Who funded the research behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

Objectives The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms. Methods We conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D. Results We identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search. Conclusion Our study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%-99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting

Responders and nonresponders to topical capsaicin display distinct temporal summation of pain profiles

Abstract. Introduction:. Topical application of capsaicin can produce an ongoing pain state in healthy participants. However, approximately one-third report no pain response (ie, nonresponders), and the reasons for this are poorly understood. Objectives:. In this study, we investigated temporal summation of pain (TSP) profiles, pain ratings and secondary hyperalgesia responses in responders and nonresponders to 1% topical capsaicin cream. Methods:. Assessments were made at baseline and then during an early (ie, 15 minutes) and late (ie, 45 minutes) time points post-capsaicin in 37 healthy participants. Results:. Participants reporting a visual analogue scale (VAS) rating of >50 were defined as responders (n = 24) and those with <50 VAS rating were defined as nonresponders (n = 13). There was a facilitation of TSP during the transition from an early to the late time point post-capsaicin (P<0.001) and the development of secondary hyperalgesia (P<0.05) in the responder group. Nonresponders showed no changes in TSP or secondary hyperalgesia during the early and late time points. There was an association between baseline TSP scores and the later development of a responder or nonresponder phenotype (r = 0.36; P = 0.03). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that baseline TSP works as a good response predictor at an individual level (area under the curve = 0.75). Conclusion:. These data suggest that responders and nonresponders have different facilitatory pain mechanisms. The assessment of TSP may help to identify participants with stronger endogenous pain facilitation who may be more likely to respond to topical capsaicin