Search

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: 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: Maternal influenza immunisation can reduce morbidity and mortality associated with influenza infection in pregnant women and young infants. We aimed to determine the vaccine efficacy of maternal influenza immunisation against maternal and infant PCR-confirmed influenza, duration of protection, and the effect of gestational age at vaccination on vaccine efficacy, birth outcomes, and infant growth up to 6 months of age., Methods: We did a pooled analysis of three randomised controlled trials done in Nepal (2011-2014), Mali (2011-2014), and South Africa (2011-2013). Pregnant women, gestational age 17-34 weeks in Nepal, 28 weeks or more in Mali, and 20-36 weeks in South Africa, were enrolled. Women were randomly assigned 1:1 to a study group, in which they received trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in all three trials, or a control group, in which they received saline placebo in Nepal and South Africa or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine in Mali. Enrolment at all sites was complete by April 24, 2013. Infants and women were assessed for respiratory illness, and samples from those that met the case definition were tested for influenza by PCR testing. Growth measurements, including length and weight, were obtained at birth at all sites, at 24 weeks in South Africa, and at 6 months in Nepal and Mali. The three trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01430689, NCT01034254, and NCT02465190., Findings: 10 002 women and 9800 liveborn infants were included. Pooled efficacy of maternal vaccination to prevent infant PCR-confirmed influenza up to 6 months of age was 35% (95% CI 19 to 47). The pooled estimate was 56% (28 to 73) within the first 2 months of life, 39% (11 to 58) between 2 and 4 months, and 19% (-9 to 40) between 4 and 6 months. In women, from enrolment during pregnancy to the end of follow-up at 6 months postpartum, the vaccine was 50% (95% CI 32-63) efficacious against PCR-confirmed influenza. Efficacy was 42% (12 to 61) during pregnancy and 60% (36 to 75) postpartum. In women vaccinated before 29 weeks gestational age, the estimated efficacy was 30% (-2 to 52), and in women vaccinated at or after 29 weeks, efficacy was 71% (50 to 83). Efficacy was similar in infants born to mothers vaccinated before or after 29 weeks gestation (34% [95% CI 12 to 51] vs 35% [11 to 52]). There was no overall association between maternal vaccination and low birthweight, stillbirth, preterm birth, and small for gestational age. At 6 months of age, the intervention and control groups were similar in terms of underweight (weight-for-age), stunted (length-for-age), and wasted (weight-for-length). Median centile change from birth to 6 months of age was similar between the intervention and the control groups for both weight and length., Interpretation: The assessment of efficacy for women vaccinated before 29 weeks gestational age might have been underpowered, because the point estimate suggests that there might be efficacy despite wide CIs. Estimates of efficacy against PCR-confirmed influenza and safety in terms of adverse birth outcomes should be incorporated into any further consideration of maternal influenza immunisation recommendations., Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Measles infection causes particularly severe disease in young children who, prior to vaccination, are dependent on maternal antibodies for protection against infection. Measles vaccination was introduced into the South African public immunization programme in 1983 and became widely available in 1992. The aim of this study was to determine measles-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels in pregnant women living with and without HIV born before and after measles vaccine introduction in South Africa., Methods: Measles IgG antibody level from blood obtained at the time of delivery was compared between women who were born before 1983 (n = 349) and since 1992 (n = 349). Serum samples were tested for measles IgG antibody using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Geometric mean titres (GMTs) and the proportion with seronegative (<200 mIU/mL) or seropositive titres (≥275 mIU/mL) were compared., Results: Women born since 1992 had lower GMTs [379.7 mIU/mL (95% CI 352.7-448.6)] and fewer were seropositive (55.9%, 195/349) than women born before 1983 [905.8 mIU/mL (95% CI 784.7-1045.5); 76.8%, 268/349], for both comparisons p < 0.001., Conclusions: We found an association between measles vaccine implementation into the public immunization program in South Africa and peri-partum maternal measles immunity, where women born before vaccine introduction had higher measles IgG antibody titres and were more likely to be seropositive. These findings suggest a need to reconsider the infant measles immunization schedule in settings where women have derived immunity mainly from measles vaccine rather than wild-type virus exposure., (Copyright © 2019 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Rubella infection during pregnancy may cause foetal death or congenital rubella syndrome. In South Africa, the national public immunization programme does not include rubella vaccination. The aim of this study was to evaluate rubella sero-epidemiology in pregnant South African women living with and without HIV., Methods: Serum samples obtained from women living with HIV (n=552) and without HIV (n=552) were tested for rubella immunoglobulin G antibodies using an ELISA. The proportions of women with seronegative titres (<8IU/ml) and seropositive titres (≥11IU/ml), and geometric mean titres (GMT) were compared by age group and HIV status., Results: The overall proportion of rubella seropositivity was 97.8%. The proportion of seropositive women increased with age group (18-25 years: 97.0%; 26-32 years: 97.7%; 33-40 years: 99.3%; p=0.047 after adjusting for HIV status). Similar proportions of women living with and without HIV were seropositive., Conclusions: Rubella immunity was high among South African pregnant women living with and without HIV in the absence of rubella vaccination in the public immunization programme. However, a lower percentage of younger women had seropositive titres, indicating the need for routine rubella vaccination after an increase in vaccine coverage rates., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Group B Streptococcus (GBS) rectovaginal colonization in pregnant women is associated with invasive GBS disease in newborns, preterm delivery and stillbirths. We studied the association of GBS serotype-specific capsular polysaccharide (CPS) antibody on new acquisition and clearance of rectovaginal GBS colonization in pregnant women from 20 weeks until 37 to 40 weeks' gestation. Serum serotype-specific CPS IgG antibody concentration was measured by multiplex enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) titres. Rectovaginal swabs were evaluated for GBS colonization, using standard culture methods and serotyping by latex agglutination, at five to six weekly intervals. Higher serotype III CPS antibody concentration was associated with lower risk of rectovaginal acquisition of serotype III during pregnancy (p 0.009). Furthermore, serotype-specific OPA titres to Ia and III were higher in women who remained free of GBS colonization throughout the study compared to those who acquired the homotypic serotype (p <0.001 for both serotypes). Serum CPS IgG values of ≥1μg/mL for serotype V and ≥3μg/mL for serotypes Ia and III were significantly associated with protection against rectovaginal acquisition of the homotypic serotype. A GBS vaccine that induces sufficient capsular antibody in pregnant women, including high OPA titres, could protect against rectovaginal colonization during the latter half of pregnancy., (Copyright © 2015 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: About 500,000 sepsis-related deaths per year arise in the first 3 days of life. On the basis of results from non-randomised studies, use of vaginal chlorhexidine wipes during labour has been proposed as an intervention for the prevention of early-onset neonatal sepsis in developing countries. We therefore assessed the efficacy of chlorhexidine in early-onset neonatal sepsis and vertical transmission of group B streptococcus., Methods: In a trial in Soweto, South Africa, 8011 women (aged 12-51 years) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to chlorhexidine vaginal wipes or external genitalia water wipes during active labour, and their 8129 newborn babies were assigned to full-body (intervention group) or foot (control group) washes with chlorhexidine at birth, respectively. In a subset of mothers (n=5144), we gathered maternal lower vaginal swabs and neonatal skin swabs after delivery to assess colonisation with potentially pathogenic bacteria. Primary outcomes were neonatal sepsis in the first 3 days of life and vertical transmission of group B streptococcus. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00136370., Findings: Rates of neonatal sepsis did not differ between the groups (chlorhexidine 141 [3%] of 4072 vs control 148 [4%] of 4057; p=0.6518). Rates of colonisation with group B streptococcus in newborn babies born to mothers in the chlorhexidine (217 [54%] of 401) and control groups (234 [55%] of 429] did not differ (efficacy -0.05%, 95% CI -9.5 to 7.9)., Interpretation: Because chlorhexidine intravaginal and neonatal wipes did not prevent neonatal sepsis or the vertical acquisition of potentially pathogenic bacteria among neonates, we need other interventions to reduce childhood mortality., Funding: US Agency for International Development, National Vaccine Program Office and Centers for Disease Control's Antimicrobial Resistance Working Group, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.