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...

Background Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is a relatively common form of primary systemic vasculitis, which, if left untreated, can lead to permanent sight loss. We compared ultrasound as an alternative diagnostic test with temporal artery biopsy, which may be negative in 9–61% of true cases. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound with biopsy in diagnosing patients with suspected GCA. Design Prospective multicentre cohort study. Setting Secondary care. Participants A total of 381 patients referred with newly suspected GCA. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound compared with biopsy or ultrasound combined with biopsy for diagnosing GCA and interobserver reliability in interpreting scan or biopsy findings. Results We developed and implemented an ultrasound training programme for diagnosing suspected GCA. We recruited 430 patients with suspected GCA. We analysed 381 patients who underwent both ultrasound and biopsy within 10 days of starting treatment for suspected GCA and who attended a follow-up assessment (median age 71.1 years; 72% female). The sensitivity of biopsy was 39% [95% confidence interval (CI) 33% to 46%], which was significantly lower than previously reported and inferior to ultrasound (54%, 95% CI 48% to 60%); the specificity of biopsy (100%, 95% CI 97% to 100%) was superior to ultrasound (81%, 95% CI 73% to 88%). If we scanned all suspected patients and performed biopsies only on negative cases, sensitivity increased to 65% and specificity was maintained at 81%, reducing the need for biopsies by 43%. Strategies combining clinical judgement (clinician’s assessment at 2 weeks) with the tests showed sensitivity and specificity of 91% and 81%, respectively, for biopsy and 93% and 77%, respectively, for ultrasound; cost-effectiveness (incremental net monetary benefit) was £485 per patient in favour of ultrasound with both cost savings and a small health gain. Inter-rater analysis revealed moderate agreement among sonographers (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75), similar to pathologists (0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.76). Limitations There is no independent gold standard diagnosis for GCA. The reference diagnosis used to determine accuracy was based on classification criteria for GCA that include clinical features at presentation and biopsy results. Conclusion We have demonstrated the feasibility of providing training in ultrasound for the diagnosis of GCA. Our results indicate better sensitivity but poorer specificity of ultrasound compared with biopsy and suggest some scope for reducing the role of biopsy. The moderate interobserver agreement for both ultrasound and biopsy indicates scope for improving assessment and reporting of test results and challenges the assumption that a positive biopsy always represents GCA. Future work Further research should address the issue of an independent reference diagnosis, standards for interpreting and reporting test results and the evaluation of ultrasound training, and should also explore the acceptability of these new diagnostic strategies in GCA. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

ObjectivesWe describe treatment failure rates by antibiotic duration for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) managed with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR).MethodsWe retrospectively collected data from all the cases of PJI that were managed with DAIR over a 5 year period. Surgical debridement, microbiological sampling, early intravenous antibiotics and prolonged oral follow-on antibiotics were used.ResultsOne hundred and twelve cases of PJI were identified. Twenty infections (18%) recurred during a mean follow-up of 2.3 years. The mean duration of antibiotic use was 1.5 years. Failure was more common after arthroscopic debridement, for previously revised joints and for Staphylococcus aureus infection. There were 12 failures after stopping antibiotics and 8 while on antibiotics [hazard ratio (HR) = 4.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4–12.8, P = 0.01]. However, during the first 3 months of follow-up, there were eight failures after stopping antibiotics and two while on antibiotics (HR = 7.0, 95% CI 1.5–33, P = 0.015). The duration of antibiotic therapy prior to stopping did not predict outcome.ConclusionsPJI may be managed by DAIR. The risk of failure with this strategy rises after stopping oral antibiotics, but lengthening antibiotic therapy may simply postpone, rather than prevent, failure.

No abstract