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

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

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

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

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

What information do cancer clinical trial protocols include on the reproductive risk of treatment and oncofertility management?"

Abstract:There are many barriers for oncofertility care which include clinician’s knowledge about the teratogenic and gonadotoxic risk of cancer protocols and the recommendations for oncofertility care. The objective of this study was to describe the level of reproductive information about the gonadotoxic and teratogenic risk of chemotherapy treatment in clinical trial protocols and the recommendations for oncofertility investigation and management.The study team reviewed 84 clinical trials protocols (pediatric, adolescent and young adult and adult) covering tumors found in patients of a reproductive age from 0-45 years of age and reviewed the literature for the 78 individual chemotherapy drugs. The team then reviewed each clinical trial protocol to document the reported information on gonadotoxicity and teratogenic risk, as well as recommendations for oncofertility care.The known information on reproductive risk of chemotherapy was not well-incorporated into the clinical trials protocols and when information was not available for new chemotherapy drugs the lack of animal or human data was also not reported.The reproductive complications of cancer treatment are poorly studied and reported in animal and human studies and the research team found information inconsistent and hard to find in the literature. However, when gonadotoxicity and teratogenic effect of treatment were known they were not consistently included into all protocols and the lack of data for new drugs was not reported. Very few protocols gave recommendations for oncofertility management and follow up and this is an additional barrier for fertility preservation consultation or management. Clear accurate information in clinical trials protocols will help to improve oncofertility care for patients of a reproductive age and will avoid medical legal ramifications.A number of recommendations are required for clinicians and pharmaceutical companies developing new trials, enabling clearer information and recommendations for oncofertility. These recommendations will lead to improved patient reproductive outcomes

Analysis of moisture migration in concrete at high temperature through in-situ neutron tomography

cited By 0International audienc

International Companies Withdrawal from Lithuania: Problematics and Alternative Solutions

The main attention in this article is focused on the problematic of international companies’ withdrawal from Lithuania and presentation of alternative solutions of this problem. The macro(Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland) level analysis and micro (“Coca-Cola”, “Nordea” and DNB, “Orkla”) level analysis showed that competitiveness, business conditions, employment relations, institutional environment and innovation should be improved and the corruption should be reduced in Lithuania. It is advisable that current Lithuanian Labour Code should be revised in order to increase the efficiency of labour relations. It is found out that the significance of “Coca-Cola”company is the highest in the context of the withdrawing companies from Lithuania. It is assumed that the most rational solution for each company is to move from Lithuania to another country. Santrauka Straipsnyje nagrinėjama tarptautinių kompanijų pasitraukimo iš Lietuvos problematika ir alternatyvūs problemos sprendimo būdai. Atlikus makrolygmens (Švedijos, Austrijos, Latvijos, Lietuvos, Estijos, Lenkijos) ir mikrolygmens („Coca-Cola“, „Nordea“ ir DNB, „Orkla“) analizes, išsiaiškinta, kad Lietuvoje reikėtų didinti konkurencingumą, gerinti verslo sąlygas, darbo santykius, institucinę aplinką ir inovacijas, mažinti korupciją. Darbo santykių efektyvumui gerinti patartina koreguoti dabartinį LR darbo kodeksą. Išsiaiškinta, kad pasitraukiančių kompanijų kontekste „Coca-Cola“ kompanijos reikšmingumas yra palyginti didžiausias. Manytina, kad racionaliausias sprendimas būtų tarptautinėms kompanijoms perkelti veiklą iš Lietuvos taip: „Coca-Cola“ – į Lenkiją, „Nordea“ ir DNB – į Estiją, „Orkla“ – į Austriją, Švediją, Latviją. Reikšminiai žodžiai: tarptautinė ekonomika, tarptautinis verslas, tiesioginės užsienio investicijos, konkurencingumas, darbo santykiai, institucinė aplinka, korupcija, makrolygmens analizė, mikrolygmens analizė, atvejo metodas

Pollen morphology of the genus Cota

Pollen morphology of 22 Cota taxa naturally distributed in Turkey was investigated to describe their pollen features and to evaluate the diagnostic value of pollen characters for systematic purposes using light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Pollen grains of Cota are radially symmetrical and isopolar. Their shape is oblate-spheroidal with the polar axes 21.6-34.56 mu m and the equatorial axes 23.04-33.6 mu m. The pollens are trizonocolporate. The outline is elliptic in equatorial view and triangular in polar view; amb intersemiangular. Exine sculpturing is echinate. Inter-spinal region exhibits perforate and microreticulate-perforate ornamentations. Numerical analysis revealed that dimensions of the pollen grains and surface ornamentation are the most reliable characters for delimiting the taxa within the genus.Scientific and Technological Research Council of TurkeyTurkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu (TUBITAK) [TUBITAK, 105T353]This work was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey [grant number TUBITAK, TBAG Project No 105T353]

Recommendation of RILEM TC 256-SPF on the method of testing concrete spalling due to fire: material screening test

The recommendation is based on the co-authors’ work organized by the RILEM TC 256-SPF “Spalling of concrete due to fire: testing and modelling”. The Committee has defined two types of screening tests for characterization of concrete propensity to fire spalling: Material screening tests and Product screening tests. Definitions of both types of tests are given in the paper. The following recommendations apply to Material screening tests. The material screening tests described in these recommendations are a set of minimum requirements to test concrete spalling propensity (for example, the minimal specimen size). This document covers the aspects of concrete characterization, specimen geometries, storage conditions, test methods and measured parameters