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 diagnosis of pleural tuberculosis (TB) is problematic. The comparative performance of newer same-day tools for pleural TB, including Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (ULTRA), has hitherto not been comprehensively studied. Adenosine deaminase (ADA), IRISA-TB (interferon gamma ultrasensitive rapid immunosuspension assay), Xpert MTB/RIF, and ULTRA performance outcomes were evaluated in pleural fluid samples from 149 patients with suspected pleural TB. The reference standard was culture positivity (fluid, biopsy specimen, or sputum) and/or pleural biopsy histopathology (termed definite TB). Those designated as having non-TB were negative by microbiological testing and were not initiated on anti-TB treatment. To determine the effect of sample concentration, 65 samples underwent pelleting by centrifugation, followed by conventional Xpert MTB/RIF and ULTRA. Of the 149 patients, 49 had definite TB, 16 had probable TB (not definite but treated for TB), and 84 had non-TB. ULTRA sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence intervals [CI]) were similar to those of Xpert MTB/RIF [sensitivity, 37.5% (25.3 to 51.2) versus 28.6% (15.9 to 41.2), respectively; specificity, 98.8% (96.5 to 100) versus 98.8% (96.5 to 100), respectively]. Centrifugation did not significantly improve ULTRA sensitivity (29.5% versus 31.3%, respectively). Adenosine deaminase and IRISA-TB sensitivity were 84.4% (73.9 to 95.0) and 89.8% (81.3 to 98.3), respectively. However, IRISA-TB demonstrated significantly better specificity (96.4% versus 87.5% [P = 0.034]), positive predictive value (93.6% versus 80.9 [P = 0.028]), and positive likelihood ratio (25.1 versus 6.8 [P = 0.032]) than ADA. In summary, Xpert ULTRA has poor sensitivity for the diagnosis of pleural TB. Alternative assays (ADA and IRISA-TB) are significantly more sensitive, with IRISA-TB demonstrating a higher specificity and rule-in value than ADA in this high-TB-burden setting where HIV is endemic.

No abstract

Background: There are limited data about Xpert-Ultra performance in different settings, in HIV-infected persons, in those with a history of previous TB, and with trace readouts. Methods: We evaluated the relative accuracy of Xpert-MTB/RIF and Xpert-Ultra in 272 selected but wellcharacterized archived sputum samples. Of these, 168 were culture-positive (64/168 smear-positive and 104/168 smear-negative), and 104 were culture-negative (102/104 from patients with previous TB and 2/ 104 from patients without a TB history). Assay-specific limit-of-detection (LOD) experiments were conducted using serial dilutions of Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv. Results: Overall sensitivity (95%CI) in smear-negative culture-positive samples for Xpert-MTB/RIF and Xpert-Ultra were 71.2% (62.5-79.9) and 77% (68.9-85.1), respectively (and in HIV-infected persons: 63.5% (50-76.1) and 73.1% (61.1-85.2), respectively). The LOD for Xpert-Ultra was lower (9 versus 184 CFU/ml). There were a total of 9/272 (3.3%) Xpert Ultra trace readouts (6/104 [5.8%]) in smear-negative culturepositive persons, and 3/102 (3%) in culture-negative non-TB persons with a history of previous TB). Conclusions: Xpert-Ultra had a lower LOD compared to Xpert-MTB/RIF. A small proportion of samples (<5%) from culture-negative patients but with a history of previous TB had a likely false-positive trace readout. These data inform the management of patients with suspected TB in endemic settings.