Back

Quantifying the impact of delaying the second COVID-19 vaccine dose in England: a mathematical modelling study

Imai, N.; Rawson, T.; Knock, E. S.; Sonabend, R.; Elmaci, Y.; Perez-Guzman, P. N.; Whittles, L. K.; Thekke Kanapram, D.; Gaythorpe, K. A.; Hinsley, W.; Djaafara, B. A.; Wang, H.; Fraser, K.; FitzJohn, R. G.; Hogan, A. B.; Doohan, P.; Ghani, A. C.; Ferguson, N. M.; Baguelin, M.; Cori, A.

2022-08-09 epidemiology
10.1101/2022.08.08.22278528 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe UK was the first country to start national COVID-19 vaccination programmes, initially administering doses 3-weeks apart. However, early evidence of high vaccine effectiveness after the first dose and the emergence of the Alpha variant prompted the UK to extend the interval between doses to 12-weeks. In this study, we quantify the impact of delaying the second vaccine dose on the epidemic in England. MethodsWe used a previously described model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and calibrated the model to English surveillance data including hospital admissions, hospital occupancy, seroprevalence data, and population-level PCR testing data using a Bayesian evidence synthesis framework. We modelled and compared the epidemic trajectory assuming that vaccine doses were administered 3-weeks apart against the real vaccine roll-out schedule. We estimated and compared the resulting number of daily infections, hospital admissions, and deaths. A range of scenarios spanning a range of vaccine effectiveness and waning assumptions were investigated. FindingsWe estimate that delaying the interval between the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses from 3- to 12-weeks prevented an average 64,000 COVID-19 hospital admissions and 9,400 deaths between 8th December 2020 and 13th September 2021. Similarly, we estimate that the 3-week strategy would have resulted in more infections and deaths compared to the 12-week strategy. Across all sensitivity analyses the 3-week strategy resulted in a greater number of hospital admissions. InterpretationEnglands delayed second dose vaccination strategy was informed by early real-world vaccine effectiveness data and a careful assessment of the trade-offs in the context of limited vaccine supplies in a growing epidemic. Our study shows that rapidly providing partial vaccine-induced protection to a larger proportion of the population was successful in reducing the burden of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths. There is benefit in carefully considering and adapting guidelines in light of new emerging evidence and the population in question. FundingNational Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Jameel Institute, Wellcome Trust, and UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, National Health and Medical Research Council. Research in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed up to 10th June 2022, with no language restrictions using the following search terms: (COVID-19) AND (vaccin*) AND (dose OR dosing) AND (delay OR interval) AND (quant* OR assess* OR impact). We found 14 studies that explored the impact of different vaccine dosing intervals. However, the majority were prospective assessments of optimal vaccination strategies, exploring different trade-offs between vaccine mode of action, vaccine effectiveness, coverage, and availability. Only two studies retrospectively assessed the impact of different vaccination intervals. One assessed the optimal timing during the epidemic to switch to an extended dosing interval, and the other assessed the risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalisations between the two dosing groups. Added value of this studyOur data synthesis approach combines real-world evidence from multiple data sources to retrospectively quantify the impact of extending the COVID-19 vaccine dosing interval from the manufacturer recommended 3-weeks to 12-weeks in England. Implications of all the available evidenceOur study demonstrates that rapidly providing partial vaccine-induced protection to a larger proportion of the population was successful in reducing the COVID-19 hospitalisations and mortality. This was enabled by rapid and careful monitoring of vaccine effectiveness as nationwide vaccine programmes were initiated, and adaptation of guidelines in light of emerging evidence.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.3%
2
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
3
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
4
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 30%
6.2%
5
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.8%
7
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
8
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.0%
9
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
10
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.3%
11
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
12
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
13
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
14
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
15
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
16
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
17
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
18
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
19
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
24
The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
25
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
26
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
27
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.6%
28
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%