Serological responses and vaccine effectiveness for extended COVID-19 vaccine schedules in England.
Journal
Nature communications
ISSN: 2041-1723
Titre abrégé: Nat Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 12 2021
10 12 2021
Historique:
received:
17
09
2021
accepted:
09
11
2021
entrez:
11
12
2021
pubmed:
12
12
2021
medline:
22
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34893611
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27410-5
pii: 10.1038/s41467-021-27410-5
pmc: PMC8664823
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19
B5S3K2V0G8
BNT162 Vaccine
N38TVC63NU
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7217Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_20060
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. Crown.
Références
J Infect Dis. 2013 Aug 1;208(3):418-22
pubmed: 23633407
Nature. 2021 Aug;596(7872):417-422
pubmed: 34192737
Lancet. 2021 Jan 9;397(10269):99-111
pubmed: 33306989
N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 15;384(15):1412-1423
pubmed: 33626250
Nat Microbiol. 2021 Sep;6(9):1140-1149
pubmed: 34290390
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Sep;20(9):1034-1042
pubmed: 32422204
BMJ. 2020 Oct 20;371:m3731
pubmed: 33082154
Lancet. 2021 Mar 6;397(10277):881-891
pubmed: 33617777
BMJ. 2021 May 13;373:n1088
pubmed: 33985964
Vaccine. 2021 Jul 22;39(32):4423-4428
pubmed: 34210573
J Infect. 2021 May;82(5):162-169
pubmed: 33766553
J Clin Lab Anal. 2021 Sep;35(9):e23921
pubmed: 34369009
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):430-436
pubmed: 32640463
Nat Med. 2021 Jul;27(7):1205-1211
pubmed: 34002089
Euro Surveill. 2021 Mar;26(12):
pubmed: 33769252
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Nov;28:100597
pubmed: 33173854
Nat Rev Immunol. 2021 Feb;21(2):83-100
pubmed: 33353987
Microbiol Spectr. 2021 Sep 3;9(1):e0021821
pubmed: 34132615
N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 12;385(7):585-594
pubmed: 34289274
Vaccine. 2019 Jan 7;37(2):223-225
pubmed: 28743487
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 31;383(27):2603-2615
pubmed: 33301246
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 17;383(25):2439-2450
pubmed: 33053279