Background The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4–12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. Methods We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials—one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)—and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 10 10 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 10 10 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). Findings Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more t...

No abstract

No abstract

Background Cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection continue to rise in the Arabian Peninsula 7 years after it was first described in Saudi Arabia. MERS-CoV poses a significant risk to public health security because of an absence of currently available effective countermeasures. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the candidate simian adenovirus-vectored vaccine expressing the full-length spike surface glycoprotein, ChAdOx1 MERS, in humans. MethodsThis dose-escalation, open-label, non-randomised, uncontrolled, phase 1 trial was done at the Centre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine (Oxford, UK) and included healthy people aged 18-50 years with negative pre-vaccination tests for HIV antibodies, hepatitis B surface antigen, and hepatitis C antibodies (and a negative urinary pregnancy test for women). Participants received a single intramuscular injection of ChAdOx1 MERS at three different doses: the low-dose group received 5 × 10⁹ viral particles, the intermediate-dose group received 2•5 × 10¹⁰ viral particles, and the high-dose group received 5 × 10¹⁰ viral particles. The primary objective was to assess safety and tolerability of ChAdOx1 MERS, measured by the occurrence of solicited, unsolicited, and serious adverse events after vaccination. The secondary objective was to assess the cellular and humoral immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 MERS, measured by interferon-γ-linked enzyme-linked immunospot, ELISA, and virus neutralising assays after vaccination. Participants were followed up for up to 12 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03399578. Findings Between March 14 and Aug 15, 2018, 24 participants were enrolled: six were assigned to the low-dose group, nine to the intermediate-dose group, and nine to the high-dose group. All participants were available for follow-up at 6 months, but five (one in the low-dose group, one in the intermediate-dose group, and three in the high-dose group) were lost to follow-up at 12 months. A single dose of ChAdOx1 MERS was safe at doses up to 5 × 10¹⁰ viral particles with no vaccine-related serious adverse events reported by 12 months. One serious adverse event reported was deemed to be not related to ChAdOx1 MERS. 92 (74% [95% CI 66-81]) of 124 solicited adverse events were mild, 31 (25% [18-33]) were moderate, and all were self-limiting. Unsolicited adverse events in the 28 days following vaccination considered to be possibly, probably, or definitely related to ChAdOx1 MERS were predominantly mild in nature and resolved within the follow-up period of 12 months. The proportion of moderate and severe adverse events was significantly higher in the high-dose group than in the intermediate-dose group (relative risk 5•83 [95% CI 2•11-17•42], p<0•0001) Laboratory adverse events considered to be at least possibly related to the study intervention were self-limiting and predominantly mild in severity. A significant increase from baseline in T-cell (p<0•003) and IgG (p<0•0001) responses to the MERS-CoV spike ant...

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 × 10 10 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 × 10 10 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 ...

Psychopathic individuals are often characterized as lacking a moral sense. Although this hypothesis has received ample experimental attention over the past decade, findings have been inconsistent. To elucidate the relationship between psychopathy and abnormal moral judgment, we conducted a meta-analysis of the research on psychopathy and morality-related variables (k = 23, N = 4376). A random effects model indicated a small but statistically significant relation between psychopathy and moral decision-making (rw = .16) and moral reasoning (r = .10) tasks. These results reveal at best modest support for the common perception that psychopathic individuals fail to understand moral principles. A secondary meta-analysis (k = 9, N = 4294) of the growing body of literature on the relationship between psychopathy and moral reasoning on moral foundations measures provides preliminary evidence that psychopathic individuals may possess a differential set of "moral taste buds" than less psychopathic individuals. We discuss the implications of the results from both meta-analyses for models of the etiology of psychopathy and the criminal responsibility of psychopathic individuals. (PsycINFO Database Record

Social distancing is currently the single most effective method to reduce the spread of COVID-19. As such, researchers across varying fields are rushing to identify variables that predict social distancing and which interventions can heighten social distancing. Yet, much of this research relies on self-report measures (in part because of social distancing guidelines themselves). In two studies we examine whether self-reported social distancing overlaps with real-world behavior. In Study 1, individuals’ self-reported social distancing predicted decreased movement as quantified by participants’ average daily step-counts (assessed via smartphone pedometers). For every increase of one in self-reported social distancing (z-scored), individuals’ daily steps decreased by approximately 21% (Exp(B) ~ .79). In Study 2, the degree of self-reported social distancing in different U.S. States predicted the degree to which people in those States reduced their overall movement and travel to non-essential retail as assessed by ~17 million smart-phone GPS coordinates (.34 &lt; rs &lt; .57). Collectively, our results indicate that self-report measures of social distancing track actual behavior both at the individual and at the group level.

No abstract