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.

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. 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). 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]). 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. 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.

Voysey M ，Costa Clemens SA ，Madhi SA ，Weckx LY ，Folegatti PM ，Aley PK ，Angus B ，Baillie VL ，Barnabas SL ，Bhorat QE ，Bibi S ，Briner C ，Cicconi P ，Clutterbuck EA ，Collins AM ，Cutland CL ，Darton TC ，Dheda K ，Dold C ，Duncan CJA ，Emary KRW ，Ewer KJ ，Flaxman A ，Fairlie L ，Faust SN ，Feng S ，Ferreira DM ，Finn A ，Galiza E ，Goodman AL ，Green CM ，Green CA ，Greenland M ，Hill C ，Hill HC ，Hirsch I ，Izu A ，Jenkin D ，Joe CCD ，Kerridge S ，Koen A ，Kwatra G ，Lazarus R ，Libri V ，Lillie PJ ，Marchevsky NG ，Marshall RP ，Mendes AVA ，Milan EP ，Minassian AM ，McGregor A ，Mujadidi YF ，Nana A ，Padayachee SD ，Phillips DJ ，Pittella A ，Plested E ，Pollock KM ，Ramasamy MN ，Ritchie AJ ，Robinson H ，Schwarzbold AV ，Smith A ，Song R ，Snape MD ，Sprinz E ，Sutherland RK ，Thomson EC ，Török ME ，Toshner M ，Turner DPJ ，Vekemans J ，Villafana TL ，White T ，Williams CJ ，Douglas AD ，Hill AVS ，Lambe T ，Gilbert SC ，Pollard AJ ，Oxford COVID Vaccine Trial Group ... -  《-》

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in people living with and without HIV in South Africa: an interim analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1B/2A trial.

People living with HIV are at an increased risk of fatal outcome when admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19 compared with HIV-negative individuals. We aimed to assess safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in people with HIV and HIV-negative individuals in South Africa. In this ongoing, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1B/2A trial (COV005), people with HIV and HIV-negative participants aged 18-65 years were enrolled at seven South African locations and were randomly allocated (1:1) with full allocation concealment to receive a prime-boost regimen of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, with two doses given 28 days apart. Eligibility criteria for people with HIV included being on antiretroviral therapy for at least 3 months, with a plasma HIV viral load of less than 1000 copies per mL. In this interim analysis, safety and reactogenicity was assessed in all individuals who received at least one dose of ChAdOx1 nCov 19 between enrolment and Jan 15, 2021. Primary immunogenicity analyses included participants who received two doses of trial intervention and were SARS-CoV-2 seronegative at baseline. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04444674, and the Pan African Clinicals Trials Registry, PACTR202006922165132. Between June 24 and Nov 12, 2020, 104 people with HIV and 70 HIV-negative individuals were enrolled. 102 people with HIV (52 vaccine; 50 placebo) and 56 HIV-negative participants (28 vaccine; 28 placebo) received the priming dose, 100 people with HIV (51 vaccine; 49 placebo) and 46 HIV-negative participants (24 vaccine; 22 placebo) received two doses (priming and booster). In participants seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline, there were 164 adverse events in those with HIV (86 vaccine; 78 placebo) and 237 in HIV-negative participants (95 vaccine; 142 placebo). Of seven serious adverse events, one severe fever in a HIV-negative participant was definitely related to trial intervention and one severely elevated alanine aminotranferase in a participant with HIV was unlikely related; five others were deemed unrelated. One person with HIV died (unlikely related). People with HIV and HIV-negative participants showed vaccine-induced serum IgG responses against wild-type Wuhan-1 Asp614Gly (also known as D614G). For participants seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 antigens at baseline, full-length spike geometric mean concentration (GMC) at day 28 was 163·7 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (95% CI 89·9-298·1) for people with HIV (n=36) and 112·3 BAU/mL (61·7-204·4) for HIV-negative participants (n=23), with a rising day 42 GMC booster response in both groups. Baseline SARS-CoV-2 seropositive people with HIV demonstrated higher antibody responses after each vaccine dose than did people with HIV who were seronegative at baseline. High-level binding antibody cross-reactivity for the full-length spike and receptor-binding domain of the beta variant (B.1.351) was seen regardless of HIV status. In people with HIV who developed high titre responses, predominantly those who were receptor-binding domain seropositive at enrolment, neutralising activity against beta was retained. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was well tolerated, showing favourable safety and immunogenicity in people with HIV, including heightened immunogenicity in SARS-CoV-2 baseline-seropositive participants. People with HIV showed cross-reactive binding antibodies to the beta variant and Asp614Gly wild-type, and high responders retained neutralisation against beta. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, South African Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and the South African Medical Research Council.

Madhi SA ，Koen AL ，Izu A ，Fairlie L ，Cutland CL ，Baillie V ，Padayachee SD ，Dheda K ，Barnabas SL ，Bhorat QE ，Briner C ，Aley PK ，Bhikha S ，Hermanus T ，Horne E ，Jose A ，Kgagudi P ，Lambe T ，Masenya M ，Masilela M ，Mkhize N ，Moultrie A ，Mukendi CK ，Moyo-Gwete T ，Nana AJ ，Nzimande A ，Patel F ，Rhead S ，Taoushanis C ，Thombrayil A ，van Eck S ，Voysey M ，Villafana TL ，Vekemans J ，Gilbert SC ，Pollard AJ ，Moore PL ，Kwatra G ，Wits VIDA COVID team ... -  《Lancet HIV》

Safety and immunogenicity of an AS03-adjuvanted SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) in healthy adults: interim findings from a phase 2, randomised, dose-finding, multicentre study.

We evaluated our SARS-CoV-2 prefusion spike recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) with different adjuvants, unadjuvanted, and in a one-injection and two-injection dosing schedule in a previous phase 1-2 study. Based on interim results from that study, we selected a two-injection schedule and the AS03 adjuvant for further clinical development. However, lower than expected antibody responses, particularly in older adults, and higher than expected reactogenicity after the second vaccination were observed. In the current study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an optimised formulation of CoV2 preS dTM adjuvanted with AS03 to inform progression to phase 3 clinical trial. This phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, dose-ranging study was done in adults (≥18 years old), including those with pre-existing medical conditions, those who were immunocompromised (except those with recent organ transplant or chemotherapy) and those with a potentially increased risk for severe COVID-19, at 20 clinical research centres in the USA and Honduras. Women who were pregnant or lactating or, for those of childbearing potential, not using an effective method of contraception or abstinence, and those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine, were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive response technology system, with stratification by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years), rapid serodiagnostic test result (positive or negative), and high-risk medical conditions (yes or no), to receive two injections (day 1 and day 22) of 5 7mu;g (low dose), 10 7mu;g (medium dose), or 15 7mu;g (high dose) CoV2 preS dTM antigen with fixed AS03 content. All participants and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment; unmasked study staff involved in vaccine preparation were not involved in safety outcome assessments. All laboratory staff performing the assays were masked to treatment. The primary safety objective was to describe the safety profile in all participants, for each candidate vaccine formulation. Safety endpoints were evaluated for all randomised participants who received at least one dose of the study vaccine (safety analysis set), and are presented here for the interim study period (up to day 43). The primary immunogenicity objective was to describe the neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant 14 days after the second vaccination (day 36) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naive who received both injections, provided samples at day 1 and day 36, did not have protocol deviations, and did not receive an authorised COVID-19 vaccine before day 36. Neutralising antibodies were measured using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay and are presented here up to 14 days after the second dose. As a secondary immunogenicity objective, we assessed neutralising antibodies in non-naive participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04762680) and is closed to new participants for the cohort reported here. Of 722 participants enrolled and randomly assigned between Feb 24, 2021, and March 8, 2021, 721 received at least one injection (low dose=240, medium dose=239, and high dose=242). The proportion of participants reporting at least one solicited adverse reaction (injection site or systemic) in the first 7 days after any vaccination was similar between treatment groups (217 [91%] of 238 in the low-dose group, 213 [90%] of 237 in the medium-dose group, and 218 [91%] of 239 in the high-dose group); these adverse reactions were transient, were mostly mild to moderate in intensity, and occurred at a higher frequency and intensity after the second vaccination. Four participants reported immediate unsolicited adverse events; two (one each in the low-dose group and medium-dose group) were considered by the investigators to be vaccine related and two (one each in the low-dose and high-dose groups) were considered unrelated. Five participants reported seven vaccine-related medically attended adverse events (two in the low-dose group, one in the medium-dose group, and four in the high-dose group). No vaccine-related serious adverse events and no adverse events of special interest were reported. Among participants naive to SARS-CoV-2 at day 36, 158 (98%) of 162 in the low-dose group, 166 (99%) of 168 in the medium-dose group, and 163 (98%) of 166 in the high-dose group had at least a two-fold increase in neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant from baseline. Neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) at day 36 for participants who were naive were 2189 (95% CI 1744-2746) for the low-dose group, 2269 (1792-2873) for the medium-dose group, and 2895 (2294-3654) for the high-dose group. GMT ratios (day 36: day 1) were 107 (95% CI 85-135) in the low-dose group, 110 (87-140) in the medium-dose group, and 141 (111-179) in the high-dose group. Neutralising antibody titres in non-naive adults 21 days after one injection tended to be higher than titres after two injections in adults who were naive, with GMTs 21 days after one injection for participants who were non-naive being 3143 (95% CI 836-11 815) in the low-dose group, 2338 (593-9226) in the medium-dose group, and 7069 (1361-36 725) in the high-dose group. Two injections of CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 showed acceptable safety and reactogenicity, and robust immunogenicity in adults who were SARS-CoV-2 naive and non-naive. These results supported progression to phase 3 evaluation of the 10 7mu;g antigen dose for primary vaccination and a 5 7mu;g antigen dose for booster vaccination. Sanofi Pasteur and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

Sridhar S ，Joaquin A ，Bonaparte MI ，Bueso A ，Chabanon AL ，Chen A ，Chicz RM ，Diemert D ，Essink BJ ，Fu B ，Grunenberg NA ，Janosczyk H ，Keefer MC ，Rivera M DM ，Meng Y ，Michael NL ，Munsiff SS ，Ogbuagu O ，Raabe VN ，Severance R ，Rivas E ，Romanyak N ，Rouphael NG ，Schuerman L ，Sher LD ，Walsh SR ，White J ，von Barbier D ，de Bruyn G ，Canter R ，Grillet MH ，Keshtkar-Jahromi M ，Koutsoukos M ，Lopez D ，Masotti R ，Mendoza S ，Moreau C ，Ceregido MA ，Ramirez S ，Said A ，Tavares-Da-Silva F ，Shi J ，Tong T ，Treanor J ，Diazgranados CA ，Savarino S ... -  《-》

Safety and efficacy of PfSPZ Vaccine against malaria in healthy adults and women anticipating pregnancy in Mali: two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 and 2 trials.

Plasmodium falciparum parasitaemia during pregnancy causes maternal, fetal, and infant mortality. Poor pregnancy outcomes are related to blood-stage parasite sequestration and the ensuing inflammatory response in the placenta, which decreases over successive pregnancies. A radiation-attenuated, non-replicating, whole-organism vaccine based on P falciparum sporozoites (PfSPZ Vaccine) has shown efficacy at preventing infection in African adults. Here, we aimed to examine vaccine safety and efficacy of the PfSPZ Vaccine in adults and women who anticipated conception. Two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (phase 1 MLSPZV3 and phase 2 MLSPZV4) were conducted at a clinical research centre in Mali. MLSPZV3 included adults aged 18-35 years and MLSPZV4 included non-pregnant women aged 18-38 years who anticipated conception within a year of enrolment. In MLSPZV3, participants were stratified by village and randomly assigned (2:1) using block randomisation to receive three doses of 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine or saline placebo at weeks 0, 1, and 4 (4-week schedule) or at weeks 0, 8, and 16 (16-week schedule) and a booster dose around 1 year later. In MLSPZV4, women received presumptive artemether-lumefantrine twice per day for 3 days 2 weeks before dose one and were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using block randomisation to receive three doses of 9 × 105 or 1·8 × 106 PfSPZ Vaccine or saline placebo all administered at weeks 0, 1, and 4 (4-week schedule). Participants in both studies received artemether-lumefantrine 2 weeks before dose three and additionally 2 weeks before dose four (booster dose) in MLSPZV3. Investigators and participants were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome, assessed in the as-treated population, was PfSPZ Vaccine safety and tolerability within 7 days after each dose. The secondary outcome, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, was vaccine efficacy against P falciparum parasitaemia (defined as the time-to-first positive blood smear) from dose three until the end of transmission season. In exploratory analyses, MLSPZV4 evaluated incidence of maternal obstetric and neonatal outcomes as safety outcomes, and vaccine efficacy against P falciparum parasitaemia during pregnancy (defined as time-to-first positive blood smear post-conception). In MLSPZV4, women were followed at least once a month with human chorionic gonadotropin testing, and those who became pregnant received standard of care (including intermittent presumptive sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine antimalarial drugs after the first trimester) during routine antenatal visits. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03510481 and NCT03989102. Participants were enrolled for vaccination during the onset of malaria seasons for two sequential studies conducted from 2018 to 2019 for MLSPZV3 and from 2019 to 2021 for MLSPZV4, with follow-up during malaria seasons across 2 years. In MLSPZV3, 478 adults were assessed for eligibility, of whom 220 were enrolled between May 30 and June 12, 2018, and then between Aug 13 and Aug 18, 2018, and 210 received dose one. 66 (96%) of 69 participants who received the 16-week schedule and 68 (97%) of 70 who received the 4-week schedule of the 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine and 70 (99%) of 71 who received saline completed all three doses in year 1. In MLSPZV4, 407 women were assessed for eligibility, of whom 324 were enrolled from July 3 to July 27, 2019, and 320 received dose one of presumptive artemether-lumefantrine. 300 women were randomly assigned with 100 per group (PfSPZ Vaccine 9 × 105, 1·8 × 106, or saline) receiving dose one. First trimester miscarriages were the most commonly reported serious adverse event but occurred at a similar rate across study groups (eight [15%] of 54 with 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine, 12 [21%] of 58 with 1·8 × 106 PfSPZ Vaccine, and five [12%] of 43 with saline). One unrelated maternal death occurred 425 days after the last vaccine dose in the 1·8 × 106 PfSPZ Vaccine group due to peritonitis shortly after childbirth. Most related adverse events reported in MLSPZV3 and MLSPZV4 were mild (grade 1) and frequency of adverse events in the PfSPZ Vaccine groups did not differ from that in the saline group. Two unrelated serious adverse events occurred in MLSPZV3 (one participant had appendicitis in the 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine group and the other in the saline group died due to a road traffic accident). In MLSPZV3, the 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine did not show vaccine efficacy against parasitaemia with the 4-week (27% [95% CI -18 to 55] in year 1 and 42% [-5 to 68] in year 2) and 16-week schedules (16% [-34 to 48] in year 1 and -14% [-95 to 33] in year 2); efficacies were similar or worse against clinical malaria compared with saline. In MLSPZV4, the PfSPZ Vaccine showed significant efficacy against parasitaemia at doses 9 × 105 (41% [15 to 59]; p=0·0069 in year 1 and 61% [36 to 77]; p=0·0011 in year 2) and 1·8 × 106 (54% [34 to 69]; p<0·0001 in year 1 and 45% [13 to 65]; p=0·029 in year 2); and against clinical malaria at doses 9 × 105 (47% [20 to 65]; p=0·0045 in year 1 and 56% [22 to 75]; p=0·0081 in year 2) and 1·8 × 106 (48% [22 to 65]; p=0·0013 in year 1 and 40% [2 to 64]; p=0·069 in year 2). Vaccine efficacy against post-conception P falciparum parasitaemia during first pregnancies that arose in the 2-year follow-up was 57% (14 to 78; p=0·017) in the 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine group versus 49% (3 to 73; p=0·042) in the 1·8 × 106 PfSPZ Vaccine group. Among 55 women who became pregnant within 24 weeks after dose three, vaccine efficacy against parasitaemia was 65% (23 to 84; p=0·0088) with the 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine and 86% (64 to 94; p<0·0001) with the 1·8 × 106 PfSPZ Vaccine. When combined in a post-hoc analysis, women in the PfSPZ Vaccine groups had a non-significantly reduced time-to-first pregnancy after dose one compared with those in the saline group (log-rank test p=0·056). Exploratory maternal obstetric and neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly between vaccine groups and saline. PfSPZ Vaccine was safe and well tolerated in adults in Mali. The 9 × 105 and 1·8 × 106 doses of PfSPZ Vaccine administered as per the 4-week schedule, which incorporated presumptive antimalarial treatment before the first vaccine dose, showed significant efficacy against P falciparum parasitaemia and clinical malaria for two malaria transmission seasons in women of childbearing age and against pregnancy malaria. PfSPZ Vaccine without presumptive antimalarial treatment before the first vaccine dose did not show efficacy. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, and Sanaria.

Diawara H ，Healy SA ，Mwakingwe-Omari A ，Issiaka D ，Diallo A ，Traore S ，Soumbounou IH ，Gaoussou S ，Zaidi I ，Mahamar A ，Attaher O ，Fried M ，Wylie BJ ，Mohan R ，Doan V ，Doritchamou JYA ，Dolo A ，Morrison RD ，Wang J ，Hu Z ，Rausch KM ，Zeguime A ，Murshedkar T ，Kc N ，Sim BKL ，Billingsley PF ，Richie TL ，Hoffman SL ，Dicko A ，Duffy PE ，PfSPZ Vaccine Study Team ... -  《-》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》