Back

The efficacy of vaccines in the context of COVID-19 and its variants: Role of Spatio-temporal boundary

Roy, D.; Chakravortty, D.; Basu, S.

2021-07-22 health policy
10.1101/2021.07.19.21260758 medRxiv
Show abstract

The preference for a COVID-19 vaccine, among many available, may be difficult for common people and normally relies on efficacy values reported from clinical trials. Vaccine efficacy depends on statistical data from primary and secondary endpoints of a trial. This study provides a time-varying mathematical framework that compares two vaccines of contrasting efficacy (Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca-Oxford) using hypothetical trials with real-world data. Modeling shows that efficacies can fluctuate depending on the prevailing infection rate and demographics. The efficacy of AstraZeneca-Oxford can become comparable and even better than Pfizer-BioNTech, depending on the region and time of the clinical trials. We also introduce an idea of composite efficacy considering multi-variants and show that the efficacy of various vaccines shows differential sensitivity to the delta variant rampant in India.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 7%
22.7%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Vaccines
○ 198 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.1%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 4%
10.1%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
4
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.7%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Vaccine
○ 203 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.3%
Similar papers in this journal
6
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.0%
7
Cureus
○ 68 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.9%
8
Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering
● 23 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.2%
10
COVID
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.2%
11
JMIRx Med
◐ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.8%
12
Frontiers in Medicine
○ 120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
13
Mathematical Biosciences
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
14
BMC Medical Education
○ 21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
15
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.9%
16
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
○ 92 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
17
Infectious Disease Modelling
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
BMC Cancer
○ 67 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Immunology
○ 638 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
20
Healthcare
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
21
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.5%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.