Search

Background The recombinant protein-based vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, demonstrated 89.7% efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United Kingdom. The protocol was amended to include a blinded crossover. Data to the end of the placebo-controlled phase are reported. Methods Adults aged 18–84 years received 2 doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) and were monitored for virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 (onset from 7 days after second vaccination). Participants who developed immunoglobulin G (IgG) against nucleocapsid protein but did not show symptomatic COVID-19 were considered asymptomatic. Secondary outcomes included anti-spike (S) IgG responses, wild-type virus neutralization, and T-cell responses. Results Of 15 185 participants, 13 989 remained in the per-protocol efficacy population (6989 NVX-CoV2373, 7000 placebo). At a maximum of 7.5 months (median, 4.5) postvaccination, there were 24 cases of COVID-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 134 cases among placebo recipients, a vaccine efficacy of 82.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.3%–88.8%). Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 17.9%–100.0%) against severe disease and 76.3% (95% CI, 57.4%–86.8%) against asymptomatic disease. High anti-S and neutralization responses to vaccination were evident, together with S-protein–specific induction of interferon-γ secretion in peripheral blood T cells. Incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest were similar between groups. Conclusions A 2-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred a high level of ongoing protection against asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 through >6 months postvaccination. A gradual decrease of protection suggests that a booster may be indicated. Clinical Trials Registration EudraCT, 2020-004123-16.

BackgroundThere are no licensed vaccines against Plasmodium vivax, the most common cause of malaria outside of Africa.MethodsWe conducted two Phase I/IIa clinical trials to assess the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of two vaccines targeting region II of P. vivax Duffy-binding protein (PvDBPII). Recombinant viral vaccines (using ChAd63 and MVA vectors) were administered at 0, 2 months or in a delayed dosing regimen (0, 17, 19 months), whilst a protein/adjuvant formulation (PvDBPII/Matrix-M™) was administered monthly (0, 1, 2 months) or in a delayed dosing regimen (0, 1, 14 months). Delayed regimens were due to trial halts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Volunteers underwent heterologous controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) with blood-stage P. vivax parasites at 2-4 weeks following their last vaccination, alongside unvaccinated controls. Efficacy was assessed by comparison of parasite multiplication rate (PMR) in blood post-CHMI, modelled from parasitemia measured by quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction (qPCR).ResultsThirty-two volunteers were enrolled and vaccinated (n=16 for each vaccine). No safety concerns were identified. PvDBPII/Matrix-M™, given in the delayed dosing regimen, elicited the highest antibody responses and reduced the mean PMR following CHMI by 51% (range 36-66%; n=6) compared to unvaccinated controls (n=13). No other vaccine or regimen impacted parasite growth. In vivo growth inhibition of blood-stage P. vivax correlated with functional antibody readouts of vaccine immunogenicity.ConclusionsVaccination of malaria-naïve adults with a delayed booster regimen of PvDBPII/ Matrix-M™ significantly reduces the growth of blood-stage P. vivax.Funded by the European Commission and Wellcome Trust; VAC069, VAC071 and VAC079 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers NCT03797989, NCT04009096 and NCT04201431.

BackgroundRH5 is the leading blood-stage candidate antigen for inclusion in aPlasmodium falciparummalaria vaccine, however, its safety profile and ability to induce functional immune responses in a malaria-endemic population are unknown. Characterising safety and immunogenicity is key to refine and progress next-generation RH5-based blood-stage malaria vaccines to field efficacy assessment.MethodsA Phase 1b, single-center, dose-escalation, age de-escalation, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in Bagamoyo, Tanzania. Healthy adults (18-35 years), young children (1-6 years) and infants (6-11 months) were recruited to receive a priming dose of viral-vectored ChAd63 RH5 (or rabies control vaccine) followed by a booster dose of MVA RH5 (or rabies control vaccine) 8 weeks later. The primary outcomes were the number of solicited and unsolicited adverse events following vaccination and the number of serious adverse events over the whole study period. Secondary outcomes included quantitative and qualitative measures of the anti-RH5 immune response. All participants receiving at least one dose of vaccine were included in the primary analyses.FindingsBetween 12thApril and 25thOctober 2018 a total of 63 adults, children and infants were recruited and primed and 60 of these were boosted, all completing six months of follow-up post-priming vaccination. Vaccinations were well-tolerated with participants reporting predominantly mild reactogenicity, with profiles comparable between ChAd63 RH5, MVA RH5 and rabies vaccine groups, and across the age groups. No serious adverse events were reported during the study period. RH5-specific T cell, B cell and serum antibody responses were induced by vaccination. Higher anti-RH5 serum IgG responses were observed post-boost in the 1-6 year old children (median 93 µg/mL; range: 31-508 µg/mL) and infants (median 149 µg/mL; range: 29-352 µg/mL) as compared to adults (median 14 µg/mL; range: 9-15 µg/mL). These contracted over time post-boost, but the same hierarchy of responses across the age groups was maintained to end of follow-up at 16 weeks post-boost (day 168). Vaccine-induced anti-RH5 antibodies were functional showing growth inhibition activity (GIA)in vitroagainstP. falciparumblood-stage parasites. The highest levels were observed in the 6-11 month old infants, with 6/11 showing >60% GIA following dilution of total IgG to 2.5 mg/mL (median 61%; range: 41-78%).InterpretationThe ChAd63-MVA RH5 vaccine regimen shows an acceptable safety and reactogenicity profile and encouraging immunogenicity in children and infants residing in a malaria-endemic area. The levels of functional GIA observed in the RH5 vaccinated 6-11 month old infants are the highest levels reported to-date following human vaccination. These data support onward clinical development of RH5-based blood-stage vaccines that aim to protect against clinical malaria in young African infants.FundingMedical Research Council, London, United Kingdom.Trial RegistrationISRCTN registry: 47448832 and ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT03435874.

Background The safety and immunogenicity profile of COVID-19 vaccines when administered concomitantly with seasonal influenza vaccines have not yet been reported. We therefore aimed to report the results of a substudy within a phase 3 UK trial, by evaluating the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 when co-administered with licensed seasonal influenza vaccines. Methods We did a planned exploratory substudy as part of the randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) by co-administrating the influenza vaccine at four study hospitals in the UK. Approximately, the first 400 participants meeting the main study entry criteria—with no contraindications to influenza vaccination—were invited to join the substudy. Participants of the main study were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two intramuscular injections of either NVX-CoV2373 (5 μg) or placebo (normal saline) 21 days apart; participants enrolled into the substudy were co-vaccinated with a single (0·5 mL) intramuscular, age-appropriate (quadrivalent influenza cell-based vaccine [Flucelvax Quadrivalent; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those aged 18–64 years and adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine [Fluad; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those ≥65 years), licensed, influenza vaccine on the opposite deltoid to that of the first study vaccine dose or placebo. The influenza vaccine was administered in an open-label manner and at the same time as the first study injection. Reactogenicity was evaluated via an electronic diary for 7 days after vaccination in addition to monitoring for unsolicited adverse events, medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was assessed with influenza haemagglutination inhibition and SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein IgG assays. Vaccine efficacy against PCR-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 was assessed in participants who were seronegative at baseline, received both doses of study vaccine or placebo, had no major protocol deviations affecting the primary endpoint, and had no confirmed cases of symptomatic COVID-19 from the first dose until 6 days after the second dose (per-protocol efficacy population). Immunogenicity was assessed in participants who received scheduled two doses of study vaccine, had a baseline sample and at least one post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol violations before unmasking (per-protocol immunogenicity population). Reactogenicity was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo and had data collected for reactogenicity events. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo. Comparisons were made between participants of the substudy and the main study (who were not co-vaccinated for influenza). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04583995. Findings Between Sept 28, 2020, and Nov 28, 2020, a total of 15 187 participants were randomised into the main phase 3 trial, of whom 15 139 received treatment (7569 received dose one of NVX-CoV2373 and 7570 received dose one of placebo). 431 participants were co-vaccinated with a seasonal influenza vaccine in the substudy (217 received NVX-CoV2373 plus the influenza vaccine and 214 received placebo plus the influenza vaccine). In general, the substudy participants were younger, more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than those in the main study. Reactogenicity events were more common in the co-administration group than in the NVX-CoV2373 alone group: tenderness (113 [64·9%] of 174 vs 592 [53·3%] of 1111) or pain (69 [39·7%] vs 325 [29·3%]) at injection site, fatigue (48 [27·7%] vs 215 [19·4%]), and muscle pain (49 [28·3%] vs 237 [21·4%]). Incidences of unsolicited adverse events, treatment-related medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events were low and balanced between the co-administration group and the NVX-CoV2373 alone group. No episodes of anaphylaxis or deaths were reported within the substudy. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response although a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. NVX-CoV2373 vaccine efficacy in the substudy (ie, participants aged 18 to

BackgroundThe recombinant protein-based vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, demonstrated 89.7% efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United Kingdom. The protocol was amended to include a blinded crossover. Data to the end of the placebo-controlled phase are reported.MethodsAdults aged 18–84 years received 2 doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) and were monitored for virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 (onset from 7 days after second vaccination). Participants who developed immunoglobulin G (IgG) against nucleocapsid protein but did not show symptomatic COVID-19 were considered asymptomatic. Secondary outcomes included anti-spike (S) IgG responses, wild-type virus neutralization, and T-cell responses.ResultsOf 15 185 participants, 13 989 remained in the per-protocol efficacy population (6989 NVX-CoV2373, 7000 placebo). At a maximum of 7.5 months (median, 4.5) postvaccination, there were 24 cases of COVID-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 134 cases among placebo recipients, a vaccine efficacy of 82.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.3%–88.8%). Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 17.9%–100.0%) against severe disease and 76.3% (95% CI, 57.4%–86.8%) against asymptomatic disease. High anti-S and neutralization responses to vaccination were evident, together with S-protein–specific induction of interferon-γ secretion in peripheral blood T cells. Incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest were similar between groups.ConclusionsA 2-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred a high level of ongoing protection against asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 through >6 months postvaccination. A gradual decrease of protection suggests that a booster may be indicated.

Background: data on vaccine immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 are needed for the 40 million people globally living with HIV who might have less functional immunity and more associated comorbidities than the general population. We aimed to explore safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in people with HIV. Methods: in this single-arm open-label vaccination substudy within the protocol of the larger phase 2/3 trial COV002, adults aged 18–55 years with HIV were enrolled at two HIV clinics in London, UK. Eligible participants were required to be on antiretroviral therapy (ART), with undetectable plasma HIV viral loads (0·05 for all analyses). Interpretation: in this study of people with HIV, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was safe and immunogenic, supporting vaccination for those well controlled on ART. 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 Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

There are no licensed vaccines againstWe conducted two Phase I/IIa clinical trials to assess the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of two vaccines targeting region II ofThirty-two volunteers were enrolled and vaccinated (n=16 for each vaccine). No safety concerns were identified. PvDBPII/Matrix-M™, given in the delayed dosing regimen, elicited the highest antibody responses and reduced the mean PMR following CHMI by 51% (range 36-66%; n=6) compared to unvaccinated controls (n=13). No other vaccine or regimen impacted parasite growth.Vaccination of malaria-naïve adults with a delayed booster regimen of PvDBPII/ Matrix-M™ significantly reduces the growth of blood-stage

Background: \ud 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).\ud \ud Methods: \ud 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.\ud \ud Findings: \ud 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.\ud \ud Interpretation: \ud 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.\ud \ud Funding: \ud UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research.

Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) provides a highly informative means to investigate host-pathogen interactions and enable in vivo proof-of-concept efficacy testing of new drugs and vaccines. However, unlike Plasmodium falciparum, well-characterized P. vivax parasites that are safe and suitable for use in modern CHMI models are limited. Here, two healthy malaria-naïve UK adults with universal donor blood group were safely infected with a clone of P. vivax from Thailand by mosquito-bite CHMI. Parasitemia developed in both volunteers and, prior to treatment, each volunteer donated blood to produce a cryopreserved stabilate of infected red blood cells. Following stringent safety screening, the parasite stabilate from one of these donors ("PvW1") was thawed and used to inoculate six healthy malaria-naïve UK adults by blood-stage CHMI, at three different dilutions. Parasitemia developed in all volunteers, who were then successfully drug treated. PvW1 parasite DNA was isolated and sequenced to produce a high quality genome assembly by using a hybrid assembly method. We analysed leading vaccine candidate antigens and multigene families, including the Vivax interspersed repeat (VIR) genes of which we identified 1145 in the PvW1 genome. Our genomic analysis will guide future assessment of candidate vaccines and drugs, as well as experimental medicine studies.

Immunity to severe malaria is acquired quickly, operates independently of pathogen load and represents a highly effective form of disease tolerance. The mechanism that underpins tolerance in human malaria remains unknown. We developed a re-challenge model of falciparum malaria in which healthy naive adult volunteers were infected three times over a 12-month period to track the development of disease tolerance in real-time. We found that parasitaemia triggered a hardwired emergency myeloid response that led to systemic inflammation, pyrexia and hallmark symptoms of clinical malaria across the first three infections of life. In contrast, CD4+ T cell activation was quickly modified to reduce the number and diversity of effector cells upon re-challenge. Crucially, this did not silence critical helper T cell functions but instead prevented the generation of cytotoxic effectors associated with autoinflammatory disease. Tolerised hosts were thus able to prevent collateral tissue damage and injury. Host control of T cell activation can therefore be established after a single infection and in the absence of anti-parasite immunity. And furthermore, this rapid host adaptation can protect vital organs to minimise the harm caused by systemic inflammation and sequestration.

Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) provides a highly informative means to investigate host-pathogen interactions and enable in vivo proof-of-concept efficacy testing of new drugs and vaccines. However, unlike Plasmodium falciparum, well-characterized P. vivax parasites that are safe and suitable for use in modern CHMI models are limited. Here, two healthy malaria-naïve UK adults with universal donor blood group were safely infected with a clone of P. vivax from Thailand by mosquito-bite CHMI. Parasitemia developed in both volunteers and, prior to treatment, each volunteer donated blood to produce a cryopreserved stabilate of infected red blood cells. Following stringent safety screening, the parasite stabilate from one of these donors (“PvW1”) was thawed and used to inoculate six healthy malaria-naïve UK adults by blood-stage CHMI, at three different dilutions. Parasitemia developed in all volunteers, who were then successfully drug treated. PvW1 parasite DNA was isolated and sequenced to produce a high quality genome assembly by using a hybrid assembly method. We analysed leading vaccine candidate antigens and multigene families, including the Vivax interspersed repeat (VIR) genes of which we identified 1145 in the PvW1 genome. Our genomic analysis will guide future assessment of candidate vaccines and drugs, as well as experimental medicine studies.

Background COVID-19 vaccine supply shortages are causing concerns about compromised immunity in some countries as the interval between the first and second dose becomes longer. Conversely, countries with no supply constraints are considering administering a third dose. We assessed the persistence of immunogenicity after a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), immunity after an extended interval (44–45 weeks) between the first and second dose, and response to a third dose as a booster given 28–38 weeks after the second dose. Methods In this substudy, volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in the phase 1/2 (COV001) controlled trial in the UK and had received either a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles were invited back for vaccination. Here we report the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed second dose (44–45 weeks after first dose) or a third dose of the vaccine (28–38 weeks after second dose). Data from volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in either the phase 1/2 (COV001) or phase 2/3 (COV002), single-blinded, randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and who had previously received a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles are used for comparison purposes. COV001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and COV002 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and both are continuing but not recruiting. Findings Between March 11 and 21, 2021, 90 participants were enrolled in the third-dose boost substudy, of whom 80 (89%) were assessable for reactogenicity, 75 (83%) were assessable for evaluation of antibodies, and 15 (17%) were assessable for T-cells responses. The two-dose cohort comprised 321 participants who had reactogenicity data (with prime-boost interval of 8–12 weeks: 267 [83%] of 321; 15–25 weeks: 24 [7%]; or 44–45 weeks: 30 [9%]) and 261 who had immunogenicity data (interval of 8–12 weeks: 115 [44%] of 261; 15–25 weeks: 116 [44%]; and 44–45 weeks: 30 [11%]). 480 participants from the single-dose cohort were assessable for immunogenicity up to 44–45 weeks after vaccination. Antibody titres after a single dose measured approximately 320 days after vaccination remained higher than the titres measured at baseline (geometric mean titre of 66·00 ELISA units [EUs; 95% CI 47·83–91·08] vs 1·75 EUs [1·60–1·93]). 32 participants received a late second dose of vaccine 44–45 weeks after the first dose, of whom 30 were included in immunogenicity and reactogenicity analyses. Antibody titres were higher 28 days after vaccination in those with a longer interval between first and second dose than for those with a short interval (median total IgG titre: 923 EUs [IQR 525–1764] with an 8–12 week interval; 1860 EUs [917–4934] with a 15–25 week interval; and 3738 EUs [1824–6625] with a 44–45 week interval). Among participants who received a third dose of vaccine, antibody titres (measured in 73 [81%] participants for whom samples were available) were significantly higher 28 days after a third dose (median total IgG titre: 3746 EUs [IQR 2047–6420]) than 28 days after a second dose (median 1792 EUs [IQR 899–4634]; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·0043). T-cell responses were also boosted after a third dose (median response increased from 200 spot forming units [SFUs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs; IQR 127–389] immediately before the third dose to 399 SFUs per milion PBMCs [314–662] by day 28 after the third dose; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·012). Reactogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose was lower than reactogenicity after a first dose. Interpretation An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, AstraZeneca, and Wellcome.

BackgroundTransmission blocking vaccines targeting the sexual-stages of the malaria parasite could play a major role to achieve elimination and eradication of malaria. The Plasmodium falciparum Pfs25 protein (Pfs25) is the most clinically advanced candidate sexual-stage antigen. IMX313, a complement inhibitor C4b-binding protein that forms heptamers with the antigen fused to it, improve antibody responses. This is the first time that viral vectors have been used to induce antibodies in humans against an antigen that is expressed only in the mosquito vector.MethodsClinical trial looking at safety and immunogenicity of two recombinant viral vectored vaccines encoding Pfs25-IMX313 in healthy malaria-naive adults. Replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus serotype 63 (ChAd63) and the attenuated orthopoxvirus modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA), encoding Pfs25-IMX313, were delivered by the intramuscular route in a heterologous prime-boost regimen using an 8-week interval. Safety data and samples for immunogenicity assays were taken at various time-points.ResultsThe reactogenicity of the vaccines was similar to that seen in previous trials using the same viral vectors encoding other antigens. The vaccines were immunogenic and induced both antibody and T cell responses against Pfs25, but significant transmission reducing activity (TRA) was not observed in most volunteers by standard membrane feeding assay.ConclusionBoth vaccines were well tolerated and demonstrated a favorable safety profile in malaria-naive adults. However, the transmission reducing activity of the antibodies generated were weak, suggesting the need for an alternative vaccine formulation.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02532049.

Summary The most widespread form of malaria is caused by Plasmodium vivax. To replicate, this parasite must invade immature red blood cells, through a process which requires interaction of the Plasmodium vivax Duffy binding protein, PvDBP with its human receptor, the Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines, DARC. Naturally acquired antibodies that inhibit this interaction associate with clinical immunity, suggesting PvDBP as a leading candidate for inclusion in a vaccine to prevent malaria due to Plasmodium vivax. Here, we isolated a panel of monoclonal antibodies from human volunteers immunised in a clinical vaccine trial of PvDBP. We screened their ability to prevent PvDBP from binding to DARC, and their capacity to block red blood cell invasion by a transgenic Plasmodium knowlesi parasite genetically modified to express PvDBP and to prevent reticulocyte invasion by multiple clinical isolates of Plasmodium vivax. This identified a broadly neutralising human monoclonal antibody which inhibited invasion of all tested strains of Plasmodium vivax. Finally, we determined the structure of a complex of this antibody bound to PvDBP, indicating the molecular basis for inhibition. These findings will guide future vaccine design strategies and open up possibilities for testing the prophylactic use of such an antibody.

SummaryBackgroundThe safety and immunogenicity profile of COVID-19 vaccines when administered concomitantly with seasonal influenza vaccines has not yet been reported.MethodsA sub-study on influenza vaccine co-administration was conducted as part of the phase 3 randomized trial of the safety and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373. The first ∼400 participants meeting main study entry criteria and with no contraindications to influenza vaccination were invited to join the sub-study. After randomization in a 1:1 ratio to receive NVX-CoV2373 (n=217) or placebo (n=214), sub-study participants received an age-appropriate, licensed, open-label influenza vaccine with dose 1 of NVX-CoV2373. Reactogenicity was evaluated via electronic diary for 7 days post-vaccination in addition to monitoring for unsolicited adverse events (AEs), medically-attended AEs (MAAEs), and serious AEs (SAEs). Influenza haemagglutination inhibition and SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG assays were performed. Vaccine efficacy against PCR-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 was assessed. Comparisons were made between sub-study and main study participants.FindingsSub-study participants were younger, more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than main study participants. Reactogenicity events more common in the co-administration group included tenderness (70.1% vs 57.6%) or pain (39.7% vs 29.3%) at injection site, fatigue (27.7% vs 19.4%), and muscle pain (28.3% vs 21.4%). Rates of unsolicited AEs, MAAEs, and SAEs were low and balanced between the two groups. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response, while a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. Vaccine efficacy in the sub-study was 87.5% (95% CI: -0.2, 98.4) while efficacy in the main study was 89.8% (95% CI: 79.7, 95.5).InterpretationThis is the first study to demonstrate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy profile of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines. The results suggest concomitant vaccination may be a viable immunisation strategy.FundingThis study was funded by Novavax, Inc.Research in ContextEvidence before this studyWe searched PubMed for research articles published from December 2019 until 1 April 2021 with no language restrictions for the terms “SARS-CoV-2”, “COVID-19”, “vaccine”, “co-administration”, and “immunogenicity”. There were no peer-reviewed publications describing the simultaneous use of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and another vaccine. Several vaccine manufacturers had recent publications on phase 3 trials results (Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology). Neither these publications nor their clinical trials’ protocols (when publicly available) described co-administration and they often had trial criteria specifically excluding those with recent or planned vaccination with any licenced vaccine near or at the time of any study injection.Added value of this studyImmune interference and safety are always a concern when two vaccines are administered at the same time. This is the first study to demonstrate the safety and immunogenicity profile and clinical vaccine efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with a seasonal influenza vaccine.Implications of all the available evidenceThis study provides much needed information to help guide national immunisation policy decision making on the critical issue of concomitant use of COVID-19 vaccines with influenza vaccines.

Summary Reticulocyte-binding protein homolog 5 (RH5) is a leading Plasmodium falciparum blood-stage vaccine candidate. Another possible candidate, apical membrane antigen 1 (AMA1), was not efficacious in malaria-endemic populations, likely due to pre-existing antimalarial antibodies that interfered with the activity of vaccine-induced AMA1 antibodies, as judged by in vitro growth inhibition assay (GIA). To determine how pre-existing antibodies interact with vaccine-induced RH5 antibodies, we purify total and RH5-specific immunoglobulin Gs (IgGs) from malaria-exposed Malians and malaria-naive RH5 vaccinees. Infection-induced RH5 antibody titers are much lower than those induced by vaccination, and RH5-specific IgGs show differences in the binding site between the two populations. In GIA, Malian polyclonal IgGs show additive or synergistic interactions with RH5 human monoclonal antibodies and overall additive interactions with vaccine-induced polyclonal RH5 IgGs. These results suggest that pre-existing antibodies will interact favorably with vaccine-induced RH5 antibodies, in contrast to AMA1 antibodies. This study supports RH5 vaccine trials in malaria-endemic regions., Graphical abstract, Highlights RH5 IgG titers induced by infection are lower than those induced by RH5 vaccination Infection- and vaccine-induced RH5 IgGs have different specificity and avidity Infection- and vaccine-induced RH5 IgGs interact differently with RH5 mAbs Infection-induced IgGs generally do not reduce the activity of vaccine-induced IgGs, Willcox et al. combine antibodies from malaria-exposed Malians and volunteers who received a reticulocyte-binding protein homolog 5 (RH5) vaccine. In P. falciparum growth inhibition assays, infection-induced IgGs generally do not reduce the neutralizing activity of vaccine-induced IgGs. These results suggest that RH5 vaccines will induce effective antibodies in malaria-endemic populations.

BackgroundCovid-19 vaccines are urgently needed, especially against emerging variants. NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 rS) nanoparticle vaccine containing trimeric full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and Matrix-M adjuvant.MethodsA phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in adults 18-84 years old who received two intramuscular 5-µg doses, 21 days apart, of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) across 33 sites in the United Kingdom. The primary efficacy endpoint was virologically confirmed symptomatic Covid-19 with onset 7 days after second vaccination in serologically negative participants.ResultsA total of 15,187 participants were randomized, of whom 7569 received NVX-CoV2373 and 7570 received placebo; 27.2% were 65 years or older, 44.7% had comorbidities and 4.2% had baseline serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2. There were 10 cases of Covid-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 96 cases among placebo recipients, with symptom onset at least 7 days after second vaccination; NVX-CoV2373 was 89.7% (95% confidence interval, 80.2 to 94.6) effective in preventing Covid-19, with no hospitalizations or deaths reported. There were five cases of severe Covid-19, all in the placebo group. Post hoc analysis revealed efficacies of 96.4% (73.8 to 99.5) and 86.3% (71.3 to 93.5) against the prototype strain and B.1.1.7 variant, respectively. Vaccine efficacy was similar across subgroups, including participants with comorbidities and those ≥65 years old. Reactogenicity was generally mild and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the two groups.ConclusionA two-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred 89.7% protection against a blend of prototype and variant Covid-19, demonstrated high efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant, and had a reassuring safety profile.(Funded by Novavax, Inc. EudraCT number, 2020-004123-16).

The biology of Plasmodium vivax is markedly different to that of P. falciparum; how this shapes the immune response to infection remains unclear. To address this shortfall, we inoculated human volunteers with a clonal field isolate of P. vivax and tracked their response through infection and convalescence. High dimensional protein and RNA-seq data show that P. vivax triggers an acute phase response that shares remarkable overlap with that of P. falciparum, suggesting a hardwired emergency myeloid response that does not discriminate parasite species. We then used cytometry by time of flight to analyse the fate and function of innate-like and adaptive T cells; these data show that P. vivax can activate up to one quarter of the entire T cell compartment. Heterogeneous effector memory-like CD4+ T cells dominate this extraordinary response and phenotypic analysis reveals unexpected features of terminal differentiation that are normally associated with cytotoxicity and autoinflammatory disease. In line with this observation, we found that CD4+ T cell activation coincides with collateral tissue damage and liver injury. Finally, comparative analyses demonstrate that P. falciparum drives T cell activation far in excess of P. vivax, which may partially explain why falciparum malaria more frequently causes severe disease.

Falciparum malaria is clinically heterogeneous and the relative contribution of parasite and host in shaping disease severity remains unclear. We explored the interaction between inflammation and parasite variant surface antigen (VSA) expression, asking whether this relationship underpins the variation observed in controlled human malaria infection (CHMI). We uncovered marked heterogeneity in the host response to blood challenge; some volunteers remained quiescent, others triggered interferon-stimulated inflammation and some showed transcriptional evidence of myeloid cell suppression. Significantly, only inflammatory volunteers experienced hallmark symptoms of malaria. When we tracked temporal changes in parasite VSA expression to ask whether variants associated with severe disease rapidly expand in naive hosts, we found no transcriptional evidence to support this hypothesis. These data indicate that parasite variants that dominate severe malaria do not have an intrinsic growth or survival advantage; instead, they presumably rely upon infection-induced changes in their within-host environment for selection.

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.

Background: COVID-19 vaccine supply shortages are causing concerns about compromised immunity in some countries as the interval between first and second dose extends. Conversely, countries with no supply constraints are considering administering a third dose. We assessed the persistence of immunogenicity after a single dose, the immunity after an extended interval between the first and second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19(AZD1222), and the response to a third dose as a late booster. Methods: Volunteers aged 18-55 years who were enrolled in a Phase 1/2 or Phase 2/3 clinical trial of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and had received either a single dose or two doses of 5×10 10 viral particles were invited back for vaccination. Reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed second dose or a third dose are reported here. Findings: Antibody titres after a single dose and measured on d362 remain higher than the titres measured on d0 (62.61 EU; 95% CI 47.43-82.64 vs 1 EU 95% CI 1-16). 30 participants received a late second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (median 44 weeks after first dose), antibody titres were higher in those with a longer interval between first and second dose (median EU for 8-12, 15-25, and 44-46 weeks were 923 [IQR 525-1764], 1860 [IQR 917-4934] and 3738 [IQR 1824-6625] respectively). 90 participants received a third dose and antibody titres were significantly higher following a third dose (FRNT50 612 [IQR 351-920]) when compared with the response 28 days after a second dose (FRNT 50 319 [IQR 176-591]. T-cell responses were also boosted after a third dose. Reactogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose was lower than reactogenicity after a first dose. Interpretation: A longer delay before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to an increased antibody titre after the second dose. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlate with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (MC_PC_19055), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/R013756/1), National Institute for Health Research (COV19 OxfordVacc-01), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (Outbreak Response To Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)), National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC4 Vaccines Theme), Thames Valley and South Midland’s NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. Declaration of Interest: 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 and AVSH are cofounders of and shareholders in Vaccitech (collaborators in the early development of this vaccine candidate) and named as inventors on a patent covering use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines (PCT/GB2012/000467) and a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (SCG only). TL is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines (PCT/GB2012/000467) and was a consultant to Vaccitech. PMF is a consultant to Vaccitech. AJP is Chair of the UK Department of Health and Social Care’s JCVI, but does not participate in policy advice on coronavirus vaccines, and is a member of the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE). AJP is a NIHR Senior Investigator. Ethical Approval: In the UK, the COV001 and COV002 studies were approved by the South Central Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (COV001 reference 20/SC/0145, March 23, 2020; and COV002 reference 20/SC/0179; conditional approval April 8, full approval April 19, 2020).

Background: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, MHRA, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of between 4 and 12 weeks. The planned rollout 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 phase III efficacy trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the United Kingdom and Brazil, and phase I/II clinical trials in the UK and South Africa, against symptomatic disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. The data cut-off date for these analyses was 7th December 2020. The accumulated cases of COVID-19 disease at this cut-off date exceeds the number required for a pre-specified final analysis, which is also presented. As previously described, individuals over 18 years of age were randomised 1:1 to receive two standard doses (SD) of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5x1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine/saline placebo. In the UK trial efficacy cohort a subset of participants received a lower dose (LD, 2.2x1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. All cases with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis, by a blinded independent endpoint review committee. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings: 17,177 baseline seronegative trial participants were eligible for inclusion in the efficacy analysis, 8948 in the UK, 6753 in Brazil and 1476 in South Africa, with 619 documented NAAT +ve infections of which 332 met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection >14 days post dose 2.The primary analysis of overall vaccine efficacy >14 days after the second dose including LD/SD and SD/SD groups, based on the prespecified criteria was 66.7% (57.4%, 74.0%). There were no hospitalisations in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21 day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group.Vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 post vaccination was 76% (59%, 86%), and modelled 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 day (GMR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59, 0.74).In the SD/SD group, after the second dose, efficacy was higher with a longer prime-boost interval: VE 82.4% 95%CI 62.7%, 91.7% at 12+ weeks, compared with VE 54.9%, 95%CI 32.7%, 69.7% at

Background: A new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7, emerged as the dominant cause of COVID-19infection in the United Kingdom from November 2020 with a transmission advantage over the previous variants of the virus. Here we report efficacy of the adenoviral vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, against this variant in comparison with non-B.1.1.7 lineages. Methods: Volunteers enrolled in phase II/III vaccine efficacy studies in the United Kingdom and randomised 1:1 to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a MenACWY control vaccine, providedupper airway swabs every week during the trial and also if they developed possible symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Swabs were tested by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2, and positive samples were sequenced through the COVID-19Genomics UK consortium (COG UK). NAAT data were used to assess the duration ofdetectable viral RNA in diagnostic specimens and the viral load. Anti-spike IgG wasmeasured by ELISA at baseline, 14 and 28 days after prime and 28 days after boostervaccination. Neutralising antibody responses were measured using a live virus neutralisation assay against the B.1.1.7 and Victoria lineages of the virus. 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 treatment received, with data cut-off on Jan 14, 2021. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 − relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400838 and ISRCTN 15281137.5 Findings: Between 1st October 2020 and 14th January 2021, 499 participants developed Covid-19infection. 1524 NAAT positive nose/throat swabs were collected from these participants during the trial. Of these, 323 swabs from 256 participants were successfully sequenced.ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients had a significantly lower viral load as represented byminimum PCR Ct value (p

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. \ud \ud \ud METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. \ud \ud \ud 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; pinteraction=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. \ud \ud \ud 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. \ud \ud \ud 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.

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, 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 × 1010 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 × 1010 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 (MNA80). 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 MNA80 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.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused a global pandemic, and safe, effective vaccines are urgently needed

Falciparum malaria is clinically heterogeneous and the relative contribution of parasite and host in shaping disease severity remains unclear. We explored the interaction between inflammation and parasite variant surface antigen (VSA) expression, asking whether this relationship underpins the variation observed in controlled human malaria infection (CHMI). We uncovered marked heterogeneity in the host response to blood challenge; some volunteers remained quiescent, others triggered interferon-stimulated inflammation and some showed transcriptional evidence of myeloid cell suppression. Significantly, only inflammatory volunteers experienced hallmark symptoms of malaria. When we tracked temporal changes in parasite VSA expression to ask whether variants associated with severe disease rapidly expand in naive hosts, we found no transcriptional evidence to support this hypothesis. These data indicate that parasite variants that dominate severe malaria do not have an intrinsic growth or survival advantage; instead, they presumably rely upon infection-induced changes in their within-host environment for selection.

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 p80 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

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality and an effective new vaccine is urgently needed. A major barrier to the rational development of novel TB vaccines is the lack of a validated immune correlate or biomarker of protection. Mycobacterial Growth Inhibition Assays (MGIAs) provide an unbiased measure of ability to control mycobacterial growth in vitro, and may represent a functional correlate of protection. However, the biological relevance of any potential correlate can only be assessed by determining the association with in vivo protection from either a controlled mycobacterial infection or natural development of TB disease. Our data demonstrate that the direct MGIA using peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) is measuring a biologically relevant response that correlates with protection from in vivo human BCG infection across two independent cohorts. This is the first report of an MGIA correlating with in vivo protection in the species-of-interest, humans, and furthermore on a per-individual as well as per-group basis. Control of mycobacterial growth in the MGIA is associated with a range of immune parameters measured post-BCG infection in vivo including the IFN-γ ELISpot response, frequency of PPD-specific IFN-γ or TNF-α producing CD4+ T cells and frequency of specific sub-populations of polyfunctional CD4+ T cells. Distinct transcriptomic profiles are associated with good vs. poor mycobacterial control in the MGIA, with good controllers showing enrichment for gene sets associated with antigen processing/presentation and the IL-23 pathway, and poor controllers showing enrichment for hypoxia-related pathways. This study represents an important step toward biologically validating the direct PBMC MGIA for use in TB vaccine development and furthermore demonstrates the utility of this assay in determining relevant immune mechanisms and pathways of protection.

Seasonal influenza infections have a significant global impact leading to increased health and economic burden. The efficacy of currently available seasonal influenza vaccines targeting polymorphic surface antigens has historically been suboptimal. Cellular immune responses against highly conserved Influenza A virus antigens, such as nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix protein-1 (M1), have previously been shown to be associated with protection from disease, whilst viral-vectored vaccines are an effective strategy to boost cell-mediated immunity. We have previously demonstrated that MVA encoding NP and M1 can induce potent and persistent T cell responses against influenza. In this Phase I study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of MVA-NP+M1, which was newly manufactured on an immortalized cell line, in six healthy adult participants. The vaccine was well-tolerated with only mild to moderate adverse events that resolved spontaneously and were comparable to previous studies with the same vaccine manufactured in chick embryo fibroblasts. A significant increase in vaccine-specific T cell responses was detected seven days after immunization and was directed against both antigens in the vector insert. This small Phase I study supports progression of this vaccine to a Phase IIb study to assess immunogenicity and additional protective efficacy in older adults receiving licensed seasonal influenza vaccines.

Summary Background Development of an effective vaccine against the pathogenic blood-stage infection of human malaria has proved challenging, and no candidate vaccine has affected blood-stage parasitemia following controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) with blood-stage Plasmodium falciparum. Methods We undertook a phase I/IIa clinical trial in healthy adults in the United Kingdom of the RH5.1 recombinant protein vaccine, targeting the P. falciparum reticulocyte-binding protein homolog 5 (RH5), formulated in AS01B adjuvant. We assessed safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy against blood-stage CHMI. Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02927145. Findings The RH5.1/AS01B formulation was administered using a range of RH5.1 protein vaccine doses (2, 10, and 50 μg) and was found to be safe and well tolerated. A regimen using a delayed and fractional third dose, in contrast to three doses given at monthly intervals, led to significantly improved antibody response longevity over ∼2 years of follow-up. Following primary and secondary CHMI of vaccinees with blood-stage P. falciparum, a significant reduction in parasite growth rate was observed, defining a milestone for the blood-stage malaria vaccine field. We show that growth inhibition activity measured in vitro using purified immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody strongly correlates with in vivo reduction of the parasite growth rate and also identify other antibody feature sets by systems serology, including the plasma anti-RH5 IgA1 response, that are associated with challenge outcome. Conclusions Our data provide a new framework to guide rational design and delivery of next-generation vaccines to protect against malaria disease. Funding This study was supported by USAID, UK MRC, Wellcome Trust, NIAID, and the NIHR Oxford-BRC., Graphical abstract, Highlights The RH5.1/AS01B vaccine is safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic in healthy adults A delayed fractional third dose significantly improves antibody response longevity In vivo blood-stage P. falciparum growth rate is significantly lower in vaccinees In vitro IgG-mediated growth inhibition activity is associated with challenge outcome, Context and significance A highly effective vaccine against the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum is urgently needed. One vaccine strategy aims to prevent parasite growth in the blood, protecting against clinical disease; however, this has proved exceptionally challenging. Here we show that a candidate vaccine (reticulocyte-binding protein homolog 5.1 [RH5.1]/AS01B) is safe in a phase I/IIa clinical trial and identify a vaccination regimen that improves the durability of the human antibody response, which is critical for long-term protection. Following experimental challenge of vaccinated adults with malaria, we observed that the vaccine could reduce parasite growth in the blood and identified immune responses that could predict how well the vaccine performs. These data will help guide the design of improved vaccines in the future., Minassian et al. report that the RH5.1/AS01B vaccine against blood-stage Plasmodium falciparum malaria is safe and immunogenic in a phase I/IIa clinical trial. They demonstrate a significantly reduced blood-stage parasite growth rate in vaccinees following controlled human malaria infection and identify that in vitro antibody-mediated growth inhibition activity is associated with challenge outcome.