ChatterBank2 mins ago
Gmails Won't Send
I frequently get an error message when trying to send a Gmail, specially if it's replying to one:
"Oops... a server error occurred and your email was not sent. (#007)"
Just over the last month or so, and apparently at random. It won't save these emails as drafts, either.
Anyone know what's happening, or what I might do about it? (I have Hotmail and other email accounts but would prefer to use Gmail.)
"Oops... a server error occurred and your email was not sent. (#007)"
Just over the last month or so, and apparently at random. It won't save these emails as drafts, either.
Anyone know what's happening, or what I might do about it? (I have Hotmail and other email accounts but would prefer to use Gmail.)
Answers
There are various suggestions here, including: (a) simply log out of Gmail and log back in again ; (b) clear the cache and cookies from your browser ; and (c) if you're using Internet Explorer, use a different browser https://prod
23:01 Fri 31st Mar 2017
Here's what the BMJ says https:/
the Infectious disease advisor says this
SKIP TO NAVIGATIONSKIP TO MAIN CONTENT
Infectious Disease Advisor
EMERGING DISEASES
GI ILLNESS
HEPATITIS
HIV/AIDS
NOSOCOMIAL INFECTIONS
GENITOURINARY
RESPIRATORY
MORE
Toggle Search Menu
COVID-19
NEWS
CME
DRUGS
CALCULATORS
RESOURCES
MULTIMEDIA
MEETINGS
JOBS
LOGINREGISTER
Home » Topics » COVID19
Publish Date February 17, 2021
Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine: New Study Results, Variant Coverage Update, Where Do We Stand?
Jessica Nye, PhD
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Reddit
Print
Share by Email
The high efficacy and satisfactory safety profile of the ChAdOx1 vaccine coupled with its low cost and simplified storage requirements make this vaccine a promising candidate.
The recombinant adenovirus vector vaccine, ChAdOx1, against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was found to be safe and efficacious during 4 blinded, randomized, controlled trials conducted in the United Kingdom (UK), Brazil, and South Africa. The result were published in The Lancet.1
The ChAdOx1 vaccine was produced by a collaboration between AstraZeneca and Oxford University as a not-for-profit product aiming for the equitable supply for low- and middle-income countries. It was developed on the basis of existing vaccine technology and may easily be incorporated into the established vaccine distribution networks without requiring specialized storage equipment needed by the 2 new mRNA vaccines recently distributed by Pfizer and Moderna.2,3 mRNA vaccines will also be priced significantly higher compared to the ChAdOx1 vaccine.4
“Just think about the expense to the WHO of purchasing, shipping, and distributing the mRNA vaccines,” Dr Maria Knoll, senior scientist at the Global Disease Epidemiology and Control division at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and coauthor of a commentary published alongside this interim analysis.4 “With this less expensive vaccine, we can devote our financial and mental resources to solving some other problem and not that one.”
ChAdOx1 Clinical Trial Design
Today’s Top Picks for You on Infectious Disease Advisor
EU Regulator Approves Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine Promising Against SARS-CoV-2 in Older Adults
ACIP Updates Recommendation on COVID-19 Vaccine Intervals
CONTINUE READING
South Africa
Phase 1/2 trial; single-blind
2096 participants with or without HIV aged 18 to 65
Treatment group: Half-dose (unspecified viral particles)) followed by standard dose (3.5-6.5×10¹⁰ viral particles); 2 standard doses (3.5-6.5×10¹⁰ viral particles)
Control group: unspecified
United Kingdom
Phase 1/2 trial; single-blind
1077 participants aged 18 to 55 years
Treatment group: 2 standard doses (5×10¹⁰ viral particles)
Control group: meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine
United Kingdom
Phase 2/3 trial
10,673 participants aged 18 years or older; priority for high-exposure professions
Treatment group: low-dose (2.2×10¹⁰ viral particles) followed by standard dose (5×10¹⁰ viral particles); 2 standard doses (5×10¹⁰ viral particles)
Control group: meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine
Brazil
Phase 3, single-blinded
10,002 participants aged 18 or older; priority for high-exposure professions
Treatment group: 2 doses (3.5-6.5×10¹⁰ viral particles), unspecified if standard or half-dose
Control group: meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine
All trials aimed to administer the second dose at 4 weeks, but some participants received theirs as distant as 12 weeks.
Results
Across the 4 trials (N=11,636), 5807 participants received 2 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and 5829 participants received placebo.
Among participants who received 2 doses of active vaccine, the overall vaccine efficacy was 70.4% (95% CI, 54.8%-80.6%). Stratified by dose, 2 standard doses had an efficacy of 62.1% (95% CI
the Infectious disease advisor says this
SKIP TO NAVIGATIONSKIP TO MAIN CONTENT
Infectious Disease Advisor
EMERGING DISEASES
GI ILLNESS
HEPATITIS
HIV/AIDS
NOSOCOMIAL INFECTIONS
GENITOURINARY
RESPIRATORY
MORE
Toggle Search Menu
COVID-19
NEWS
CME
DRUGS
CALCULATORS
RESOURCES
MULTIMEDIA
MEETINGS
JOBS
LOGINREGISTER
Home » Topics » COVID19
Publish Date February 17, 2021
Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine: New Study Results, Variant Coverage Update, Where Do We Stand?
Jessica Nye, PhD
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Reddit
Share by Email
The high efficacy and satisfactory safety profile of the ChAdOx1 vaccine coupled with its low cost and simplified storage requirements make this vaccine a promising candidate.
The recombinant adenovirus vector vaccine, ChAdOx1, against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was found to be safe and efficacious during 4 blinded, randomized, controlled trials conducted in the United Kingdom (UK), Brazil, and South Africa. The result were published in The Lancet.1
The ChAdOx1 vaccine was produced by a collaboration between AstraZeneca and Oxford University as a not-for-profit product aiming for the equitable supply for low- and middle-income countries. It was developed on the basis of existing vaccine technology and may easily be incorporated into the established vaccine distribution networks without requiring specialized storage equipment needed by the 2 new mRNA vaccines recently distributed by Pfizer and Moderna.2,3 mRNA vaccines will also be priced significantly higher compared to the ChAdOx1 vaccine.4
“Just think about the expense to the WHO of purchasing, shipping, and distributing the mRNA vaccines,” Dr Maria Knoll, senior scientist at the Global Disease Epidemiology and Control division at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and coauthor of a commentary published alongside this interim analysis.4 “With this less expensive vaccine, we can devote our financial and mental resources to solving some other problem and not that one.”
ChAdOx1 Clinical Trial Design
Today’s Top Picks for You on Infectious Disease Advisor
EU Regulator Approves Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine Promising Against SARS-CoV-2 in Older Adults
ACIP Updates Recommendation on COVID-19 Vaccine Intervals
CONTINUE READING
South Africa
Phase 1/2 trial; single-blind
2096 participants with or without HIV aged 18 to 65
Treatment group: Half-dose (unspecified viral particles)) followed by standard dose (3.5-6.5×10¹⁰ viral particles); 2 standard doses (3.5-6.5×10¹⁰ viral particles)
Control group: unspecified
United Kingdom
Phase 1/2 trial; single-blind
1077 participants aged 18 to 55 years
Treatment group: 2 standard doses (5×10¹⁰ viral particles)
Control group: meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine
United Kingdom
Phase 2/3 trial
10,673 participants aged 18 years or older; priority for high-exposure professions
Treatment group: low-dose (2.2×10¹⁰ viral particles) followed by standard dose (5×10¹⁰ viral particles); 2 standard doses (5×10¹⁰ viral particles)
Control group: meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine
Brazil
Phase 3, single-blinded
10,002 participants aged 18 or older; priority for high-exposure professions
Treatment group: 2 doses (3.5-6.5×10¹⁰ viral particles), unspecified if standard or half-dose
Control group: meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine
All trials aimed to administer the second dose at 4 weeks, but some participants received theirs as distant as 12 weeks.
Results
Across the 4 trials (N=11,636), 5807 participants received 2 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and 5829 participants received placebo.
Among participants who received 2 doses of active vaccine, the overall vaccine efficacy was 70.4% (95% CI, 54.8%-80.6%). Stratified by dose, 2 standard doses had an efficacy of 62.1% (95% CI
second half
Results
Across the 4 trials (N=11,636), 5807 participants received 2 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and 5829 participants received placebo.
Among participants who received 2 doses of active vaccine, the overall vaccine efficacy was 70.4% (95% CI, 54.8%-80.6%). Stratified by dose, 2 standard doses had an efficacy of 62.1% (95% CI, 41.0%-75.7%), and low-dose followed by standard-dose had an efficacy of 90.0% (95% CI, 67.4%-97.0%).
By day 21 after receiving the first dose of active vaccine, a total of 10 participants were admitted to the hospital for SARS-CoV-2. All of these participants received the control, indicating a high efficacy for protection against severe illness.
The phase 2/3 trial conducted in the United Kingdom was designed to assess the possibility of asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 through vaccinated individuals. Each participant self-administered nose or throat swabs every week. Asymptomatic infections were detected among 29 participants (0.9%) in the vaccine group and 40 participants (1.2%) in the control group, indicating an efficacy of 27.3% (95% CI, -17.2% to 54.9%) against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2.
Serious adverse events were observed among 79 participants in the vaccine group and 89 participants in the control group. Serious events determined to be possibly related with ChAdOx1 included hemolytic anemia, transverse myelitis, and fever over 40°C.
Implications for Public Health
Compared with recently published interim results from other vaccine products, the efficacy rates of ChAdOx1 were lower than the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, produced by Pfizer and BioNTech (95%; 95% CI, 90.3%-97.6%) or mRNA-1273, produced by Moderna (94.1%; 95% CI, 89.3%-96.8%).2,3 It was, however, more comparable with the other adenovirus vector vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S, from Johnson & Johnson which reported T-cell responses among over 60% of participants.5
When asked about how important the differences in efficacy are among these vaccine products, Dr. Knoll emphasized that “these differences have little public health consequences – meaning they’re all good enough. The smallpox vaccine, for example, was only 80% effective, and we eliminated smallpox. They don’t have to be perfect for them to be effective.”
With several effective vaccine options available, after ensuring wide distribution of these products, perhaps the next important step is to assess performance against new coronavirus variants. “We should expect many new variants to be identified during 2021,” commented Stephen Rouse, Head of University Communications at Oxford University. “The University of Oxford is carefully assessing the impact of new variants on vaccine immunity and evaluating the processes needed for rapid development of adjusted COVID-19 vaccines if these should be necessary.”
Variant Coverage
In light of new concerns surrounding variants, the Oxford Vaccine Group has submitted a study to the Lancet, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. This preprint, an analysis on the efficacy of ChAdOx1 on variant B.1.1.7, was posted on February 4, 2021.6
Study authors concluded that the “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.”
Wits Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit, which runs the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine trial in South Africa, also submitted a preprint for peer-review publication. This preprint, an analysis on the vaccine’s efficacy against variant B.1.351, was posted in early February, 2021, and a summary of trial results was published by the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, on February 7, 2021.7
Investigators concluded that “a 2-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine provides minimal protection against mild-moderate COVID-19 infection from the B.1.351 coronavirus variant.”
Results
Across the 4 trials (N=11,636), 5807 participants received 2 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and 5829 participants received placebo.
Among participants who received 2 doses of active vaccine, the overall vaccine efficacy was 70.4% (95% CI, 54.8%-80.6%). Stratified by dose, 2 standard doses had an efficacy of 62.1% (95% CI, 41.0%-75.7%), and low-dose followed by standard-dose had an efficacy of 90.0% (95% CI, 67.4%-97.0%).
By day 21 after receiving the first dose of active vaccine, a total of 10 participants were admitted to the hospital for SARS-CoV-2. All of these participants received the control, indicating a high efficacy for protection against severe illness.
The phase 2/3 trial conducted in the United Kingdom was designed to assess the possibility of asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 through vaccinated individuals. Each participant self-administered nose or throat swabs every week. Asymptomatic infections were detected among 29 participants (0.9%) in the vaccine group and 40 participants (1.2%) in the control group, indicating an efficacy of 27.3% (95% CI, -17.2% to 54.9%) against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2.
Serious adverse events were observed among 79 participants in the vaccine group and 89 participants in the control group. Serious events determined to be possibly related with ChAdOx1 included hemolytic anemia, transverse myelitis, and fever over 40°C.
Implications for Public Health
Compared with recently published interim results from other vaccine products, the efficacy rates of ChAdOx1 were lower than the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, produced by Pfizer and BioNTech (95%; 95% CI, 90.3%-97.6%) or mRNA-1273, produced by Moderna (94.1%; 95% CI, 89.3%-96.8%).2,3 It was, however, more comparable with the other adenovirus vector vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S, from Johnson & Johnson which reported T-cell responses among over 60% of participants.5
When asked about how important the differences in efficacy are among these vaccine products, Dr. Knoll emphasized that “these differences have little public health consequences – meaning they’re all good enough. The smallpox vaccine, for example, was only 80% effective, and we eliminated smallpox. They don’t have to be perfect for them to be effective.”
With several effective vaccine options available, after ensuring wide distribution of these products, perhaps the next important step is to assess performance against new coronavirus variants. “We should expect many new variants to be identified during 2021,” commented Stephen Rouse, Head of University Communications at Oxford University. “The University of Oxford is carefully assessing the impact of new variants on vaccine immunity and evaluating the processes needed for rapid development of adjusted COVID-19 vaccines if these should be necessary.”
Variant Coverage
In light of new concerns surrounding variants, the Oxford Vaccine Group has submitted a study to the Lancet, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. This preprint, an analysis on the efficacy of ChAdOx1 on variant B.1.1.7, was posted on February 4, 2021.6
Study authors concluded that the “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.”
Wits Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit, which runs the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine trial in South Africa, also submitted a preprint for peer-review publication. This preprint, an analysis on the vaccine’s efficacy against variant B.1.351, was posted in early February, 2021, and a summary of trial results was published by the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, on February 7, 2021.7
Investigators concluded that “a 2-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine provides minimal protection against mild-moderate COVID-19 infection from the B.1.351 coronavirus variant.”
yes that's all we can do. At least we know we are in more or less fair queues. A mate of mine in NY says its a bit of a free for all over there. She was trying to get vaccine for her mum and people are setting up texting groups to share which pharmacies have got vaccine....and that's on a dose by dose basis, no guarantee of a second one :(
Jno here's the beeb news
seems like both are well worth having.
https:/
seems like both are well worth having.
https:/
that looks good, woofgang, especially the AZ stats, which look better than the BMR report (thank you for that).
But I wonder how you differentiate between the two vaccines? You can look at a group of vaccinated and non-vaccinated people and say there are fewer of the former getting sick. But how do you compile a list of not-vaccinated-with-Pfizer to compare with not-vaccinated-with-AZ?
But I wonder how you differentiate between the two vaccines? You can look at a group of vaccinated and non-vaccinated people and say there are fewer of the former getting sick. But how do you compile a list of not-vaccinated-with-Pfizer to compare with not-vaccinated-with-AZ?
oh I see what you mean Jno....... people are asked to sign up to research and given by double blind either a vaccine or a placebo so in every test you have eg 2000 (easy number to divide) of which 1000 get vaccine and 1000 get placebo. Everyone gets tested regularly and when they test postive or show antibodies they are added up. At the end you look at how many of each group got ill and how ill. and you can then say vaccinated and got ill/hospitalised/died=xxx non vaccinated yadda yadda yadda=yyy. Now somewhere else another research group is doing the same with a different vaccine....and that's how you know. If the research works as it should then the unvaccinated in both research cohorts will show broadly the same results.
I think Woofy is the only one who talks any sense about it all.
Let's hope you get your jab soon Neti.We can't have Impfneid:)
This article is hilarious
https:/
I just want April to come round and hairdressers reopen . I look as if I've been pulled through a hedge backwards but am still erring on the side of caution re the easing of restrictions. We'll have to wait and see then we won't be disappointed if things don't pan out as expected I suppose.
Hope you're all ok.
Let's hope you get your jab soon Neti.We can't have Impfneid:)
This article is hilarious
https:/
I just want April to come round and hairdressers reopen . I look as if I've been pulled through a hedge backwards but am still erring on the side of caution re the easing of restrictions. We'll have to wait and see then we won't be disappointed if things don't pan out as expected I suppose.
Hope you're all ok.
right, OH has had two blood transfusions. Next Monday, an iron one; chemo has been postponed to accommodate these. I see the dentist tomorrow, probably to have a tooth out but I'm not sure which one yet, and an ophthalmology appointment on Saturday, and I have no recollection what that's for but I've probably got notes on it somewhere.
And these are the highlights of our lives at the moment, about the only time we even leave the house. How our horizons have shrunk!
And these are the highlights of our lives at the moment, about the only time we even leave the house. How our horizons have shrunk!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Car Won't Start, But Rac Can't Find...
Motoring12 mins ago
What’s On Tv £100 Crossword...
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Technology25 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.