Intranasal vaccination may induce protective local and systemic immune responses against respiratory pathogens. A number of intranasal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates have achieved protection in pre-clinical challenge models, including ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222, University of Oxford / AstraZeneca). We performed a single-centre open-label Phase I clinical trial of intranasal vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in healthy adults, using the existing formulation produced for intramuscular administration. Thirty SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-naïve participants were allocated to receive 5 × 10⁹ viral particles (VP, n=6), 2 × 10¹⁰ VP (n=12), or 5 × 10¹⁰ VP (n=12). Fourteen received second intranasal doses 28 days later. A further 12 received non-study intramuscular mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination between study days 22 and 46. To investigate intranasal ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 as a booster, six participants who had previously received two intramuscular doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and six who had received two intramuscular doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer / BioNTech) were given a single intranasal dose of 5 × 10¹⁰ VP of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Objectives were to assess safety (primary) and mucosal antibody responses (secondary). Reactogenicity was mild or moderate. Antigen-specific mucosal antibody responses to intranasal vaccination were detectable in a minority of participants, rarely exceeding levels seen after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Systemic responses to intranasal vaccination were typically weaker than after intramuscular vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Antigen-specific mucosal antibody was detectable in participants who received an intramuscular mRNA vaccine after intranasal vaccination. Seven participants developed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. This formulation of intranasal ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable tolerability profile but induced neither a consistent mucosal antibody response nor a strong systemic response. AstraZeneca.

Duration of protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection in people living with HIV (PWH) following vaccination is unclear. In a substudy of the phase II/III the COV002 trial (NCT04400838), 54 HIV ⁺ male participants on antiretroviral therapy (undetectable viral loads, CD4 ⁺ T cells > 350 cells/μL) received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) 4–6 weeks apart and were followed for 6 months. Responses to vaccination were determined by serology (IgG ELISA and Meso Scale Discovery [MSD]), neutralization, ACE-2 inhibition, IFN-γ ELISpot, activation-induced marker (AIM) assay and T cell proliferation. We show that, 6 months after vaccination, the majority of measurable immune responses were greater than prevaccination baseline but with evidence of a decline in both humoral and cell-mediated immunity. There was, however, no significant difference compared with a cohort of HIV-uninfected individuals vaccinated with the same regimen. Responses to the variants of concern were detectable, although they were lower than WT. Preexisting cross-reactive T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike were associated with greater postvaccine immunity and correlated with prior exposure to beta coronaviruses. These data support the ongoing policy to vaccinate PWH against SARS-CoV-2, and they underpin the need for long-term monitoring of responses after vaccination.

Background: A new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7, emerged as the dominant cause of COVID-19infection in the United Kingdom from November 2020 with a transmission advantage over the previous variants of the virus. Here we report efficacy of the adenoviral vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, against this variant in comparison with non-B.1.1.7 lineages. Methods: Volunteers enrolled in phase II/III vaccine efficacy studies in the United Kingdom and randomised 1:1 to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a MenACWY control vaccine, providedupper airway swabs every week during the trial and also if they developed possible symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Swabs were tested by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2, and positive samples were sequenced through the COVID-19Genomics UK consortium (COG UK). NAAT data were used to assess the duration ofdetectable viral RNA in diagnostic specimens and the viral load. Anti-spike IgG wasmeasured by ELISA at baseline, 14 and 28 days after prime and 28 days after boostervaccination. Neutralising antibody responses were measured using a live virus neutralisation assay against the B.1.1.7 and Victoria lineages of the virus. The efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a NAAT positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cut-off on Jan 14, 2021. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 − relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400838 and ISRCTN 15281137.5 Findings: Between 1st October 2020 and 14th January 2021, 499 participants developed Covid-19infection. 1524 NAAT positive nose/throat swabs were collected from these participants during the trial. Of these, 323 swabs from 256 participants were successfully sequenced.ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients had a significantly lower viral load as represented byminimum PCR Ct value (p<0.0001) and were NAAT positive for a shorter time (p<0.0001) than participants who received the control vaccine. Virus neutralisation activity by vaccineinduced antibodies was 9-fold lower against the B.1.1.7 variant than against a canonical non B.1.1.7 lineage. Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic NAAT positive infection was similar for B.1.1.7 and non-B1.1.7 lineages (74.6% [95%CI 41.6-88.9] and 84% [95% CI 70.7-91.4] respectively). There was no difference in anti-spike antibody titres between individuals who had received a prior ChAdOx1 vectored vaccine and those who were naïve to ChAdOx1. Interpretation: Efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2 is similar to the efficacy of the vaccine against other lineages. Furthermore, vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 results in a reduction in the duration of shedding and viral load, which may translate into a material impact on transmission of disease. Trial Registration Number: This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400838 and ISRCTN 15281137. Funding: The clinical trial was funded by UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR OxfordBiomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca. COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome SangerInstitute. Computational work was supported by the Wellcome Trust Core Award Grant Number 203141/Z/16/Z with funding from the NIHR Oxford BRC. Conflict 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 is cofounder of Vaccitech (collaborators in the early development of this vaccine candidate) and named as an inventor on a patent covering use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines (PCT/GB2012/000467) and a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. TL is named as an inventor on a patentapplication covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and was 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 and SNF are NIHR SeniorInvestigators. AVSH is a cofounder of and consultant to Vaccitech and is named as aninventor on a patent covering design and use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines(PCT/GB2012/000467). MDS reports grants from Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Medimmune,Novavax, and MCM Vaccine and grants and non-financial support from Pfizer outside of the submitted work. CG reports personal fees from the Duke Human Vaccine Institute outside of the submitted work. ADD reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work. SNF reports grants from Janssen and Valneva, outside the submitted work.TLV and JV are employees of AstraZeneca. All other authors declare no competing interests.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. Ethical Approval: The study was sponsored by the University of Oxford (Oxford, UK) and approved in the UK by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reference 21584/0428/001-0001 and the South-Central Berkshire Research Ethics Committee reference 20/SC/0179.

There are known differences in vaccine reactogenicity and immunogenicity by sex. Females have been shown to report greater reactogenicity and generate higher humoral and cellular immune responses than males following vaccination with several different vaccines. Whether this is also the case for COVID-19 vaccines is currently unknown, as COVID-19 vaccine study data disaggregated by sex are not routinely reported. Therefore, we have assessed the influence of sex on reactogenicity, immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Vaccine efficacy was assessed in 15169 volunteers enrolled into single-blind randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Brazil and the UK, with the primary endpoint defined as nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants were electronically randomised to receive two standard doses of vaccine or the control product. Logistic regression models were fitted to explore the effect of age and sex on reactogenicity, and linear models fitted to log-transformed values for immunogenicity data. Reactogenicity data were taken from self-reported diaries of 788 trial participants. Pseudovirus neutralisation assay data were available from 748 participants and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG assay data from 1543 participants. 7619 participants received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 7550 received the control. Vaccine efficacy in participants after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (4243 females and 3376 males) was 66.1% (95% CI 55.9-73.9%) in males and 59.9% (95% CI 49.8-67.9%) in females; with no evidence of a difference in efficacy between the sexes (vaccine by sex interaction term P=0.3359). A small, statistically significant difference in anti-spike IgG was observed (adjusted GMR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04-1.26), with higher titres in females than males, but there were no statistically significant differences in other immunological endpoints. Whilst the majority of individuals reported at least one systemic reaction following a first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, females were twice as likely as males to report any systemic reaction after a first dose (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.37-2.77). Measured fever of 38°C or above was reported in 5% of females and 1% of males following first doses. Headache and fatigue were the most commonly reported reactions in both sexes. Our results show that there is no evidence of difference in efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in males and females. Greater reactogenicity in females was not associated with any difference in vaccine efficacy. Studies were registered with ISRCTN 90906759 (COV002) and ISRCTN 89951424 (COV003) and follow-up is ongoing. Funding was received from the 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, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, the Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Brazil, and AstraZeneca.