Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 24
Filter
1.
Relph, Katharine A.; Russell, Clark D.; Fairfield, Cameron J.; Turtle, Lance, de Silva, Thushan I.; Siggins, Matthew K.; Drake, Thomas M.; Thwaites, Ryan S.; Abrams, Simon, Moore, Shona C.; Hardwick, Hayley E.; Oosthuyzen, Wilna, Harrison, Ewen M.; Docherty, Annemarie B.; Openshaw, Peter J. M.; Baillie, J. Kenneth, Semple, Malcolm G.; Ho, Antonia, Baillie, J. Kenneth, Semple, Malcolm G.; Openshaw, Peter J. M.; Carson, Gail, Alex, Beatrice, Bach, Benjamin, Barclay, Wendy S.; Bogaert, Debby, Chand, Meera, Cooke, Graham S.; Docherty, Annemarie B.; Dunning, Jake, Filipe, Ana da Silva, Fletcher, Tom, Green, Christopher A.; Harrison, Ewen M.; Hiscox, Julian A.; Ho, Antonia Ying Wai, Horby, Peter W.; Ijaz, Samreen, Khoo, Saye, Klenerman, Paul, Law, Andrew, Lim, Wei Shen, Mentzer, Alexander J.; Merson, Laura, Meynert, Alison M.; Noursadeghi, Mahdad, Moore, Shona C.; Palmarini, Massimo, Paxton, William A.; Pollakis, Georgios, Price, Nicholas, Rambaut, Andrew, Robertson, David L.; Russell, Clark D.; Sancho-Shimizu, Vanessa, Scott, Janet T.; de Silva, Thushan, Sigfrid, Louise, Solomon, Tom, Sriskandan, Shiranee, Stuart, David, Summers, Charlotte, Tedder, Richard S.; Thomson, Emma C.; Roger Thompson, A. A.; Thwaites, Ryan S.; Turtle, Lance C. W.; Gupta, Rishi K.; Zambon, Maria, Hardwick, Hayley, Donohue, Chloe, Lyons, Ruth, Griffiths, Fiona, Oosthuyzen, Wilna, Norman, Lisa, Pius, Riinu, Drake, Thomas M.; Fairfield, Cameron J.; Knight, Stephen R.; McLean, Kenneth A.; Murphy, Derek, Shaw, Catherine A.; Dalton, Jo, Girvan, Michelle, Saviciute, Egle, Roberts, Stephanie, Harrison, Janet, Marsh, Laura, Connor, Marie, Halpin, Sophie, Jackson, Clare, Gamble, Carrol, Leeming, Gary, Law, Andrew, Wham, Murray, Clohisey, Sara, Hendry, Ross, Scott-Brown, James, Greenhalf, William, Shaw, Victoria, McDonald, Sara, Keating, Seán, Ahmed, Katie A.; Armstrong, Jane A.; Ashworth, Milton, Asiimwe, Innocent G.; Bakshi, Siddharth, Barlow, Samantha L.; Booth, Laura, Brennan, Benjamin, Bullock, Katie, Catterall, Benjamin W. A.; Clark, Jordan J.; Clarke, Emily A.; Cole, Sarah, Cooper, Louise, Cox, Helen, Davis, Christopher, Dincarslan, Oslem, Dunn, Chris, Dyer, Philip, Elliott, Angela, Evans, Anthony, Finch, Lorna, Fisher, Lewis W. S.; Foster, Terry, Garcia-Dorival, Isabel, Greenhalf, William, Gunning, Philip, Hartley, Catherine, Jensen, Rebecca L.; Jones, Christopher B.; Jones, Trevor R.; Khandaker, Shadia, King, Katharine, Kiy, Robyn T.; Koukorava, Chrysa, Lake, Annette, Lant, Suzannah, Latawiec, Diane, Lavelle-Langham, Lara, Lefteri, Daniella, Lett, Lauren, Livoti, Lucia A.; Mancini, Maria, McDonald, Sarah, McEvoy, Laurence, McLauchlan, John, Metelmann, Soeren, Miah, Nahida S.; Middleton, Joanna, Mitchell, Joyce, Moore, Shona C.; Murphy, Ellen G.; Penrice-Randal, Rebekah, Pilgrim, Jack, Prince, Tessa, Reynolds, Will, Matthew Ridley, P.; Sales, Debby, Shaw, Victoria E.; Shears, Rebecca K.; Small, Benjamin, Subramaniam, Krishanthi S.; Szemiel, Agnieska, Taggart, Aislynn, Tanianis-Hughes, Jolanta, Thomas, Jordan, Trochu, Erwan, van Tonder, Libby, Wilcock, Eve, Eunice Zhang, J.; Flaherty, Lisa, Maziere, Nicole, Cass, Emily, Doce Carracedo, Alejandra, Carlucci, Nicola, Holmes, Anthony, Massey, Hannah, Murphy, Lee, Wrobel, Nicola, McCafferty, Sarah, Morrice, Kirstie, MacLean, Alan, Adeniji, Kayode, Agranoff, Daniel, Agwuh, Ken, Ail, Dhiraj, Aldera, Erin L.; Alegria, Ana, Angus, Brian, Ashish, Abdul, Atkinson, Dougal, Bari, Shahedal, Barlow, Gavin, Barnass, Stella, Barrett, Nicholas, Bassford, Christopher, Basude, Sneha, Baxter, David, Beadsworth, Michael, Bernatoniene, Jolanta, Berridge, John, Best, Nicola, Bothma, Pieter, Chadwick, David, Brittain-Long, Robin, Bulteel, Naomi, Burden, Tom, Burtenshaw, Andrew, Caruth, Vikki, Chadwick, David, Chambler, Duncan, Chee, Nigel, Child, Jenny, Chukkambotla, Srikanth, Clark, Tom, Collini, Paul, Cosgrove, Catherine, Cupitt, Jason, Cutino-Moguel, Maria-Teresa, Dark, Paul, Dawson, Chris, Dervisevic, Samir, Donnison, Phil, Douthwaite, Sam, DuRand, Ingrid, Dushianthan, Ahilanadan, Dyer, Tristan, Evans, Cariad, Eziefula, Chi, Fegan, Christopher, Finn, Adam, Fullerton, Duncan, Garg, Sanjeev, Garg, Sanjeev, Garg, Atul, Gkrania-Klotsas, Effrossyni, Godden, Jo, Goldsmith, Arthur, Graham, Clive, Hardy, Elaine, Hartshorn, Stuart, Harvey, Daniel, Havalda, Peter, Hawcutt, Daniel B.; Hobrok, Maria, Hodgson, Luke, Hormis, Anil, Jacobs, Michael, Jain, Susan, Jennings, Paul, Kaliappan, Agilan, Kasipandian, Vidya, Kegg, Stephen, Kelsey, Michael, Kendall, Jason, Kerrison, Caroline, Kerslake, Ian, Koch, Oliver, Koduri, Gouri, Koshy, George, Laha, Shondipon, Laird, Steven, Larkin, Susan, Leiner, Tamas, Lillie, Patrick, Limb, James, Linnett, Vanessa, Little, Jeff, Lyttle, Mark, MacMahon, Michael, MacNaughton, Emily, Mankregod, Ravish, Masson, Huw, Matovu, Elijah, McCullough, Katherine, McEwen, Ruth, Meda, Manjula, Mills, Gary, Minton, Jane, Mirfenderesky, Mariyam, Mohandas, Kavya, Mok, Quen, Moon, James, Moore, Elinoor, Morgan, Patrick, Morris, Craig, Mortimore, Katherine, Moses, Samuel, Mpenge, Mbiye, Mulla, Rohinton, Murphy, Michael, Nagel, Megan, Nagarajan, Thapas, Nelson, Mark, O’Shea, Matthew K.; Otahal, Igor, Ostermann, Marlies, Pais, Mark, Panchatsharam, Selva, Papakonstantinou, Danai, Paraiso, Hassan, Patel, Brij, Pattison, Natalie, Pepperell, Justin, Peters, Mark, Phull, Mandeep, Pintus, Stefania, Pooni, Jagtur Singh, Post, Frank, Price, David, Prout, Rachel, Rae, Nikolas, Reschreiter, Henrik, Reynolds, Tim, Richardson, Neil, Roberts, Mark, Roberts, Devender, Rose, Alistair, Rousseau, Guy, Ryan, Brendan, Saluja, Taranprit, Shah, Aarti, Shanmuga, Prad, Sharma, Anil, Shawcross, Anna, Sizer, Jeremy, Shankar-Hari, Manu, Smith, Richard, Snelson, Catherine, Spittle, Nick, Staines, Nikki, Stambach, Tom, Stewart, Richard, Subudhi, Pradeep, Szakmany, Tamas, Tatham, Kate, Thomas, Jo, Thompson, Chris, Thompson, Robert, Tridente, Ascanio, Tupper-Carey, Darell, Twagira, Mary, Ustianowski, Andrew, Vallotton, Nick, Vincent-Smith, Lisa, Visuvanathan, Shico, Vuylsteke, Alan, Waddy, Sam, Wake, Rachel, Walden, Andrew, Welters, Ingeborg, Whitehouse, Tony, Whittaker, Paul, Whittington, Ashley, Papineni, Padmasayee, Wijesinghe, Meme, Williams, Martin, Wilson, Lawrence, Cole, Sarah, Winchester, Stephen, Wiselka, Martin, Wolverson, Adam, Wootton, Daniel G.; Workman, Andrew, Yates, Bryan, Young, Peter.
Open Forum Infectious Diseases ; 9(5), 2022.
Article in English | PMC | ID: covidwho-1821760

ABSTRACT

Admission procalcitonin measurements and microbiology results were available for 1040 hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (from 48 902 included in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium World Health Organization Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study). Although procalcitonin was higher in bacterial coinfection, this was neither clinically significant (median [IQR], 0.33 [0.11–1.70] ng/mL vs 0.24 [0.10–0.90] ng/mL) nor diagnostically useful (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.56 [95% confidence interval, .51–.60]).

2.
J Infect ; 2022 Apr 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1778315

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters. METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study. RESULTS: Among the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAd, schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 µg) or BNT (30 µg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 µg) versus BNT (30 µg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses. CONCLUSIONS: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentration at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses.

3.
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).

4.
JAMA ; 327(6): 546-558, 2022 02 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1711978

ABSTRACT

Importance: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective: To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions: Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Intubation, Intratracheal , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Adult , COVID-19/mortality , Cannula , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology
5.
ProQuest Central;
Preprint in English | ProQuest Central | ID: ppcovidwho-328274

ABSTRACT

Background: Faecal transplantation is an evidence-based treatment for Clostridioides difficile. Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 have been shown to shed the virus in stool for up to 33 days, well beyond the average clearance time for upper respiratory tract shedding. We carried out an analytical and clinical validation of reverse-transcriptase quantitative (RT-qPCR) as well as LAMP, LamPORE and droplet digital PCR in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in stool from donated samples for faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), spiked samples and asymptomatic inpatients in an acute surgical unit.  Methods: Killed SARS-CoV-2 viral lysate and extracted RNA was spiked into donor stool & FMT and a linear dilution series from 10 -1 to 10 -5 and tested via RT-qPCR, LAMP, LamPORE and ddPCR against SARS-CoV-2. Patients admitted to the critical care unit with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 and sequential asymptomatic patients from acute presentation to an acute surgical unit were also tested. Results: In a linear dilution series, detection of the lowest dilution series was found to be 8 copies per microlitre of sample. Spiked lysate samples down to 10 -2 dilution were detected in FMT samples using RTQPCR, LamPORE and ddPCR and down to 10 -1 with LAMP. In symptomatic patients 5/12 had detectable SARS-CoV-2 in stool via RT-qPCR and 6/12 via LamPORE, and in 1/97 asymptomatic patients via RT-qPCR. Conclusion: RT-qPCR can be detected in FMT donor samples using RT-qPCR, LamPORE and ddPCR to low levels using validated pathways. As previously demonstrated, nearly half of symptomatic and less than one percent of asymptomatic patients had detectable SARS-CoV-2 in stool.

6.
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
7.
Lancet ; 398(10318): 2258-2276, 2021 12 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1550152

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT). METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130. FINDINGS: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273. INTERPRETATION: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization, Secondary/methods , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Safety , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
8.
Thorax ; 2021 Nov 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528562

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To prospectively validate two risk scores to predict mortality (4C Mortality) and in-hospital deterioration (4C Deterioration) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study of adults (age ≥18 years) with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 recruited into the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study in 306 hospitals across England, Scotland and Wales. Patients were recruited between 27 August 2020 and 17 February 2021, with at least 4 weeks follow-up before final data extraction. The main outcome measures were discrimination and calibration of models for in-hospital deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) and mortality, incorporating predefined subgroups. RESULTS: 76 588 participants were included, of whom 27 352 (37.4%) deteriorated and 12 581 (17.4%) died. Both the 4C Mortality (0.78 (0.77 to 0.78)) and 4C Deterioration scores (pooled C-statistic 0.76 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.77)) demonstrated consistent discrimination across all nine National Health Service regions, with similar performance metrics to the original validation cohorts. Calibration remained stable (4C Mortality: pooled slope 1.09, pooled calibration-in-the-large 0.12; 4C Deterioration: 1.00, -0.04), with no need for temporal recalibration during the second UK pandemic wave of hospital admissions. CONCLUSION: Both 4C risk stratification models demonstrate consistent performance to predict clinical deterioration and mortality in a large prospective second wave validation cohort of UK patients. Despite recent advances in the treatment and management of adults hospitalised with COVID-19, both scores can continue to inform clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66726260.

9.
Thorax ; 77(3): 259-267, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1505012

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are considered 'aerosol-generating procedures' in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To measure air and surface environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 virus when CPAP and HFNO are used, compared with supplemental oxygen, to investigate the potential risks of viral transmission to healthcare workers and patients. METHODS: 30 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, with a fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.4 to maintain oxygen saturation ≥94%, were prospectively enrolled into an observational environmental sampling study. Participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP or HFNO (n=10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses were performed for viral and human RNA, and positive/suspected-positive samples were cultured for the presence of biologically viable virus. RESULTS: Overall 21/30 (70%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, only 4/90 (4%) and 6/90 (7%) of all air and surface samples tested positive (positive for E and ORF1a) for viral RNA respectively, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples (positive for E or ORF1a). CPAP/HFNO use or coughing was not associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Only one nasopharyngeal sample was culture positive. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CPAP and HFNO to treat moderate/severe COVID-19 did not appear to be associated with substantially higher levels of air or surface viral contamination in the immediate care environment, compared with the use of supplemental oxygen.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aerosols , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Humans , RNA, Viral
10.
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
11.
Clin Med (Lond) ; 21(3): 182-188, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1232692

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 has had an unprecedented impact on society, global healthcare and daily life. The redeployment of research staff to patient-facing roles in the NHS left a depleted workforce to deliver critical urgent public health research (UPHR). We aimed to support UPHR studies and medical student training by developing and implementing a medical student Volunteers in Research programme. We further sought to gain insights about medical students' perceptions of this programme. We collected prospective data and conducted a retrospective survey as part of a service evaluation to assess the value of this clinical research experience to students, as well as motivators and barriers to taking part. The Volunteers in Research programme successfully supported UPHR studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. We generated important insights to help aid the wider implementation of this programme nationally to support essential research and medical student education.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Students, Medical , Humans , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Volunteers
12.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(4): 349-359, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1180127

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 cases are urgently required to inform clinical management decisions. METHODS: We developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) among consecutively hospitalised adults with highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who were prospectively recruited to the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study across 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Candidate predictors that were specified a priori were considered for inclusion in the model on the basis of previous prognostic scores and emerging literature describing routinely measured biomarkers associated with COVID-19 prognosis. We used internal-external cross-validation to evaluate discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across eight National Health Service (NHS) regions in the development cohort. We further validated the final model in held-out data from an additional NHS region (London). FINDINGS: 74 944 participants (recruited between Feb 6 and Aug 26, 2020) were included, of whom 31 924 (43·2%) of 73 948 with available outcomes met the composite clinical deterioration outcome. In internal-external cross-validation in the development cohort of 66 705 participants, the selected model (comprising 11 predictors routinely measured at the point of hospital admission) showed consistent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across all eight NHS regions. In held-out data from London (n=8239), the model showed a similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0·77 [95% CI 0·76 to 0·78]; calibration-in-the-large 0·00 [-0·05 to 0·05]); calibration slope 0·96 [0·91 to 1·01]), and greater net benefit than any other reproducible prognostic model. INTERPRETATION: The 4C Deterioration model has strong potential for clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration and inform decision making among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Clinical Decision Rules , Clinical Decision-Making/methods , Clinical Deterioration , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index , United Kingdom/epidemiology
13.
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
14.
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
16.
SSRN; 2021.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-6412
18.
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 ; 370: m3339, 2020 09 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-751530

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a pragmatic risk score to predict mortality in patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study (performed by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium-ISARIC-4C) in 260 hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Model training was performed on a cohort of patients recruited between 6 February and 20 May 2020, with validation conducted on a second cohort of patients recruited after model development between 21 May and 29 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (age ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with covid-19 at least four weeks before final data extraction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: In-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 35 463 patients were included in the derivation dataset (mortality rate 32.2%) and 22 361 in the validation dataset (mortality rate 30.1%). The final 4C Mortality Score included eight variables readily available at initial hospital assessment: age, sex, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, urea level, and C reactive protein (score range 0-21 points). The 4C Score showed high discrimination for mortality (derivation cohort: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.79; validation cohort: 0.77, 0.76 to 0.77) with excellent calibration (validation: calibration-in-the-large=0, slope=1.0). Patients with a score of at least 15 (n=4158, 19%) had a 62% mortality (positive predictive value 62%) compared with 1% mortality for those with a score of 3 or less (n=1650, 7%; negative predictive value 99%). Discriminatory performance was higher than 15 pre-existing risk stratification scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve range 0.61-0.76), with scores developed in other covid-19 cohorts often performing poorly (range 0.63-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: An easy-to-use risk stratification score has been developed and validated based on commonly available parameters at hospital presentation. The 4C Mortality Score outperformed existing scores, showed utility to directly inform clinical decision making, and can be used to stratify patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 into different management groups. The score should be further validated to determine its applicability in other populations. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN66726260.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Hospitalization , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Clinical Protocols , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Predictive Value of Tests , ROC Curve , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Rate , United Kingdom
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL