Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis.

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a guideline in 2021 that highlighted the seriousness of the condition, but also recommended that graded exercise therapy (GET) should not be used and cognitive-behavioural therapy should only be used to manage symptoms and reduce distress, not to aid recovery. This U-turn in recommendations from the previous 2007 guideline is controversial.We suggest that the controversy stems from anomalies in both processing and interpretation of the evidence by the NICE committee. The committee: (1) created a new definition of CFS/ME, which 'downgraded' the certainty of trial evidence; (2) omitted data from standard trial end points used to assess efficacy; (3) discounted trial data when assessing treatment harm in favour of lower quality surveys and qualitative studies; (4) minimised the importance of fatigue as an outcome; (5) did not use accepted practices to synthesise trial evidence adequately using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations trial evidence); (6) interpreted GET as mandating fixed increments of change when trials defined it as collaborative, negotiated and symptom dependent; (7) deviated from NICE recommendations of rehabilitation for related conditions, such as chronic primary pain and (8) recommended an energy management approach in the absence of supportive research evidence.We conclude that the dissonance between this and the previous guideline was the result of deviating from usual scientific standards of the NICE process. The consequences of this are that patients may be denied helpful treatments and therefore risk persistent ill health and disability.

Understanding the treatment benefit of hyperimmune anti-influenza intravenous immunoglobulin (Flu-IVIG) for severe human influenza.

BACKGROUNDAntibody-based therapies for respiratory viruses are of increasing importance. The INSIGHT 006 trial administered anti-influenza hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (Flu-IVIG) to patients hospitalized with influenza. Flu-IVIG treatment improved outcomes in patients with influenza B but showed no benefit for influenza A.METHODSTo probe potential mechanisms of Flu-IVIG utility, sera collected from patients hospitalized with influenza A or B viruses (IAV or IBV) were analyzed for antibody isotype/subclass and Fcγ receptor (FcγR) binding by ELISA, bead-based multiplex, and NK cell activation assays.RESULTSInfluenza-specific FcγR-binding antibodies were elevated in Flu-IVIG-infused IBV- and IAV-infected patients. In IBV-infected participants (n = 62), increased IgG3 and FcγR binding were associated with more favorable outcomes. Flu-IVIG therapy also improved the odds of a more favorable outcome in patients with low levels of anti-IBV Fc-functional antibody. Higher FcγR-binding antibody was associated with less favorable outcomes in IAV-infected patients (n = 50), and Flu-IVIG worsened the odds of a favorable outcome in participants with low levels of anti-IAV Fc-functional antibody.CONCLUSIONThese detailed serological analyses provide insights into antibody features and mechanisms required for a successful humoral response against influenza, suggesting that IBV-specific, but not IAV-specific, antibodies with Fc-mediated functions may assist in improving influenza outcome. This work will inform development of improved influenza immunotherapies.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT02287467.FUNDINGFunding for this research was provided by subcontract 13XS134 under Leidos Biomedical Research Prime Contract HHSN261200800001E and HHSN261201500003I, NCI/NIAID.

Accelerating clinical development of a live attenuated vaccine against Salmonella Paratyphi A (VASP): study protocol for an observer-participant-blind randomised control trial of a novel oral vaccine using a human challenge model of Salmonella Paratyphi A infection in healthy adult volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: This is the first efficacy study of an oral live attenuated vaccine against Salmonella Paratyphi A using a human challenge model of paratyphoid infection. S. Paratyphi A is responsible for 3.3 million cases of enteric fever every year, with over 19 000 deaths. Although improvements to sanitation and access to clean water are vital to reduce the burden of this condition, vaccination offers a cost-effective, medium-term solution. Efficacy trials of potential S. Paratyphi vaccine candidates in the field are unlikely to be feasible given the large number of participants required. Human challenge models therefore offer a unique, cost-effective solution to test efficacy of such vaccines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an observer-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial phase I/II of the oral live-attenuated vaccine against S. Paratyphi A, CVD 1902. Volunteers will be randomised 1:1 to receive two doses of CVD 1902 or placebo, 14 days apart. One month following second vaccination all volunteers will ingest S. Paratyphi A bacteria with a bicarbonate buffer solution. They will be reviewed daily in the following 14 days and diagnosed with paratyphoid infection if the predefined microbiological or clinical diagnostic criteria are met. All participants will be treated with antibiotics on diagnosis, or at day 14 postchallenge if not diagnosed. The vaccine efficacy will be determined by comparing the relative attack rate, that is, the proportion of those diagnosed with paratyphoid infection, in the vaccine and placebo groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study has been obtained from the Berkshire Medical Research Ethics Committee (REC ref 21/SC/0330). The results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15485902.

Malaria patient spectrum representation in therapeutic clinical trials of uncomplicated malaria: a scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: For the results of clinical trials to have external validity, the patients included in the study must be representative of the population presenting in the general clinical settings. A scoping literature review was performed to evaluate how the eligibility criteria used in anti-malarial efficacy and safety trials translate into patient selection. METHODS: A search of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) Clinical Trials Publication Library, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted to identify trials investigating anti-malarial efficacy and safety, published between 14th April 2001 and 31st December 2017. An updated search using the WWARN Clinical Trial Publication Library was undertaken to identify eligible publications from 1st January 2018 to 31st July 2021. The review included studies in patients of any age with uncomplicated malaria and any pharmaceutical therapeutic intervention administered. The proportion of trials with malaria-positive patients excluded was calculated and linked to the reported reason for exclusion. A subgroup analysis on eligibility criteria and trial baseline demographics was conducted to assess whether criteria are complied with when recruiting patients. RESULTS: Out of 847 studies, 176 (21%) trials were included in the final synthesis, screening a total of 157,516 malaria-positive patients, of whom 56,293 (36%) were enrolled and treated. Across the 176 studies included, 84 different inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified. The reason for exclusion of patients who tested positive for malaria was reported in 144 (82%) studies. Three criteria account for about 70% of malaria-positive patients excluded: mixed-species malaria infections or other specific Plasmodium species, parasite counts outside the set study ranges, and refusal of consent. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly two-thirds of the malaria-positive subjects who present to health facilities are systematically excluded from anti-malarial treatment trials. Reasons for exclusions are largely under-reported. Anti-malarial treatment in the general population is informed by studies on a narrow selection of patients who do not fully represent the totality of those seeking antimalarial treatment in routine practice. While entry criteria ensure consistency across trials, pragmatic trials are also necessary to supplement the information currently available and improve the external validity of the findings of malaria clinical trials.

Mucosal-Associated Invariant T cells exhibit distinct functional signatures associated with protection against typhoid fever.

We have previously demonstrated that Mucosal-Associated Invariant T (MAIT) cells secrete multiple cytokines after exposure to Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (S. Typhi), the causative agent of typhoid fever in humans. However, whether cytokine secreting MAIT cells can enhance or attenuate the clinical severity of bacterial infections remain debatable. This study characterizes human MAIT cell functions in subjects participating in a wild-type S. Typhi human challenge model. Here, we found that MAIT cells exhibit distinct functional signatures associated with protection against typhoid fever. We also observed that the cytokine patterns of MAIT cell responses, rather than the average number of cytokines expressed, are more predictive of typhoid fever outcomes. These results might enable us to objectively, based on functional parameters, identify cytokine patterns that may serve as predictive biomarkers during natural infection and vaccination.

Neurochemical abnormalities in chronic fatigue syndrome: a pilot magnetic resonance spectroscopy study at 7 Tesla.

RATIONALE: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a common and burdensome illness with a poorly understood pathophysiology, though many of the characteristic symptoms are likely to be of brain origin. The use of high-field proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) enables the detection of a range of brain neurochemicals relevant to aetiological processes that have been linked to CFS, for example, oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction. METHODS: We studied 22 CFS patients and 13 healthy controls who underwent MRS scanning at 7 T with a voxel placed in the anterior cingulate cortex. Neurometabolite concentrations were calculated using the unsuppressed water signal as a reference. RESULTS: Compared to controls, CFS patients had lowered levels of glutathione, total creatine and myo-inositol in anterior cingulate cortex. However, when using N-acetylaspartate as a reference metabolite, only myo-inositol levels continued to be significantly lower in CFS participants. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in glutathione and creatine are consistent with the presence of oxidative and energetic stress in CFS patients and are potentially remediable by nutritional intervention. A reduction in myo-inositol would be consistent with glial dysfunction. However, the relationship of the neurochemical abnormalities to the causation of CFS remains to be established, and the current findings require prospective replication in a larger sample.

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.

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.

Medium-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on multiple vital organs, exercise capacity, cognition, quality of life and mental health, post-hospital discharge.

BACKGROUND: The medium-term effects of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on organ health, exercise capacity, cognition, quality of life and mental health are poorly understood. METHODS: Fifty-eight COVID-19 patients post-hospital discharge and 30 age, sex, body mass index comorbidity-matched controls were enrolled for multiorgan (brain, lungs, heart, liver and kidneys) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), spirometry, six-minute walk test, cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), quality of life, cognitive and mental health assessments. FINDINGS: At 2-3 months from disease-onset, 64% of patients experienced breathlessness and 55% reported fatigue. On MRI, abnormalities were seen in lungs (60%), heart (26%), liver (10%) and kidneys (29%). Patients exhibited changes in the thalamus, posterior thalamic radiations and sagittal stratum on brain MRI and demonstrated impaired cognitive performance, specifically in the executive and visuospatial domains. Exercise tolerance (maximal oxygen consumption and ventilatory efficiency on CPET) and six-minute walk distance were significantly reduced. The extent of extra-pulmonary MRI abnormalities and exercise intolerance correlated with serum markers of inflammation and acute illness severity. Patients had a higher burden of self-reported symptoms of depression and experienced significant impairment in all domains of quality of life compared to controls (p<0.0001 to 0.044). INTERPRETATION: A significant proportion of patients discharged from hospital reported symptoms of breathlessness, fatigue, depression and had limited exercise capacity. Persistent lung and extra-pulmonary organ MRI findings are common in patients and linked to inflammation and severity of acute illness. FUNDING: NIHR Oxford and Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centres, British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence, UKRI, Wellcome Trust, British Heart Foundation.

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

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

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

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

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 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.

Homologous and heterologous re-challenge with Salmonella Typhi and Salmonella Paratyphi A in a randomised controlled human infection model.

Enteric fever is a systemic infection caused by Salmonella Typhi or Paratyphi A. In many endemic areas, these serovars co-circulate and can cause multiple infection-episodes in childhood. Prior exposure is thought to confer partial, but incomplete, protection against subsequent attacks of enteric fever. Empirical data to support this hypothesis are limited, and there are few studies describing the occurrence of heterologous-protection between these closely related serovars. We performed a challenge-re-challenge study using a controlled human infection model (CHIM) to investigate the extent of infection-derived immunity to Salmonella Typhi or Paratyphi A infection. We recruited healthy volunteers into two groups: naïve volunteers with no prior exposure to Salmonella Typhi/Paratyphi A and volunteers previously-exposed to Salmonella Typhi or Paratyphi A in earlier CHIM studies. Within each group, participants were randomised 1:1 to oral challenge with either Salmonella Typhi (104 CFU) or Paratyphi A (103 CFU). The primary objective was to compare the attack rate between naïve and previously challenged individuals, defined as the proportion of participants per group meeting the diagnostic criteria of temperature of ≥38°C persisting for ≥12 hours and/or S. Typhi/Paratyphi bacteraemia up to day 14 post challenge. The attack-rate in participants who underwent homologous re-challenge with Salmonella Typhi was reduced compared with challenged naïve controls, although this reduction was not statistically significant (12/27[44%] vs. 12/19[63%]; Relative risk 0.70; 95% CI 0.41-1.21; p = 0.24). Homologous re-challenge with Salmonella Paratyphi A also resulted in a lower attack-rate than was seen in challenged naïve controls (3/12[25%] vs. 10/18[56%]; RR0.45; 95% CI 0.16-1.30; p = 0.14). Evidence of protection was supported by a post hoc analysis in which previous exposure was associated with an approximately 36% and 57% reduced risk of typhoid or paratyphoid disease respectively on re-challenge. Individuals who did not develop enteric fever on primary exposure were significantly more likely to be protected on re-challenge, compared with individuals who developed disease on primary exposure. Heterologous re-challenge with Salmonella Typhi or Salmonella Paratyphi A was not associated with a reduced attack rate following challenge. Within the context of the model, prior exposure was not associated with reduced disease severity, altered microbiological profile or boosting of humoral immune responses. We conclude that prior Salmonella Typhi and Paratyphi A exposure may confer partial but incomplete protection against subsequent infection, but with a comparable clinical and microbiological phenotype. There is no demonstrable cross-protection between these serovars, consistent with the co-circulation of Salmonella Typhi and Paratyphi A. Collectively, these data are consistent with surveillance and modelling studies that indicate multiple infections can occur in high transmission settings, supporting the need for vaccines to reduce the burden of disease in childhood and achieve disease control. Trial registration NCT02192008; clinicaltrials.gov.

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.

An evaluation of rectal artesunate for the pre-hospital management of severe malaria.

INTRODUCTION: Severe falciparum malaria stills accounts for around half a million childhood deaths per year in sub-Saharan Africa. Prompt treatment of sick children close to home starting with artesunate given rectally by appropriately trained people can be lifesaving. AREAS COVERED: Rectal artesunate (RAS) has been developed for use in the WHO approved strategy of pre-referral intervention. This review covers the formulation, pharmacokinetics, safety, efficacy, and implementation of this drug. There is little RCT evidence and the only RCT has been controversial. It is unlikely that there will be further randomized studies in the field. There is a concern that the administration of a single dose of artesunate without adequate follow up therapy may encourage the emergence of artemisinin resistance. EXPERT OPINION: Artesunate is an essential drug and RAS is a very useful, potentially lifesaving formulation designed to be quickly administered in remote areas to severely unwell children by non-medical personnel. However, its use needs to be monitored and onward referral for definitive antimalarial treatment ensured.

Treatment responses to Azithromycin and Ciprofloxacin in uncomplicated Salmonella Typhi infection: A comparison of Clinical and Microbiological Data from a Controlled Human Infection Model.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of enteric fever is complicated by the emergence of antimicrobial resistant Salmonella Typhi. Azithromycin is commonly used for first-line treatment of uncomplicated enteric fever, but the response to treatment may be sub-optimal in some patient groups when compared with fluoroquinolones. METHODS: We performed an analysis of responses to treatment with azithromycin (500mg once-daily, 14 days) or ciprofloxacin (500mg twice-daily, 14 days) in healthy UK volunteers (18-60 years) enrolled into two Salmonella controlled human infection studies. Study A was a single-centre, open-label, randomised trial. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive open-label oral ciprofloxacin or azithromycin, stratified by vaccine group (Vi-polysaccharide, Vi-conjugate or control Men-ACWY vaccine). Study B was an observational challenge/re-challenge study, where participants were randomised to challenge with Salmonella Typhi or Salmonella Paratyphi A. Outcome measures included fever clearance time, blood-culture clearance time and a composite measure of prolonged treatment response (persistent fever ≥38.0°C for ≥72 hours, persistently positive S. Typhi blood cultures for ≥72 hours, or change in antibiotic treatment). Both trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02324751 and NCT02192008). FINDINGS: In 81 participants diagnosed with S. Typhi in two studies, treatment with azithromycin was associated with prolonged bacteraemia (median 90.8 hours [95% CI: 65.9-93.8] vs. 20.1 hours [95% CI: 7.8-24.3], p<0.001) and prolonged fever clearance times <37.5°C (hazard ratio 2.4 [95%CI: 1.2-5.0]; p = 0.02). Results were consistent when studies were analysed independently and in a sub-group of participants with no history of vaccination or previous challenge. A prolonged treatment response was observed significantly more frequently in the azithromycin group (28/52 [54.9%]) compared with the ciprofloxacin group (1/29 [3.5%]; p<0.001). In participants treated with azithromycin, observed systemic plasma concentrations of azithromycin did not exceed the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), whilst predicted intracellular concentrations did exceed the MIC. In participants treated with ciprofloxacin, the observed systemic plasma concentrations and predicted intracellular concentrations of ciprofloxacin exceeded the MIC. INTERPRETATION: Azithromycin at a dose of 500mg daily is an effective treatment for fully sensitive strains of S. Typhi but is associated with delayed treatment response and prolonged bacteraemia when compared with ciprofloxacin within the context of a human challenge model. Whilst the cellular accumulation of azithromycin is predicted to be sufficient to treat intracellular S. Typhi, systemic exposure may be sub-optimal for the elimination of extracellular circulating S. Typhi. In an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance, further studies are required to define appropriate azithromycin dosing regimens for enteric fever and to assess novel treatment strategies, including combination therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02324751 and NCT02192008).