113
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      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

      research-article
      , DPhil a , * , , MD c , d , * , , PhD f , g , * , , MD j , * , , MD b , * , , DPhil a , , MD b , , PhD f , g , , PhD l , , MSc m , , PhD a , , MBBCh i , , MD b , , PhD a , , PhD n , , MD f , g , , DPhil o , p , , FRCPCH s , t , , PhD a , , DPhil u , v , , FRCPath a , , PhD b , , DPhil b , , FCPaeds h , , PhD w , x , , PhD a , , PhD n , , FRCPCH y , , MBBS ac , , FRCP z , aa , , PhD e , , DPhil ab , , MSc a , , BA f , g , , PhD n , , PhD k , , PhD f , g , , MRCP b , , PhD b , , MSc a , , MBChB f , g , , PhD f , g , , DPhil ad , , FRCP ae , , PhD af , , MSc a , , MD k , , MD q , r , , PhD ai , , DPhil b , , FRCPath ag , , MSc a , , BPharm i , , MBChB ah , , MMath a , , MD aj , a , , PhD ak , , DPhil a , , PhD b , , RN a , , PhD an , , FRCPath al , , MD a , , MD a , , MD am , , FRCP ao , , FRCP PhD ap , , FRCP aq , ar , , MD as , , PhD at , , MD PhD k , , PhD k , , PhD k , , FFPH au , av , , DPhil b , * , , FMedSci b , * , , PhD b , * , , PhD b , * , , Prof, FMedSci a , * , * , Oxford COVID Vaccine Trial Group
      Lancet (London, England)
      The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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 × 10 10 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 10 10 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

            Abstract Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              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; p interaction =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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                19 February 2021
                19 February 2021
                Affiliations
                [a ]Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [b ]Jenner Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [c ]Institute of Global Health, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
                [d ]Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [e ]Clinical BioManufacturing Facility, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [f ]South African Medical Research Council Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
                [g ]Department of Science and Innovation/National Research Foundation South African Research Chair Initiative in Vaccine Preventable Diseases Unit, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
                [h ]Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
                [i ]Perinatal HIV Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
                [j ]Department of Pediatrics, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
                [k ]AstraZeneca BioPharmaceuticals, Cambridge, UK
                [l ]Family Centre for Research with Ubuntu, Department of Paediatrics, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa
                [m ]Soweto Clinical Trials Centre, Soweto, South Africa
                [n ]Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
                [o ]Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
                [p ]Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
                [q ]Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Salvador, Braziland Hospital São Rafael, Salvador, Brazil
                [r ]Instituto D’Or, Salvador, Brazil
                [s ]Division of Pulmonology, Groote Schuur Hospital and the University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
                [t ]Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Department of Immunology and Infection, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                [u ]Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [v ]Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Immunity and Inflammation Theme, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [w ]NIHR Southampton Clinical Research Facility and Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
                [x ]Faculty of Medicine and Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
                [y ]School of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol and University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, UK
                [z ]Department of Infection, Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK
                [aa ]MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
                [ab ]NIHR/Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
                [ac ]St George's Vaccine Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
                [ad ]Severn Pathology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
                [ae ]NIHR UCLH Clinical Research Facility and NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
                [af ]Department of Infection, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK
                [ag ]London Northwest University Healthcare, Harrow, UK
                [ah ]Setshaba Research Centre, Pretoria, South Africa
                [ai ]Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil
                [aj ]Hospital Quinta D’Or, Rede D’Or, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
                [ak ]NIHR Imperial Clinical Research Facility and NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
                [al ]College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences, Glasgow Dental Hospital & School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
                [am ]Infectious Diseases Service, Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
                [an ]Clinical Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil
                [ao ]Clinical Infection Research Group, Regional Infectious Diseases Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
                [ap ]MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research & Department of Infectious Diseases, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
                [aq ]Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, UK
                [ar ]Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
                [as ]Heart Lung Research Institute, Dept of Medicine, University of Cambridge and NIHR Cambridge Clinical Research Facility, Cambridge University Hospital and Royal Papworth NHS Foundation Trusts, Cambridge, UK
                [at ]University of Nottingham and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
                [au ]Public Health Wales, Cardiff, Wales
                [av ]Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Newport, Wales
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Andrew J Pollard, Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LE, UK
                [*]

                Contributed equally

                [†]

                Members are listed in the appendix (p 27)

                Article
                S0140-6736(21)00432-3
                10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00432-3
                7894131
                33617777
                3d892f82-7f43-4edb-971e-d35884a4ac82
                © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article