A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D’Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Background: Epidemiological and clinical data of human coronaviruses (HCoVs) infections are restricted to span 1–3 years at most. We conducted a comprehensive 9‐year study on HCoVs by analyzing 1137 respiratory samples from four subsets of patients (asymptomatic, general community, with comorbidities, and hospitalized) in São Paulo, Brazil.Methods: A pan‐coronavirus RT‐PCR screening assay was performed, followed by species‐specific real‐time RT‐PCR monoplex assays.Results: Human coronaviruses were detected in 88 of 1137 (7.7%) of the samples. The most frequently detected HCoV species were NL63 (50.0%) and OC43 (27.3%). Patients with comorbidities presented the highest risk of acquiring coronavirus infection (odds ratio = 4.17; 95% confidence interval = 1.9–9.3), and children with heart diseases revealed a significant HCoV infection presence. Dyspnea was more associated with HCoV‐229E infections (66.6%), and cyanosis was reported only in HCoV‐OC43 infections. There were interseasonal differences in the detection frequencies, with HCoV‐229E being predominant in the year 2004 (61.5%) and HCoV‐NL63 (70.8%) in 2008.Conclusions: Our data provide a novel insight into the epidemiology and clinical knowledge of HCoVs among different subsets of patients, revealing that these viruses may cause more than mild respiratory tract disease.

Influenza‐like illness (ILI) definitions have been used worldwide for influenza surveillance. These different case definitions can vary with regard to sensitivity and predictive values for laboratory confirmed influenza. The literature has indicated the inclusion of other viruses may be the cause of these variable results. The objective of the study was to evaluate ILI national sentinel criteria and viral etiologies in adults diagnosed with acute respiratory infection (ARI) and/or ILI from 2001 to 2003 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Clinical and laboratory evaluations were observed from 420 adults and collected on a daily basis from outpatient care units at University Hospital. The ILI definition included: fever plus at least one respiratory symptom (cough and/or sore throat) and one constitutional symptom (headache, malaise, myalgia, sweat or chills, or fatigue). DFA and RT‐PCR for influenza, parainfluenza, respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus, enterovirus, coronavirus, rhinovirus, and metapneumovirus were performed on nasal washes and 61.8% resulted positive. The respiratory viruses detected most often were influenza and rhinovirus. ILI was reported for 240/420 patients (57.1%), with influenza and rhinovirus etiologies accounting for 30.9% and 19.6%, respectively. Rhinovirus peak activity was concurrent with the influenza season. These findings highlight the implications of other viruses in ILI etiology and suggest that during the influenza season, this clinical overlap must be considered in the diagnosis and clinical management of patients. J. Med. Virol. 80:1824–1827, 2008.

There is no proven prognostic marker for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from March 14, 2020 to June 17, 2020, at São Paulo Hospital, in São Paulo, Brazil. SARS-CoV-2 viral load was assessed using the cycle threshold (Ct) values obtained from a reverse transcription–PCR assay applied to the nasopharyngeal swab samples. The reactions were performed following the CDC U.S. protocol targeting the N1 and N2 sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein gene and human ribonuclease P gene serving as an endogenous control. Disease severity and patient outcomes were compared. Among 875 patients, 50.1% (439/875) were categorized as having mild disease (nonhospitalized patients), 30.4% (266/875) moderate (hospitalized in the ward), and 19.5% (170/875) severe disease (admitted to the intensive care unit). A Ct value of < 25 (472/875) indicated a high viral load, which was independently associated with mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.87–4.60; P < 0.0001). We concluded that admission SARS-CoV-2 viral load was independently associated with mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Background: The respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is recognized as an important cause of respiratory tract infections. Immunocompromised patients, healthcare workers (HCWs) and children contacts are at increased risk of acquiring the infection. However, the impact of asymptomatic infection in transmission has not been well studied. Objectives: this study evaluated the frequency and viral load (VL) of RSV in nasal swab samples of individuals with different risk factors for acquiring infection in a university hospital in Sao Paulo, Brazil.Methods: We included 196 symptomatic children and their 192 asymptomatic caregivers, 70 symptomatic and 95 asymptomatic HCWs, 43 samples from symptomatic HIV‐positive outpatients, and 100 samples of asymptomatic HIV patients in the period of 2009‐2013.Results: RSV infection was detected in 10.1% (70/696) of samples, 4.4% (17/387) of asymptomatic patients, and 17.1% (53/309) from symptomatic patients. (P < .0001). The VL of symptomatic patients (4.7 log copies/mL) was significantly higher compared to asymptomatic patients (2.3 log copies/mL). RSV detection among asymptomatic caregivers (6.8%; 13/192) was significantly higher compared to other asymptomatic adults, HIV and HCWs (2.0%; 4/195; P = .0252). A close contact with an infected child at home was an important risk to RSV acquisition [OR 22.6 (95% CI 4.8‐106.7)]. Children who possibly transmitted the virus to their asymptomatic contacts had significantly higher viral load than children who probably did not transmit (P < .0001).Conclusions: According to our results, it is important to know if people circulating inside the hospital have close contact with acute respiratory infected children.

Influenza vaccination of elderly people is efficacious and cost effective for the prevention of influenza and its complications. Some studies have pointed out low immunogenicity in this group. Health status has been poorly investigated as a risk factor that may influence the immune response to influenza vaccine. We established an immunization response study of a highly-matched elderly population in a nursing home. One-hundred-twenty subjects of Ashkenazian origin had their vaccine-induced antibody response assessed. Good response was obtained in 30.8% (37/120), and 31.7% (38/120) did not react. A lack of good response was found to be associated with dementia (P=0.016) in a multivariate analysis. In addition to dementia, malnutrition was frequently observed among poor responders, suggesting that these factors should be considered in vaccination studies. Chemoprophylaxis in addition to vaccination for elderly presenting dementia should be considered, particularly for those people living nursing homes.