ABSTRACT
Importance mRNA COVID-19 vaccines require two primary doses. The optimal timing of second dose administration with respect to vaccine effectiveness of the primary series has not been thoroughly evaluated and has implications for vaccination strategies.
Objective To assess whether the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) against SARS-CoV-2 infection differs by varying intervals between the first and second doses of the primary series among the general population.
Design We employed a trial emulation approach (clone-censor weight analysis) to estimate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection after the first dose administration under the scenario where the total study population had followed each of the following interdose intervals: recommended by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (17-25 days for Pfizer-BioNTech; 24-32 days for Moderna), late-but-allowable (26-42 days for Pfizer-BioNTech; 33-49 days for Moderna), and late (≥43 days for Pfizer-BioNTech; ≥50 days for Moderna).
Setting Georgia, USA.
Participants Individuals who received ≥1 dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in Georgia between December 13, 2020 and March 16, 2022.
Exposure Dosing protocols based on the timing of the second dose administration.
Main Outcomes and Measures SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive result by a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR or antigen test. The follow-up period began the day after the first dose administration and ended at the earliest of SARS-CoV-2 infection, protocol nonadherence, or end of study.
Results In the short-term, the cumulative risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was lowest under the FDA-recommended protocol (risk ratio (RR) on Day 50 after the first dose administration compared to the FDA-recommended protocol: 1.08 [95% confidence interval 1.07-1.10] under the late-but-allowable and 1.14 [1.12-1.16] under the late protocol). Longer-term, the late-but-allowable protocol resulted in the lowest risk (RR on Day 120: 0.83 [0.82-0.84] for the late-but-allowable and 1.10 [1.08-1.12] for the late protocol). The late protocol consistently yielded the highest risk among all protocols.
Conclusions and Relevance Delaying the timing of the second dose administration by a week may provide stronger protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, but a longer delay would increase the risk of infection.
Question Does the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines differ by intervals between the first and second doses of the primary series?
Findings This study of >6 million mRNA COVID-19 vaccine recipients in Georgia, US used a trial emulation approach to compare the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection under three protocols based on the timing of the second dose (“recommended,” “late-but-allowable,” and “late”). The late-but-allowable protocol led to the lowest cumulative risk in a long term.
Meaning Delaying the receipt of the second dose by a week may decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but a longer delay would increase the risk.
Competing Interest Statement
B.L. serves as a consultant to Epidemiological Research and Methods, LLC. and receives personal fees from Hillevax. A.B. is an employee of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Others do not have any conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Emory COVID-19 Response Collaborative, which is funded by a grant from the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This activity was determined by the Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH) Institutional Review Board to be non-research and consistent with public health surveillance as per title 45 code of Federal Regulations 46.102(l)(2).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Individual-level data on COVID-19 test results from the Georgia State Electronic Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (SendSS) and COVID-19 vaccination from the Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH) are also not publicly available, but aggregated data are available on the GDPH COVID-19 website.
