4.8 Article

Efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant

Journal

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 384, Issue 20, Pages 1885-1898

Publisher

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2102214

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [INV-017710]
  2. South African Medical Research Council [96167]
  3. U.K. Research and Innovation [MC_ PC_19055]
  4. U.K. National Institute for Health Research
  5. AstraZeneca
  6. South African Medical Research Council-University of Cape Town Centre for the Study of Antimicrobial Resistance [RFA-EMU-02-2017]
  7. European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) [TMA-2015SF-1043, TMA-1051-TESAII, TMA-2015CDF-1052]
  8. South African Medical Research Council Strategic Health Innovation Partnerships (SHIP) program
  9. South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology [98341]
  10. National Research Foundation
  11. Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health [R21TW011454]
  12. FLAIR fellowship program [FLR\R1\201782]
  13. University of Oxford
  14. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [INV-017710] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not provide significant protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 caused by the B.1.351 variant, with an efficacy of 10.4%. The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups.
BACKGROUND Assessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5x10(10) viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D614G virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose. RESULTS Between June 24 and November 9, 2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years); 1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], -49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (95.1% of 41 with sequencing data) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, -76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available