4.8 Article

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

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-27410-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Public Health England

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The UK extended the interval between COVID-19 vaccine doses to 12 weeks, leading to higher antibody levels and estimated greater vaccine effectiveness. This study highlights the importance of an extended vaccine schedule in enhancing protection against COVID-19.
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. 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据