Search

Background: Time-lapse imaging systems for embryo incubation and selection might improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment due to undisturbed embryo culture conditions, improved embryo selection, or both. However, the benefit remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of time-lapse imaging systems providing undisturbed culture and embryo selection, and time-lapse imaging systems providing only undisturbed culture, and compared each with standard care without time-lapse imaging., Methods: We conducted a multicentre, three-parallel-group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial in participants undergoing IVF or ICSI at seven IVF centres in the UK and Hong Kong. Embryologists randomly assigned participants using a web-based system, stratified by clinic in a 1:1:1 ratio to the time-lapse imaging system for undisturbed culture and embryo selection (time-lapse imaging group), time-lapse imaging system for undisturbed culture alone (undisturbed culture group), and standard care without time-lapse imaging (control group). Women were required to be aged 18-42 years and men (ie, their partners) 18 years or older. Couples had to be receiving their first, second, or third IVF or ICSI treatment and could not participate if using donor gametes. Participants and trial staff were masked to group assignment, embryologists were not. The primary outcome was live birth. We performed analyses using the intention-to-treat principle and reported the main analysis in participants with primary outcome data available (full analysis set). The trial is registered on the International Trials Registry (ISRCTN17792989) and is now closed., Findings: 1575 participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups (525 participants per group) between June 21, 2018, and Sept 30, 2022. The live birth rates were 33·7% (175/520) in the time-lapse imaging group, 36·6% (189/516) in the undisturbed culture group, and 33·0% (172/522) in the standard care group. The adjusted odds ratio was 1·04 (97·5% CI 0·73 to 1·47) for time-lapse imaging arm versus control and 1·20 (0·85 to 1·70) for undisturbed culture versus control. The risk reduction for the absolute difference was 0·7 percentage points (97·5% CI -5·85 to 7·25) between the time-lapse imaging and standard care groups and 3·6 percentage points (-3·02 to 10·22) between the undisturbed culture and standard care groups. 79 serious adverse events unrelated to the trial were reported (n=28 in time-lapse imaging, n=27 in undisturbed culture, and n=24 in standard care)., Interpretation: In women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment, the use of time-lapse imaging systems for embryo culture and selection does not significantly increase the odds of live birth compared with standard care without time-lapse imaging., Funding: Barts Charity, Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals, Hong Kong OG Trust Fund, Hong Kong Health and Medical Research Fund, Hong Kong Matching Fund., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PB declares support for the current trial and manuscript from Barts Charity (MGU0374) and Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals through Queen Mary University of London. DYLC declares support for the current trial and manuscript from Hong Kong OG trust fund (reference number 6904985), Hong Kong Health and Medical Research Fund (07180566), and Hong Kong Matching Fund (RMG01-8601386) through the Chinese University of Hong Kong. YiC declares grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and Medical Research Council through the University of Southampton, honoraria for lectures through Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck, and being a minor shareholder for Complete Fertility. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Amblyopia, the most common visual impairment of childhood, is a public health concern. An extended period of optical treatment before patching is recommended by the clinical guidelines of several countries. The aim of this study was to compare an intensive patching regimen, with and without extended optical treatment (EOT), in a randomised controlled trial., Methods: EuPatch was a randomised controlled trial conducted in 30 hospitals in the UK, Greece, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Children aged 3-8 years with newly detected, untreated amblyopia (defined as an interocular difference ≥0·30 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] best corrected visual acuity [BCVA]) due to anisometropia, strabismus, or both were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequence to either the EOT group (18 weeks of glasses use before patching) or to the early patching group (3 weeks of glasses use before patching), stratified for type and severity of amblyopia. All participants were initially prescribed an intensive patching regimen (10 h/day, 6 days per week), supplemented with motivational materials. The patching period was up to 24 weeks. Participants, parents or guardians, assessors, and the trial statistician were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was successful treatment (ie, ≤0·20 logMAR interocular difference in BCVA) after 12 weeks of patching. Two primary analyses were conducted: the main analysis included all participants, including those who dropped out, but excluded those who did not provide outcome data at week 12 and remained on the study; the other analysis imputed this missing data. All eligible and randomly assigned participants were assessed for adverse events. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN51712593) and is no longer recruiting., Findings: Between June 20, 2013, and March 12, 2020, after exclusion of eight participants found ineligible after detailed screening, we randomly assigned 334 participants (170 to the EOT group and 164 to the early patching group), including 188 (56%) boys, 146 (44%) girls, and two (1%) participants whose sex was not recorded. 317 participants (158 in the EOT group and 159 in the early patching group) were analysed for the primary outcome without imputation of missing data (median follow-up time 42 weeks [IQR 42] in the EOT group vs 27 weeks [27] in the early patching group). 24 (14%) of 170 participants in the EOT group and ten (6%) of 164 in the early patching group were excluded or dropped out of the study, mostly due to loss to follow-up and withdrawal of consent; ten (6%) in the EOT group and three (2%) in the early patching group missed the 12 week visit but remained on the study. A higher proportion of participants in the early patching group had successful treatment (107 [67%] of 159) than those in the EOT group (86 [54%] of 158; 13% difference; p=0·019) after 12 weeks of patching. No serious adverse events related to the interventions occurred., Interpretation: The results from this trial indicate that early patching is more effective than EOT for the treatment of most children with amblyopia. Our findings also provide data for the personalisation of amblyopia treatments., Funding: Action Medical Research, NIHR Clinical Research Network, and Ulverscroft Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FAP, A-DN, and IG were awarded grants from Action Medical Research and the Ulverscroft Foundation for this study. FAP reports travel funding from the main grant body, Action Medical Research, to attend the 2023 Annual Research in Vision and Ophthalmology meeting 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, to present the findings for the study; and is a consultant for Leica Microsystems. MH and GM were funded through Action Medical Research, the NIHR Clinical Research Network and the Ulverscroft Foundation. AM reports funding from Action Medical Research to provide statistical support. A-DN is the local principal investigator for commercially sponsored randomised controlled trials (through Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK) for MyopiaX, Nevakar/Vyluma, Ocumension/Ora Health, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR); and reports honoraria for educational activities from Santen, Novartis, Zeiss, and CooperVision, and for participation on advisory boards from Santen, SightGlassVision, Thea, and CooperVision. EP, PK, JS, and CB declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting., Methods: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication., Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ACF, MJR, and HAE report National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) grant funding paid to their institutions. AW-H reports NIHR grant funding paid to her institution, being a Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee and Trial Steering Committee member of NIHR funded and Medical Research Council funded projects, and travel reimbursement for expert Committee membership of the Yorkshire and Northeast Regional Advisory Committee for NIHR Research for Patient Benefit. SLA reports NIHR, Yorkshire Cancer Research, and Health Data Research UK grant funding paid to her institution, consulting fees from West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board paid to her institution, speaker's payments from Xytal, and being a grant funding panel member for NIHR. RF reports NIHR and Yorkshire Cancer Research grant funding paid to his institution, and being a Chair of a NICE Implementation Strategy Group. EAG reports NIHR and Leeds Hospitals Charity grant funding paid to her institution. AJF reports NIHR grant funding paid to her institution, and reports being a Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee and Trial Steering Committee member of NIHR and BHF funded projects, and an NIHR senior investigator. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Poor diet is a major public health concern. In 2021, 63·8% of adults and 22·2% of reception-age children were either overweight or obese in England. Fiscal interventions have become a popular policy measure to reduce obesity and encourage healthy eating. Such measures are highly controversial, leading to media debate promoting pro-tax and anti-tax arguments. To better understand food tax debates and the use of media analysis in public health research, we conducted a scoping review of media analyses using food taxes as a case study., Methods: In this scoping review, we searched SCOPUS, PubMed, and EBSCOhost databases on Feb 14-22, 2023, using keyword variations for "food", "tax", and "media analysis". Results were restricted to English-only, peer-reviewed journal articles. The initial results were manually screened through an iterative process to exclude articles that did not analyse a food tax, were non-English language, were not peer-reviewed, or did not use media analysis as the primary method. Modelled on Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) five-stage review protocol, two researchers used a coding framework to independently code all articles and checked result quality through regular discussion. Extracted data included article title, author, year, country, tax type, media sources used, identified media frames, and research aims, methods, results, and conclusions. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines and data files submitted to FigShare Repository (non-accessible)., Findings: Of 1087 articles reviewed, 19 were eligible to be included in the study. Articles were published between 2013 and 2023, with 2021 having the highest concentration of studies carried out mainly in UK and USA. Despite search terms encompassing a range of food products, the retrieved media analyses focused on three types of food product taxes: sugar-sweetened beverages, meat, and groceries. Most articles explored arguments for and against policy implementation, with some investigating stakeholder representation. Results demonstrate that stakeholders' arguments, both positive and negative, are consistent across countries and food products., Interpretation: The consistency of how both pro-tax and anti-tax arguments are presented in the media demonstrates the importance of coordination between stakeholder groups to influence policy adoption. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate media analysis across a diverse range of food products., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Later-eating rhythm (LER) refers to a later timing, greater energy intake, and higher meal frequency in the evening. The role of childhood LER in obesity development is emerging, but most evidence is cross-sectional. Cross-context comparison allows the improvement of causal inference in observational studies by comparing cohorts with different confounding structures. This method is applied to assess the causal effects of LER on adiposity, by exploring the likelihood of residual confounding due to socioeconomic status., Methods: In this cross-cohort analysis, we used ongoing birth cohort data from the UK Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) established in 1991, and the nationally representative China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS) collected in 1989-2011. Children with available data at age 7 years were eligible. We applied indices of inequality for assessing confounding structure by regressing LER/adiposity on the standardised score of socioeconomic status (SES) in each cohort. We used multivariable linear and binary logistic regressions to model cross-sectional and prospective associations between LER at 7 years of age and body-mass index (BMI) at ages 7 and 9 years in both cohorts. Analyses were adjusted by age, sex, ethnicity, residency, and socioeconomic status. We used a p value for the Cochrane Q-test obtained from meta-analysis to test for heterogeneity between cohorts., Findings: We analysed data from 4019 children (2170 [54·0%] female; 1849 [46.0%] male) in ALSPAC and 1749 (788 [45·1%] female; 961 [54.9%] male) in CHNS. The associations between SES and LER or adiposity differed between ALSPAC and CHNS (SES and energy intake for evening main meal: b=1·81 [95% CI 0·81 to 2·81] vs -3·02 [-4·76 to -1·27]; SES and frequency of evening snacks: odds ratio [OR]=0·51 [95% CI 0·41-0·63] vs 5·71 [3·54-9·22]; SES and BMI: b=-0·42 [-0·65 to -0·18] vs 1·29 [0·75 to 1·84]). Positive associations between frequency of evening snacks and BMI were seen in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses in both cohorts (mean change of BMI with 1 day increase of consuming evening snacks b=0·09 [0·02 to 0·15]; 0·13 [0·03 to 0·22] kg/m 2 per day in ALSPAC, and b=0·11 [-0·07 to 0·28]; 0·30 [0·07 to 0·52] kg/m 2 per day in CHNS). No associations were found for energy intake. p values for heterogeneity ranged from 0·107 to 0·932., Interpretation: Both cohorts showed consistent results despite varied dietary cultures and SES patterning of LER or adiposity. Energy intake in the evening or night was not associated with adiposity, whereas evening snacking was. More recent, high-quality cohorts are warranted to enhance the strength of the conclusions., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Food membership clubs that charge a small fee for a set number of items are in place in Wessex to address food insecurity (inadequate reliable access to sufficient affordable, nutritious food). These clubs incorporate longer-term solutions such as budgeting support, benefit maximisation, and cooking skills. The Wessex DIET project was established to measure acceptability and impact of these clubs. Given the paucity of evidence on the prevalence of food insecurity in those accessing such clubs, we aimed to quantify food insecurity and assess diet quality and wellbeing at recruitment., Methods: In this mixed-methods study, we recruited individuals accessing food clubs in Wessex from March 31 to July 31, 2022. Participants provided informed consent and completed a survey (paper or online) at recruitment that collected data on diet and health. We used the modified six-item US Department of Agriculture (USDA) food security survey module. Follow-up surveys were administered after use of clubs (planned for 3, 6, and 12 months). Participants were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. We used data from the baseline survey to quantify food insecurity and assess diet quality and wellbeing at point of first access to food clubs., Findings: Of 97 participants recruited, five (5%) were aged 18-24 years, 15 (15%) 25-34 years, 48 (49%) 35-54 years, 13 (13%) 55-64 years, and nine (9%) 65 years and older (seven [7%] did not report their age). 69 (71%) participants were female and 23 (24%) were male (five [5%] did not respond to this question), 79 (81%) were White, and 65 (67%) reported having at least one dependent child. 55 (57%) reported skipping or cutting size of meals because there was not enough money for food. Food security status was calculated in 74 participants who answered all six questions of the USDA module, with 30 (41%) reporting low food security and 32 (43%) reporting very low food security. 31 (32%) of 97 participants reported rarely or never eating fruit, with 23 (24%) eating fruit at least once a day. The most common reported frequency of vegetable consumption was 2-3 times a week (26, 27%) and 4-6 times a week (23, 24%). 12 participants agreed to an interview. The clubs were well received, with participants noticing an improvement in their diet and finances., Interpretation: This study highlights the high prevalence of food insecurity in those accessing food clubs in Wessex, which is expected in a population using food aid, and positive reflections from participants regarding their diet quality after using this service. Findings might not be generalisable nationally. Follow-up will assess impact of the clubs on food insecurity, diet quality and wellbeing, contributing to the evidence base of the effectiveness of food clubs to address these outcomes., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration Wessex., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multimorbidity, defined as the presence of two or more long-term conditions, is a growing public health challenge, especially in terms of prevention and accumulation of long-term conditions among particular population cohorts. To date, efforts to understand multimorbidity has focused mainly on specific disease combinations, with little known about the sociodemographic factors associated with it. The study aimed to assess the factors associated with multimorbidity in England., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), a dataset of people aged 50 years and older. The study identified ten long-term conditions from waves 2 to 9. Wave 2 to 9 were conducted between June 2004 to July 2005, May 2006 to August 2007, May 2008 to July 2009, June 2010 to July 2011, May 2012 to June 2013, June 2014 to May 2015, May 2016 to June 2017 and June 2018 to July 2019, respectively. The study included people with two or more long-term conditions. We identified the number of long-term conditions and multimorbidity, and we examined their association with age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, education, weekly contact with relative, and feeling lonely, sad or depressed using multinomial logistic regression., Findings: Of 16 731 people recruited from wave 2 to wave 9, we identified 10 026 people with multimorbidity aged 50 years and older. The majority had two conditions (39%) and were female (55%), aged 50-69 years (32%), of white ethnicity (96%), married (69%) and unemployed (65·3%). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of having more than two long-term conditions increased with age, after adjusting for sex and ethnicity (≥5 conditions: aOR 12·89, 95% CI 2·23-3·76). Being female was associated with an increased risk of having more than two long-term conditions (≥5 conditions: aOR 1·21, 1·04-1·42). Similarly, being separated, divorced, or widowed were associated with having more than two long-term conditions (≥5 conditions: aOR 1·45, 1·21-1·74). Not owning a home was independently associated with more than two long-term conditions (≥5 conditions: aOR 1·59, 1·35-1·88)., Interpretation: The current analysis used only ten long-term conditions that were available in the ELSA data, so a different association might have arisen if other conditions had been considered. Our findings provide insights into which particular groups of the multimorbid population could be the target of preventive public health strategies and wider clinical and social care interventions in England to reduce the burden of multimorbidity., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A proportion of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID), a predominantly multisystem condition resulting in varying degrees of functional disability limiting day-to-day activities. We aimed to describe the impact of long COVID on work., Methods: We co-produced baseline and follow-up online surveys with people with lived experience of long COVID (including three of the co-authors). Respondents were aged 18 years and older with self-reported long COVID following confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection who were not hospitalised in the first 2 weeks of illness. The baseline survey was administered in November, 2020, using convenience non-probability sampling through social media. Following informed consent, participants completed a follow-up survey at 1 year (November, 2021). Ethics approval was granted by the University of Southampton., Findings: Of 2210 invited, 1153 (52%) participants responded to the survey (mean age of 47·7 years [SD 10·6], 965 [84%] female, 1096 [95%] White, and 892 [78%] holding a university degree). 54 participants (4·7%) reported recovery at follow-up. Median duration of illness was 19·8 months (IQR 19·3-20·1) at follow-up. An equal proportion reported being unable to work at baseline (20·4%, n=235) and follow-up (20·6%, n=237). However, a higher proportion reported being made redundant or taking early retirement at follow-up (8·9%, n=102) than at baseline (2·2%, n=25). 209 (18·1%) reported losing or resigning or leaving their job due to long COVID at follow-up compared with 170 (14·8%) participants at baseline. 307 (26·6%) participants reported not taking time off-sick due to long COVID at baseline, decreasing to 122 (10·6%) at follow-up. Of the 656 individuals reporting length of time off-sick, 354 (54%) were off-sick for more than 3 months, with 113 (17·2%) off-sick for more than 12 months. Nearly half (47%, n=538) reported a loss in income., Interpretation: The convenience non-probability sampling limits generalisability. Research is needed in a representative population sample to characterise the effect on working patterns in people with long COVID, particularly in those with less flexible and more physically demanding occupations who may be less able to take time off to recover., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Young people who commit criminal offences are often affected by mental health issues, including drug and alcohol misuse, with many leading chaotic lifestyles. Gateway was a pioneering court-diversion programme aimed to reduce reoffending and improve the health and wellbeing of people aged 18-24 years who had been questioned for a low-level offence. The Gateway Study consisted of a pragmatic, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the programme's effectiveness, and its qualitative evaluation. We aimed to determine barriers and enablers for implementation of Gateway and recruitment into the RCT., Methods: We evaluated the implementation of Gateway, a 16-week conditional caution designed by Hampshire Constabulary and delivered predominantly by third sector organisations. Following a needs assessment, young people received individual support from a Gateway navigator and attended self-development workshops. Recruitment into the RCT took place across four sites across Hampshire and Isle of Wight, UK. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with Gateway stakeholders over three time periods in 2018-22, with additional timepoints in the first time period. Purposive samples of Gateway clients and recruiters, as well as all of Gateway staff, were interviewed. Thematic analysis was applied, with an inductive and predominantly reflexive approach, for each group of participants in each time period., Findings: Between Dec 19, 2018, and May 3, 2022, qualitative interviews were held with 28 Gateway clients, 17 Gateway project staff, and 13 police officers and civilian staff who acted as recruiters into the programme and RCT. Various themes related to engagement were identified, with multiple subthemes and unique insights. The core themes can be classified as follows (with examples of factors influencing engagement): (1) setup for Gateway delivery and RCT recruitment (eg, multi-agency partnerships, physical locations, training); (2) young people's lifestyles and needs (eg, personal circumstances, pre-existing expectations, attitude towards Gateway); (3) priorities and culture in the organisations (eg, workload priorities, job satisfaction, inter-stakeholder relationships)., Interpretation: The Gateway Study was a unique endeavour to gather evidence for a potentially life-changing intervention for an underserved population. Engaging vulnerable young people and the police in research comes with its own, specific challenges. The insights shared as a result of this evaluation can inform the design of interventions and studies that target similarly vulnerable people or are based in similar settings. Awareness of the potential barriers and facilitators can help public health researchers and practitioners plan accordingly and prevent or mitigate some of the low-engagement issues., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fitusiran, a subcutaneous investigational small interfering RNA therapeutic, targets antithrombin to rebalance haemostasis in people with haemophilia A or haemophilia B, irrespective of inhibitor status. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of fitusiran prophylaxis in people with haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors., Methods: This multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study was done at 26 sites (primarily secondary or tertiary centres) in 12 countries. Men, boys, and young adults aged 12 years or older with severe haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors previously treated with on-demand bypassing agents were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous fitusiran prophylaxis (fitusiran prophylaxis group) or to continue with bypassing agents on-demand (bypassing agents on-demand group) for 9 months. The primary endpoint was mean annualised bleeding rate during the efficacy period in the intention-to-treat population estimated by negative binomial model. Safety was assessed as a secondary endpoint in the safety population. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03417102., Findings: Between Feb 14, 2018, and June 23, 2021, 85 participants were screened for inclusion, of whom 57 (67%; 57 [100%] men; median age 27·0 years [IQR 19·5-33·5]) were randomly assigned: 19 (33%) participants to the bypassing agent on-demand group and 38 (67%) participants to the fitusiran prophylaxis. Negative binomial model-based mean annualised bleeding rate was significantly lower in the fitusiran prophylaxis group (1·7 [95% CI 1·0-2·7]) than in the bypassing agents on-demand group (18·1 [10·6-30·8]), corresponding to a 90·8% (95% CI 80·8-95·6) reduction in annualised bleeding rate in favour of fitusiran prophylaxis (p<0·0001). 25 (66%) participants had zero treated bleeds in the fitusiran prophylaxis group versus one (5%) in the bypassing agents on-demand group. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event in the fitusiran prophylaxis group was increased alanine aminotransferase in 13 (32%) of 41 participants in the safety population; there were no increased alanine aminotransferase treatment-emergent adverse events in the bypassing agents on-demand group. Suspected or confirmed thromboembolic events were reported in two (5%) participants in the fitusiran prophylaxis group. No deaths were reported., Interpretation: Subcutaneous fitusiran prophylaxis resulted in statistically significant reductions in annualised bleeding rate in participants with haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors, with two-thirds of participants having zero bleeds. Fitusiran prophylaxis might show haemostatic efficacy in participants with haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors; therefore, the therapeutic might have the potential to improve the management of people with haemophilia., Funding: Sanofi., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GY reports grants from Genentech/Roche, Grifols, and Takeda; and speaking and consultancy fees from Apcintex, BioMarin, Genentech/Roche, Grifols, Hema Biologics/ Laboratoire français du Fractionnement et des Biotechnologies biomedicaments, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rani, Sanofi, Spark, Takeda, and UniQure. AS reports membership on advisory committees or grant review committees for Sanofi, Takeda, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Pfizer, and Bayer Healthcare and reports research funding from Roche, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Pfizer. KK reports grants and consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk, Roche, and Takeda. JSa is the president of the Malaysian Society of Patient Blood Management. HT reports grants or honorarium from Sanofi, Takeda, Roche, and CSL Behring. SP, ZQ, and SK are employees and equity holders in Sanofi. BM was an employee and equity holder in Sanofi at the time of the study and has divested equity in Sanofi in the past 24 months; he is an employee of Editas Medicine. SA is an employee and equity holder in Sanofi, and a member of the WEST advisory committee. SR reports consultancy fees from Reliance Life Sciences; grants for conference attendance from Takeda; and fees for attendance at advisory board meetings from Pfizer, Sanofi, Sigilon, and Takeda. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population., Methods: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031., Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir., Interpretation: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community., Funding: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England from October, 2017, to March, 2022, and reports lecture fees from Gilead and fees for participation on an advisory board for F Hoffmann-La Roche. KH is a member of the Health Technology Assessment General Committee and Funding Strategy Group, and Research Professors Funding Committee at the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), received a grant from AstraZeneca (paid to their institution) to support a trial of Evusheld for the prevention of COVID-19 in high-risk individuals, and is an independent member of the independent data monitoring committee for the OCTAVE-DUO trial of vaccines in individuals at high risk of COVID-19. DML has received grants or contracts from LifeArc, the UK Medical Research Council, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, and Blood Cancer UK, personal fees or honoraria from Biotest UK, Gilead, and Merck, consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline (paid to their institution), and conference support from Octapharma. DBR has received consulting fees from OMASS Therapeutics and has a leadership and fiduciary role in the Heal-COVID trial TMG. BRS, JM, MAD, CTS, NSB, and MF report grant money paid to their employer from the University of Oxford for the statistical design and analyses of the PANORAMIC trial. JM has also participated on data and safety monitoring boards as part of his employment with Berry Consultants. ML is a member of the data monitoring and ethics committee of RAPIS-TEST (NIHR efficacy and mechanism evaluation). SK reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, ViiV, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, Vir, Merck, the UK Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all paid to his institution), speaker's honoraria from ViiV, and donations of drugs for clinical studies from ViiV Healthcare, Toyama, and GlaxoSmithKline. JFS has participated on a data safety monitoring board for GlaxoSmithKline. MA has received grants from the Blood and Transplant Research Unit, Janssen, Pfizer, Prenetics, Dunhill Medical Trust, the BMA Trust (Kathleen Harper Fund), and Antibiotic Research UK (all of which were paid to their institution), and consultancy fees from Prenetics and OxDx. MA reports a planned patent for Ramanomics, has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Prenetics, and has an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role in the E3 Initiative. NPBT has received payment for participation on an advisory board from MSD (before any knowledge or planning of this trial). OvH has received consulting fees from MindGap (fees paid to Oxford University lnnovation), has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for the CHICO trial, and has an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role in the British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. AU has received consulting fees and payment or honoraria from MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, and Gilead. NF has received consulting fees from Abbott Diagnostics and GlaxoSmithKline, is a member of the PRINCIPLE trial data safety monitoring board and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment General Funding Committee, and has stocks in Synairgen. JB has received consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline (paid to her institution). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Peptic ulcers in patients receiving aspirin are associated with Helicobacter pylori infection. We aimed to investigate whether H pylori eradication would protect against aspirin-associated ulcer bleeding., Methods: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial [HEAT]) at 1208 primary care centres in the UK, using routinely collected clinical data. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older who were receiving aspirin at a daily dose of 325 mg or less (with four or more 28-day prescriptions in the past year) and had a positive C13 urea breath test for H pylori at screening. Patients receiving ulcerogenic or gastroprotective medication were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a combination of oral clarithromycin 500 mg, metronidazole 400 mg, and lansoprazole 30 mg (active eradication), or oral placebo (control), twice daily for 1 week. Participants, their general practitioners and health-care providers, and the research nurses, trial team, adjudication committee, and analysis team were all masked to group allocation throughout the trial. Follow-up was by scrutiny of electronic data in primary and secondary care. The primary outcome was time to hospitalisation or death due to definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeding, and was analysed by Cox proportional hazards methods in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2011-003425-96., Findings: Between Sept 14, 2012, and Nov 22, 2017, 30 166 patients had breath testing for H pylori, 5367 had a positive result, and 5352 were randomly assigned to receive active eradication (n=2677) or placebo (n=2675) and were followed up for a median of 5·0 years (IQR 3·9-6·4). Analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant departure from proportional hazards assumptions (p=0·0068), requiring analysis over separate time periods. There was a significant reduction in incidence of the primary outcome in the active eradication group in the first 2·5 years of follow-up compared with the control group (six episodes adjudicated as definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeds, rate 0·92 [95% CI 0·41-2·04] per 1000 person-years vs 17 episodes, rate 2·61 [1·62-4·19] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0·35 [95% CI 0·14-0·89]; p=0·028). This advantage remained significant after adjusting for the competing risk of death (p=0·028) but was lost with longer follow-up (HR 1·31 [95% CI 0·55-3·11] in the period after the first 2·5 years; p=0·54). Reports of adverse events were actively solicited; taste disturbance was the most common event (787 patients)., Interpretation: H pylori eradication protects against aspirin-associated peptic ulcer bleeding, but this might not be sustained in the long term., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CH reports research funding from the Cancer Research UK AsCaP Catalyst Collaboration (A24991), and consulting fees from Kallyope. CH and JD report research funding from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme for the ALL-HEART (11/36/41) and ATTACK (16/31/127) studies. FDRH reports part-funding from the NIHR School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Health Research and Care (CLARHC) Oxford, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), and the NIHR Oxford Medtech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative. GR chairs and has received funding from the CanTest Collaborative, a Cancer Research UK Catalyst programme of research (C8640/A23385). AA is National Clinical Director for Prescribing (National Health Service England). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: TL is a member of FreshAirNHS, a group promoting understanding of airborne disease transmission in health care. NAA is a co-investigator on NIHR supported research on long COVID (STIMULATE-ICP and HI-COVE studies). The views expressed here are the authors' own and not necessarily those of NIHR. NAA has lived experience of long COVID and has contributed in an advisory capacity to WHO and the EU Commission's Expert Panel on effective ways of investing in health meetings in relation to post-COVID-19 condition.

Background: Vaccination of children and young people against SARS-CoV-2 is recommended in some countries. Scarce data have been published on immune responses induced by COVID-19 vaccines in people younger than 18 years compared with the same data that are available in adults., Methods: COV006 is a phase 2, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) in children and adolescents at four trial sites in the UK. Healthy participants aged 6-17 years, who did not have a history of chronic respiratory conditions, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, or previously received capsular group B meningococcal vaccine (the control), were randomly assigned to four groups (4:1:4:1) to receive two intramuscular doses of 5 × 10 10 viral particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or control, 28 days or 84 days apart. Participants, clinical investigators, and the laboratory team were masked to treatment allocation. Study groups were stratified by age, and participants aged 12-17 years were enrolled before those aged 6-11 years. Due to the restrictions in the use of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in people younger than 30 years that were introduced during the study, only participants aged 12-17 years who were randomly assigned to the 28-day interval group had received their vaccinations at the intended interval (day 28). The remaining participants received their second dose at day 112. The primary outcome was assessment of safety and tolerability in the safety population, which included all participants who received at least one dose of the study drug. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity, which was assessed in participants who were seronegative to the nucleocapsid protein at baseline and received both prime and boost vaccine. This study is registered with ISRCTN (15638344)., Findings: Between Feb 15 and April 2, 2021, 262 participants (150 [57%] participants aged 12-17 years and 112 [43%] aged 6-11 years; due to the change in the UK vaccination policy, the study terminated recruitment of the younger age group before the planned number of participants had been enrolled) were randomly assigned to receive vaccination with two doses of either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=211 [n=105 at day 28 and n=106 at day 84]) or control (n=51 [n=26 at day 28 and n=25 at day 84]). One participant in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 day 28 group in the younger age bracket withdrew their consent before receiving a first dose. Of the participants who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 169 (80%) of 210 participants reported at least one solicited local or systemic adverse event up to 7 days following the first dose, and 146 (76%) of 193 participants following the second dose. No serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 administration were recorded by the data cutoff date on Oct 28, 2021. Of the participants who received at least one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, there were 128 unsolicited adverse events up to 28 days after vaccination reported by 83 (40%) of 210 participants. One participant aged 6-11 years receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 reported a grade 4 fever of 40·2°C on day 1 following first vaccination, which resolved within 24 h. Pain and tenderness were the most common local solicited adverse events for all the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and capsular group B meningococcal groups following both doses. Of the 242 participants with available serostatus data, 14 (6%) were seropositive at baseline. Serostatus data were not available for 20 (8%) of 262 participants. Among seronegative participants who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and pseudoneutralising antibody titres at day 28 after the second dose were higher in participants aged 12-17 years with a longer interval between doses (geometric means of 73 371 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [95% CI 58 685-91 733] and 299 half-maximal inhibitory concentration [IC 50 ; 95% CI 230-390]) compared with those aged 12-17 years who received their vaccines 28 days apart (43 280 AU/mL [95% CI 35 852-52 246] and 150 IC 50 [95% CI 116-194]). Humoral responses were higher in those aged 6-11 years than in those aged 12-17 years receiving their second dose at the same 112-day interval (geometric mean ratios 1·48 [95% CI 1·07-2·07] for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and 2·96 [1·89-4·62] for pseudoneutralising antibody titres). Cellular responses peaked after a first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 across all age and interval groups and remained above baseline after a second vaccination., Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is well tolerated and immunogenic in children aged 6-17 years, inducing concentrations of antibody that are similar to those associated with high efficacy in phase 3 studies in adults. No safety concerns were raised in this trial., Funding: AstraZeneca and the UK Department of Health and Social Care through the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AJP is Chair of the UK Department of Health and Social Care's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation but does not participate in policy advice on coronavirus vaccines and was a member of the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts. AJP is a National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator and is Chief Investigator on clinical trials of Oxford University's COVID-19 vaccine funded by NIHR. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and is an occasional consultant to Vaccitech, unrelated to this work. Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St George's University of London as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, Moderna, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. All other authors declare no competing interests. AstraZeneca reviewed the final manuscript before submission, but the authors retained editorial control., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The survival and nutrition of children and, to a lesser extent, adolescents have improved substantially in the past two decades. Improvements have been linked to the delivery of effective biomedical, behavioural, and environmental interventions; however, large disparities exist between and within countries. Using data from 95 national surveys in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), we analyse how strongly the health, nutrition, and cognitive development of children and adolescents are related to early-life poverty. Additionally, using data from six large, long-running birth cohorts in LMICs, we show how early-life poverty can have a lasting effect on health and human capital throughout the life course. We emphasise the importance of implementing multisectoral anti-poverty policies and programmes to complement specific health and nutrition interventions delivered at an individual level, particularly at a time when COVID-19 continues to disrupt economic, health, and educational gains achieved in the recent past., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests REB serves on the Board of Vitamin Angels, a non-profit charitable organisation supporting maternal and child nutrition services in LMICs. AS and ADS report grants from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. AS reports grants from the Wellcome Trust. ZAB reports grants from the International Development Research Centre (reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health in conflict settings: case studies to inform implementation of interventions) and Countdown to 2030–UNICEF. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Optimal health and development from preconception to adulthood are crucial for human flourishing and the formation of human capital. The Nurturing Care Framework, as adapted to age 20 years, conceptualises the major influences during periods of development from preconception, through pregnancy, childhood, and adolescence that affect human capital. In addition to mortality in children younger than 5 years, stillbirths and deaths in 5-19-year-olds are important to consider. The global rate of mortality in individuals younger than 20 years has declined substantially since 2000, yet in 2019 an estimated 8·6 million deaths occurred between 28 weeks of gestation and 20 years of age, with more than half of deaths, including stillbirths, occurring before 28 days of age. The 1000 days from conception to 2 years of age are especially influential for human capital. The prevalence of low birthweight is high in sub-Saharan Africa and even higher in south Asia. Growth faltering, especially from birth to 2 years, occurs in most world regions, whereas overweight increases in many regions from the preprimary school period through adolescence. Analyses of cohort data show that growth trajectories in early years of life are strong determinants of nutritional outcomes in adulthood. The accrual of knowledge and skills is affected by health, nutrition, and home resources in early childhood and by educational opportunities in older children and adolescents. Linear growth in the first 2 years of life better predicts intelligence quotients in adults than increases in height in older children and adolescents. Learning-adjusted years of schooling range from about 4 years in sub-Saharan Africa to about 11 years in high-income countries. Human capital depends on children and adolescents surviving, thriving, and learning until adulthood., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests REB serves on the Board of Directors of Vitamin Angels, a non-profit charitable organisation supporting maternal and child nutrition services in low-income and middle-income countries. ME reports a grant from AstraZeneca for the Young Health Programme, and personal fees from Prudential, outside the submitted work. REB, FV, LH, LL, ADS, DYo, and DYe report grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. LH and DYo report grants from USAID, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

During adolescence, growth and development are transformative and have profound consequences on an individual's health in later life, as well as the health of any potential children. The current generation of adolescents is growing up at a time of unprecedented change in food environments, whereby nutritional problems of micronutrient deficiency and food insecurity persist, and overweight and obesity are burgeoning. In a context of pervasive policy neglect, research on nutrition during adolescence specifically has been underinvested, compared with such research in other age groups, which has inhibited the development of adolescent-responsive nutritional policies. One consequence has been the absence of an integrated perspective on adolescent growth and development, and the role that nutrition plays. Through late childhood and early adolescence, nutrition has a formative role in the timing and pattern of puberty, with consequences for adult height, muscle, and fat mass accrual, as well as risk of non-communicable diseases in later life. Nutritional effects in adolescent development extend beyond musculoskeletal growth, to cardiorespiratory fitness, neurodevelopment, and immunity. High rates of early adolescent pregnancy in many countries continue to jeopardise the growth and nutrition of female adolescents, with consequences that extend to the next generation. Adolescence is a nutrition-sensitive phase for growth, in which the benefits of good nutrition extend to many other physiological systems., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AP declares grants from Medical Research Council (UK) during the conduct of The Gambia study. KAW declares personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, and Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Dietary intake during adolescence sets the foundation for a healthy life, but adolescents are diverse in their dietary patterns and in factors that influence food choice. More evidence to understand the key diet-related issues and the meaning and context of food choices for adolescents is needed to increase the potential for impactful actions. The aim of this second Series paper is to elevate the importance given to adolescent dietary intake and food choice, bringing a developmental perspective to inform policy and programmatic actions to improve diets. We describe patterns of dietary intake, then draw on existing literature to map how food choice can be influenced by unique features of adolescent development. Pooled qualitative data is then combined with evidence from the literature to explore ways in which adolescent development can interact with sociocultural context and the food environment to influence food choice. Irrespective of context, adolescents have a lot to say about why they eat what they eat, and insights into factors that might motivate them to change. Adolescents must be active partners in shaping local and global actions that support healthy eating patterns. Efforts to improve food environments and ultimately adolescent food choice should harness widely shared adolescent values beyond nutrition or health., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MB reports grants from the UK Medical Research Council and grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), during the conduct of the study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declarations of interests IG received support from Fundacion de Investigacion sanitaria and was cofunded by Instituto Carlos III for the present manuscript; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead Sciences, Intercept, and AbbVie; and support for attending meetings or travel from Intercept and Gilead Sciences. EB received grants or contracts from Gilead Sciences; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead Sciences and Novo Nordisk; and participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Inventiva, and Novo Nordisk. MC received grants or contracts and support for attending meetings or travel from the OECD programme of work for public health. RF received grants or contracts from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, Roche, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, Janssen, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and AdamedPG; and support for attending meetings or travel from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. JVL received grants or contracts from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharp & Dohme; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Janssen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. AL received grants or contracts from the OECD programme of work for public health, which is supported by Ministries of Health, National Governmental Institutions, and intergovernmental organisations, as well as support to present results from OECD analyses to meetings, seminars, and workshops. CL received grants or contracts from the University of Oxford, UK National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, and Horizon 2020 of the European Commission; received royalties or licenses from and has patents planned, issued, or pending with Olvos Science (Cretan Iama); received payment for expert testimony from WHO and the European Commission; and participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or advisory boards for Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer Hellas, Vianex. MPM received grants or contracts from AbbVie, Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr Falk Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; received consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr Falk Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr Falk Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; received support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr Falk Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or advisory boards for Eiger, Dr Falk Pharma, Gilead Sciences, and Roche; and is Associate Editor for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. NKM received grants or contracts from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Gilead Sciences. MN received grants or contracts from Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AbbVie, and Janssen; and was President of the World Hepatitis Alliance (2018–20). CYP received grants or contracts from Takeda, Pliant, and Gilead Sciences; consulting fees from Pliant and Shire (Takeda); and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda, Tillotts Pharma, and Pfizer. BSa received grants or contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb and Sirtex Medical; received consulting fees from Adaptimmune, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, BTG, Sirtex Medical, TERUMO, H3 Biomedicine, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, and Roche; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sirtex Medical, TERUMO, Incyte, and Ipsen; and participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or advisory boards for Adaptimmune, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, BTG, Sirtex Medical, TERUMO, H3 Biomedicine, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, and Roche. CS received grants or contracts from BiomX and Galapagos; consulting fees from BiomX; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Falk Foundation. NSc received grants or contracts from Gilead Sciences. MS-B received grants or contracts from the European Commission. CT received grants or contracts from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead Sciences and AbbVie. RB received consulting fees from WHO. HC-P received consulting fees from Orphalan; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Orphalan, Novo Nordisk, GENFIT, Promethera Biosciences, and Intercept. GD received consulting fees from Aligos Therapeutics, Roche, Arbutus Biopharma, Gilead Sciences, Shionogi, Antios Therapeutics; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead Sciences; and participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or advisory boards for Janssen, Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Aligos Therapeutics. THK received consulting fees from Engitix and Intercept; has stock or stock options in Ultimovacs; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead Sciences, Novartis, and AlfaSigma; and is on the board of the Biomedical Alliance in Europe. ES received consulting fees from Albireo, Mirum, and Alexion; received support for attending meetings or travel from Astellas; participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or advisory boards for Albireo, Alexion, and Mirum; and received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Albireo. PB received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Kedrion Biopharma, Biotest, and Chiesi Farmaceutici. MB received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead Sciences and AbbVie. SJH received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead Sciences. NF participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or advisory boards for Intercept in relation to NAFLD. GM participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or advisory boards for Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Background: Given the importance of flexible use of different COVID-19 vaccines within the same schedule to facilitate rapid deployment, we studied mixed priming schedules incorporating an adenoviral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [ChAd], AstraZeneca), two mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [BNT], Pfizer-BioNTech, and mRNA-1273 [m1273], Moderna) and a nanoparticle vaccine containing SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and Matrix-M adjuvant (NVX-CoV2373 [NVX], Novavax)., Methods: Com-COV2 is a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial in which adults aged 50 years and older, previously immunised with a single dose of ChAd or BNT in the community, were randomly assigned (in random blocks of three and six) within these cohorts in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a second dose intramuscularly (8-12 weeks after the first dose) with the homologous vaccine, m1273, or NVX. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations measured by ELISA in heterologous versus homologous schedules at 28 days after the second dose, with a non-inferiority criterion of the GMR above 0·63 for the one-sided 98·75% CI. The primary analysis was on the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done for all participants who received a dose of study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 27841311., Findings: Between April 19 and May 14, 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9·4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (n=540, 47% female) or BNT (n=532, 40% female). In ChAd-primed participants, geometric mean concentration (GMC) 28 days after a boost of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in recipients of ChAd/m1273 (20 114 ELISA laboratory units [ELU]/mL [95% CI 18 160 to 22 279]) and ChAd/NVX (5597 ELU/mL [4756 to 6586]) was non-inferior to that of ChAd/ChAd recipients (1971 ELU/mL [1718 to 2262]) with a GMR of 10·2 (one-sided 98·75% CI 8·4 to ∞) for ChAd/m1273 and 2·8 (2·2 to ∞) for ChAd/NVX, compared with ChAd/ChAd. In BNT-primed participants, non-inferiority was shown for BNT/m1273 (GMC 22 978 ELU/mL [95% CI 20 597 to 25 636]) but not for BNT/NVX (8874 ELU/mL [7391 to 10 654]), compared with BNT/BNT (16 929 ELU/mL [15 025 to 19 075]) with a GMR of 1·3 (one-sided 98·75% CI 1·1 to ∞) for BNT/m1273 and 0·5 (0·4 to ∞) for BNT/NVX, compared with BNT/BNT; however, NVX still induced an 18-fold rise in GMC 28 days after vaccination. There were 15 serious adverse events, none considered related to immunisation., Interpretation: Heterologous second dosing with m1273, but not NVX, increased transient systemic reactogenicity compared with homologous schedules. Multiple vaccines are appropriate to complete primary immunisation following priming with BNT or ChAd, facilitating rapid vaccine deployment globally and supporting recognition of such schedules for vaccine certification., Funding: UK Vaccine Task Force, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and National Institute for Health Research. NVX vaccine was supplied for use in the trial by Novavax., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. AMC and DMF are investigators on studies funded by Pfizer and Unilever. They receive no personal financial payment for this work. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation. He is an investigator or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines produced by AstraZeneca, Janssen, Valneva, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and of other vaccines from these and other manufacturers, including GlaxoSmithKline, VPI Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Bionet Asia. He receives no personal remuneration or benefits for any of this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St George's University of London as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. CAG acts on behalf of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, CureVac, Moderna, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering the ChAd vaccine and is an occasional consultant to Vaccitech, unrelated to this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG benefits from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University's revenue sharing policy. Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Older adults (aged ≥70 years) are at increased risk of severe disease and death if they develop COVID-19 and are therefore a priority for immunisation should an efficacious vaccine be developed. Immunogenicity of vaccines is often worse in older adults as a result of immunosenescence. We have reported the immunogenicity of a novel chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), in young adults, and now describe the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in a wider range of participants, including adults aged 70 years and older., Methods: In this report of the phase 2 component of a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial (COV002), healthy adults aged 18 years and older were enrolled at two UK clinical research facilities, in an age-escalation manner, into 18-55 years, 56-69 years, and 70 years and older immunogenicity subgroups. Participants were eligible if they did not have severe or uncontrolled medical comorbidities or a high frailty score (if aged ≥65 years). First, participants were recruited to a low-dose cohort, and within each age group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2·2 × 10 10 virus particles) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and study site, using the following ratios: in the 18-55 years group, 1:1 to either two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY; in the 56-69 years group, 3:1:3:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY; and in the 70 years and older, 5:1:5:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY. Prime-booster regimens were given 28 days apart. Participants were then recruited to the standard-dose cohort (3·5-6·5 × 10 10 virus particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18-55 years group was assigned in a 5:1 ratio to two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY. Participants and investigators, but not staff administering the vaccine, were masked to vaccine allocation. The specific objectives of this report were to assess the safety and humoral and cellular immunogenicity of a single-dose and two-dose schedule in adults older than 55 years. Humoral responses at baseline and after each vaccination until 1 year after the booster were assessed using an in-house standardised ELISA, a multiplex immunoassay, and a live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) microneutralisation assay (MNA 80 ). Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The coprimary outcomes of the trial were efficacy, as measured by the number of cases of symptomatic, virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137., Findings: Between May 30 and Aug 8, 2020, 560 participants were enrolled: 160 aged 18-55 years (100 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 60 assigned to MenACWY), 160 aged 56-69 years (120 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY), and 240 aged 70 years and older (200 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY). Seven participants did not receive the boost dose of their assigned two-dose regimen, one participant received the incorrect vaccine, and three were excluded from immunogenicity analyses due to incorrectly labelled samples. 280 (50%) of 552 analysable participants were female. Local and systemic reactions were more common in participants given ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those given the control vaccine, and similar in nature to those previously reported (injection-site pain, feeling feverish, muscle ache, headache), but were less common in older adults (aged ≥56 years) than younger adults. In those receiving two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 participants in the 18-55 years group, 22 (73%) of 30 in the 56-69 years group, and 30 (61%) of 49 in the 70 years and older group, and systemic reactions in 42 (86%) participants in the 18-55 years group, 23 (77%) in the 56-69 years group, and 32 (65%) in the 70 years and older group. As of Oct 26, 2020, 13 serious adverse events occurred during the study period, none of which were considered to be related to either study vaccine. In participants who received two doses of vaccine, median anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses 28 days after the boost dose were similar across the three age cohorts (standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 20 713 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [IQR 13 898-33 550], n=39; 56-69 years, 16 170 AU/mL [10 233-40 353], n=26; and ≥70 years 17 561 AU/mL [9705-37 796], n=47; p=0·68). Neutralising antibody titres after a boost dose were similar across all age groups (median MNA 80 at day 42 in the standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 193 [IQR 113-238], n=39; 56-69 years, 144 [119-347], n=20; and ≥70 years, 161 [73-323], n=47; p=0·40). By 14 days after the boost dose, 208 (>99%) of 209 boosted participants had neutralising antibody responses. T-cell responses peaked at day 14 after a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (18-55 years: median 1187 spot-forming cells [SFCs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [IQR 841-2428], n=24; 56-69 years: 797 SFCs [383-1817], n=29; and ≥70 years: 977 SFCs [458-1914], n=48)., Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities., Funding: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT)., Methods: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130., Findings: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273., Interpretation: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination., Funding: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KCa acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust as an investigator or providing consultative advice, or both, on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG might benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University's revenue sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Ciple, and Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago, and Sanofi. He received no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. MR has provided post marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline for which a cost recover charge is made. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial payment for this work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat. Antibiotics are very commonly prescribed for children presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness of antibiotics, both overall or among key clinical subgroups. In ARTIC PC, we assessed whether amoxicillin reduces the duration of moderately bad symptoms in children presenting with uncomplicated (non-pneumonic) LRTI in primary care, overall and in key clinical subgroups., Methods: ARTIC PC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 56 general practices in England. Eligible children were those aged 6 months to 12 years presenting in primary care with acute uncomplicated LRTI judged to be infective in origin, where pneumonia was not suspected clinically, with symptoms for less than 21 days. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day or placebo oral suspension, in three divided doses orally for 7 days. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary) for up to 28 days or until symptoms resolved. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN79914298)., Findings: Between Nov 9, 2016, and March 17, 2020, 432 children (not including six who withdrew permission for use of their data after randomisation) were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group (n=221) or the placebo group (n=211). Complete data for symptom duration were available for 317 (73%) patients; missing data were imputed for the primary analysis. Median durations of moderately bad or worse symptoms were similar between the groups (5 days [IQR 4-11] in the antibiotics group vs 6 days [4-15] in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 1·13 [95% CI 0·90-1·42]). No differences were seen for the primary outcome between the treatment groups in the five prespecified clinical subgroups (patients with chest signs, fever, physician rating of unwell, sputum or chest rattle, and short of breath). Estimates from complete-case analysis and a per-protocol analysis were similar to the imputed data analysis., Interpretation: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated chest infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective either overall or for key subgroups in whom antibiotics are commonly prescribed. Unless pneumonia is suspected, clinicians should provide safety-netting advice but not prescribe antibiotics for most children presenting with chest infections., Funding: National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SNF is part funded by the Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. TV reports grants from the EU and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, during the conduct of the study; and grants from Abbott, Becton Dickinson, bioMérieux, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: School-based COVID-19 contacts in England have been asked to self-isolate at home, missing key educational opportunities. We trialled daily testing of contacts as an alternative to assess whether this resulted in similar control of transmission, while allowing more school attendance., Methods: We did an open-label, cluster-randomised, controlled trial in secondary schools and further education colleges in England. Schools were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-isolation of school-based COVID-19 contacts for 10 days (control) or to voluntary daily lateral flow device (LFD) testing for 7 days with LFD-negative contacts remaining at school (intervention). Randomisation was stratified according to school type and size, presence of a sixth form, presence of residential students, and proportion of students eligible for free school meals. Group assignment was not masked during procedures or analysis. Coprimary outcomes in all students and staff were COVID-19-related school absence and symptomatic PCR-confirmed COVID-19, adjusted for community case rates, to estimate within-school transmission (non-inferiority margin <50% relative increase). Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis using quasi-Poisson regression, also estimating complier average causal effects (CACE). This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN18100261., Findings: Between March 18 and May 4, 2021, 204 schools were taken through the consent process, during which three decided not to participate further. 201 schools were randomly assigned (control group n=99, intervention group n=102) in the 10-week study (April 19-May 10, 2021), which continued until the pre-appointed stop date (June 27, 2021). 76 control group schools and 86 intervention group schools actively participated; additional national data allowed most non-participating schools to be included in analysis of coprimary outcomes. 2432 (42·4%) of 5763 intervention group contacts participated in daily contact testing. There were 657 symptomatic PCR-confirmed infections during 7 782 537 days-at-risk (59·1 per 100 000 per week) in the control group and 740 during 8 379 749 days-at-risk (61·8 per 100 000 per week) in the intervention group (intention-to-treat adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0·96 [95% CI 0·75-1·22]; p=0·72; CACE aIRR 0·86 [0·55-1·34]). Among students and staff, there were 59 422 (1·62%) COVID-19-related absences during 3 659 017 person-school-days in the control group and 51 541 (1·34%) during 3 845 208 person-school-days in the intervention group (intention-to-treat aIRR 0·80 [95% CI 0·54-1·19]; p=0·27; CACE aIRR 0·61 [0·30-1·23])., Interpretation: Daily contact testing of school-based contacts was non-inferior to self-isolation for control of COVID-19 transmission, with similar rates of symptomatic infections among students and staff with both approaches. Infection rates in school-based contacts were low, with very few school contacts testing positive. Daily contact testing should be considered for implementation as a safe alternative to home isolation following school-based exposures., Funding: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DWE reports lecture fees from Gilead outside the submitted work. VB, RO, and DC are consultants employed by Department of Health and Social Care as part of Deloitte's broader project work supporting the delivery of NHS Test and Trace. TF reports honoraria from Qatar National Research Fund outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma have few treatment options. We aimed to establish the safety and recommended phase 2 dose of epcoritamab, a novel bispecific antibody that targets CD3 and CD20 and induces T-cell-mediated cytotoxic activity against CD20+ malignant B cells., Methods: For the dose-escalation part of this phase 1/2 study, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed or refractory CD20+ B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma at ten sites across four countries (Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, and Spain). Eligible patients received priming and intermediate doses followed by full doses of subcutaneous epcoritamab administered in 28-day cycles; each subsequent cohort involved escalation of the priming, intermediate, or full dose (0·0128-60 mg). The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose and the recommended phase 2 dose. Safety, antitumour activity, pharmacokinetics, and immune biomarkers were also assessed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625037, with the dose-expansion part ongoing., Findings: Between June 26, 2018, and July 14, 2020, we enrolled 73 patients with relapsed, progressive, or refractory CD20+ mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 68 patients received escalating full doses (0·0128-60 mg) of subcutaneous epcoritamab. No dose-limiting toxic effects were observed, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached; the full dose of 48 mg was identified as the recommended phase 2 dose. All 68 patients received at least one dose of epcoritamab and were included in safety analyses: common adverse events were pyrexia (47 patients [69%]), primarily associated with cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 40 [59%], all grade 1-2), and injection site reactions (32 [47%]; 31 grade 1). There were no grade 3 or higher CRS events. No discontinuations occurred due to treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths. Overall response rate in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was 68% (95% CI 45-86), with 45% achieving a complete response at full doses of 12-60 mg. At 48 mg, the overall response rate was 88% (47-100), with 38% achieving a complete response. Patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma had an overall response rate of 90% (55-100), with 50% achieving a complete response at full doses of 0·76-48 mg. Epcoritamab induced robust and sustained B-cell depletion, and CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell activation and expansion, with modest increases in cytokine levels., Interpretation: Single-agent subcutaneous epcoritamab for treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma merits investigation in ongoing phase 2 and phase 3 studies., Funding: Genmab and AbbVie., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MH reports research support from Genmab, during the conduct of the study; and research support from Takeda, Roche, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, and Novartis, and personal fees from Takeda and Roche, outside the submitted work. MRC reports personal fees (advisory board) from Janssen and AbbVie, travel reimbursement from AbbVie and Gilead, and consultancy fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. PJ reports personal fees and non-financial support from Genmab during the conduct of the study. MEDC reports research support from Gilead, Genmab, and Celgene, outside the submitted work. ASB reports travel support from Janssen and has served on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. DC reports grant support from Amgen, Sanofi, Merrimack, AstraZeneca, Celgene, MedImmune, Bayer, 4SC, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Merck, outside the submitted work. PJL reports grant support from Takeda, Servier, and Roche, personal fees from Genmab, Regeneron, Celgene, Takeda, Servier, Roche, and Incyte, and non-financial support from Celgene, outside the submitted work. RSO, BE, DD, AA, CC, TL, KC, and TA are employees of Genmab and own stock options. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. AMC and DMF are investigators on studies funded by Pfizer and Unilever. They receive no personal financial payment for this work. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation. He is an investigator or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines produced by AstraZeneca, Janssen, Valneva, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and of other vaccines from these and other manufacturers, including GlaxoSmithKline, VPI Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Bionet Asia. He receives no personal remuneration or benefits for any of this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St George's University of London as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. CAG acts on behalf of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, CureVac, Moderna, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering the ChAd vaccine and is an occasional consultant to Vaccitech, unrelated to this work. Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Crown Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AzS reports grants from Health Data Research UK BREATHE Hub, outside the submitted work. BC reports in-kind contributions to research projects from Roche Diagnostics and iRhythm, outside the submitted work. BDF reports grants from Cerner and personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. JNN is employed by Public Health England. MF is the chair of NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership Committee. ML is the chair of the Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. MoW was a non-executive director of NHS Lothian between February, 2015, and February, 2021. RH is a member of the Health Inequality Advisory Board of Public Health England, governor of the Health Foundation, interim chair at the Food Standards Agency, and Advisory Board member of National Institute for Health Research School of Public Health Research. RR is supported by National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North Thames. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Approximately 13% of the total UK workforce is employed in the health and care sector. Despite substantial workforce planning efforts, the effectiveness of this planning has been criticised. Education, training, and workforce plans have typically considered each health-care profession in isolation and have not adequately responded to changing health and care needs. The results are persistent vacancies, poor morale, and low retention. Areas of particular concern highlighted in this Health Policy paper include primary care, mental health, nursing, clinical and non-clinical support, and social care. Responses to workforce shortfalls have included a high reliance on foreign and temporary staff, small-scale changes in skill mix, and enhanced recruitment drives. Impending challenges for the UK health and care workforce include growing multimorbidity, an increasing shortfall in the supply of unpaid carers, and the relative decline of the attractiveness of the National Health Service (NHS) as an employer internationally. We argue that to secure a sustainable and fit-for-purpose health and care workforce, integrated workforce approaches need to be developed alongside reforms to education and training that reflect changes in roles and skill mix, as well as the trend towards multidisciplinary working. Enhancing career development opportunities, promoting staff wellbeing, and tackling discrimination in the NHS are all needed to improve recruitment, retention, and morale of staff. An urgent priority is to offer sufficient aftercare and support to staff who have been exposed to high-risk situations and traumatic experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to growing calls to recognise and reward health and care staff, growth in pay must at least keep pace with projected rises in average earnings, which in turn will require linking future NHS funding allocations to rises in pay. Through illustrative projections, we show that, to sustain annual growth in the workforce at approximately 2·4%, increases in NHS expenditure of 4% annually in real terms will be required. Above all, a radical long-term strategic vision is needed to ensure that the future NHS workforce is fit for purpose., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MF is Chair of NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership Committee. MW was a non-executive director of NHS Lothian between February, 2015, to February, 2021. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7, emerged as the dominant cause of COVID-19 disease in the UK from November, 2020. We report a post-hoc analysis of the efficacy of the adenoviral vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), against this variant., Methods: Volunteers (aged ≥18 years) who were enrolled in phase 2/3 vaccine efficacy studies in the UK, and who were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a meningococcal conjugate control (MenACWY) vaccine, provided upper airway swabs on a weekly basis and also if they developed symptoms of COVID-19 disease (a cough, a fever of 37·8°C or higher, shortness of breath, anosmia, or ageusia). Swabs were tested by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2 and positive samples were sequenced through the COVID-19 Genomics UK consortium. Neutralising antibody responses were measured using a live-virus microneutralisation assay against the B.1.1.7 lineage and a canonical non-B.1.1.7 lineage (Victoria). The efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a NAAT positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to vaccine received. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vs MenACWY groups) derived from a robust Poisson regression model. This study is continuing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137., Findings: Participants in efficacy cohorts were recruited between May 31 and Nov 13, 2020, and received booster doses between Aug 3 and Dec 30, 2020. Of 8534 participants in the primary efficacy cohort, 6636 (78%) were aged 18-55 years and 5065 (59%) were female. Between Oct 1, 2020, and Jan 14, 2021, 520 participants developed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 1466 NAAT positive nose and throat swabs were collected from these participants during the trial. Of these, 401 swabs from 311 participants were successfully sequenced. Laboratory virus neutralisation activity by vaccine-induced antibodies was lower against the B.1.1.7 variant than against the Victoria lineage (geometric mean ratio 8·9, 95% CI 7·2-11·0). Clinical vaccine efficacy against symptomatic NAAT positive infection was 70·4% (95% CI 43·6-84·5) for B.1.1.7 and 81·5% (67·9-89·4) for non-B.1.1.7 lineages., Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed reduced neutralisation activity against the B.1.1.7 variant compared with a non-B.1.1.7 variant in vitro, but the vaccine showed efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2., Funding: UK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. AstraZeneca reviewed the data from the study and the final manuscript before submission but the authors retained editorial control. SCG is cofounder of Vaccitech (collaborators in the early development of this vaccine candidate) and is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines (PCT/GB2012/000467) and a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and was a consultant to Vaccitech. PMF is a consultant to Vaccitech. AJP is chair of the UK Department of Health and Social Care Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation but does not participate in policy advice on coronavirus vaccines, and is a member of the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts. AJP and SNF are NIHR senior investigators. AVSH is a cofounder of and consultant to Vaccitech and is named as an inventor on a patent covering design and use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines (PCT/GB2012/000467). MDS reports grants from Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Medimmune, Novavax, and MCM Vaccine, and grants and non-financial support from Pfizer outside of the submitted work. CMG reports personal fees from the Duke Human Vaccine Institute outside of the submitted work. ADD reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work. SNF reports grants from Janssen and Valneva outside of the submitted work. TLV and JV are employees of AstraZeneca. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The past two decades have seen expansion of childhood vaccination programmes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We quantify the health impact of these programmes by estimating the deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted by vaccination against ten pathogens in 98 LMICs between 2000 and 2030., Methods: 16 independent research groups provided model-based disease burden estimates under a range of vaccination coverage scenarios for ten pathogens: hepatitis B virus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, human papillomavirus, Japanese encephalitis, measles, Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, Streptococcus pneumoniae, rotavirus, rubella, and yellow fever. Using standardised demographic data and vaccine coverage, the impact of vaccination programmes was determined by comparing model estimates from a no-vaccination counterfactual scenario with those from a reported and projected vaccination scenario. We present deaths and DALYs averted between 2000 and 2030 by calendar year and by annual birth cohort., Findings: We estimate that vaccination of the ten selected pathogens will have averted 69 million (95% credible interval 52-88) deaths between 2000 and 2030, of which 37 million (30-48) were averted between 2000 and 2019. From 2000 to 2019, this represents a 45% (36-58) reduction in deaths compared with the counterfactual scenario of no vaccination. Most of this impact is concentrated in a reduction in mortality among children younger than 5 years (57% reduction [52-66]), most notably from measles. Over the lifetime of birth cohorts born between 2000 and 2030, we predict that 120 million (93-150) deaths will be averted by vaccination, of which 58 million (39-76) are due to measles vaccination and 38 million (25-52) are due to hepatitis B vaccination. We estimate that increases in vaccine coverage and introductions of additional vaccines will result in a 72% (59-81) reduction in lifetime mortality in the 2019 birth cohort., Interpretation: Increases in vaccine coverage and the introduction of new vaccines into LMICs have had a major impact in reducing mortality. These public health gains are predicted to increase in coming decades if progress in increasing coverage is sustained., Funding: Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although targeted biological treatments have transformed the outlook for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 40% of patients show poor clinical response, which is mechanistically still unexplained. Because more than 50% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis have low or absent CD20 B cells-the target for rituximab-in the main disease tissue (joint synovium), we hypothesised that, in these patients, the IL-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab would be more effective. The aim of this trial was to compare the effect of tocilizumab with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) stratified for synovial B-cell status., Methods: This study was a 48-week, biopsy-driven, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 randomised controlled trial (rituximab vs tocilizumab in anti-TNF inadequate responder patients with rheumatoid arthritis; R4RA) done in 19 centres across five European countries (the UK, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Spain). Patients aged 18 years or older who fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and were eligible for treatment with rituximab therapy according to UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines were eligible for inclusion in the trial. To inform balanced stratification, following a baseline synovial biopsy, patients were classified histologically as B-cell poor or rich. Patients were then randomly assigned (1:1) centrally in block sizes of six and four to receive two 1000 mg rituximab infusions at an interval of 2 weeks (rituximab group) or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab infusions at 4-week intervals (tocilizumab group). To enhance the accuracy of the stratification of B-cell poor and B-cell rich patients, baseline synovial biopsies from all participants were subjected to RNA sequencing and reclassified by B-cell molecular signature. The study was powered to test the superiority of tocilizumab over rituximab in the B-cell poor population at 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was defined as a 50% improvement in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI50%) from baseline. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN database, ISRCTN97443826, and EudraCT, 2012-002535-28., Findings: Between Feb 28, 2013, and Jan 17, 2019, 164 patients were classified histologically and were randomly assigned to the rituximab group (83 [51%]) or the tocilizumab group (81 [49%]). In patients histologically classified as B-cell poor, there was no statistically significant difference in CDAI50% between the rituximab group (17 [45%] of 38 patients) and the tocilizumab group (23 [56%] of 41 patients; difference 11% [95% CI -11 to 33], p=0·31). However, in the synovial biopsies classified as B-cell poor with RNA sequencing the tocilizumab group had a significantly higher response rate compared with the rituximab group for CDAI50% (rituximab group 12 [36%] of 33 patients vs tocilizumab group 20 [63%] of 32 patients; difference 26% [2 to 50], p=0·035). Occurrence of adverse events (rituximab group 76 [70%] of 108 patients vs tocilizumab group 94 [80%] of 117 patients; difference 10% [-1 to 21) and serious adverse events (rituximab group 8 [7%] of 108 vs tocilizumab group 12 [10%] of 117; difference 3% [-5 to 10]) were not significantly different between treatment groups., Interpretation: The results suggest that RNA sequencing-based stratification of rheumatoid arthritis synovial tissue showed stronger associations with clinical responses compared with histopathological classification. Additionally, for patients with low or absent B-cell lineage expression signature in synovial tissue tocilizumab is more effective than rituximab. Replication of the results and validation of the RNA sequencing-based classification in independent cohorts is required before making treatment recommendations for clinical practice., Funding: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme from the UK National Institute for Health Research., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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 × 10 10 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., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone., Methods: MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 μg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m 2 vs ≥35 kg/m 2 ), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024., Findings: Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups., Interpretation: Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery., Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme., (This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.)

Background: The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2., Methods: We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18-55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 10 10 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT 50 ]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA 50 , MNA 80 , and MNA 90 ]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606., Findings: Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493-1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96-317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360-792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA 80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT 50 . After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA 80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R 2 =0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001)., Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme., Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Gießen-Marburg-Langen., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR), fluid accumulates in the subretinal space. CSCR is a common visually disabling condition that develops in individuals up to 60 years of age, and there is no definitive treatment. Previous research suggests the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, eplerenone, is effective for treating CSCR; however, this drug is not licensed for the treatment of patients with CSCR. We aimed to evaluate whether eplerenone was superior to placebo in terms of improving visual acuity in patients with chronic CSCR., Methods: This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre placebo-controlled trial was done at 22 hospitals in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18-60 years and had had treatment-naive CSCR for 4 months or more. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the eplerenone or the placebo group by a trial statistician through a password-protected system online. Allocation was stratified by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and hospital. Patients were given either oral eplerenone (25 mg/day for 1 week, increasing to 50 mg/day for up to 12 months) plus usual care or placebo plus usual care for up to 12 months. All participants, care teams, outcome assessors, pharmacists, and members of the trial management group were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was BCVA, measured as letters read, at 12 months. All outcomes apart from safety were analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (participants who withdrew consent without contributing a post-randomisation BCVA measurement were excluded from the primary analysis population and from most secondary analysis populations). The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN92746680, and is completed., Findings: Between Jan 11, 2017, and Feb 22, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 114 patients to receive either eplerenone (n=57) or placebo (n=57). Three participants in the placebo group withdrew consent without contributing a post-randomisation BCVA measurement and were excluded from the primary outcome analysis population. All patients from the eplerenone group and 54 patients from the placebo group were included in the primary outcome. Modelled mean BCVA at 12 months was 79·5 letters (SD 4·5) in the placebo group and 80·4 letters (4·6) in the eplerenone group, with an adjusted estimated mean difference of 1·73 letters (95% CI -1·12 to 4·57; p=0·24) at 12 months. Hyperkalaemia occurred in eight (14%) patients in each group. No serious adverse events were reported in the eplerenone group and three unrelated serious adverse events were reported in the placebo group (myocardial infarction [anticipated], diverticulitis [unanticipated], and metabolic surgery [unanticipated])., Interpretation: Eplerenone was not superior to placebo for improving BCVA in people with chronic CSCR after 12 months of treatment. Ophthalmologists who currently prescribe eplerenone for CSCR should discontinue this practice., Funding: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, and National Institute for Health Research and Social Care., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)