20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Serological responses and vaccine effectiveness for extended COVID-19 vaccine schedules in England

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The UK prioritised delivery of the first dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca) vaccines by extending the interval between doses up to 12 weeks. In 750 participants aged 50–89 years, we here compare serological responses after BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccination with varying dose intervals, and evaluate these against real-world national vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against COVID-19 in England. We show that antibody levels 14–35 days after dose two are higher in BNT162b2 recipients with an extended vaccine interval (65–84 days) compared with those vaccinated with a standard (19–29 days) interval. Following the extended schedule, antibody levels were 6-fold higher at 14–35 days post dose 2 for BNT162b2 than AZD1222. For both vaccines, VE was higher across all age-groups from 14 days after dose two compared to one dose, but the magnitude varied with dose interval. Higher dose two VE was observed with >6 week interval between BNT162b2 doses compared to the standard schedule. Our findings suggest higher effectiveness against infection using an extended vaccine schedule. Given global vaccine constraints these results are relevant to policymakers.

          Abstract

          The UK extended the interval until the second COVID-19 vaccine dose up to 12 weeks. Here, the authors show in a cohort of 750 participants aged 50–89 years that the extended schedule results in higher antibody titers and estimate a higher vaccine effectiveness for the extended schedule.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            OpenSAFELY: factors associated with COVID-19 death in 17 million patients

            COVID-19 has rapidly impacted on mortality worldwide. 1 There is unprecedented urgency to understand who is most at risk of severe outcomes, requiring new approaches for timely analysis of large datasets. Working on behalf of NHS England we created OpenSAFELY: a secure health analytics platform covering 40% of all patients in England, holding patient data within the existing data centre of a major primary care electronic health records vendor. Primary care records of 17,278,392 adults were pseudonymously linked to 10,926 COVID-19 related deaths. COVID-19 related death was associated with: being male (hazard ratio 1.59, 95%CI 1.53-1.65); older age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); diabetes; severe asthma; and various other medical conditions. Compared to people with white ethnicity, black and South Asian people were at higher risk even after adjustment for other factors (HR 1.48, 1.29-1.69 and 1.45, 1.32-1.58 respectively). We have quantified a range of clinical risk factors for COVID-19 related death in the largest cohort study conducted by any country to date. OpenSAFELY is rapidly adding further patients’ records; we will update and extend results regularly.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

              Predictive models of immune protection from COVID-19 are urgently needed to identify correlates of protection to assist in the future deployment of vaccines. To address this, we analyzed the relationship between in vitro neutralization levels and the observed protection from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection using data from seven current vaccines and from convalescent cohorts. We estimated the neutralization level for 50% protection against detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection to be 20.2% of the mean convalescent level (95% confidence interval (CI) = 14.4-28.4%). The estimated neutralization level required for 50% protection from severe infection was significantly lower (3% of the mean convalescent level; 95% CI = 0.7-13%, P = 0.0004). Modeling of the decay of the neutralization titer over the first 250 d after immunization predicts that a significant loss in protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection will occur, although protection from severe disease should be largely retained. Neutralization titers against some SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern are reduced compared with the vaccine strain, and our model predicts the relationship between neutralization and efficacy against viral variants. Here, we show that neutralization level is highly predictive of immune protection, and provide an evidence-based model of SARS-CoV-2 immune protection that will assist in developing vaccine strategies to control the future trajectory of the pandemic.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                gayatri.amirthalingam@phe.gov.uk
                Journal
                Nat Commun
                Nat Commun
                Nature Communications
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2041-1723
                10 December 2021
                10 December 2021
                2021
                : 12
                : 7217
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Immunisation and Vaccine Preventable Diseases Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Statistics, Modelling and Economics Department, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom
                [3 ]Brondesbury Medical Centre, Kilburn, London, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Sero-Epidemiolgy Unit, UK Health Security Agency, Manchester, United Kingdom
                [5 ]Virus Reference Department, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom
                [6 ]GRID grid.6572.6, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7486, Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, , University of Birmingham, ; Edgbaston, United Kingdom
                [7 ]GRID grid.264200.2, ISNI 0000 0000 8546 682X, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, , St. George’s University of London, ; London, United Kingdom
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2078-0975
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5833-1863
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2712-7971
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6895-1967
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1568-683X
                Article
                27410
                10.1038/s41467-021-27410-5
                8664823
                34893611
                668ceb8a-b635-40a3-b9de-51968821060b
                © Crown 2021

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 September 2021
                : 9 November 2021
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Uncategorized
                vaccines,health policy,public health,sars-cov-2
                Uncategorized
                vaccines, health policy, public health, sars-cov-2

                Comments

                Comment on this article