A randomised trial of malaria vaccine R21/Matrix-M™ with and without antimalarial drugs in Thai adults

In preparation for mass vaccinations with R21/Matrix-M™ combined with mass administrations of dihydroartemisinin, piperaquine, and a single low dose primaquine we assessed the tolerability, safety, and potential interactions of this combination affecting immunogenicity or pharmacokinetics. 120 healthy Thai volunteers were randomised to receive either antimalarials combined with vaccinations (n = 50), vaccinations alone (n = 50), or antimalarials only (n = 20). Three rounds of vaccines and antimalarials were administered one month apart. The vaccine was well tolerated alone and in combination with the antimalarials. None of the participants failed completion of the 3-dose vaccine course. There was no significant difference in the vaccine immunogenicity or in the pharmacokinetics of piperaquine given individually or in combination. This study supports proceeding to a large trial of mass vaccinations with R21/Matrix-M™ combined with mass antimalarial administration in Bangladesh

The public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine: a mathematical modelling study

Background The R21/Matrix-M vaccine has demonstrated high efficacy against Plasmodium falciparum clinical malaria in children in sub-Saharan Africa. Using trial data, we aimed to estimate the public health impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccine introduction across sub-Saharan Africa. Methods We fitted a semi-mechanistic model of the relationship between anti-circumsporozoite protein antibody titres and vaccine efficacy to data from 3 years of follow-up in the phase 2b trial of R21/Matrix-M in Nanoro, Burkina Faso. We validated the model by comparing predicted vaccine efficacy to that observed over 12–18 months in the phase 3 trial. Integrating this framework within a mathematical transmission model, we estimated the cases, malaria deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted and cost-effectiveness over a 15-year time horizon across a range of transmission settings in sub-Saharan Africa. Cost-effectiveness was estimated incorporating the cost of vaccine introduction (dose, consumables, and delivery) relative to existing interventions at baseline. We report estimates at a median of 20% parasite prevalence in children aged 2–10 years (PfPR2–10) and ranges from 3% to 65% PfPR2–10. Findings Anti-circumsporozoite protein antibody titres were found to satisfy the criteria for a surrogate of protection for vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria. Age-based implementation of a four-dose regimen of R21/Matrix-M vaccine was estimated to avert 181 825 (range 38 815–333 491) clinical cases per 100 000 fully vaccinated children in perennial settings and 202 017 (29 868–405 702) clinical cases per 100 000 fully vaccinated children in seasonal settings. Similar estimates were obtained for seasonal or hybrid implementation. Under an assumed vaccine dose price of USD 3, the incremental cost per clinical case averted was USD 7 (range 4–48) in perennial settings and USD 6 (3–63) in seasonal settings and the incremental cost per DALY averted was USD 34 (29–139) in perennial settings and USD 30 (22–172) in seasonal settings, with lower cost-effectiveness ratios in settings with higher PfPR2–10. Interpretation Introduction of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine could have a substantial public health benefit across sub-Saharan Africa. Funding The Wellcome Trust, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK Medical Research Council, the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership 2 and 3, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and the Serum Institute of India, Open Philanthropy

Efficacy and immunogenicity of R21/Matrix-M vaccine against clinical malaria after 2 years' follow-up in children in Burkina Faso: a phase 1/2b randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Malaria is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. We previously reported the efficacy of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine, which reached the WHO-specified goal of 75% or greater efficacy over 12 months in the target population of African children. Here, we report the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy results at 12 months following administration of a booster vaccination. METHODS: This double-blind phase 1/2b randomised controlled trial was done in children aged 5-17 months in Nanoro, Burkina Faso. Eligible children were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive three vaccinations of either 5 μg R21/25 μg Matrix-M, 5 μg R21/50 μg Matrix-M, or a control vaccine (the Rabivax-S rabies vaccine) before the malaria season, with a booster dose 12 months later. Children were eligible for inclusion if written informed consent could be provided by a parent or guardian. Exclusion criteria included any existing clinically significant comorbidity or receipt of other investigational products. A random allocation list was generated by an independent statistician by use of block randomisation with variable block sizes. A research assistant from the University of Oxford, independent of the trial team, prepared sealed envelopes using this list, which was then provided to the study pharmacists to assign participants. All vaccines were prepared by the study pharmacists by use of the same type of syringe, and the contents were covered with an opaque label. Vaccine safety, efficacy, and a potential correlate of efficacy with immunogenicity, measured as anti-NANP antibody titres, were evaluated over 1 year following the first booster vaccination. The population in which the efficacy analyses were done comprised all participants who received the primary series of vaccinations and a booster vaccination. Participants were excluded from the efficacy analysis if they withdrew from the trial within the first 2 weeks of receiving the booster vaccine. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03896724), and is continuing for a further 2 years to assess both the potential value of additional booster vaccine doses and longer-term safety. FINDINGS: Between June 2, and July 2, 2020, 409 children returned to receive a booster vaccine. Each child received the same vaccination for the booster as they received in the primary series of vaccinations; 132 participants received 5 μg R21 adjuvanted with 25 μg Matrix-M, 137 received 5 μg R21 adjuvanted with 50 μg Matrix-M, and 140 received the control vaccine. R21/Matrix-M had a favourable safety profile and was well tolerated. Vaccine efficacy remained high in the high adjuvant dose (50 μg) group, similar to previous findings at 1 year after the primary series of vaccinations. Following the booster vaccination, 67 (51%) of 132 children who received R21/Matrix-M with low-dose adjuvant, 54 (39%) of 137 children who received R21/Matrix-M with high-dose adjuvant, and 121 (86%) of 140 children who received the rabies vaccine developed clinical malaria by 12 months. Vaccine efficacy was 71% (95% CI 60 to 78) in the low-dose adjuvant group and 80% (72 to 85) in the high-dose adjuvant group. In the high-dose adjuvant group, vaccine efficacy against multiple episodes of malaria was 78% (95% CI 71 to 83), and 2285 (95% CI 1911 to 2568) cases of malaria were averted per 1000 child-years at risk among vaccinated children in the second year of follow-up. Among these participants, at 28 days following their last R21/Matrix-M vaccination, titres of malaria-specific anti-NANP antibodies correlated positively with protection against malaria in both the first year of follow-up (Spearman's ρ -0·32 [95% CI -0·45 to -0·19]; p=0·0001) and second year of follow-up (-0·20 [-0·34 to -0·06]; p=0·02). INTERPRETATION: A booster dose of R21/Matrix-M at 1 year following the primary three-dose regimen maintained high efficacy against first and multiple episodes of clinical malaria. Furthermore, the booster vaccine induced antibody concentrations that correlated with vaccine efficacy. The trial is ongoing to assess long-term follow-up of these participants and the value of further booster vaccinations. FUNDING: European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership 2 (EDCTP2), Wellcome Trust, and NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Persistence of immune response in heterologous COVID vaccination schedules in the Com-COV2 study - a single-blind, randomised trial incorporating mRNA, viral-vector and protein-adjuvant vaccines

BACKGROUND: Heterologous COVID vaccine priming schedules are immunogenic and effective. This report aims to understand the persistence of immune response to the viral vectored, mRNA and protein-based COVID-19 vaccine platforms used in homologous and heterologous priming combinations, which will inform the choice of vaccine platform in future vaccine development. METHODS: Com-COV2 was a single-blinded trial in which adults ≥50 years, previously immunised with single dose 'ChAd' (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222, Vaxzevria, Astrazeneca) or 'BNT' (BNT162b2, tozinameran, Comirnaty, Pfizer/BioNTech), were randomised 1:1:1 to receive a second dose 8-12 weeks later with either the homologous vaccine, or 'Mod' (mRNA-1273, Spikevax, Moderna) or 'NVX' (NVX-CoV2373, Nuvaxovid, Novavax). Immunological follow-up and the secondary objective of safety monitoring were performed over nine months. Analyses of antibody and cellular assays were performed on an intention-to-treat population without evidence of COVID-19 infection at baseline or for the trial duration. FINDINGS: In April/May 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9.4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (N= 540, 45% female) or BNT (N=532, 39% female) as part of the national vaccination programme. In ChAd-primed participants, ChAd/Mod had the highest anti-spike IgG from day 28 through to 6 months, although the heterologous vs homologous geometric mean ratio (GMR) dropped from 9.7 (95%CI: 8.2,11.5) at D28 to 6.2 (95%CI: 5.0, 7.7) at D196. The heterologous/homologous GMR for ChAd/NVX similarly dropped from 3.0 (95%CI:2.5-3.5) to 2.4 (95%CI:1.9-3.0). In BNT-primed participants, decay was similar between heterologous and homologous schedules with BNT/Mod inducing the highest anti-spike IgG for the duration of follow-up. The aGMR for BNT/Mod compared with BNT/BNT increased from 1.36 (95%CI: 1.17, 1.58) at D28 to 1.52 (95%CI: 1.21, 1.90) at D196, whilst for BNT/NVX this aGMR was 0.55 (95%CI: 0.47, 0.64) at day 28 and 0.62 (95%CI: 0.49, 0.78) at day 196. Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules produced and maintained the largest T-cell responses until D196. Immunisation with BNT/NVX generated a qualitatively different antibody response to BNT/BNT, with the total IgG significantly lower than BNT/BNT during all follow-up time points, but similar levels of neutralising antibodies. INTERPRETATION: Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to ChAd/ChAd. BNT-primed schedules with a second dose of either mRNA vaccine also remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to BNT/NVX. The emerging data on mixed schedules using the novel vaccine platforms deployed in the COVID-19 pandemic, suggest that heterologous priming schedules might be considered as a viable option sooner in future pandemics. ISRCTN: 27841311 EudraCT:2021-001275-16 FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force (VTF), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and National Institute for Health and Carte Research (NIHR). NVX was supplied for trial use by Novavax, Inc

Persistence of immune response in heterologous COVID vaccination schedules in the Com-COV2 study - a single-blind, randomised trial incorporating mRNA, viral-vector and protein-adjuvant vaccines

Background Heterologous COVID vaccine priming schedules are immunogenic and effective. This report aims to understand the persistence of immune response to the viral vectored, mRNA and protein-based COVID-19 vaccine platforms used in homologous and heterologous priming combinations, which will inform the choice of vaccine platform in future vaccine development. Methods Com-COV2 was a single-blinded trial in which adults ≥50 years, previously immunised with single dose 'ChAd' (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222, Vaxzevria, Astrazeneca) or 'BNT' (BNT162b2, tozinameran, Comirnaty, Pfizer/BioNTech), were randomised 1:1:1 to receive a second dose 8-12 weeks later with either the homologous vaccine, or 'Mod' (mRNA-1273, Spikevax, Moderna) or 'NVX' (NVX-CoV2373, Nuvaxovid, Novavax). Immunological follow-up and the secondary objective of safety monitoring were performed over nine months. Analyses of antibody and cellular assays were performed on an intention-to-treat population without evidence of COVID-19 infection at baseline or for the trial duration. Findings In April/May 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9.4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (N= 540, 45% female) or BNT (N=532, 39% female) as part of the national vaccination programme. In ChAd-primed participants, ChAd/Mod had the highest anti-spike IgG from day 28 through to 6 months, although the heterologous vs homologous geometric mean ratio (GMR) dropped from 9.7 (95%CI: 8.2,11.5) at D28 to 6.2 (95%CI: 5.0, 7.7) at D196. The heterologous/homologous GMR for ChAd/NVX similarly dropped from 3.0 (95%CI:2.5-3.5) to 2.4 (95%CI:1.9-3.0). In BNT-primed participants, decay was similar between heterologous and homologous schedules with BNT/Mod inducing the highest anti-spike IgG for the duration of follow-up. The aGMR for BNT/Mod compared with BNT/BNT increased from 1.36 (95%CI: 1.17, 1.58) at D28 to 1.52 (95%CI: 1.21, 1.90) at D196, whilst for BNT/NVX this aGMR was 0.55 (95%CI: 0.47, 0.64) at day 28 and 0.62 (95%CI: 0.49, 0.78) at day 196. Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules produced and maintained the largest T-cell responses until D196. Immunisation with BNT/NVX generated a qualitatively different antibody response to BNT/BNT, with the total IgG significantly lower than BNT/BNT during all follow-up time points, but similar levels of neutralising antibodies. Interpretation Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to ChAd/ChAd. BNT-primed schedules with a second dose of either mRNA vaccine also remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to BNT/NVX. The emerging data on mixed schedules using the novel vaccine platforms deployed in the COVID-19 pandemic, suggest that heterologous priming schedules might be considered as a viable option sooner in future pandemics

Effect of priming interval on reactogenicity, peak immunological response, and waning after homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccine schedules: exploratory analyses of Com-COV, a randomised control trial

BackgroundPriming COVID-19 vaccine schedules have been deployed at variable intervals globally, which might influence immune persistence and the relative importance of third-dose booster programmes. Here, we report exploratory analyses from the Com-COV trial, assessing the effect of 4-week versus 12-week priming intervals on reactogenicity and the persistence of immune response up to 6 months after homologous and heterologous priming schedules using the vaccines BNT162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer/BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca).MethodsCom-COV was a participant-masked, randomised immunogenicity trial. For these exploratory analyses, we used the trial's general cohort, in which adults aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to four homologous and four heterologous vaccine schedules using BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with 4-week or 12-week priming intervals (eight groups in total). Immunogenicity analyses were done on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, comprising participants with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline or for the trial duration, to assess the effect of priming interval on humoral and cellular immune response 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, in addition to the effects on reactogenicity and safety. The Com-COV trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 69254139 (EudraCT 2020–005085–33).FindingsBetween Feb 11 and 26, 2021, 730 participants were randomly assigned in the general cohort, with 77–89 per group in the ITT analysis. At 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, the geometric mean concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG was significantly higher in the 12-week interval groups than in the 4-week groups for homologous schedules. In heterologous schedule groups, we observed a significant difference between intervals only for the BNT162b2–ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group at 28 days. Pseudotyped virus neutralisation titres were significantly higher in all 12-week interval groups versus 4-week groups, 28 days post-second dose, with geometric mean ratios of 1·4 (95% CI 1·1–1·8) for homologous BNT162b2, 1·5 (1·2–1·9) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19–BNT162b2, 1·6 (1·3–2·1) for BNT162b2–ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 2·4 (1·7–3·2) for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. At 6 months post-second dose, anti-spike IgG geometric mean concentrations fell to 0·17–0·24 of the 28-day post-second dose value across all eight study groups, with only homologous BNT162b2 showing a slightly slower decay for the 12-week versus 4-week interval in the adjusted analysis. The rank order of schedules by humoral response was unaffected by interval, with homologous BNT162b2 remaining the most immunogenic by antibody response. T-cell responses were reduced in all 12-week priming intervals compared with their 4-week counterparts. 12-week schedules for homologous BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19–BNT162b2 were up to 80% less reactogenic than 4-week schedules.InterpretationThese data support flexibility in priming interval in all studied COVID-19 vaccine schedules. Longer priming intervals might result in lower reactogenicity in schedules with BNT162b2 as a second dose and higher humoral immunogenicity in homologous schedules, but overall lower T-cell responses across all schedules. Future vaccines using these novel platforms might benefit from schedules with long intervals

Safety and immunogenicity of heterologous versus homologous prime-boost schedules with an adenoviral vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Com-COV): a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial

Background: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer–BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. Methods: Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. Findings: Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. Interpretation: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. Funding: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research

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

Seawater carbonate chemistry and performance of native and non-native adult oysters

Globally, non-native species (NNS) have been introduced and now often entirely replace native species in captive aquaculture; in part, a result of a perceived greater resilience of NSS to climate change and disease. Here, the effects of ocean acidification and warming on metabolic rate, feeding rate, and somatic growth was assessed using two co-occurring species of oysters – the introduced Pacific oyster Magallana gigas (formerly Crassostrea gigas), and native flat oyster Ostrea edulis. Biological responses to increased temperature and pCO2 combinations were tested, the effects differing between species. Metabolic rates and energetic demands of both species were increased by warming but not by elevated pCO2. While acidification and warming did not affect the clearance rate of O. edulis, M. gigas displayed a 40% decrease at ∼750 ppm pCO2. Similarly, the condition index of O. edulis was unaffected, but that of M. gigas was negatively impacted by warming, likely due to increased energetic demands that were not compensated for by increased feeding. These findings suggest differing stress from anthropogenic CO2 emissions between species and contrary to expectations, this was higher in introduced M. gigas than in the native O. edulis. If these laboratory findings hold true for populations in the wild, then continued CO2 emissions can be expected to adversely affect the functioning and structure of M. gigas populations with significant ecological and economic repercussions, especially for aquaculture. Our findings strengthen arguments in favour of investment in O. edulis restoration in UK waters