Abstract
Objectives To assess the relative immunogenicity of standard or extended interval BNT162b2 vaccination.
Design Population based cohort study comparing immune responses 2 weeks after the second vaccine, with appropriate time-matched samples in participants who received standard or extended interval double vaccination.
Setting Primary care networks, Birmingham, UK. December 2020 to April 2021.
Participants 172 people aged over 80 years of age. All donors received the BNT162b2 Pfizer/BioNTech vaccination and were vaccinated with either a standard 3 week interval between doses or an extended interval schedule.
Main outcome measures Peak quantitative spike-specific antibody and cellular immune responses.
Results In donors without evidence of previous infection the peak antibody response was 3.5-fold higher in donors who had undergone delayed interval vaccination. Cellular immune responses were 3.6-fold lower.
Conclusion Peak antibody responses after the second BNT162b2 vaccine are markedly enhanced in older people when this is delayed to 12 weeks although cellular responses are lower. Extended interval vaccination may therefore offer the potential to enhance and extend humoral immunity. Further follow up is now required to assess long term immunity and clinical protection.
What is already known on this topic The BNT162b2 vaccine is highly effective against Covid-19 infection and was delivered with a 3-week time interval in registration studies. However, this interval has been extended in many countries in order to extend population coverage with a single vaccine. It is not known how immune responses after the second dose are influenced by delaying the second vaccine.
What this study adds We provide the first assessment of immune responses in the first 14 weeks after standard or extended interval BNT162b2 vaccination and show that delaying the second dose acts to strongly boost the peak antibody response in older people. The extended interval vaccination may offer a longer period of clinical protection. This information will be of value in optimizing vaccine regimens and help guide guide vaccination policies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC) funded by DHSC/UKRI and the National Core Studies Immunity programme. Ethical Approval: The work was performed under the CIA UPH IRAS approval (REC 20\NW\0240) and conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and good clinical practice.
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:
Ethical approval was obtained from North West Preston Research Ethics Committee with favourable outcome and approval (REC 20\NW\0240).
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
Data Availability
Authors agree to share the anonymised raw data for this study once published.
