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 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

Energy content of stools in normal healthy controls and patients with cystic fibrosis

Stool energy losses and the sources of energy within the stool were determined in 20 healthy controls and 20 patients with cystic fibrosis while on their habitual pancreatic enzyme replacement treatment. Stool energy losses were equivalent to 3.5% of gross energy intake in healthy children (range 1.3-5.8%). Despite a comparable gross energy intake, stool energy losses were three times greater in patients with cystic fibrosis than controls averaging 10.6% of gross energy intake (range 4.9-19.7%). Stool lipid could account for only 29% and 41% of the energy within the stool in controls and patients with cystic fibrosis respectively and was poorly related to stool energy. Approximately 30% of the energy within the stool could be attributable to colonic bacteria in both the healthy children and patients with cystic fibrosis. These results suggest that stool energy losses in healthy children are relatively modest but that even when patients with cystic fibrosis are symptomatically well controlled on pancreatic enzyme replacement, raised stool energy losses may continue to contribute towards an energy deficit sufficient to limit growth in cystic fibrosis. As the energy content per gram wet weight remains relatively constant (8 kJ/g), stool energy losses may be estimated from simple measurements of stool wet weight

Neonatal cranial ultrasonography as predictor of 2 year outcome of very low birthweight infants

Abstract Real time ultrasound scans using an ATL 300C sector scanner with 5–7.5 MHz transducer were performed on days 1, 4, 7 and thereafter as clinically necessary on 153 consecutively discharged very low birthweight (VLBW) infants. One hundred and forty-six long-term survivors were assessed fully at 2 years. The prevalence of cerebroventricular haemorrhage (CVH) in these survivors was 34.2% (grade 1—21.2%; grade 2—4.8%; grade 3—3.4%; grade 4—4.8%), ventricular dilatation 19.9% (including 4.1% with ventriculoperitoneal shunt), and ischaemia 9%. Impairments at 2 years were classified as nil, mild, moderate, severe or multiply severe, based on the criteria of Kitchen et al. Overall, 120 infants (82.2%) were unimpaired and 6.2% had mild, 3.4% had moderate, 4.1% had severe and 4.1% had multiply severe impairment. The major factors associated with impairment were gestational age < 28 weeks, birthweight < 1000 g, vaginal delivery, respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation, pulmonary air leaks and CVH. When these factors were reanalysed in a logistic regression model for odds ratios, only CVH (P < 0.005) and birth by spontaneous vaginal delivery (P < 0.05) were significant. The prevalence of impairment was 11.4% with no CVH, 6.5% grade 1, 71% grade 2, 20.0% grade 3 and 100.0% grade 4 CVH. The sensitivity of CVH of grade 2 or greater as a screening test was 64.7% for impairment, 78.6% for cerebral palsy and 70% for severe intellectual handicap. The mean general quotient (GQ) (Griffiths) at 2 years for infants with CVH was 89.1, and 97.5 for those without CVH (P < 0.001). Although infants with ventricular dilatation had an average GQ that was 13.1 units less than those with normal ventricles, the difference was only significant in those with a CVH of grade 2–4. The study shows the sonographic diagnosis of CVH and ventricular dilatation, but not ischaemia, to be a useful adjunct in predicting impairment and intellectual performance in VLBW infants but does not replace the need for multidisciplinary follow-up