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

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus botulinum toxin injection in chronic migraine prophylaxis: a pilot randomized trial

Hatem S Shehata,&nbsp;Eman H Esmail,&nbsp;Ahmad Abdelalim,&nbsp;Shaimaa El-Jaafary,&nbsp;Alaa Elmazny,&nbsp;Asmaa Sabbah,&nbsp;Nevin M Shalaby Neurology Department, Faculty of&nbsp;Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo,&nbsp;Egypt Background: Chronic migraine is a prevalent disabling disease, with major health-related burden and poor quality of life. Long-term use of preventive medications carries risk of side effects. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to botulinum toxin-A (BTX-A) injection as preventive therapies for chronic migraine. Methods: A pilot, randomized study was conducted on a small-scale sample of 29 Egyptian patients with chronic migraine, recruited from Kasr Al-Aini teaching hospital outpatient clinic and diagnosed according to ICHD-III (beta version). Patients were randomly assigned into two groups; 15 patients received BTX-A injection following the Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy injection paradigm and 14 patients were subjected to 12 rTMS sessions delivered at high frequency (10 Hz) over the left motor cortex (MC, M1). All the patients were requested to have their 1-month headache calendar, and they were subjected to a baseline 25-item (beta version) Henry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory (HDI), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), and visual analogue scale assessment of headache intensity. The primary efficacy measures were headache frequency and severity; secondary measures were 25-item HDI, HIT-6, and number of acute medications. Follow-up visits were scheduled at weeks 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 after baseline visit. Results: A reduction in all outcome measures was achieved in both the groups. However, this improvement was more sustained in the BTX-A group, and both the therapies were well tolerated. Conclusion: BTX-A injection and rTMS have favorable efficacy and safety profiles in chronic migraineurs. rTMS is of comparable efficacy to BTX-A injection in chronic migraine therapy, but with less sustained effect. Keywords: chronic migraine, botulinum toxin-A, rTMS, prophylaxi

Patient and Family Advisory Councils (PFACs): Identifying Challenges and Solutions to Support Engagement in Research

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to describe barriers to patient and family advisory council (PFAC) member engagement in research and strategies to support engagement in this context. METHODS: We formed a study team comprising patient advisors, researchers, physicians, and nurses. We then undertook a qualitative study using focus groups and interviews. We invited PFAC members, PFAC leaders, hospital leaders, and researchers from nine academic medical centers that are part of a hospital medicine research network to participate. All participants were asked a standard set of questions exploring the study question. We used content analysis to analyze data. RESULTS: Eighty PFAC members and other stakeholders (45 patient/caregiver members of PFACs, 12 PFAC leaders, 12 hospital leaders, 11 researchers) participated in eight focus and 19 individual interviews. We identified ten barriers to PFAC member engagement in research. Codes were organized into three categories: (1) individual PFAC member reluctance; (2) lack of skills and training; and (3) problems connecting with the right person at the right time. We identified ten strategies to support engagement. These were organized into four categories: (1) creating an environment where the PFAC members are making a genuine and unique contribution; (2) building community between PFAC members and researchers; (3) best practice activities for researchers to facilitate engagement; and (4) tools and training. CONCLUSION: Barriers to engaging PFAC members in research include patients negative perceptions of research and researchers lack of training. Building community between PFAC members and researchers is a foundation for partnerships. There are shared training opportunities for PFAC members and researchers to build skills about research and research engagement