Should We Delay the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose? ================================================= * Intissar Harizi * Soulaimane Berkane * Abdelhamid Tayebi * Michael S. Silverman * Saverio Stranges ## Abstract Due to the shortage in COVID-19 vaccine supplies and the alarming sanitary situation engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic, some countries have opted to delay the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine for some period of time, aiming at getting the first dose of the vaccine in the arms of a large number of people, before proceeding with the second dose administration [11, 16]. This strategy has sparked some heated debates world-wide for its pros and cons, and no clear consensus is reached among experts [6, 10]. Without taking side in this matter, we tried to answer the following question, from a pure mathematical perspective: *should we delay the second dose of the vaccine or not?*. We show that the answer to this question depends tightly on the efficacy of the first and the second COVID-19 vaccine doses. In fact, if the efficacy of the first dose *α*1is greater than *α*2*/*(1 + 0.01*α*2), where *α*2 is the efficacy of the second dose, the optimal strategy to maximize the number of effectively vaccinated people is to delay the second vaccine as much as possible (up to the maximum period prescribed by the clinical recommendations). Otherwise, the optimal strategy would consists in administering the second dose as quickly as possible (while respecting the minimum period between the two doses as prescribed by the clinical recommendations). Although our result can be considered primarily for general population vaccination strategies/decision making, different approaches may be required for high-risk sub-populations. The maximum delay between doses will require efficacy data from ongoing programs, however our approach will help inform policymakers in assessing this data. ## 1 Introduction Since December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has dramatically spread around the world leading to a heavy morbidity and mortality toll. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a considerable pressure on public health systems around the world with disastrous consequences on the global economy. Overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic surely requires massive vaccination. High financial support both from private consortia and governments made it possible to develop COVID-19 vaccines extremely quickly. The production and distribution of billions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines is the new difficult challenge facing the authorities [9]. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has so far authorized three COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use. Tow of these are Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. Both of these vaccines are approved based on a regimen of two doses. Pfizer-BioNTech has announced efficacy of 95 % and Moderna has announced efficacy of 94.5 % [12]. Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) was the third COVID-19 vaccine to receive emergency use authorization. It consists on a single dose of the vaccine approved for individuals 18 years of age and older [15]. On the other hand, since December 30, 2020, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) [17], which is developed at the University of Oxford, was authorised for emergency use in the UK and then in many other countries, based on a regimen of two standard doses administered 4–12 weeks apart for adults aged 18 years and older. With vaccination shortage rising in many countries, adopting an optimal vaccination program is of crucial importance. Given the slow pace of vaccination campaigns in Canada and globally, a very relevant and burning public health question is whether it is better to delay the second COVID-19 vaccine shot until all priority group people have received at least one shot [6, 10]. This work aims at addressing this question from a pure mathematical perspective. ## 2 Results In this work, we provide an optimal strategy (in terms of the efficacy of the first and second dose) for the administration of the two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, in order to maximize the *effectively* vaccinated sub-population each day. Of course, by maximizing the immunized population, we aim at saving more lives and containing more quickly the COVID-19 pandemic. We show that the optimal second vaccine dose scheduling depends on the efficacy of the first and second doses of the vaccine and can be one of the following scenarios. The first scenario (Scenario 1) consists of delaying the second dose of the vaccine as much as as possible; preferably until the end of the first one-dose campaign or until the maximum period recommended by clinical recommendations is reached. The second scenario (Scenario 2) consists of administering the second dose, as soon as possible, to those who have already taken the first dose. We derived a simple test formula to check which of the two scenarios is optimal depending on the efficacy of the first and second doses of the vaccine. The formula is given as follows: ![Formula][1] where *α*1 (%) and *α*2 (%) represent the vaccine efficacy of the first and second dose, respectively. If inequality (1) holds then we should consider Scenario 1 to obtain the best outcome of the vaccination campaign. Otherwise, Scenario 2 is preferable. An immediate consequence of this result is that if the efficacy *α*1 of the first dose is greater than 50%, then Scenario 1 is optimal regardless of the efficacy of the second dose since (1) must hold. This is a very interesting case since most of the major vaccine companies have announced that their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine is more than 50% efficient; see Figure 1. However, there is no conclusive evidence on the real efficacy of these vaccines as studies continue throughout the word to adjust the efficacy numbers. Based on the announced numbers, Scenario 1 is the optimal in terms of maximizing the number of the efficiently vaccinated people per day, which is in line with the scenario adopted first by the UK authorities [16] and followed by other countries. Another way to express inequality (1) is the following: ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/26/2021.02.13.21251652/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/26/2021.02.13.21251652/F1) Figure 1: The answer to the question of delaying or advancing the second COVID-19 vaccine dose depends on the efficacies of each of the first and the second doses. This figure depicts the region (in red) where the best scenario would be to delay the second dose and the region (in blue) where the second dose should be advanced for optimal outcomes. ![Formula][2] This shows that, for a given first dose efficacy *α*1 that is less than 50%, Scenario 2 is optimal if the second dose efficacy exceeds the threshold *α*1*/*(1 *− α*1*/*100), otherwise Scenario 1 is optimal. For instance if we take *α*1 = 40% then a second dose efficacy of more than 67% would imply that the best vaccination strategy is to provide the second dose to those who have taken the first dose as quickly as possible (Scenario 2). In Figure 1 we provide a visual picture of the efficacy intervals for the first and second dose where Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 are optimal. ## 3 Discussions The work in [4] reports a vaccine efficacy of 94.8% (95% CI: 89.8–97.6) against SARS-CoV-2 after 7 days of being fully vaccinated with two doses of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech). In the same paper, the authors report a vaccine efficacy of 52.4% (95% CI: 29.5–68.4) from after the first dose to before the second dose. Theoretically speaking, the 52.4% first dose efficacy would imply that the optimal vaccination strategy consists in delaying the second dose. However, this conclusion is not definitive yet since the lower bound (29.5%) of the confidence interval does not satisfy the formula (2). In the recent correspondence [5], the authors pointed out that the data used in [4] to assess the first dose efficacy were collected during the first 2 weeks after the first dose, when immunity would have still been mounting. The authors have reassessed the efficacy of the first BNT162b2 dose and report 92.6% (95% CI: 69.0–98.3) from after the second week of taking the first dose to before the second dose. With this high first-dose efficacy, our theoretical findings support the fact that the benefits of the BNT162b2 vaccine could be maximized by deferring second doses until all the population (or at least the priority group members) are offered at least one dose. The same conclusion can be derived for the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna) which achieved a 94.1% (95% CI: 89.3-96.8%) with a two doses regimen as reported in [2, 7] while the efficacy of the first dose after two weeks was about 92.1% (95% CI: 68.8-99.1%). On the other hand, the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222), developed at the University of Oxford, is a chimpanzee adenoviral vectored vaccine with full length SARS-CoV-2 spike insert. Efficacy of two doses of the vaccine in the interim analysis [17], which pooled data from Brazil and the UK, was 70·4% (95% CI: 54.8–80·6) overall (with 4 weeks time interval between the two doses). Since December 30, 2020, ChAdOx1 was authorised for emergency use in the UK and then in many other countries, based on a regimen of two standard doses administered 4–12 weeks apart for adults aged 18 years and older. In the recent primary analysis [18], the standard regimen with two doses has shown an efficacy of 66·7% (95% CI 57·4–74·0) after 14 days of the second dose. Exploratory analyses showed that a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 had an efficacy of 76·0% (95% CI 59·3-85·9) from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination. Interestingly, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer vaccination interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI: 60·3–91·2] at *≥* 12 weeks interval) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [95% CI: 33·0-69·9] at *<*6 weeks). Our theoretical findings suggest to delay the second ChAdOx1 dose at least 90 days although further studies are warranted to assess whether such a delaying strategy would also offer higher vaccine efficacy against the new COVID-19 variants [8]. There are still concerns, however, about the vaccine effectiveness in older adults and immunocompromised population [14]. The original randomized trials by which the vaccines were licensed, usually contained limited numbers of highly immunocompromised patients, but some of these trials did have large numbers of elderly patients. The efficacy of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) was calculated using a trial group that contained 42.2% of people aged more than 55 years [4] while the efficacy of the Moderna vaccine was assessed based on a trial group with 24.8% of people aged more than 65 years (efficacy of the vaccine dropped by around 10% for this group) and 16.7% were younger than 65 years of age and had predisposing medical conditions that put them at risk for severe COVID-19. Astra-Zeneca was initially criticized for being an exception, with only 8% of patients over 65. On the other hand, the immunogenicity data in [18] showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18–55 years. This correlation, however, was not observed in those who are more than 56 years old. In fact, the efficacy of the first dose of the vaccine is most likely different in different patient populations. In the elderly and immunocompromised populations, the efficacy of one dose may be dramatically reduced compared to that of healthy young people. Since these populations are at the highest risk, it makes sense to prioritize them along with the front-line health workers by providing them with the two doses of the vaccine as soon as possible (using the standard interval). For the rest of the general population, the delivery of the second dose of the vaccine can be stretched to the maximum clinically recommended time if the first and second dose efficacies satisfy inequality (1). A prioritization strategy among the general “healthy” population based on neutralizing antibody levels may also be possible once a correlation with protection against the virus is clearly established and quantified. Large population wide studies could be used to get sub-population data on (first and second dose) vaccine efficacy to inform more targeted strategies. Most studies of delay in dose strategies assume that the initial protection afforded by a single dose will not decline at an accelerated rate when compared to a two dose vaccine schedule. Ongoing studies to confirm this will be required, as this will determine the maximum interval that vaccine can be safely delayed. In Canada a 4 month interval is being undertaken whereas in the United Kingdom a 3 month interval is planned. Ongoing real world efficacy data will be generated through these national programs. Our analysis would suggest that when efficacy of a single dose falls below 50% further delays in the second dose could be unwarranted. Finally, complete avoidance of the second dose may be considered for certain populations, such as those with a history of previous COVID, in whom one dose may provide full protection [13]. Finally, we note that the success of a vaccination campaign depends also on the level of herd immunity achieved. The herd immunity level that needs to be achieved in order to end a pandemic is tightly dependent on the so-called basic reproduction number *R* [1]. The later varies not only across regions but also changes depending on the strictness of the safety measures and lockdowns implemented. At the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, where we can assume that the safety measures were minimal, the estimates of *R* ranged from 1.4 to 6.49 [3] with an average of around *R* = 4. This translates to a herd immunity level of about ![Graphic][3] assuming the safety measures were weakened. With a vaccine efficacy between 85% *−*95%, we need to vaccinate at least around 79% *−*88% of the population to help ending this pandemic while aiming for a quick ‘back to normal’. ## 4 Methods Suppose that the total number of vaccine doses to be administered daily is *u**T* = *u*1 + *u*2, where *u*1 is the number of first doses and *u*2 the number of second doses. The question that we are trying to answer is as follows: *for a fixed number of daily doses u**T*, *what would be the best distribution between the number of first doses u*1 *and the number of second doses u*2 *to maximize the number of effectively vaccinated population, assuming that α*1(%) *is the efficacy of the first dose and α*2(%) *is the efficacy of the second dose*. Among the *u*1 population receiving the first dose, there will be (*α*1*/*100)*u*1 effectively vaccinated individuals. For those that are receiving the second dose, some of them are already effectively vaccinated due to the first dose. Therefore, among the *u*2 population, the number of effectively vaccinated individuals due to the second dose is (1 *− α*1*/*100)(*α*2*/*100)*u*2. This is due to the fact that among the *u*2 second-dose receivers, (1 *− α*1*/*100)*u*2 were not effectively vaccinated by the first dose. Therefore, the number of daily effectively vaccinated population, due to the administration of the *u**T* doses, is given by ![Formula][4] where ![Graphic][5] and ![Graphic][6]. Replacing *u*2 by *u**T* *− u*1 in (3), one gets ![Formula][7] It is clear that the maximization of the daily effectively vaccinated population *E**v* depends on the sign of the term ![Graphic][8]. If this term is positive then the optimal strategy would be to set *u*1 = *u**T*, and consequently the number of second doses should be equal to zero (*u*2 = 0) which corresponds to Scenario 1. In the other case, *i*.*e*., ![Graphic][9], the optimal strategy would be to set the number of first doses to zero (*u*1 = 0) and consequently *u*2 = *u**T* which corresponds to Scenario 2. ## Data Availability There is not data associated with this paper. ## 6 Author contributions I. Harizi, S. Berkane and A. Tayebi proposed the model and performed the mathematical derivation. M. Silverman and S. Saverio provided the clinical contextualization and interpretation of the results. All authors wrote and approved the manuscript. All authors substantially contributed in the writing and the critical analysis of the results. ## 7 Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests ## 5 Acknowledgements This research work is supported by the National Research Council of Canada, under the grants NSERC-DG RGPIN-2020-04759 and NSERC-DG RGPIN-2020-0627. Our thought are with those who lost their loved ones in this pandemic, and our gratitude and respects go to all the front-line workers across Canada and worldwide for keeping us safe and keeping the world running. ## Footnotes * Introduction added Discussion section added New authors provided the clinical contextualization and interpretation of the results * Received February 13, 2021. * Revision received March 25, 2021. * Accepted March 26, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## References 1. [1]. David Adam. “A guide to R—the pandemic’s misunderstood metric”. In: Nature 583.7816 (2020), pp. 346–348. 2. [2]. Lindsey R Baden et al. “Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine”. In: New England Journal of Medicine (2020). 3. [3]. Ying Liu et al. “The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus”. In: Journal of travel medicine (2020). 4. [4]. Fernando P Polack et al. “Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine”. In: New England Journal of Medicine 383.27 (2020), pp. 2603–2615. 5. [5]. Danuta M. Skowronski and Gaston De Serres. “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine”. In: Correspondence in New England Journal of Medicine 383.27 (2020), pp. 2603–2615. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2036242. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMc2036242&link_type=DOI) 6. [6]. Marla Broadfoot. “Is It Safe to Delay a Second COVID Vaccine Dose?” In: Scientific American, [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-safe-to-delay-a-second-covid-vaccine-dose/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-safe-to-delay-a-second-covid-vaccine-dose/) (2021). [Online; Accessed Feb 10, 2021]. 7. [7].Public Health England. “The latest information on vaccines and vaccination proce-dures, for vaccine preventable infectious diseases in the UK”. In: The Green Book, [https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immunisation-against-infectious-disease-the-green-book#the-green-book](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immunisation-against-infectious-disease-the-green-book#the-green-book)(2021). [Online; Accessed Jan 19, 2021]. 8. [8]. Arnaud Fontanet et al. “SARS-CoV-2 variants and ending the COVID-19 pandemic”. In: The Lancet (2021). 9. [9]. Guido Forni and Alberto Mantovani. “COVID-19 vaccines: where we stand and chal-lenges ahead”. In: Cell Death & Differentiation (2021), pp. 1–14. 10. [10]. Jacqueline Howard. “Experts split on delaying Covid-19 vaccine second doses. Here’s why”. In: CNN, [https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/health/covid-19-vaccine-second-doses-debate-explainer-wellness/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/health/covid-19-vaccine-second-doses-debate-explainer-wellness/index.html) (2021). [Online; Accessed Feb 2, 2021]. 11. [11]. Gareth Iacobucci and Elisabeth Mahase. “Covid-19 vaccination: What’s the evidence for extending the dosing interval?” In: BMJ 372 (2021). doi: 10.1136/bmj.n18. eprint: [https://www.bmj.com/content](https://www.bmj.com/content). url:[https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n18](https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n18). [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE1OiIzNzIvamFuMDZfOS9uMTgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wMy8yNi8yMDIxLjAyLjEzLjIxMjUxNjUyLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 12. [12]. Jerome H Kim, Florian Marks, and John D Clemens. “Looking beyond COVID-19 vaccine phase 3 trials”. In: Nature medicine (2021), pp. 1–7. 13. [13]. Florian Krammer et al. “Antibody Responses in Seropositive Persons after a Single Dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine”. In: New England Journal of Medicine (2021). doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2101667. eprint: [https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2101667](https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2101667). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMc2101667&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33691060&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F26%2F2021.02.13.21251652.atom) 14. [14]. Dominic Pimenta et al. “Delaying the second dose of covid-19 vaccines”. In: BMJ 372 (2021). doi: 10.1136/bmj.n710. eprint: [https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n710.full.pdf](https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n710.full.pdf).url: [https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n710](https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n710). [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE2OiIzNzIvbWFyMThfNS9uNzEwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDMvMjYvMjAyMS4wMi4xMy4yMTI1MTY1Mi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 15. [15]. Jerald Sadoff et al. “Interim Results of a Phase 1–2a Trial of Ad26. COV2. S Covid-19 Vaccine”. In: New England Journal of Medicine (2021). 16. [16]. Michael Savage, Robin McKie, and James Tapper. “Vaccine experts defend UK decision to delay second Pfizer Covid jab”. In: The Guardian, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/23/vaccine-experts-defend-uk-decision-to-delay-second-pfizer-covid-jab](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/23/vaccine-experts-defend-uk-decision-to-delay-second-pfizer-covid-jab) (2021). [Online; Accessed Jan 23, 2021]. 17. [17]. Merryn Voysey et al. “Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK”. In: The Lancet 397.10269 (2021), pp. 99–111. 18. [18]. Merryn Voysey et al. “Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials”. In: The Lancet (2021). [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/graphic-3.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/graphic-4.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [7]: /embed/graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif