Importance of vaccine action and availability and epidemic severity for delaying the second vaccine dose

  1. Luděk Berec
  2. René Levínský
  3. Jakub Weiner
  4. Martin Šmíd
  5. Roman Neruda
  6. Petra Vidnerová
  7. Gabriela Suchopárová

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Following initial optimism regarding potentially rapid vaccination, delays and shortages in vaccine supplies occurred in many countries during spring 2021. Various strategies to counter this gloomy reality and speed up vaccination have been set forth, of which the most popular has been to delay the second vaccine dose for a longer period than originally recommended by the manufacturers. Controversy has surrounded this strategy, and overly simplistic models have been developed to shed light on this issue. Here we use three different epidemic models, all accounting for then actual COVID-19 epidemic in the Czech Republic, including the real vaccination rollout, to explore when delaying the second vaccine dose by another 3 weeks from 21 to 42 days is advantageous. Using COVID-19-related deaths as a quantity to compare various model scenarios, we find that the way of vaccine action at the beginning of the infection course (preventing infection and symptoms appearance), mild epidemic and sufficient vaccine supply rate call for the original inter-dose period of 21 days regardless of vaccine efficacy. On the contrary, for the vaccine action at the end of infection course (preventing severe symptoms and death), severe epidemic and low vaccine supply rate, the 42-day inter-dose period is preferable, at any plausible vaccine efficacy.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41598-022-11250-4
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.30.21259752: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.30.21259752v1 on medRxiv