Abstract
Background The objectives of this study were to investigate whether vaccine efficacy against severe COVID-19 has decreased since Delta became the predominant variant; (2) whether efficacy wanes with time since second dose.
Methods Efficacy was estimated in a matched case-control study that includes all diagnosed cases of COVID-19 in Scotland up to 19 August 2021. The main outcome measure was severe COVID-19, defined as cases with entry to critical care or fatal outcome.
Findings Efficacy of vaccination against severe COVID-19 decreased in May 2021 coinciding with the replacement of the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) by the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant in Scotland, but this decrease was reversed over the next month. In the most recent time window, the efficacy of two doses was 91% (95 percent CI 87% to 94%) for the AstraZeneca product and 92% (95 percent CI 88% to 95%) for mRNA (Pfizer or Moderna) products. Efficacy of the AstraZeneca product against severe COVID-19 declined with time since second dose to 69% (95 percent CI 52% to 80%) at 20 weeks from second dose. Efficacy of mRNA vaccines declined in the first ten weeks from second dose but more slowly thereafter to 93% (95 percent CI 88% to 96%) at 20 weeks from second dose.
Interpretation These results are reassuring with respect to concerns that efficacy against severe COVID-19 might have fallen since the Delta variant became predominant, or that efficacy of mRNA vaccines wanes with increasing time since second dose. However it is now clear that efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine against severe COVID-19 wanes substantially by 20 weeks from second dose, suggesting that delivery of booster doses should initially focus on those who received this type of vaccine.
Funding No specific funding was received for this work. HC is supported by an endowed chair from the AXA Research Foundation.
Evidence before this study Several reports have suggested that efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines has fallen since the Delta variant became predominant, or that efficacy wanes with time since second dose. The starting point for this study was the evidence of waning efficacy cited by the CDC, the FDA and more recently the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in support of their recent recommendations for delivery of booster doses for the general population.
Added value of this study This study shows that efficacy of both AstraZeneca and mRNA vaccines against severe COVID-19 (fatal or requiring critical care) remains high (around 90%) in the most recent time window, but that efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine wanes to about 70% by 20 weeks from second dose. In contrast efficacy of the mRNA vaccines wanes rapidly at first but stabilises at about 90% by 20 weeks from second dose.
Implications of all the available evidence These results suggest that booster doses of vaccine are not needed for those who have received two doses of mRNA vaccine, except for vulnerable individuals who may require a third primary dose.
Competing Interest Statement
HC receives research support and honoraria and is a member of advisory panels or speaker bureaus for Sanofi Aventis, Regeneron, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk and Eli Lilly. HC receives or has recently received non-binding research support from AstraZeneca and Novo-Nordisk. SH received honoraria from Gilead.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received for this work. HC is supported by an endowed chair from the AXA Research 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 study was performed within Public Health Scotland as part of its statutory duty to monitor and investigate public health problems. Under the [UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research](https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research/) set out by the NHS Health Research Authority, this does not fall within the definition of research and ethical review was therefore not required. This has been confirmed in writing by the NHS West of Scotland Research Ethics Service. Individual consent is not required for Public Health Scotland staff to process personal data to perform specific tasks in the public interest that fall within its statutory role. The statutory basis for this is set out in Public Health Scotland's [privacy notice](https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/our-privacy-notice/personal-data-processing/).
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This version has been revised based on a new extract of data up to 22 September 2021
