Immunogenicity, safety, and reactogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 primary vaccination incorporating mRNA, viral-vector, and protein-adjuvant vaccines in the UK (Com-COV2): a single-blind, randomised, phase 2, non-inferiority trial.

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 vaccines (ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) with seasonal influenza vaccines in adults in the UK (ComFluCOV): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines could reduce burden on health-care systems. We aimed to assess the safety of concomitant administration of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial, adults in receipt of a single dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 were enrolled at 12 UK sites and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive concomitant administration of either an age-appropriate influenza vaccine or placebo alongside their second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. 3 weeks later the group who received placebo received the influenza vaccine, and vice versa. Participants were followed up for 6 weeks. The influenza vaccines were three seasonal, inactivated vaccines (trivalent, MF59C adjuvanted or a cellular or recombinant quadrivalent vaccine). Participants and investigators were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was one or more participant-reported solicited systemic reactions in the 7 days after first trial vaccination(s), with a difference of less than 25% considered non-inferior. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Local and unsolicited systemic reactions and humoral responses were also assessed. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14391248. FINDINGS: Between April 1 and June 26, 2021, 679 participants were recruited to one of six cohorts, as follows: 129 ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 139 BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 146 ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 79 BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 128 ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine, and 58 BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine. 340 participants were assigned to concomitant administration of influenza and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by placebo at day 21, and 339 participants were randomly assigned to concomitant administration of placebo and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by influenza vaccine at day 21. Non-inferiority was indicated in four cohorts, as follows: ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (risk difference for influenza vaccine minus placebos -1·29%, 95% CI -14·7 to 12·1), BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (6·17%, -6·27 to 18·6), BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine (-12·9%, -34·2 to 8·37), and ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (2·53%, -13·3 to 18·3). In the other two cohorts, the upper limit of the 95% CI exceeded the 0·25 non-inferiority margin (ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine 10·3%, -5·44 to 26·0; BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine 6·75%, -11·8 to 25·3). Most systemic reactions to vaccination were mild or moderate. Rates of local and unsolicited systemic reactions were similar between the randomly assigned groups. One serious adverse event, hospitalisation with severe headache, was considered related to the trial intervention. Immune responses were not adversely affected. INTERPRETATION: Concomitant vaccination with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine raises no safety concerns and preserves antibody responses to both vaccines. Concomitant vaccination with both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines over the next immunisation season should reduce the burden on health-care services for vaccine delivery, allowing for timely vaccine administration and protection from COVID-19 and influenza for those in need. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme.

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of heterologous versus homologous prime-boost schedules with an adenoviral vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Com-COV): a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

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.

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.

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18-55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493-1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96-317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360-792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R2=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Gießen-Marburg-Langen.

The effect of chronic cytomegalovirus infection on pneumococcal vaccine responses.

BACKGROUND: Immune function declines with age and has been associated with reduced vaccine responsiveness. Chronic infection with cytomegalovirus (CMV) has been proposed as a contributor to poorer responses in older adults. A pneumococcal vaccine has been recommended in the United Kingdom for those aged >65 years since 2003 to prevent pneumococcal disease. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of age and CMV status on pneumococcal vaccine responses in 348 individuals aged 50-70 years. RESULTS: We found participant age to be associated with serotype-specific and functional antibody titers after pneumococcal vaccination, with a mean 6.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.9%-9.5%) reduction in postvaccination functional antibody titers per year. CMV status was not associated with serotype-specific immunoglobulin G concentrations or functional antibody titers after pneumococcal vaccination. However, CMV seropositivity was associated with higher levels of prevaccination functional antibody for 4 of 7 pneumococcal serotypes assessed. CONCLUSIONS: These data imply that CMV infection is not directly responsible for the decline in pneumococcal vaccine responses seen with age but suggest that CMV-seropositive individuals differ in their natural exposure to pneumococci or have altered mucosal immune responses after colonization with this organism.

Exploring the delivery of adult vaccination outside of primary care settings: A mixed methods scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There are several identified barriers to immunisation delivery and uptake in adults, including governance issues, provider limitations, and patient access. While primary care settings have traditionally been responsible for vaccine delivery, there is a growing need to look to other settings to expand the equitable uptake of vaccinations in adults. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aims to identify and explore the role of non-primary care settings in delivering adult vaccinations, operational barriers and facilitators to immunisation delivery in these settings, and interventions delivered to improve uptake. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Peer-reviewed studies published from 01/01/2010 to 31/12/2022 that focused on the delivery of influenza, COVID-19, pneumococcal and herpes zoster vaccines in adult populations outside of primary care settings were included. Studies were also included if they explored barriers and facilitators to delivery, and interventions to improve uptake. RESULTS: 75 studies were identified for inclusion. Most were quasi-experimental studies, and 58/75 were from the US. Studies were most frequently conducted in in-patient settings, outpatient clinics, nursing homes, and workplaces. Operational planning and logistics, and provider-level issues, such as poor documentation and workflow interruption were commonly identified barriers to delivery. Government funding, continuity of care, and patient convenience were frequently reported facilitators. Interventions shown to improve uptake were operational planning and clinical improvement systems (Plan-Do-Study-Act [PDSA] cycles), provider education and reminders, on-site vaccination, patient education, and financial incentives. CONCLUSIONS: Mapping of the evidence indicates that adult immunisation delivery may be achievable across tertiary and secondary care settings, as well as non-clinical settings, such as workplaces. There are several identified barriers to delivery, predominantly at the provider-level in tertiary-care settings. Intervention such as operational planning, clinical reminders, and on-site vaccination, may facilitate uptake.

Exploring the attitudes and practices of adult service users and providers towards vaccination in non-primary care settings: A mixed methods scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There are several identified service user and provider barriers which lead to missed vaccination opportunities for adults within primary care. Programs delivering vaccination in non-primary care settings, such as in emergency departments, hospitals, specialist clinic and non-medical settings may assist in filling these gaps, especially among under-served populations. While expanding the locations in which vaccines are provided may improve uptake, there is a need to explore service user and provider attitudes towards delivery. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aims to explore perceptions and attitudes of adult service users and providers towards receiving and delivering vaccination in non-primary care settings and identify how attitudes relate to determinants of vaccine compliance. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Studies that focused on attitudes and perceptions of adult service users and providers towards the delivery of influenza, COVID-19, pneumococcal, and herpes zoster vaccines in non-primary care settings were included. Primary, peer-reviewed studies published in English from 01/01/2010 to 31/12/2023 were sought. Studies that focused on vaccination in primary care settings, the operational delivery of vaccination programs and interventions, children or adolescents less than 18 years, pregnant women, and healthcare workers receiving vaccination for occupational purposes were excluded. RESULTS: 30 studies were included for final analysis in this study. 22 were cross-sectional studies, and 19 were published in the United States. 15 studies were conducted in non-medical settings and 11 in the emergency department. Findings showed that service users were receptive towards vaccination in non-primary care settings and were especially motivated by the convenience of non-medical settings such as workplaces, mobile clinics, drive through clinics, and faith-based organisations. A number of service user barriers were reported to vaccine acceptance, including low confidence in vaccines, fear of adverse effects, and low risk perception of infection. Findings of the included studies highlight a number of provider attitudinal barriers to the delivery of vaccinations outside of primary care, such as considering the process too time-consuming, costly, and detracting from the purpose of their work, although the number of studies assessing provider attitudes were limited. CONCLUSION: Overall, there is a limited amount of evidence available regarding the attitudes to vaccination in non-primary care settings, especially among providers. There is a need for more study in this area to strengthen understanding of attitudes towards vaccination delivery in these settings. Mapping of available studies suggests there is a high acceptance level among service users towards vaccination in non-primary care settings, especially those in non-medical settings who lack routine access to the healthcare system. Further exploration of this and expansion of programs may serve to improve vaccine access and assist in overcoming inequity.

Comparison of assays used to detect antibody response in COVID-19 vaccine trials: Results from of a UK multi-Centre randomised controlled trial to determine the immunogenicity responses of COVID-19 vaccines administered concomitantly with seasonal influenza vaccines (ComFluCOV).

BACKGROUND: The ComFluCOV trial tested the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines co-administration. Binding and functional SARS-CoV2 anti-spike responses were measured using assays developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The three assays used to measure the immunogenicity outcomes are reported here and their performance compared to inform future vaccine development. METHODS: Adults aged over 18 were vaccinated with a COVID-19 and either an influenza vaccine or saline placebo. Serum sampled one month after vaccination was used to measure SARS-CoV2 anti-spike antibody concentrations using a commercial in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), a commercial fast throughput electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) and a viral neutralisation assay (VNA). Geometric mean ratios were used to compare the response to COVID-19 with or without influenza vaccine with a threshold of 0.67 considered non-inferior. The relationship between the different assays was examined using Kendall rank correlations. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratios exceeded 0.67 using all assays for all COVID-19 and influenza vaccine combinations tested. Moderate rank correlations were found between the three assays. CONCLUSION: All three assays confirmed that vaccine co-administration did not significantly impact on immunogenicity of any of the vaccines tested. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14391248, registered on 17/03/2021.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific mucosal antibodies in saliva following concomitant COVID-19 and influenza vaccination in the ComFluCOV trial.

The ComFluCOV trial randomized 679 participants to receive an age-appropriate influenza vaccine, or placebo, alongside their second COVID-19 vaccine. Concomitant administration was shown to be safe, and to preserve systemic immune responses to both vaccines. Here we report on a secondary outcome of the trial investigating SARS-CoV-2-specific mucosal antibody responses. Anti-spike IgG and IgA levels in saliva were measured with in-house ELISAs. Concomitant administration of an influenza vaccine did not affect salivary anti-spike IgG positivity rates to Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 (99.1 cf. 95.6%), or AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (67.8% cf. 64.9%), at 3-weeks post-vaccination relative to placebo. Furthermore, saliva IgG positively correlated with serum titres highlighting the potential utility of saliva for assessing differences in immunogenicity in future vaccine studies. Mucosal IgA was not detected in response to either COVID-19 vaccine, reinforcing the need for novel vaccines capable of inducing sterilising immunity or otherwise reducing transmission. The trial is registered as ISRCTN 14391248.

Working under short timescales to deliver a national trial: a case study of the ComFluCOV trial from a statistician's perspective.

BACKGROUND: In early 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK called for research on the safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Co-administration of these vaccines would facilitate uptake and reduce the number of healthcare visits required. The ComFluCOV trial was designed to deliver the necessary evidence in time to inform the autumn (September-November) 2021 vaccination policy. This paper presents the statistical methodology applied to help successfully deliver the trial results in 6 months. METHODS: ComFluCOV was a parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial managed by the Bristol Trials Centre. Two study statisticians, supported by a senior statistician, worked together on all statistical tasks. Tools were developed to aid the pre-screening process. Automated data monitoring reports of clinic data and electronic diaries were produced daily and reviewed by the trial team and feedback provided to sites. Analyses were performed independently in parallel, and derivations and results of all outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Set-up was achieved in less than a month, and 679 participants were recruited over 8 weeks. A total of 537 [at least] daily reports outlining recruitment, protocol adherence, and data quality, and 695 daily reports of participant electronic diaries identifying any missed diary entries and adverse events were produced over a period of 16 weeks. A preliminary primary outcome analysis of validated data was reported to the Department of Health and Social Care in May 2021. The database was locked 6 weeks after the final participant follow-up and final analyses completed 3 weeks later. A pre-print publication was submitted within 14 days of the results being made available. The results were reported 6 months after first discussions about the trial. CONCLUSION: The statistical methodologies implemented in ComFluCOV helped to deliver the study in the timescale set. Working in a new clinical area to tight timescales was challenging. Having two statisticians working together on the study provided a quality assurance process that enabled analyses to be completed efficiently and ensured data were interpreted correctly. Processes developed could be applied to other studies to maximise quality, reduce the risk of errors, and overall provide enhanced validation methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14391248, registered on 30 March 2021.

Delivering COVID-19 vaccine trials at speed: the implementation of a phase IV UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines (ComFluCOV).

BACKGROUND: In February 2021, the UK Department of Health and Social Care sought evidence on the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccine co-administration to inform the 2021/2022 influenza vaccine policy. Co-administration could support vaccine uptake and reduce healthcare appointments. ComFluCOV was a randomised controlled trial designed to provide this evidence. This report outlines the methods used to deliver the trial in 6 months to answer an urgent public health question as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. METHODS: ComFluCOV was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care and was managed by the Bristol Trials Centre, a UK-registered clinical trials unit. It was classed as an Urgent Public Health trial which facilitated fast-track regulatory approvals. Trial materials and databases were developed using in-house templates and those used in other COVID-19 vaccine trials. Participants were recruited by advertising, and via a trial website. Electronic trial systems enabled daily review of participant data. Weekly virtual meetings were held with stakeholders and trial sites. RESULTS: ComFluCOV was delivered within 6 months from inception to reporting, and trial milestones to inform the Department of Health and Social Care policy were met. Set-up was achieved within 1 month. Regulators provided expedited reviews, with feedback ahead of submission. Recruitment took place at 12 sites. Over 380 site staff were trained. Overall, 679 participants were recruited in two months. The final report to the Department of Health and Social Care was submitted in September 2021, following a preliminary safety report in May 2021. Trial results have been published. CONCLUSION: The rapid delivery of ComFluCOV was resource intensive. It was made possible in part due to a unique set of circumstances created by the pandemic situation including measures put in place to support urgent public health research and public support for COVID-19 vaccine research. Elements of the trial could be adopted to increase efficiency in 'non-pandemic' situations including working with a clinical trials unit to enable immediate mobilisation of a team of experienced researchers, greater sharing of resources between clinical trials units, use of electronic trial systems and virtual meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14391248, submitted on 17/03/2021. Registered on 30/03/2021.

Pneumococcal conjugate and plain polysaccharide vaccines have divergent effects on antigen-specific B cells.

BACKGROUND: A 23-valent unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (23vP), routinely administered at the age of 65, has limited effectiveness, and revaccination induces attenuated antibody responses. It is not known whether pneumococcal polysaccharide-protein conjugated vaccines (PCV), although highly effective in infants, offer any immunological advantages over 23vP in adults. METHODS: We immunized adults with schedules combining both PCV and 23vP and investigated B-cell responses to establish whether PCV7 (a 7-valent PCV) induced T-dependent responses in adults, to assess the role of memory B cells in 23vP-induced antibody hyporesponsiveness, and to identify the B-cell subtypes involved. RESULTS: A single dose of PCV7 induced significant increases in serotype-specific memory B-cell populations in peripheral blood indicating a T-dependent response. Conversely, immunization with 23vP resulted in a decrease in memory B-cell frequency. Furthermore, memory B-cell responses to subsequent immunization with PCV7, when given after 23vP, were attenuated. Notably, B1b cells, a subset important in protecting mice against pneumococci, were also depleted following immunization with 23vP in humans. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that PCV7 may have an immunological advantage over 23vP in adults and that 23vP-induced depletion of memory and B1b-cell subsets may provide a basis for antibody hyporesponsiveness and the limited effectiveness of 23vP. Clinical Trials Registration. ISRCTN: 78768849.

Safety and immunogenicity against ancestral, Delta and Omicron virus variants following a booster dose of an inactivated whole-virus COVID-19 vaccine (VLA2001): Interim analysis of an open-label extension of the randomized, controlled, phase 3 COV-COMPARE trial.

OBJECTIVES: Booster doses for COVID-19 vaccinations have been shown to amplify the waning immune response after primary vaccination and to enhance protection against emerging variants of concern (VoCs). Here, we aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of a booster dose of an inactivated whole-virus COVID-19 vaccine (VLA2001) after primary vaccination with 2 doses of either VLA2001 or ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-Astra Zeneca), including the cross-neutralization capacity against the Delta and Omicron VoCs. METHODS: This interim analysis of an open-label extension of a randomized, controlled phase 3 trial assessed a single booster dose of an inactivated whole-virus COVID-19 vaccine (VLA2001) in healthy or medically stable adults aged 18 years and above, recruited in 21 clinical sites in the UK, who had previously received two doses of either VLA2001 or ChAdOx1-S. Safety outcomes were frequency and severity of solicited injection site and systemic reactions within 7 days after booster vaccination as well as frequency and severity of any unsolicited adverse events (AE) after up to 6 months. Immunogenicity outcomes were the immune response to ancestral SARS-CoV-2 assessed 14 days post booster expressed as geometric mean titres (GMT), GMT fold ratios and seroconversion of specific neutralizing antibodies and S-protein binding IgG antibodies. Immunogenicity against the Delta and Omicron VoCs was assessed as a post-hoc outcome with a pseudovirus neutralization antibody assay. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04864561, and is ongoing. RESULTS: A booster dose of VLA2001 was administered to 958 participants, of whom 712 had been primed with VLA2001, and 246 with ChAdOx1-S. Within 7 days following these booster doses, 607 (63.4%) participants reported solicited injection site reactions, and 487 (50.8%) reported solicited systemic reactions. Up to 14 days post booster, 751 (78.4%) participants reported at least one adverse event. The tolerability profile of a booster dose of VLA2001 was similar in VLA2001-primed and ChAdOx1-S-primed participants. In VLA2001-primed participants, the GMT (95% CI) of neutralizing antibodies increased from 32.5 (22.8, 46.3) immediately before to 521.5 (413.0, 658.6) 2 weeks after administration of the booster dose, this corresponds to a geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) of 27.7 (20.0, 38.5). Compared to 2 weeks after the second priming dose, the GMFR was 3.6 (2.8, 4.7). In the ChAdOx1-S primed group, the GMT (95% CI) of neutralizing antibodies increased from 65.8 (43.9, 98.4) immediately before to 188.3 (140.3, 252.8) 2 weeks after administration of the booster dose, a geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) of 3.0 (2.2, 4.0). Compared to 2 weeks after the second priming dose, the GMFR was 1.6 (1.1, 2.2). For S-protein binding IgG antibodies, the pre- versus post-booster GMT fold ratio (95% CI) was 34.6 (25.0, 48.0) in the VLA2001-primed group and 4.0 (3.0, 5.2) in the ChAdOx1-S-primed group. Compared to 2 weeks after the second priming dose, the GMT fold rise of IgG antibodies was 3.8 (3.2, 4.6) in the VLA2001-primed group and 1.2 (0.9, 1.6) in the ChAdOx1-S-primed group. The GMT against Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (BA.4/5) increased from 4.2 to 260, and from 2.7 to 56.7, respectively, when boosting subjects previously primed with VLA2001. Following the boost, 97% of subjects primed with VLA2001 had detectable Delta- and 94% Omicron-neutralizing antibodies. In subjects primed with ChAdOx1-S, the GMT against Delta and Omicron titres increased from 9.1 to 92.5, and from 3.6 to 12.3, respectively. After boosting, 99% of subjects primed with ChAdOx1-S had detectable Delta- and 70% Omicron-neutralizing antibodies. In both VLA2001 and ChAdOx1-S primed subjects, the additional VLA2001 dose boosted T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 antigens to levels above those observed before the booster dose. CONCLUSION: A booster dose of VLA2001 was safe and well tolerated after primary immunization with VLA2001 and ChAdOx1-S. The tolerability of a booster dose of VLA2001 was similar to the favourable profile observed after the first and second priming doses. Both in a homologous and a heterologous setting, boosting resulted in higher neutralizing antibody titres than after primary immunization and significant increases in cross-neutralization titres against Delta and Omicron were observed after the booster dose. These data support the use of VLA2001 in booster programmes in ChadOx1-S primed groups.

Prolonged T-cell activation and long COVID symptoms independently associate with severe COVID-19 at 3 months.

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) causes immune perturbations which may persist long term, and patients frequently report ongoing symptoms for months after recovery. We assessed immune activation at 3-12 months post hospital admission in 187 samples from 63 patients with mild, moderate, or severe disease and investigated whether it associates with long COVID. At 3 months, patients with severe disease displayed persistent activation of CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells, based on expression of HLA-DR, CD38, Ki67, and granzyme B, and elevated plasma levels of interleukin-4 (IL-4), IL-7, IL-17, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) compared to mild and/or moderate patients. Plasma from severe patients at 3 months caused T-cells from healthy donors to upregulate IL-15Rα, suggesting that plasma factors in severe patients may increase T-cell responsiveness to IL-15-driven bystander activation. Patients with severe disease reported a higher number of long COVID symptoms which did not however correlate with cellular immune activation/pro-inflammatory cytokines after adjusting for age, sex, and disease severity. Our data suggests that long COVID and persistent immune activation may correlate independently with severe disease.

Immunogenicity and safety of an inactivated whole-virus COVID-19 vaccine (VLA2001) compared with the adenoviral vector vaccine ChAdOx1-S in adults in the UK (COV-COMPARE): interim analysis of a randomised, controlled, phase 3, immunobridging trial.

BACKGROUND: The Valneva COVID-19 vaccine (VLA2001; Valneva Austria, Vienna, Austria) is an inactivated whole-virus, adjuvanted SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of primary vaccination with VLA2001 versus the ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca) adenoviral-vectored vaccine. METHODS: In this immunobridging phase 3 trial (COV-COMPARE), participants aged 18 years and older who were medically stable (as determined by an investigator) were enrolled at 26 sites in the UK. In the double-blind, randomised, controlled arm of the trial, participants aged 30 years and older were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive two doses of VLA2001 (0·5 mL; with 33 antigen units [AU] per dose) or ChAdOx1-S (0·5 mL; with 2·5 × 108 infectious units per dose) on days 1 and 29. In another arm, participants aged 18-29 years received two doses of VLA2001 (same dose) open label on days 1 and 29. The primary immunogenicity outcome was the immune response of a two-dose schedule of VLA2001 on day 43, in adults aged 30 years and older, versus two doses of ChAdOx1-S via superiority of geometric mean titres (GMTs) of neutralising antibodies (GMT ratio of >1 at a two-sided significance level of 5%) and non-inferiority of the seroconversion rate (non-inferiority margin of -10% for the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between groups). The primary safety outcome was the frequency and severity of any adverse events in all participants up to day 43. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of vaccine. GMTs were assessed in a subset of participants aged 30 years and older who were seronegative at baseline, had at least one evaluable antibody titre measurement after vaccination, and had no confirmed COVID-19 during the study (immunogenicity population); and seroconversion was assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised the immunogenicity population but excluding any participants with major protocol violations. For each timepoint, only participants with available data were included in the analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04864561, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 28 and June 3, 2021, 4181 individuals were screened and 4017 enrolled, of whom 2975 (74%) were aged 30 years or older and randomly assigned to receive VLA2001 (n=1978) or ChAdOx1-S (n=997), and 1042 (26%) were aged 18-29 years (all received open-label VLA2001). 4012 participants received at least one dose of vaccine (1040 in the open-label VLA2001 group, 1977 in the randomised VLA2001 group, and 995 in the ChAdOx1-S group). The immunogenicity population comprised 492 participants in the randomised VLA2001 group and 498 in the ChAdOx1-S group; three participants in the VLA2001 group were excluded from the per-protocol population. VLA2001 induced higher neutralising GMTs than did ChAdOx1-S (803·5 [95% CI 748·5-862·6] vs 576·6 [543·6-611·7]; GMT ratio 1·39 [95% CI 1·25-1·56]; p<0·0001), and non-inferior seroconversion rates (444 [97·4%] of 456 participants vs 444 [98·9%] of 449; difference -1·5% [95% CI -3·3 to 0·2]. Any adverse event was reported in 963 (92·6%) participants in the open-label VLA2001 group, 1755 (88·8%) in the randomised VLA2001 group, and 976 (98·1%) in the ChAdOx1-S group. Most adverse events reported were mild or moderate in severity. INTERPRETATION: VLA2001 has a favourable tolerability profile and met superiority criteria for neutralising antibodies and non-inferiority criterion for seroconversion rates compared with ChAdOx1-S. The data presented here formed the basis of successful marketing approval for use of VLA2001 in primary vaccination in the EU, the UK, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates. FUNDING: UK Department of Health and Social Care and Valneva Austria.

Safety and immunogenicity of the inactivated whole-virus adjuvanted COVID-19 vaccine VLA2001: A randomized, dose escalation, double-blind phase 1/2 clinical trial in healthy adults.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the safety and optimal dose of a novel inactivated whole-virus adjuvanted vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: VLA2001. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, dose-escalation study followed by a double-blind randomized trial using low, medium and high doses of VLA2001 (1:1:1). The primary safety outcome was the frequency and severity of solicited local and systemic reactions within 7 days after vaccination. The primary immunogenicity outcome was the geometric mean titre (GMT) of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 two weeks after the second vaccination. The study is registered as NCT04671017. RESULTS: Between December 16, 2020, and June 3, 2021, 153 healthy adults aged 18-55 years were recruited in the UK. Overall, 81.7% of the participants reported a solicited AE, with injection site tenderness (58.2%) and headache (46.4%) being the most frequent. Only 2 participants reported a severe solicited event. Up to day 106, 131 (85.6%) participants had reported any AE. All observed incidents were transient and non-life threatening in nature. Immunogenicity measured at 2 weeks after completion of the two-dose priming schedule, showed significantly higher GMTs of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titres in the highest dose group (GMT 545.6; 95% CI: 428.1, 695.4) which were similar to a panel of convalescent sera (GMT 526.9; 95% CI: 336.5, 825.1). Seroconversion rates of neutralizing antibodies were also significantly higher in the high-dose group (>90%) compared to the other dose groups. In the high dose group, antigen-specific IFN-γ expressing T-cells reactive against the S, M and N proteins were observed in 76, 36 and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: VLA2001 was well tolerated in all tested dose groups, and no safety signal of concern was identified. The highest dose group showed statistically significantly stronger immunogenicity with similar tolerability and safety, and was selected for phase 3 clinical development.

Incidental findings in UK healthy volunteers screened for a COVID-19 vaccine trial.

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