Abstract
Introduction In January 2021, the UK decided to prioritise the delivery of the first dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca) vaccines by extending the interval until the second dose up to 12 weeks.
Methods Serological responses were compared after BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccination with varying intervals in uninfected and previously-infected adults aged 50-89 years. These findings are evaluated against real-world national vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against COVID-19 in England.
Results We recruited 750 participants aged 50-89 years, including 126 (16.8%) with evidence of previous infection; 421 received BNT162b2 and 329 and AZD1222. For both vaccines, over 95% had seroconverted 35-55 days after dose one, and 100% seroconverted 7+ days after dose 2. Following a 65-84 day interval between two doses, geometric mean titres (GMTs) at 14-34 days were 6-fold higher for BNT162b2 (6703; 95%CI, 5887-7633) than AZD1222 (1093; 806-1483), which in turn were higher than those receiving BNT162b2 19-29 days apart (694; 540 - 893). 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 interval between doses. Higher two-dose VE was observed with >6 week intervals between BNT162b2 doses compared to the authorised 3-week schedule, including ≥80 year-olds.
Conclusion Our findings support the UK approach of prioritising the first dose of COVID-19 vaccines, with evidence of higher protection following extended schedules. Given global vaccine constraints, these results are relevant to policymakers, especially with highly transmissible variants and rising incidence in many countries.
Funding Public Health England
Competing Interest Statement
MER reports that the Immunisation and Countermeasures Division (PHE) has provided vaccine manufacturers with post-marketing surveillance reports on pneumococcal and meningococcal infection, which the companies are required to submit to the UK licensing authority in compliance with their risk management strategy. A cost-recovery charge is made for these reports. EL report that the PHE Vaccine Evaluation Unit does contract research on behalf of GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Pfizer, which is outside the submitted work.
Funding Statement
This surveillance was funded by Public Health England.
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 surveillance was funded by Public Health England. The CONSENSUS study/audit was approved by PHEs R&D Research Ethics and Governance Group. No NR0253
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
