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...

The novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused more than 1 million deaths in the first 6 months of the pandemic and huge economic and social upheaval internationally. An efficacious vaccine is essential to prevent further morbidity and mortality. Although some countries might deploy COVID-19 vaccines on the strength of safety and immunogenicity data alone, the goal of vaccine development is to gain direct evidence of vaccine efficacy in protecting humans against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 so that manufacture of efficacious vaccines can be selectively upscaled. A candidate vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 might act against infection, disease, or transmission, and a vaccine capable of reducing any of these elements could contribute to disease control. However, the most important efficacy endpoint, protection against severe disease and death, is difficult to assess in phase 3 clinical trials. In this Review, we explore the challenges in assessing the efficacy of candidate SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, discuss the caveats needed to interpret reported efficacy endpoints, and provide insight into answering the seemingly simple question, “Does this COVID-19 vaccine work?”

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

all at affiliation 2); Miles W. Carroll (at affiliation 7); and Annina Schmid (at affiliation 9). Also, two author names (Rachel Varughes and Gary Mallett) were incorrect; the correct names are 'Rachel Varughese' and 'Garry Mallett' (respectively). The errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

No abstract