Metabolic and Crystal Arthropathies [70-72]: 70. Single Intramuscular Depot Methylprednisolone Injection: A Convenient, Efficacious and Safe Treatment for Gouty Arthritis in an Inpatient Setting

Background: Various modalities of treatment have been used and recommended in the treatment of acute gout. These include drugs such as colchicine, NSAIDs and oral prednisolone. Intramuscular depot methylprednisolone (im MP) is currently used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis as well as polymyalgia. However the response to im MP in acute gouty arthritis in an inpatient setting (where there are usually contraindications to NSAIDs) has not been previously described in literature. Methods: Eighteen case records of patients presenting with acute gouty arthritis and referred to Rheumatology, between October 2008 and October 2009, were reviewed. Results: Fourteen men and four women, with a mean age of 60 years (range 55-88 years) were seen. Of the 18, 14 patients had a previous history of chronic gout and 4 patients were newly diagnosed. Sixteen patients had polyarticular gout (mainly bilateral wrists and knees) and the remaining 2 had monoarticular gout (1 knee, 1 wrist). Seventeen patients had synovial fluid analysis, which revealed negatively birefringent urate crystals, and 1 patient refused joint aspiration. All patients had predisposing co-morbidities such as diabetes (10), hypertension (15), CCF (5), chronic kidney disease (8) and 2 patients had a history of chronic alcohol excess. Five patients initially received NSAIDs and 3 had concomitant colchicine with all 5 showing a delayed response. All patients were given im MP 120 mg in the gluteal region as a deep injection. All responded completely to im yMP within 2 days with resolution of pain and swelling of inflamed joints. All patients felt much improved and rated the treatment highly. Conclusions: The latest BSR guidelines recommends the use of steroids in the management of refractory cases of gout, i.e. patients intolerant of or having contraindications to NSAIDS or colchicine. This restricted indication is based mainly on the side effects to oral steroids or lack of expertise with intra-articular injections. We have shown that a single intramuscular methyl prednisolone injection is highly effective, very convenient, patient acceptable and safe treatment for gout particularly in elderly patients with multiple co-morbidities. As most cases of inpatient gout have comorbidities such as in our series with contraindications to NSAIDs, we recommend the use of im methyl prednisolone as the first-line treatment in such patients. It may be a less painful alternative to intra-articular steroid injections and safer than bigger doses of oral steroids (especially in diabetes). Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation:systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but anticoagulation is underused in clinical care. The risk of venous thromboembolic disease during hospitalisation can be reduced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH): warfarin is the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin-related bleeding is a major reason for hospitalisation for adverse drug effects. Warfarin is cheap but therapeutic monitoring increases treatment costs. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have more rapid onset and offset of action than warfarin, and more predictable dosing requirements.OBJECTIVE: To determine the best oral anticoagulant/s for prevention of stroke in AF and for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of VTE.DESIGN: Four systematic reviews, network meta-analyses (NMAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of randomised controlled trials.SETTING: Hospital (VTE primary prevention and acute treatment) and primary care/anticoagulation clinics (AF and VTE secondary prevention).PARTICIPANTS: Patients eligible for anticoagulation with warfarin (stroke prevention in AF, acute treatment or secondary prevention of VTE) or LMWH (primary prevention of VTE).INTERVENTIONS: NOACs, warfarin and LMWH, together with other interventions (antiplatelet therapy, placebo) evaluated in the evidence network.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy Stroke, symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Safety Major bleeding, clinically relevant bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage. We also considered myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality and evaluated cost-effectiveness.DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of published NMAs and trial registries. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The stroke prevention in AF review search was run on the 12 March 2014 and updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2010 to September 2014. The search for the three reviews in VTE was run on the 19 March 2014, updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2008 to September 2014.REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened search results, extracted and checked data, and assessed risk of bias. For each outcome we conducted standard meta-analysis and NMA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using discrete-time Markov models.RESULTS: Apixaban (Eliquis(rcledR), Bristol-Myers Squibb, USA; Pfizer, USA) [5 mg bd (twice daily)] was ranked as among the best interventions for stroke prevention in AF, and had the highest expected net benefit. Edoxaban (Lixiana(rcledR), Daiichi Sankyo, Japan) [60 mg od (once daily)] was ranked second for major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Neither the clinical effectiveness analysis nor the CEA provided strong evidence that NOACs should replace postoperative LMWH in primary prevention of VTE. For acute treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, we found little evidence that NOACs offer an efficacy advantage over warfarin, but the risk of bleeding complications was lower for some NOACs than for warfarin. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of > £5000, apixaban (5 mg bd) had the highest expected net benefit for acute treatment of VTE. Aspirin or no pharmacotherapy were likely to be the most cost-effective interventions for secondary prevention of VTE: our results suggest that it is not cost-effective to prescribe NOACs or warfarin for this indication.CONCLUSIONS: NOACs have advantages over warfarin in patients with AF, but we found no strong evidence that they should replace warfarin or LMWH in primary prevention, treatment or secondary prevention of VTE.LIMITATIONS: These relate mainly to shortfalls in the primary data: in particular, there were no head-to-head comparisons between different NOAC drugs.FUTURE WORK: Calculating the expected value of sample information to clarify whether or not it would be justifiable to fund one or more head-to-head trials.STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005324, CRD42013005331 and CRD42013005330.FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Metabolic and crystal arthropathies: 112. Rapid Improvement in Health-Related Quality of Life in Gouty Arthritis Patients Treated with Canakinumab (ACZ885) Compared to Triamcinolone Acetonide

Background: Canakinumab, a fully human anti-IL-1β antibody has been shown to control inflammation in gouty arthritis. This study evaluated changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients treated with canakinumab or triamcinolone acetonide (TA). Methods: An 8-wk, dose-ranging, active controlled, single-blind study in patients (≥18 to ≤80 years) with acute gouty arthritis flare, refractory to or contraindicated to NSAlDs and/or colchicine, were randomized to canakinumab 10, 25, 50, 90, 150 mg sc or TA 40 mg im. HRQoL was assessed using patient reported outcomes evaluating PCS and MCS, and subscale scores of SF-36® [acute version 2]) and functional disability (HAQ-DI©). Results: In canakinumab 150 mg group, the most severe impairment at baseline was reported for physical functioning and bodily pain; levels of 41.5 and 36.0, respectively, which improved in 7 days to 80.0 and 72.2 (mean increases of 39.0 and 35.6) and at 8 wks improved to 86.1 and 86.6 (mean increases of 44.6 and 50.6); these were higher than levels seen in the general US population. TA group, showed less improvement in 7 days (mean increases of 23.3 and 21.3 for physical function and bodily pain). Functional disability scores, measured by the HAQ-DI© decreased in both treatment groups (Table 1). Conclusions: Gouty arthritis patients treated with canakinumab showed a rapid improvement in physical and mental well-being based on SF-36® scores. In contrast to the TA group, patients treated with canakinumab showed improvement in 7 days in physical function and bodily pain approaching levels of the general population. Disclosure statement: U.A., A.F., V.M., D.R., P.S. and K.S. are employees and shareholders of Novartis Pharma AG. A.P. has received research support from Novartis Pharma AG. N.S. has received research support and consultancy fees from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Takeda, Savient, URL Pharma and EnzymeRx, and is/has been a member of a speakers' bureau for Takeda. A.S. has received consultation fees from Novartis Pharma AG, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Essex, Pfizer, MSD, Roche, UCB and Wyeth. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation : systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but anticoagulation is underused in clinical care. The risk of venous thromboembolic disease during hospitalisation can be reduced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH): warfarin is the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin-related bleeding is a major reason for hospitalisation for adverse drug effects. Warfarin is cheap but therapeutic monitoring increases treatment costs. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have more rapid onset and offset of action than warfarin, and more predictable dosing requirements.OBJECTIVE: To determine the best oral anticoagulant/s for prevention of stroke in AF and for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of VTE.DESIGN: Four systematic reviews, network meta-analyses (NMAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of randomised controlled trials.SETTING: Hospital (VTE primary prevention and acute treatment) and primary care/anticoagulation clinics (AF and VTE secondary prevention).PARTICIPANTS: Patients eligible for anticoagulation with warfarin (stroke prevention in AF, acute treatment or secondary prevention of VTE) or LMWH (primary prevention of VTE).INTERVENTIONS: NOACs, warfarin and LMWH, together with other interventions (antiplatelet therapy, placebo) evaluated in the evidence network.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy Stroke, symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Safety Major bleeding, clinically relevant bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage. We also considered myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality and evaluated cost-effectiveness.DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of published NMAs and trial registries. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The stroke prevention in AF review search was run on the 12 March 2014 and updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2010 to September 2014. The search for the three reviews in VTE was run on the 19 March 2014, updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2008 to September 2014.REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened search results, extracted and checked data, and assessed risk of bias. For each outcome we conducted standard meta-analysis and NMA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using discrete-time Markov models.RESULTS: Apixaban (Eliquis(rcledR), Bristol-Myers Squibb, USA; Pfizer, USA) [5 mg bd (twice daily)] was ranked as among the best interventions for stroke prevention in AF, and had the highest expected net benefit. Edoxaban (Lixiana(rcledR), Daiichi Sankyo, Japan) [60 mg od (once daily)] was ranked second for major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Neither the clinical effectiveness analysis nor the CEA provided strong evidence that NOACs should replace postoperative LMWH in primary prevention of VTE. For acute treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, we found little evidence that NOACs offer an efficacy advantage over warfarin, but the risk of bleeding complications was lower for some NOACs than for warfarin. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of > £5000, apixaban (5 mg bd) had the highest expected net benefit for acute treatment of VTE. Aspirin or no pharmacotherapy were likely to be the most cost-effective interventions for secondary prevention of VTE: our results suggest that it is not cost-effective to prescribe NOACs or warfarin for this indication.CONCLUSIONS: NOACs have advantages over warfarin in patients with AF, but we found no strong evidence that they should replace warfarin or LMWH in primary prevention, treatment or secondary prevention of VTE.LIMITATIONS: These relate mainly to shortfalls in the primary data: in particular, there were no head-to-head comparisons between different NOAC drugs.FUTURE WORK: Calculating the expected value of sample information to clarify whether or not it would be justifiable to fund one or more head-to-head trials.STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005324, CRD42013005331 and CRD42013005330.FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Concurrent Oral 1 - Therapy of rheumatic disease: OP4. Effectiveness of Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR)

Background: Rituximab (RTX) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) has been licensed since 2006 for the management of severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who have failed at least one anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. Published clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of RTX in improving both clinical symptoms and patients' physical function. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of RTX in RA patients treated in routine clinical practice by examining clinical and patient reported outcomes six months after receiving a first course of RTX. Methods: The analysis involved 550 RA patients registered with the BSRBR, who were starting RTX and were followed up for at least 6 months. Change in Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response were used to assess the clinical response while change in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score was used to assess the physical function of the patients 6 months after starting RTX. The change in DAS28 and HAQ was compared between seronegative and seropositive patients and anti-TNF naïve patients versus anti-TNF failures. The response was also compared between patients receiving RTX in combination with MTX, other non-biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (nbDMARDs) or no nbDMARDs. Results: The mean (s.d.) age of the cohort was 59 (12) years and 78% of the patients were females. The patients had a mean (s.d.) of 15 (10) years of disease duration. 16% were biologic naïve while 84% were anti-TNF failures. 32% of the patients were seronegative and 68% were seropositive. The mean (95% CI) DAS28 at baseline was 6.2 (6.1, 6.3) which decreased to 4.8 (4.7, 4.9) at 6 months of follow up. 16% were EULAR good responders, 43% were moderate responders and 41% were non responders. The mean (95% CI) change in HAQ was −0.1 (−0.2, −0.1) (Table 1). The mean change in DAS28 was similar in seropositive and seronegative patients (p = 0.18) while the anti-TNF naïve patients showed a greater reduction in DAS28 scores than anti-TNF failures (p = 0.05). Patients receiving RTX in combination with MTX showed similar changes in DAS28 and HAQ compared to patients receiving RTX alone or with other nbDMARDs. Conclusions: RTX has proven to be effective in the routine clinical practice. Anti-TNF naïve patients seem to benefit more from RTX treatment than anti-TNF failures. Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation : systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis

Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation.Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Results 23 randomised trials involving 94 656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin.Conclusions The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis

Blood pressure-lowering effects of nifedipine/candesartan combinations in high-risk individuals: Subgroup analysis of the DISTINCT randomised trial

The DISTINCT study (reDefining Intervention with Studies Testing Innovative Nifedipine GITS - Candesartan Therapy) investigated the efficacy and safety of nifedipine GITS/candesartan cilexetil combinations vs respective monotherapies and placebo in patients with hypertension. This descriptive sub-analysis examined blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects in high-risk participants, including those with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate<90 ml min-1, n=422), type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=202), hypercholesterolaemia (n=206) and cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (n=971), as well as the impact of gender, age and body mass index (BMI). Participants with grade I/II hypertension were randomised to treatment with nifedipine GITS (N) 20, 30, 60 mg and/or candesartan cilexetil (C) 4, 8, 16, 32 mg or placebo for 8 weeks. Mean systolic BP and diastolic BP reductions after treatment in high-risk participants were greater, overall, with N/C combinations vs respective monotherapies or placebo, with indicators of a dose-response effect. Highest rates of BP control (ESH/ESC 2013 guideline criteria) were also achieved with highest doses of N/C combinations in each high-risk subgroup. The benefits of combination therapy vs monotherapy were additionally observed in patient subgroups categorised by gender, age or BMI. All high-risk participants reported fewer vasodilatory adverse events in the pooled N/C combination therapy than the N monotherapy group. In conclusion, consistent with the DISTINCT main study outcomes, high-risk participants showed greater reductions in BP and higher control rates with N/C combinations compared with respective monotherapies and lesser vasodilatory side-effects compared with N monotherapy

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation &lt;92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p&lt;0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p&lt;0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of 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