Immunogenicity, safety and reactogenicity of heterologous (third dose) booster vaccination with a full or fractional dose of two different COVID-19 vaccines: A phase 4, single-blind, randomized controlled trial in adults.

In this phase 4 study we assessed boosting with fractional doses of heterologous COVID-19 vaccines in Brazilian adults primed with two doses of CoronaVac (Sinovac/Butantan, São Paulo, Brazil) at least 4 months previously. Participants received either full-dose of ChAdOx1-S (Group 1, n = 232), a half dose of ChAdOx1-S (Group 2, n = 236), or a half dose of BNT162b2 (Group 3, n = 234). The primary objective was to show 80% seroresponse rates (SRR) 28 d after vaccination measured as IgG antibodies against a prototype SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein. Safety was assessed as solicited and unsolicited adverse events. At baseline all participants were seropositive, with high IgG titers overall. SRR at Day 28 were 34.3%, 27.1% and 71.2%, respectively, not meeting the primary objective of 80%, despite robust immune responses in all three groups with geometric mean-fold rise (GMFR) in IgG titers of 3.39, 2.99 and 7.42, respectively. IgG immune responses with similar GMFR were also observed against SARS-CoV-2 variants, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma and D614G. In subsets (n = 35) of participants GMFR of neutralizing immune responses against live prototype SARS-CoV-2 virus and Omicron BA.2 were similar to the IgG responses as were pseudo-neutralizing responses against SARS-CoV-2 prototype and Omicron BA.4/5 variants. All vaccinations were well tolerated with no vaccine-related serious adverse events and mainly transient mild-to-moderate local and systemic reactogenicity. Heterologous boosting with full or half doses of ChAdOx1-S or a half dose of BNT162b2 was safe and immunogenic in CoronaVac-primed adults, but seroresponse rates were limited by high baseline immunity.

A Randomized Trial Assessing the Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of Two Hexavalent Infant Vaccines Concomitantly Administered With Group B Meningococcal Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Three hexavalent (DTaP-IPV-Hib-HepB) vaccines are licensed in Europe, only one of which (Vaxelis, Hex-V), uses a meningococcal outer membrane protein complex as a carrier protein for Hemophilus influenza type b (Hib), creating potential interactions with the meningococcal vaccine 4CMenB. METHODS: In this single-center open-label randomized trial, infants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive Hex-V or an alternative hexavalent vaccine (Infanrix-Hexa, Hex-IH) at 2, 3, and 4 months with 4CMenB (2, 4, and 12 months) in the UK routine immunization schedule. The primary outcome was noninferiority of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of anti-PRP (Hib) IgG at 5 months of age. Secondary outcomes included safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of other administered vaccines measured at 5 and 13 months of age. RESULTS: Of the 194 participants enrolled, 96 received Hex-V and 98 Hex-IH. Noninferiority of anti-PRP IgG GMCs at 5 months of age in participants receiving Hex-V was established; GMCs were 23-times higher following three doses of Hex-V than three doses of Hex-IH (geometric mean ratio (GMR) 23.25; one-sided 95% CI 16.21, -). 78/85 (92%) of Hex-V recipients and 43/87 (49%) of Hex-IH recipients had anti-PRP antibodies ≥1.0 µg/mL. At 5 months of age serum, bactericidal activity titers against MenB strain 5/99 were higher following Hex-V than Hex-IH (GMR 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.14). The reactogenicity profile was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data support flexibility in the use of either Hex-IH or Hex-V in infant immunization schedules containing 4CMenB, with the possibility that Hex-V may enhance protection against Hib.

Human leukocyte antigen alleles associate with COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity and risk of breakthrough infection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine immunogenicity varies between individuals, and immune responses correlate with vaccine efficacy. Using data from 1,076 participants enrolled in ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine efficacy trials in the United Kingdom, we found that inter-individual variation in normalized antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 spike and its receptor-binding domain (RBD) at 28 days after first vaccination shows genome-wide significant association with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II alleles. The most statistically significant association with higher levels of anti-RBD antibody was HLA-DQB1*06 (P = 3.2 × 10-9), which we replicated in 1,677 additional vaccinees. Individuals carrying HLA-DQB1*06 alleles were less likely to experience PCR-confirmed breakthrough infection during the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent Alpha variant waves compared to non-carriers (hazard ratio = 0.63, 0.42-0.93, P = 0.02). We identified a distinct spike-derived peptide that is predicted to bind differentially to HLA-DQB1*06 compared to other similar alleles, and we found evidence of increased spike-specific memory B cell responses in HLA-DQB1*06 carriers at 84 days after first vaccination. Our results demonstrate association of HLA type with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine antibody response and risk of breakthrough infection, with implications for future vaccine design and implementation.

An exploratory analysis of the response to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in males and females.

BACKGROUND: There are known differences in vaccine reactogenicity and immunogenicity by sex. Females have been shown to report greater reactogenicity and generate higher humoral and cellular immune responses than males following vaccination with several different vaccines. Whether this is also the case for COVID-19 vaccines is currently unknown, as COVID-19 vaccine study data disaggregated by sex are not routinely reported. Therefore, we have assessed the influence of sex on reactogenicity, immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. METHODS: Vaccine efficacy was assessed in 15169 volunteers enrolled into single-blind randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Brazil and the UK, with the primary endpoint defined as nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants were electronically randomised to receive two standard doses of vaccine or the control product. Logistic regression models were fitted to explore the effect of age and sex on reactogenicity, and linear models fitted to log-transformed values for immunogenicity data. Reactogenicity data were taken from self-reported diaries of 788 trial participants. Pseudovirus neutralisation assay data were available from 748 participants and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG assay data from 1543 participants. FINDINGS: 7619 participants received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 7550 received the control. Vaccine efficacy in participants after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (4243 females and 3376 males) was 66.1% (95% CI 55.9-73.9%) in males and 59.9% (95% CI 49.8-67.9%) in females; with no evidence of a difference in efficacy between the sexes (vaccine by sex interaction term P=0.3359). A small, statistically significant difference in anti-spike IgG was observed (adjusted GMR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04-1.26), with higher titres in females than males, but there were no statistically significant differences in other immunological endpoints. Whilst the majority of individuals reported at least one systemic reaction following a first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, females were twice as likely as males to report any systemic reaction after a first dose (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.37-2.77). Measured fever of 38°C or above was reported in 5% of females and 1% of males following first doses. Headache and fatigue were the most commonly reported reactions in both sexes. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that there is no evidence of difference in efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in males and females. Greater reactogenicity in females was not associated with any difference in vaccine efficacy. FUNDING: Studies were registered with ISRCTN 90906759 (COV002) and ISRCTN 89951424 (COV003) and follow-up is ongoing. Funding was received from the UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, the Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Brazil, and AstraZeneca.

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in children aged 6-17 years: a preliminary report of COV006, a phase 2 single-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination of children and young people against SARS-CoV-2 is recommended in some countries. Scarce data have been published on immune responses induced by COVID-19 vaccines in people younger than 18 years compared with the same data that are available in adults. METHODS: COV006 is a phase 2, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) in children and adolescents at four trial sites in the UK. Healthy participants aged 6-17 years, who did not have a history of chronic respiratory conditions, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, or previously received capsular group B meningococcal vaccine (the control), were randomly assigned to four groups (4:1:4:1) to receive two intramuscular doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or control, 28 days or 84 days apart. Participants, clinical investigators, and the laboratory team were masked to treatment allocation. Study groups were stratified by age, and participants aged 12-17 years were enrolled before those aged 6-11 years. Due to the restrictions in the use of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in people younger than 30 years that were introduced during the study, only participants aged 12-17 years who were randomly assigned to the 28-day interval group had received their vaccinations at the intended interval (day 28). The remaining participants received their second dose at day 112. The primary outcome was assessment of safety and tolerability in the safety population, which included all participants who received at least one dose of the study drug. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity, which was assessed in participants who were seronegative to the nucleocapsid protein at baseline and received both prime and boost vaccine. This study is registered with ISRCTN (15638344). FINDINGS: Between Feb 15 and April 2, 2021, 262 participants (150 [57%] participants aged 12-17 years and 112 [43%] aged 6-11 years; due to the change in the UK vaccination policy, the study terminated recruitment of the younger age group before the planned number of participants had been enrolled) were randomly assigned to receive vaccination with two doses of either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=211 [n=105 at day 28 and n=106 at day 84]) or control (n=51 [n=26 at day 28 and n=25 at day 84]). One participant in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 day 28 group in the younger age bracket withdrew their consent before receiving a first dose. Of the participants who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 169 (80%) of 210 participants reported at least one solicited local or systemic adverse event up to 7 days following the first dose, and 146 (76%) of 193 participants following the second dose. No serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 administration were recorded by the data cutoff date on Oct 28, 2021. Of the participants who received at least one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, there were 128 unsolicited adverse events up to 28 days after vaccination reported by 83 (40%) of 210 participants. One participant aged 6-11 years receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 reported a grade 4 fever of 40·2°C on day 1 following first vaccination, which resolved within 24 h. Pain and tenderness were the most common local solicited adverse events for all the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and capsular group B meningococcal groups following both doses. Of the 242 participants with available serostatus data, 14 (6%) were seropositive at baseline. Serostatus data were not available for 20 (8%) of 262 participants. Among seronegative participants who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and pseudoneutralising antibody titres at day 28 after the second dose were higher in participants aged 12-17 years with a longer interval between doses (geometric means of 73 371 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [95% CI 58 685-91 733] and 299 half-maximal inhibitory concentration [IC50; 95% CI 230-390]) compared with those aged 12-17 years who received their vaccines 28 days apart (43 280 AU/mL [95% CI 35 852-52 246] and 150 IC50 [95% CI 116-194]). Humoral responses were higher in those aged 6-11 years than in those aged 12-17 years receiving their second dose at the same 112-day interval (geometric mean ratios 1·48 [95% CI 1·07-2·07] for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and 2·96 [1·89-4·62] for pseudoneutralising antibody titres). Cellular responses peaked after a first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 across all age and interval groups and remained above baseline after a second vaccination. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is well tolerated and immunogenic in children aged 6-17 years, inducing concentrations of antibody that are similar to those associated with high efficacy in phase 3 studies in adults. No safety concerns were raised in this trial. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and the UK Department of Health and Social Care through the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Durability of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination in people living with HIV.

Duration of protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection in people living with HIV (PWH) following vaccination is unclear. In a substudy of the phase II/III the COV002 trial (NCT04400838), 54 HIV+ male participants on antiretroviral therapy (undetectable viral loads, CD4+ T cells > 350 cells/µL) received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) 4-6 weeks apart and were followed for 6 months. Responses to vaccination were determined by serology (IgG ELISA and Meso Scale Discovery [MSD]), neutralization, ACE-2 inhibition, IFN-γ ELISpot, activation-induced marker (AIM) assay and T cell proliferation. We show that, 6 months after vaccination, the majority of measurable immune responses were greater than prevaccination baseline but with evidence of a decline in both humoral and cell-mediated immunity. There was, however, no significant difference compared with a cohort of HIV-uninfected individuals vaccinated with the same regimen. Responses to the variants of concern were detectable, although they were lower than WT. Preexisting cross-reactive T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike were associated with greater postvaccine immunity and correlated with prior exposure to beta coronaviruses. These data support the ongoing policy to vaccinate PWH against SARS-CoV-2, and they underpin the need for long-term monitoring of responses after vaccination.

Efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 lineages circulating in Brazil.

Several COVID-19 vaccines have shown good efficacy in clinical trials, but there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of vaccines against different variants. Here, we investigate the efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) against symptomatic COVID-19 in a post-hoc exploratory analysis of a Phase 3 randomised trial in Brazil (trial registration ISRCTN89951424). Nose and throat swabs were tested by PCR in symptomatic participants. Sequencing and genotyping of swabs were performed to determine the lineages of SARS-CoV-2 circulating during the study. Protection against any symptomatic COVID-19 caused by the Zeta (P.2) variant was assessed in 153 cases with vaccine efficacy (VE) of 69% (95% CI 55, 78). 49 cases of B.1.1.28 occurred and VE was 73% (46, 86). The Gamma (P.1) variant arose later in the trial and fewer cases (N = 18) were available for analysis. VE was 64% (-2, 87). ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 provided 95% protection (95% CI 61%, 99%) against hospitalisation due to COVID-19. In summary, we report that ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 protects against emerging variants in Brazil despite the presence of the spike protein mutation E484K.

Reactogenicity and immunogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the UK: a substudy of two randomised controlled trials (COV001 and COV002).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine supply shortages are causing concerns about compromised immunity in some countries as the interval between the first and second dose becomes longer. Conversely, countries with no supply constraints are considering administering a third dose. We assessed the persistence of immunogenicity after a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), immunity after an extended interval (44-45 weeks) between the first and second dose, and response to a third dose as a booster given 28-38 weeks after the second dose. METHODS: In this substudy, volunteers aged 18-55 years who were enrolled in the phase 1/2 (COV001) controlled trial in the UK and had received either a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles were invited back for vaccination. Here we report the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed second dose (44-45 weeks after first dose) or a third dose of the vaccine (28-38 weeks after second dose). Data from volunteers aged 18-55 years who were enrolled in either the phase 1/2 (COV001) or phase 2/3 (COV002), single-blinded, randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and who had previously received a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles are used for comparison purposes. COV001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and COV002 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and both are continuing but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between March 11 and 21, 2021, 90 participants were enrolled in the third-dose boost substudy, of whom 80 (89%) were assessable for reactogenicity, 75 (83%) were assessable for evaluation of antibodies, and 15 (17%) were assessable for T-cells responses. The two-dose cohort comprised 321 participants who had reactogenicity data (with prime-boost interval of 8-12 weeks: 267 [83%] of 321; 15-25 weeks: 24 [7%]; or 44-45 weeks: 30 [9%]) and 261 who had immunogenicity data (interval of 8-12 weeks: 115 [44%] of 261; 15-25 weeks: 116 [44%]; and 44-45 weeks: 30 [11%]). 480 participants from the single-dose cohort were assessable for immunogenicity up to 44-45 weeks after vaccination. Antibody titres after a single dose measured approximately 320 days after vaccination remained higher than the titres measured at baseline (geometric mean titre of 66·00 ELISA units [EUs; 95% CI 47·83-91·08] vs 1·75 EUs [1·60-1·93]). 32 participants received a late second dose of vaccine 44-45 weeks after the first dose, of whom 30 were included in immunogenicity and reactogenicity analyses. Antibody titres were higher 28 days after vaccination in those with a longer interval between first and second dose than for those with a short interval (median total IgG titre: 923 EUs [IQR 525-1764] with an 8-12 week interval; 1860 EUs [917-4934] with a 15-25 week interval; and 3738 EUs [1824-6625] with a 44-45 week interval). Among participants who received a third dose of vaccine, antibody titres (measured in 73 [81%] participants for whom samples were available) were significantly higher 28 days after a third dose (median total IgG titre: 3746 EUs [IQR 2047-6420]) than 28 days after a second dose (median 1792 EUs [IQR 899-4634]; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·0043). T-cell responses were also boosted after a third dose (median response increased from 200 spot forming units [SFUs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs; IQR 127-389] immediately before the third dose to 399 SFUs per milion PBMCs [314-662] by day 28 after the third dose; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·012). Reactogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose was lower than reactogenicity after a first dose. INTERPRETATION: An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, AstraZeneca, and Wellcome.

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in HIV infection: a single-arm substudy of a phase 2/3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on vaccine immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 are needed for the 40 million people globally living with HIV who might have less functional immunity and more associated comorbidities than the general population. We aimed to explore safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in people with HIV. METHODS: In this single-arm open-label vaccination substudy within the protocol of the larger phase 2/3 trial COV002, adults aged 18-55 years with HIV were enrolled at two HIV clinics in London, UK. Eligible participants were required to be on antiretroviral therapy (ART), with undetectable plasma HIV viral loads (<50 copies per mL), and CD4 counts of more than 350 cells per µL. A prime-boost regimen of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, with two doses was given 4-6 weeks apart. The primary outcomes for this substudy were safety and reactogenicity of the vaccine, as determined by serious adverse events and solicited local and systemic reactions. Humoral responses were measured by anti-spike IgG ELISA and antibody-mediated live virus neutralisation. Cell-mediated immune responses were measured by ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay (ELISpot) and T-cell proliferation. All outcomes were compared with an HIV-uninfected group from the main COV002 study within the same age group and dosing strategy and are reported until day 56 after prime vaccination. Outcomes were analysed in all participants who received both doses and with available samples. The COV002 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 5 and Nov 24, 2020, 54 participants with HIV (all male, median age 42·5 years [IQR 37·2-49·8]) were enrolled and received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Median CD4 count at enrolment was 694·0 cells per µL (IQR 573·5-859·5). No serious adverse events occurred. Local and systemic reactions occurring during the first 7 days after prime vaccination included pain at the injection site (26 [49%] of 53 participants with available data), fatigue (25 [47%]), headache (25 [47%]), malaise (18 [34%]), chills (12 [23%]), muscle ache (19 [36%]), joint pain (five [9%]), and nausea (four [8%]), the frequencies of which were similar to the HIV-negative participants. Anti-spike IgG responses by ELISA peaked at day 42 (median 1440 ELISA units [EUs; IQR 704-2728]; n=50) and were sustained until day 56 (median 941 EUs [531-1445]; n=49). We found no correlation between the magnitude of the anti-spike IgG response at day 56 and CD4 cell count (p=0·93) or age (p=0·48). ELISpot and T-cell proliferative responses peaked at day 14 and 28 after prime dose and were sustained to day 56. Compared with participants without HIV, we found no difference in magnitude or persistence of SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific humoral or cellular responses (p>0·05 for all analyses). INTERPRETATION: In this study of people with HIV, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was safe and immunogenic, supporting vaccination for those well controlled on ART. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern 202012/01 (B.1.1.7): an exploratory analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

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.

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

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.

Status of primary and secondary mental healthcare of people with severe mental illness: an epidemiological study from the UK PARTNERS2 programme.

BACKGROUND: There is global interest in the reconfiguration of community mental health services, including primary care, to improve clinical and cost effectiveness. AIMS: This study seeks to describe patterns of service use, continuity of care, health risks, physical healthcare monitoring and the balance between primary and secondary mental healthcare for people with severe mental illness in receipt of secondary mental healthcare in the UK. METHOD: We conducted an epidemiological medical records review in three UK sites. We identified 297 cases randomly selected from the three participating mental health services. Data were manually extracted from electronic patient medical records from both secondary and primary care, for a 2-year period (2012-2014). Continuous data were summarised by mean and s.d. or median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical data were summarised as percentages. RESULTS: The majority of care was from secondary care practitioners: of the 18 210 direct contacts recorded, 76% were from secondary care (median, 36.5; IQR, 14-68) and 24% were from primary care (median, 10; IQR, 5-20). There was evidence of poor longitudinal continuity: in primary care, 31% of people had poor longitudinal continuity (Modified Modified Continuity Index ≤0.5), and 43% had a single named care coordinator in secondary care services over the 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates scope for improvement in supporting mental health service delivery in primary care. Greater knowledge of how care is organised presents an opportunity to ensure some rebalancing of the care that all people with severe mental illness receive, when they need it. A future publication will examine differences between the three sites that participated in this study.

Radical surgery versus organ preservation via short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early-stage rectal cancer (TREC): a randomised, open-label feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Radical surgery via total mesorectal excision might not be the optimal first-line treatment for early-stage rectal cancer. An organ-preserving strategy with selective total mesorectal excision could reduce the adverse effects of treatment without substantially compromising oncological outcomes. We investigated the feasibility of recruiting patients to a randomised trial comparing an organ-preserving strategy with total mesorectal excision. METHODS: TREC was a randomised, open-label feasibility study done at 21 tertiary referral centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with rectal adenocarcinoma, staged T2 or lower, with a maximum diameter of 30 mm or less; patients with lymph node involvement or metastases were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) by use of a computer-based randomisation service to undergo organ preservation with short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery after 8-10 weeks, or total mesorectal excision. Where the transanal endoscopic microsurgery specimen showed histopathological features associated with an increased risk of local recurrence, patients were considered for planned early conversion to total mesorectal excision. A non-randomised prospective registry captured patients for whom randomisation was considered inappropriate, because of a strong clinical indication for one treatment group. The primary endpoint was cumulative randomisation at 12, 18, and 24 months. Secondary outcomes evaluated safety, efficacy, and health-related quality of life assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30 and CR29 in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN14422743. FINDINGS: Between Feb 22, 2012, and Dec 19, 2014, 55 patients were randomly assigned at 15 sites; 27 to organ preservation and 28 to radical surgery. Cumulatively, 18 patients had been randomly assigned at 12 months, 31 at 18 months, and 39 at 24 months. No patients died within 30 days of initial treatment, but one patient randomly assigned to organ preservation died within 6 months following conversion to total mesorectal excision with anastomotic leakage. Eight (30%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation were converted to total mesorectal excision. Serious adverse events were reported in four (15%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation versus 11 (39%) of 28 randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision (p=0·04, χ2 test). Serious adverse events associated with organ preservation were most commonly due to rectal bleeding or pain following transanal endoscopic microsurgery (reported in three cases). Radical total mesorectal excision was associated with medical and surgical complications including anastomotic leakage (two patients), kidney injury (two patients), cardiac arrest (one patient), and pneumonia (two patients). Histopathological features that would be considered to be associated with increased risk of tumour recurrence if observed after transanal endoscopic microsurgery alone were present in 16 (59%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation, versus 24 (86%) of 28 randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision (p=0·03, χ2 test). Eight (30%) of 27 patients assigned to organ preservation achieved a complete response to radiotherapy. Patients who were randomly assigned to organ preservation showed improvements in patient-reported bowel toxicities and quality of life and function scores in multiple items compared to those who were randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision, which were sustained over 36 months' follow-up. The non-randomised registry comprised 61 patients who underwent organ preservation and seven who underwent radical surgery. Non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation were older than randomised patients and more likely to have life-limiting comorbidities. Serious adverse events occurred in ten (16%) of 61 non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation versus one (14%) of seven who underwent total mesorectal excision. 24 (39%) of 61 non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation had high-risk histopathological features, while 25 (41%) of 61 achieved a complete response. Overall, organ preservation was achieved in 19 (70%) of 27 randomised patients and 56 (92%) of 61 non-randomised patients. INTERPRETATION: Short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery achieves high levels of organ preservation, with relatively low morbidity and indications of improved quality of life. These data support the use of organ preservation for patients considered unsuitable for primary total mesorectal excision due to the short-term risks associated with this surgery, and support further evaluation of short-course radiotherapy to achieve organ preservation in patients considered fit for total mesorectal excision. Larger randomised studies, such as the ongoing STAR-TREC study, are needed to more precisely determine oncological outcomes following different organ preservation treatment schedules. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (aged ≥70 years) are at increased risk of severe disease and death if they develop COVID-19 and are therefore a priority for immunisation should an efficacious vaccine be developed. Immunogenicity of vaccines is often worse in older adults as a result of immunosenescence. We have reported the immunogenicity of a novel chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), in young adults, and now describe the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in a wider range of participants, including adults aged 70 years and older. METHODS: In this report of the phase 2 component of a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial (COV002), healthy adults aged 18 years and older were enrolled at two UK clinical research facilities, in an age-escalation manner, into 18-55 years, 56-69 years, and 70 years and older immunogenicity subgroups. Participants were eligible if they did not have severe or uncontrolled medical comorbidities or a high frailty score (if aged ≥65 years). First, participants were recruited to a low-dose cohort, and within each age group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2·2 × 1010 virus particles) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and study site, using the following ratios: in the 18-55 years group, 1:1 to either two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY; in the 56-69 years group, 3:1:3:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY; and in the 70 years and older, 5:1:5:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY. Prime-booster regimens were given 28 days apart. Participants were then recruited to the standard-dose cohort (3·5-6·5 × 1010 virus particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18-55 years group was assigned in a 5:1 ratio to two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY. Participants and investigators, but not staff administering the vaccine, were masked to vaccine allocation. The specific objectives of this report were to assess the safety and humoral and cellular immunogenicity of a single-dose and two-dose schedule in adults older than 55 years. Humoral responses at baseline and after each vaccination until 1 year after the booster were assessed using an in-house standardised ELISA, a multiplex immunoassay, and a live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) microneutralisation assay (MNA80). Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The coprimary outcomes of the trial were efficacy, as measured by the number of cases of symptomatic, virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. FINDINGS: Between May 30 and Aug 8, 2020, 560 participants were enrolled: 160 aged 18-55 years (100 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 60 assigned to MenACWY), 160 aged 56-69 years (120 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY), and 240 aged 70 years and older (200 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY). Seven participants did not receive the boost dose of their assigned two-dose regimen, one participant received the incorrect vaccine, and three were excluded from immunogenicity analyses due to incorrectly labelled samples. 280 (50%) of 552 analysable participants were female. Local and systemic reactions were more common in participants given ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those given the control vaccine, and similar in nature to those previously reported (injection-site pain, feeling feverish, muscle ache, headache), but were less common in older adults (aged ≥56 years) than younger adults. In those receiving two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 participants in the 18-55 years group, 22 (73%) of 30 in the 56-69 years group, and 30 (61%) of 49 in the 70 years and older group, and systemic reactions in 42 (86%) participants in the 18-55 years group, 23 (77%) in the 56-69 years group, and 32 (65%) in the 70 years and older group. As of Oct 26, 2020, 13 serious adverse events occurred during the study period, none of which were considered to be related to either study vaccine. In participants who received two doses of vaccine, median anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses 28 days after the boost dose were similar across the three age cohorts (standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 20 713 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [IQR 13 898-33 550], n=39; 56-69 years, 16 170 AU/mL [10 233-40 353], n=26; and ≥70 years 17 561 AU/mL [9705-37 796], n=47; p=0·68). Neutralising antibody titres after a boost dose were similar across all age groups (median MNA80 at day 42 in the standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 193 [IQR 113-238], n=39; 56-69 years, 144 [119-347], n=20; and ≥70 years, 161 [73-323], n=47; p=0·40). By 14 days after the boost dose, 208 (>99%) of 209 boosted participants had neutralising antibody responses. T-cell responses peaked at day 14 after a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (18-55 years: median 1187 spot-forming cells [SFCs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [IQR 841-2428], n=24; 56-69 years: 797 SFCs [383-1817], n=29; and ≥70 years: 977 SFCs [458-1914], n=48). INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes 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.

Faecal immunochemical tests versus colonoscopy for post-polypectomy surveillance: an accuracy, acceptability and economic study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, patients with one or two adenomas, of which at least one is ≥ 10 mm in size, or three or four small adenomas, are deemed to be at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and referred for surveillance colonoscopy 3 years post polypectomy. However, colonoscopy is costly, can cause discomfort and carries a small risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not annual faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are effective, acceptable and cost saving compared with colonoscopy surveillance for detecting CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs). DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study with health psychology assessment and economic evaluation. SETTING: Participants were recruited from 30 January 2012 to 30 December 2013 within the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women, aged 60-72 years, deemed to be at intermediate risk of CRC following adenoma removal after a positive guaiac faecal occult blood test were invited to participate. Invitees who consented and returned an analysable FIT were included. INTERVENTION: We offered participants quantitative FITs at 1, 2 and 3 years post polypectomy. Participants testing positive with any FIT were referred for colonoscopy and not offered further FITs. Participants testing negative were offered colonoscopy at 3 years post polypectomy. Acceptibility of FIT was assessed using discussion groups, questionnaires and interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 3-year sensitivity of an annual FIT versus colonoscopy at 3 years for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) (CRC and/or AA). Secondary outcomes included participants' surveillance preferences, and the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy surveillance. RESULTS: Of 8008 invitees, 5946 (74.3%) consented and returned a round 1 FIT. FIT uptake in rounds 2 and 3 was 97.2% and 96.9%, respectively. With a threshold of 40 µg of haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces (hereafter referred to as µg/g), positivity was 5.8% in round 1, declining to 4.1% in round 3. Over three rounds, 69.2% (18/26) of participants with CRC, 34.3% (152/443) with AAs and 35.6% (165/463) with ACN tested positive at 40 µg/g. Sensitivity for CRC and AAs increased, whereas specificity decreased, with lower thresholds and multiple rounds. At 40 µg/g, sensitivity and specificity of the first FIT for CRC were 30.8% and 93.9%, respectively. The programme sensitivity and specificity of three rounds at 10 µg/g were 84.6% and 70.8%, respectively. Participants' preferred surveillance strategy was 3-yearly colonoscopy plus annual FITs (57.9%), followed by annual FITs with colonoscopy in positive cases (31.5%). FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases was cheaper than 3-yearly colonoscopy (£2,633,382), varying from £485,236 (40 µg/g) to £956,602 (10 µg/g). Over 3 years, FIT surveillance could miss 291 AAs and eight CRCs using a threshold of 40 µg/g, or 189 AAs and four CRCs using a threshold of 10 µg/g. CONCLUSIONS: Annual low-threshold FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases achieved high sensitivity for CRC and would be cost saving compared with 3-yearly colonoscopy. However, at higher thresholds, this strategy could miss 15-30% of CRCs and 40-70% of AAs. Most participants preferred annual FITs plus 3-yearly colonoscopy. Further research is needed to define a clear role for FITs in surveillance. FUTURE WORK: Evaluate the impact of ACN missed by FITs on quality-adjusted life-years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18040196. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Bobby Moore Fund for Cancer Research UK. MAST Group Ltd provided FIT kits.