Search

Background People with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) with good CD4 T-cell counts make effective immune responses following vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). There are few data on longer term responses and the impact of a booster dose. Methods Adults with HIV were enrolled into a single arm open label study. Two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were followed 12 months later by a third heterologous vaccine dose. Participants had undetectable viraemia on ART and CD4 counts >350 cells/µL. Immune responses to the ancestral strain and variants of concern were measured by anti-spike immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), MesoScale Discovery (MSD) anti-spike platform, ACE-2 inhibition, activation induced marker (AIM) assay, and T-cell proliferation. Findings In total, 54 participants received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. 43 received a third dose (42 with BNT162b2; 1 with mRNA-1273) 1 year after the first dose. After the third dose, total anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG titers (MSD), ACE-2 inhibition, and IgG ELISA results were significantly higher compared to Day 182 titers (P < .0001 for all 3). SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+ T-cell responses measured by AIM against SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 peptide pools were significantly increased after a third vaccine compared to 6 months after a first dose, with significant increases in proliferative CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 after boosting. Responses to Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants were boosted, although to a lesser extent for Omicron. Conclusions In PWH receiving a third vaccine dose, there were significant increases in B- and T-cell immunity, including to known variants of concern (VOCs).

Introduction The inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac, Sinovac) has been widely used in a two-dose schedule. We assessed whether a third dose of the homologous or a different vaccine could boost immune responses. Methods RHH-001 is a phase 4, participant masked, two centre, safety and immunogenicity study of Brazilian adults (18 years and older) in São Paulo or Salvador who had received two doses of CoronaVac 6 months previously. The third heterologous dose was of either a recombinant adenoviral vectored vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S, Janssen), an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer–BioNTech), or a recombinant adenoviral-vectored ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222, AstraZeneca), compared with a third homologous dose of CoronaVac. Participants were randomly assigned (5:6:5:5) by a RedCAP computer randomisation system stratified by site, age group (18–60 years or 61 years and over), and day of randomisation, with a block size of 42. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of anti-spike IgG antibodies 28 days after the booster dose in the heterologous boost groups compared with homologous regimen, using a non-inferiority margin for the geometric mean ratio (heterologous vs homologous) of 0·67. Secondary outcomes included neutralising antibody titres at day 28, local and systemic reactogenicity profiles, adverse events, and serious adverse events. This study was registered with Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos, number RBR–9nn3scw. Findings Between Aug 16, and Sept 1, 2021, 1240 participants were randomly assigned to one of the four groups, of whom 1239 were vaccinated and 1205 were eligible for inclusion in the primary analysis. Antibody concentrations were low before administration of a booster dose with detectable neutralising antibodies of 20·4% (95% CI 12·8–30·1) in adults aged 18–60 years and 8·9% (4·2–16·2) in adults 61 years or older. From baseline to day 28 after the booster vaccine, all groups had a substantial rise in IgG antibody concentrations: the geometric fold-rise was 77 (95% CI 67–88) for Ad26.COV2-S, 152 (134–173) for BNT162b2, 90 (77–104) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 12 (11–14) for CoronaVac. All heterologous regimens had anti-spike IgG responses at day 28 that were superior to homologous booster responses: geometric mean ratios (heterologous vs homologous) were 6·7 (95% CI 5·8–7·7) for Ad26.COV2-S, 13·4 (11·6–15·3) for BNT162b2, and 7·0 (6·1–8·1) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. All heterologous boost regimens induced high concentrations of pseudovirus neutralising antibodies. At day 28, all groups except for the homologous boost in the older adults reached 100% seropositivity: geometric mean ratios (heterologous vs homologous) were 8·7 (95% CI 5·9–12·9) for Ad26.COV2-S vaccine, 21·5 (14·5–31·9) for BNT162b2, and 10·6 (7·2–15·6) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Live virus neutralising antibodies were also boosted against delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron variants (B.1.1.529). There were five serious adverse events. Three of which were considered possibly related to the vaccine received: one in the BNT162b2 group and two in the Ad26.COV2-S group. All participants recovered and were discharged home. Interpretation Antibody concentrations were low at 6 months after previous immunisation with two doses of CoronaVac. However, all four vaccines administered as a third dose induced a significant increase in binding and neutralising antibodies, which could improve protection against infection. Heterologous boosting resulted in more robust immune responses than homologous boosting and might enhance protection. Funding Ministry of Health, Brazil.

The trajectory of immune responses following the primary dose series determines the decline in vaccine effectiveness over time. Here we report on maintenance of immune responses during the year following a two-dose schedule of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/AZD1222, in the absence of infection, and also explore the decay of antibody after infection. Total spike-specific IgG antibody titres were lower with two low doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines (two low doses) (P = 0.0006) than with 2 standard doses (the approved dose) or low dose followed by standard dose vaccines regimens. Longer intervals between first and second doses resulted in higher antibody titres (P < 0.0001); however, there was no evidence that the trajectory of antibody decay differed by interval or by vaccine dose, and the decay of IgG antibody titres followed a similar trajectory after a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Trends in post-infection samples were similar with an initial rapid decay in responses but good persistence of measurable responses thereafter. Extrapolation of antibody data, following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19, demonstrates a slow rate of antibody decay with modelling, suggesting that antibody titres are well maintained for at least 2 years. These data suggest a persistent immune response after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 which will likely have a positive impact against serious disease and hospitalization.

Rabies kills around 60 000 people each year. ChAdOx2 RabG, a simian adenovirus-vectored rabies vaccine candidate, might have potential to provide low-cost single-dose pre-exposure rabies prophylaxis. This first-in-human study aimed to evaluate its safety and immunogenicity in healthy adults.We did a single-centre phase 1 study of ChAdOx2 RabG, administered as a single intramuscular dose, with non-randomised open-label dose escalation at the Centre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine, Oxford, UK. Healthy adults were sequentially allocated to groups receiving low (5 × 10Between Jan 2 and Oct 28, 2020, 12 adults received low (n=3), middle (n=3), and high doses (n=6) of ChAdOx2 RabG. Participants reported predominantly mild-to-moderate reactogenicity. There were no serious adverse events. Virus neutralising antibody concentrations exceeded the recognised correlate of protection (0·5 IU/mL) in three middle-dose recipients and six high-dose recipients within 56 days of vaccination (median 18·0 IU/mL). The median peak virus neutralising antibody concentrations within 56 days were 0·7 IU/mL (range 0·0-54·0 IU/mL) for the low-dose group, 18·0 IU/mL (0·7-18·0 IU/mL) for the middle-dose group, and 18·0 IU/mL (6·0-486·0 IU/mL) for the high-dose group. Nine participants returned for the additional follow-up after 1 year. Of these nine participants, virus neutralising antibody titres of more than 0·5 IU/mL were maintained in six of seven who had received middle-dose or high-dose ChAdOx2 RabG. Within 7 days of administration of the first dose of a licensed rabies vaccine, nine participants had virus neutralising antibody titres of more than 0·5 IU/mL.In this study, ChAdOx2 RabG showed an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and encouraging immunogenicity, supporting further clinical evaluation.UK Medical Research Council and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Introduction Dental general anaesthetic (DGA) remains one of the main modalities to deliver treatment to paediatric patients. The main central registry system which is used as a proxy measure of DGA provision is the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data on hospital admission of children for dental extractions. This database does not accurately reflect the number of DGAs as it omits non-hospital-based providers and the data includes treatment under sedation.Aims The aim is to describe the paediatric DGA service provision across England and determine type of provider (NHS Trusts or Community Dental Services [CDSs]), type of lists (extraction or comprehensive care) and the speciality planning the service.Methods Potential providers were identified using the provider-level analysis in HES database (for NHS trusts) and the NHS Business Services Authority and internet-based search engine (for CDS providers). All potential providers were contacted (n = 204) and provided with a pro forma to collect data.Results Response rate was 82% and 115 providers confirmed provision of paediatric DGA. These were mostly NHS trusts (72%). Not all providers appeared in the HES database (25%). Half of the providers provided separate lists for exodontia versus comprehensive care. Only 32% of the lists were planned by specialists in paediatric dentistry. All regions, apart from London, had some comprehensive care lists planned by non-paediatric dentists.Conclusion The results highlighted the inaccuracies in the HES, variation in service provision across England and the lack of paediatric speciality-led DGA services. Paediatric DGA needs to be better recorded and commissioned.

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.

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: 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.

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

This article examines how high performance buildings must be designed to dynamically respond to daylight to both achieve optimum energy efficiency and provide a comfortable environment for their occupants. Technology development's role and trends in building code requirements will be covered as well as future building designs.

Very little work has been done to evaluate memory spanning days, weeks, or even years; yet the ability to recall such remote events is obviously an important aspect of human memory. If some means of obtaining quantitative data on very long-term memory (VLTM) could be found, as has been done in numerous ways with short-term memory, much that is of both theoretical and clinical value might be learned. It is often stated that something learned is never forgotten, and that old people recall with crystal clarity events that occurred maybe thirty years ago, but fail to do the same for events of yesterday. If some standardized means of testing VLTM were available, one would have some means of verifying or of rejecting such statements and be able to study, for example, the effects of age on recall, the effect of the type of material involved, and the recall situation. In a clinical setting there is relevance to partial and total amnesic states, retrograde amnesia after head injury and electroconvulsive therapy (ЕСТ), hysterical amnesic states, and problems in distinguishing between generalized and focal impairments, especially if there is a discrepancy between verbal and visual memory. Thus it might be possible to investigate the effects of drugs, alcohol, etc., on amnesics or on the span of retrograde amnesia, or changes in transient global amnesia. There is ample anecdotal and circumstantial information on VLTM, which is of little use to the psychologist interested in some of the above matters. However, Bartlett (1932) studied memory for verbal material, in the form of short stories, for periods of up to ten years. The problem with this technique is that the original learning situation as well as the recall situation is experimental. Furthermore, it imposes severe limitations on the time span available for study and is impossible in a clinical situation. Smith (1963) has, in fact, measured memory for answers to the "Westminster Shorter Catechism" 20, 40, and 50 years after initial learning. This sort of study obviously depends on isolating one