Comparison between one and two dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine prioritization for a fixed number of vaccine doses

  1. Edward M. Hill
  2. Matt J. Keeling

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The swift development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been met with worldwide commendation. However, in the context of an ongoing pandemic there is an interplay between infection and vaccination. While infection can grow exponentially, vaccination rates are generally limited by supply and logistics. With the first SARS-CoV-2 vaccines receiving medical approval requiring two doses, there has been scrutiny on the spacing between doses; an elongated period between doses allows more of the population to receive a first vaccine dose in the short-term generating wide-spread partial immunity. Focusing on data from England, we investigated prioritization of a one dose or two dose vaccination schedule given a fixed number of vaccine doses and with respect to a measure of maximizing averted deaths. We optimized outcomes for two different estimates of population size and relative risk of mortality for at-risk groups within the Phase 1 vaccine priority order. Vaccines offering relatively high protection from the first dose favour strategies that prioritize giving more people one dose, although with increasing vaccine supply eventually those eligible and accepting vaccination will receive two doses. While optimal dose timing can substantially reduce the overall mortality risk, there needs to be careful consideration of the logistics of vaccine delivery.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1098/rsif.2021.0214
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.15.21253542v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.15.21253542: (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: Thank you for sharing your code.

    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.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.15.21253542v1 on medRxiv