with the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine and it is currently unknown whether this risk is higher for those patients with secondary antiphospholipid syndrome. With the possibility of annual COVID vaccination programmes in the future, prospective data collection and registries looking at the effect of vaccination on SLE disease control, the incidence of COVID-19 in SLE patients and severity of COVID-19 disease course would all be useful. As mass vaccination programmes begin to roll out across the world, we assess the evidence of the use of vaccines in SLE patients and in particular vaccines targeting SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Humans , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/immunology , Pandemics , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2/immunology
11.
Pediatr Res ; 90(2): 267-271, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1195609

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic poses many direct and indirect consequences for children's health and associated research. Direct consequences include participation of children in COVID-19 research trials, pausing other research in children and the potential implications of a global economic downturn on future research funding. Collaborative and networked research together with streamlined research processes and use of remote technology have been central to efforts by clinicians and scientists around the world and have proved essential for reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. IMPACT: Maintain streamlined and efficient approaches to research governance and data sharing to facilitate high-quality collaborative research. Ensure early inclusion of children in trials of therapies for diseases that affect all age groups. Paediatric Research Societies should co-ordinate effective processes to define key research questions and develop multinational clinical trials for diagnostics, therapeutics and preventative strategies for infants, children and young people.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Pediatrics , Research/organization & administration , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/virology , Child , Humans
12.
Lancet ; 397(10277): 881-891, 2021 03 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174543

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization Schedule , Immunization, Secondary , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antibody Formation , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Young Adult
13.
Lancet ; 397(10282): 1351-1362, 2021 04 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1157794

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7, emerged as the dominant cause of COVID-19 disease in the UK from November, 2020. We report a post-hoc analysis of the efficacy of the adenoviral vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), against this variant. METHODS: Volunteers (aged ≥18 years) who were enrolled in phase 2/3 vaccine efficacy studies in the UK, and who were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a meningococcal conjugate control (MenACWY) vaccine, provided upper airway swabs on a weekly basis and also if they developed symptoms of COVID-19 disease (a cough, a fever of 37·8°C or higher, shortness of breath, anosmia, or ageusia). Swabs were tested by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2 and positive samples were sequenced through the COVID-19 Genomics UK consortium. Neutralising antibody responses were measured using a live-virus microneutralisation assay against the B.1.1.7 lineage and a canonical non-B.1.1.7 lineage (Victoria). The efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a NAAT positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to vaccine received. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vs MenACWY groups) derived from a robust Poisson regression model. This study is continuing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. FINDINGS: Participants in efficacy cohorts were recruited between May 31 and Nov 13, 2020, and received booster doses between Aug 3 and Dec 30, 2020. Of 8534 participants in the primary efficacy cohort, 6636 (78%) were aged 18-55 years and 5065 (59%) were female. Between Oct 1, 2020, and Jan 14, 2021, 520 participants developed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 1466 NAAT positive nose and throat swabs were collected from these participants during the trial. Of these, 401 swabs from 311 participants were successfully sequenced. Laboratory virus neutralisation activity by vaccine-induced antibodies was lower against the B.1.1.7 variant than against the Victoria lineage (geometric mean ratio 8·9, 95% CI 7·2-11·0). Clinical vaccine efficacy against symptomatic NAAT positive infection was 70·4% (95% CI 43·6-84·5) for B.1.1.7 and 81·5% (67·9-89·4) for non-B.1.1.7 lineages. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed reduced neutralisation activity against the B.1.1.7 variant compared with a non-B.1.1.7 variant in vitro, but the vaccine showed efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques , Pandemics/prevention & control , Single-Blind Method , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Viral Load , Young Adult
14.
BMJ Open ; 11(3): e044899, 2021 03 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140337

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe the frequency of symptoms compatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised children and young people in the UK during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. To describe patient/parent anxiety regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this cohort. DESIGN: A prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: 46 centres across the UK between 16 March and 4 July 2020. A weekly online questionnaire based on the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium-WHO Case Report Form was used to collect participant reported data on symptoms, test results, National Health Service attendance, hospital admission and impact on daily life. PARTICIPANTS: 1490 immunocompromised children, defined as those requiring an annual influenza vaccination due to their underlying condition or medication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of SARS-CoV-2-like symptoms and patient/parent anxiety score. RESULTS: Over 16 weeks during the first wave of the pandemic, no SARS-CoV-2 infection was diagnosed in this large immunocompromised paediatric cohort (median age 11 years, 54.4% female). 110 symptomatic participants underwent a test for SARS-CoV-2; all were negative. 922 (67.4%) participants reported at least one symptom consistent with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection over the study period. 476 (34.8%) reported three or more symptoms. The most frequently reported symptoms included joint pain, fatigue, headache, nausea and muscle pain. SARS-CoV-2 testing during this period was performed on admitted patients only. 137 participants had their medication suspended or changed during the study period due to assumed COVID-19 disease risk. 62% reported high levels of anxiety (scores of 7-10 out of 10) at the start of the study, with anxiety levels remaining high throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Although symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in children were common, there were no positive tests in this large immunocompromised cohort. Symptom-based screening to facilitate early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection may not be helpful in these individuals. Patient/parent anxiety about SARS-CoV-2 infection was high. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04382508.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Adolescent , Anxiety , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , State Medicine , United Kingdom/epidemiology
15.
N Engl J Med ; 384(8): 693-704, 2021 Feb 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1101722

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment. RESULTS: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Administration, Oral , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Dexamethasone/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Glucocorticoids/adverse effects , Hospitalization , Humans , Injections, Intravenous , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Length of Stay , Male , Odds Ratio , United Kingdom
17.
SSRN; 2021.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-6412
19.
Lancet ; 397(10269): 99-111, 2021 01 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1057535

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Brazil , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Single-Blind Method , South Africa , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom , Young Adult
20.
BMJ Open ; 11(1): e043012, 2021 01 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1041341

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 places immense worldwide demand on healthcare services. Earlier identification of patients at risk of severe disease may allow intervention with experimental targeted treatments, mitigating the course of their disease and reducing critical care service demand. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective observational study of patients tested or treated for SARS-CoV-2, who are under the care of the tertiary University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHSFT), captured data from admission to discharge; data collection commenced on 7 March 2020. Core demographic and clinical information, as well as results of disease-defining characteristics, was captured and recorded electronically from hospital clinical record systems at the point of testing. Manual data were collected and recorded by the clinical research team for assessments which are not part of the structured electronic healthcare record, for example, symptom onset date. Thereafter, participant records were continuously updated during hospital stay and their follow-up period. Participants aged >16 years were given the opportunity to provide consent for excess clinical sample storage with optional further biological sampling. These anonymised samples were linked to the clinical data in the Real-time Analytics for Clinical Trials platform and were stored within a biorepository at UHSFT. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the HRA Specific Review Board (REC 20/HRA/2986) for waiver of informed consent for the database-only cohort; the procedures conform with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study design, protocol and patient-facing documentation for the biobanking arm of the study have been approved by North West Research Ethics Committee (REC 17/NW/0632) as an amendment to the National Institute for Health Research Southampton Clinical Research Facility-managed Southampton Research Biorepository. This study will be published as peer-reviewed articles and presented at conferences, presentations and workshops.


Subject(s)
Biological Specimen Banks , COVID-19/therapy , Artificial Intelligence , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL