Abstract
Background The swift development of vaccines targeting SARS-CoV-2, which have been shown to generate significant immune responses and offer considerable protection against disease, has been met with worldwide commendation. However, in the context of an ongoing pandemic there is an interplay between infection and vaccination. While infection can grow exponentially, potentially overwhelming healthcare resources, vaccination rates are generally limited by both supply and logistics. With the first SARS-CoV-2 vaccines receiving medical approval requiring two doses, there has been scrutiny on the spacing between doses; an elongated period between doses would allow more of the population to receive a first vaccine dose in the short-term generating wide-spread partial immunity.
Methods Focusing on data from England, we investigated prioritisation of a one dose or two dose vaccination schedule given a fixed number of vaccine doses and with respect to a measure of maximising averted deaths. We optimised outcomes for two different estimates of population size and relative risk of mortality for at-risk groups within the Phase 1 vaccine priority order in England, for different amounts of available vaccine and for different vaccine efficacies.
Findings We find that vaccines offering relatively high protection from the first dose (compared to the efficacy derived from two doses) favour strategies that prioritise giving more people one dose rather than a smaller number two. The optimal mix of one and two doses between the defined priority groups of Phase 1 shows a pattern of returning to give second doses to the highest risk groups as the number of available doses increases.
Discussion While this work highlights that an optimal timing of first and second doses between the Phase 1 priority groups can substantially reduce the overall mortality risk to the population, there also needs to be careful consideration of the precise timing between first and second doses as well as the logistics of vaccine delivery.
Introduction
Vaccination has been seen as a key tool in the fight against SARS-CoV-2, although deployment provides multiple unique challenges that are not encountered by other vaccination programmes. In short, there is a race between infection and vaccination, with vaccination rates currently limited by supply and logistics, whereas infection can grow exponentially.
The vaccines already developed represent a major technological achievement and have been shown to generate significant immune responses, as well as offering considerable protection against disease [1–5]. Field data from Israel and the UK suggests that protection against severe disease (hospitalisation or death) may be even greater [6, 7].
In the UK, the two vaccines currently being deployed as part of the vaccination programme (as of March 2021) are the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines. The mRNA Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on 2nd December 2020 [8]. The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, a chimpanzee adenoviral vectored vaccine, has been the main component of the UK vaccination program since it received approval for use by the MHRA on 30th December 2020 [9]. Both require two doses to be administered to maximise efficacy and longevity of immunity (with the duration of vaccine-derived immunity still uncertain).
A key question, given the urgency of achieving high levels of protection in the population, is the appropriate interval between doses. A longer interval allows more people to be given partial protection over relatively short-time scales, whereas a shorter interval will provide greater (although not complete) protection to the most vulnerable. In deciding between these two options, a number of factors need to be considered: the relatively high efficacy of the first dose from 3-12 weeks after vaccination [10]; the high levels of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence [11], COVID-19 morbidity [12] and COVID-19 mortality [13] since the start of the vaccine programme; the evidence that the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine provides greater second dose efficacy with a spacing of 12 weeks or more [5]; and the initial lack of Phase 3 trial data on single dose vaccine performance beyond 3 weeks for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine [1].
On short-term timescales, and in the absence of risk-structure or the potential for differential rates of waning immunity, if the efficacy from one dose is more than half the efficacy from two doses, then it is always preferable to prioritise vaccinating as many people as possible with one dose. Yet, given clear variation in the burden of severe outcomes caused by COVID-19, the prioritisation of dosing schedules merits quantitative evaluation; such analyses have been performed in a non-UK context [14–16].
In this paper, we study prioritisation of a one dose or two dose vaccination schedule given a fixed number of vaccine doses and with respect to a measure of maximising averted deaths. We performed this analysis in the context of the English population and age-stratified risk mortality. We examined two types of strategy for dose allocation: (i) giving as many people one dose or as many people two doses as permitted by the number of doses available (homogeneous strategy); (ii) adding flexibility to the allocation scheme by allowing for a given percentage of vaccine doses being used for first doses, with the remainder used for second doses (heterogeneous strategy). Throughout, we explored the sensitivity to the relative efficacy of the first vaccine dose (compared to the efficacy attained following two vaccine doses). We acknowledge that this is a simplified representation of a complex dynamic process, whereby new supplies of vaccine are being manufactured and distributed over time, where second dose efficacy may change depending on the inter-dose separation and where there can be an intrinsic feedback between vaccination and population-level incidence. In the discussion we expand on how the findings from these theoretical results need to be interpreted to apply to the situation facing England, the UK and other nations.
Methods
Data on age-dependent mortality risk
We base our analysis on the estimated age distribution of mortality due to COVID-19 in the UK, with a particular focus on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) Phase 1 priority groups for vaccination [17]. The nine target groups within the first phase of the vaccination programme encompass care home residents and workers, health care workers, all those clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) and with underlying health conditions (UHC), and all those aged 50 years and above.
Due to the absence of precise estimates for either the size of each priority group or the relative risk of COVID-19 mortality for individuals in each group, we considered two different sets of assumptions around these two statistics (labelled ‘Age only’ and ‘Priority Group estimate’), with details of the two estimates provided in Table 1.
For the age-only model, estimation of risk was based solely on the age-distribution of mortality due to COVID-19 in England (using deaths within 28 days of a confirmed COVID-19 positive test), during the period 1st September 2020 until 1st February 2021, compared to the underlying population pyramid for England using mid-2019 Office for National Statistics (ONS) population estimates (Fig. 1) [18]. It is evident that older age groups suffered the greatest mortality, with 60% of deaths due to COVID-19 in those over 80 years of age even though they only comprise 5% of the population.
For the Priority Group estimate, we extended the formulation described for the age-only estimate to include the priority groups, assuming that this did not change the relative mortality risk of the age-groups (under 80 years old) previously calculated. The relative risk of care home residents and staff is based upon approximately 14 thousand care home deaths in the period since 7th August 2020 to the beginning of February 2021 [19], with the risk in the over-80s scaled to account for the greater risk of death within care homes. We assumed risks for those clinically extremely vulnerable to be equal to those aged 70-74, which also occupy priority group 4. We assumed risks for those with underlying health conditions (group 6) to lie equidistant between groups 5 and 7. Population estimates for these priority groups were provided by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) [20].
Vaccine assumptions
Using the population size data (Pp) for each priority group, the associated relative risk of COVID-19 mortality (RRp) and estimates of vaccine efficacy following one or two doses (VE1 and VE2), we calculated the deaths averted given an assumed distribution of vaccines between the priority groups: where and are the proportions of each priority group p that receive just one dose or two doses of the vaccine respectively. To further reduce the degrees of freedom of this calculation, it is sufficient to know the ratio of the vaccine efficacy from the first dose compared to the second VER = VE1/VE2, which we term relative efficacy of the first dose.
Vaccine efficacy
Data on vaccine effectiveness in averting deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 infection following first and second dose with the vaccine is extremely limited. We therefore use central estimates of vaccine efficacy against disease to guide our range of relative efficacy: Pfizer/BioNTech (89% from first dose; 95% from two doses) [1]; Oxford/AstraZeneca (76% from first dose; 81% from two doses) [5]. This would imply that the relative efficacy of the first dose (VER) is in the region of 93% for the Pfizer vaccine and the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. More recent data from the UK on mortality in those over 80 years old suggests that the first dose reduces deaths by around 80%, which acts as a lower bound for the relative efficacy of the first dose against mortality [7].
Strategies for vaccine dose allocation
We examined two types of strategy for dose allocation, which we describe as: (i) homogeneous strategy and (ii) heterogeneous strategy.
Homogeneous strategy
For a given number of available doses (V) and for a given relative efficacy from the first dose compared to the second (VER), we first examined the question of whether to completely prioritise one dose or two doses of the vaccine. This essentially is a question of whether there is a greater number of expected deaths averted from giving as many people as possible one dose or two doses.
We compared the relative risks in the different age-groups (Table 1) and computed the relative number of deaths averted by the one dose and two dose strategies. where there is a strict limit on the number of available doses: or . We note that this is a relative measure as predicting the scale of the future cases, hospitalisation and deaths is contingent on a number of policy decisions. In all scenarios we assumed 90% vaccine uptake ( or ), independent of age and priority group.
Given that the relative risk of COVID-19 mortality (RRp) decreases monotonically between risk groups, it is clear that the optimal deployment of either one of two doses must similarly decline monotonically ( and similarly for the second dose ). Moreover, it is always better to maximally vaccinate the higher-risk groups before preceding to lower-risk ones; therefore, solutions are generally of the form: which corresponds to completely vaccinating groups 1 to q − 1, partially vaccinating group q, and not yet vaccinating the remaining lower-risk groups. This enables us to calculate the optimal deployment of vaccine across all priority groups without having to perform an exhaustive combinatorial search.
Heterogeneous strategy
We extended our initial analysis to consider a heterogeneous strategy. For a given number of doses, we sought the optimal deployment of a mixed scheme where some priority groups can be targeted for two doses while others receive one.
As an example, based on English population data, supposing we had 6.6 million doses of vaccine, these could either give all those aged 80 and above two doses, or it could give everyone aged 75 and above, and some of those in the 70-74 years age group, one dose. Again, our aim is to maximise the number of deaths averted, subject to the constraint on the total amount of vaccine available (V): Again, due to the monotonicity on the relative risk of mortality, we can insist on a simple ordering of vaccination ( and ); and again, we expect to maximally vaccinate higher risk groups before moving to lower ones. This essentially means we search over the number of vaccines allocated to second rather than first doses.
We studied the optimal allocation of vaccine for the two estimates of priority group size and relative risk (either based on age-structure only or using priority groups estimates), and for a range of relative efficacy of one dose compared to two doses (75% ≤ VER ≤ 90%). We assumed vaccine uptake of 90% (to set the scale of vaccination in each priority group) and ignored the impact of transmission blocking (which is difficult to incorporate in this static model and is still not well quantified).
All computations and visualisations were performed in Matlab.
Results
Homogeneous strategy
For a given number of vaccine doses (V) and considering vaccine targeting towards age-group based priority groups, we considered when it is optimal to focus all vaccine resources on maximising the number of people receiving one dose or concentrate on ensuring that the most vulnerable groups get two doses.
When the number of vaccines available is insufficient to cover a specified age range or priority group, there is a choice between giving one dose to some proportion of the over 80’s or two doses to only half that number. In this situation, and ignoring the implications of generating long-term immunity, a one dose strategy would be favoured if 2VE1 > VE2 (VER > 0.5). For a larger available number of vaccine doses, we are faced with the dilemma between giving one dose to ages that are at slightly less risk or giving two doses to those that are most vulnerable. Using England once more as an example, supposing we had 5.5 million doses of vaccine, these could either be used to give all those aged 80 and above two doses, or could give everyone aged 75 and above, and some of those in the 70-74 years age group, one dose. To qualitatively assess this situation, we examined optimisation outcomes based on the two estimates for vaccination priority group population size and relative risk of mortality (Table 1).
For the age-only estimate of relative risk, the separation between prioritising first dose or second doses (Fig. 2(a)) was relatively smooth. For low numbers of available doses (< 2 million) and greater than 50% relative efficacy, the optimal policy is to prioritise one dose. For larger stockpiles of vaccine, the relative efficacy needs to be higher to prioritise giving one dose to as many people as possible. Within the plausible range of relative efficacy values (75% - 90%), we found a steady switch to prioritising the second dose as the amount of available vaccine increases from 4 million to 18 million doses.
For the Priority Group estimate (Fig. 2(b)), we observed a broadly similar pattern; however, the very high relative risk associated with care home residents and workers (priority group 1) means that, for a low number of doses and a low relative efficacy, it can be optimal to prioritise giving two doses to the care home group. With this estimated set of relative risks, there was also an even stronger effect (compared to the age-only estimate) of high relative first dose efficacy, leading to a wider parameter space where the first dose was prioritised.
Heterogeneous strategy
We next considered strategies where a given proportion of the available vaccine are used for first doses and the remainder for second doses. We performed this assessment under an assumption of maximising the number of deaths averted and a vaccine uptake of 90%.
Given a relative efficacy for the first dose of below 50%, the optimal strategy is to use half of the available vaccine for second doses, such that everyone prioritised for vaccination receives two doses (Fig. 3). Above this threshold of 50% relative efficacy from the first dose, the pattern of doses reserved for second doses approximately follows the same pattern as the homogeneous strategy (cyan and pink lines in Fig. 3 are the same as in Fig. 2). We found a smaller region of parameter space where the optimal strategy is to only give one dose (dark blue, and only for a low number of doses or very high levels of relative efficacy of the first dose). The distinct banding observed is due to the switch between different priority groups as the amount of available vaccine increases. For the Priority Group estimate, as with the homogeneous strategy, a distinct structure was visible in the results: a two dose strategy (focused on care homes) was optimal at around 2 million doses and for a relative first-dose efficacy of up to 70% (Fig. 3(b)).
For a given ratio of first and second doses, the associated distribution of vaccine between the priority groups can again be calculated due to the monotonicity of the relative risk. We show the optimal distribution for a distinct set of relative efficacies from the first dose (VER = 70%, 80%, 90%) and for a specified number of doses (4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 million) (Fig. 4). We show as stacked bars the number of first (left) and second (right) doses given to each priority group for both the simple age-structured estimates of risk and for the full Priority Group estimates.
At 70% relative efficacy, there was a strong tendency to offer second doses shortly after the first. Thus at 4 million doses, the optimal strategy was to begin offering second doses to either the oldest age-group or priority group 1. For higher levels of vaccine availability (e.g. 24 million doses), although the distribution of second doses lags behind the first, we consistently predict at least 50% of the groups receiving two doses of vaccine is optimal.
When relative efficacy is higher (80% or 90%) there is more of a delay before it becomes optimal to begin second vaccinations. At 4 million doses, the optimal strategy became focused on delivering single doses only; with second doses being introduced more gradually. At the most extreme parameters investigated (90% relative vaccine efficacy and full priority group estimates), even at 20 million doses, the only group to have received their second dose was priority group 1 (care home residents and staff).
Although we generated these figures by simply considering the optimal use of a fixed pool of available vaccine - with no reference to how lower amounts of vaccine have been used - it is still possible to read the graphs as a chronological sequence, due to the monotonicity of the relative risk. As such, for any given relative efficacy, the first V doses of vaccine are always distributed in the same manner (Fig. 5). An alternative way to view the same information is to consider at what point in the delivery programme it becomes optimal to give first and second doses to each of the priority groups. For the relative risk of mortality estimated for the full priority groups, this visualisation clarifies that at high relative efficacy from the first dose of vaccine (90%) the optimal distribution of vaccine is substantially weighted towards early prioritisation of first doses with a substantial delay until the second dose is offered. For completion of the first four priority groups (everyone over 70, health care workers, care home staff and residents and those that are clinically extremely vulnerable) we estimate that the optimal delay between finishing the first doses and finishing the second doses is: 12.83 million doses (for a relative efficacy of 70%); 19.58 million doses (for a relative efficacy of 80%) and 24.01 million doses (for a relative efficacy of 90%) - which is between 6 and 12 weeks if delivery is maintained at 2 million doses a week.
Discussion
Here we have developed a simple algorithmic method that can optimise the distribution of a fixed number of vaccine doses, allowing us to maximise averted deaths. The JCVI Phase 1 priority groups have been defined such that early groups have a higher risk of mortality than lower ones. There is hence a natural ordering in which, theoretically, we would wish to vaccine priority group 1 before moving to priority group 2. The more challenging question that we address here is whether it is better to give high-risk groups their second dose of vaccine before giving lower-risk groups (in the priority order) their first dose. In the context of UK vaccination policy, the key question was around the delay between the first and second dose, with a longer delay allowing more individuals to be given some level of protection in the short-term. For the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine there is also compelling evidence that a delay of 12 weeks or more provides greater second dose vaccine efficacy [5], strengthening the case for an early prioritisation of first doses.
In countries where the total supply of vaccine is more limited, similar calculations could inform whether a strategy that attempted to maximise coverage by only giving a single dose would be of benefit - although, in this scenario, far more information would be required on the long-term protection offered by a single dose.
The key parameter in our model is the relative efficacy provided by the first dose of vaccine compared to the level of protection offered by two doses. Here, we have focused on COVID-19 mortality using the relative risk of infection and death for each of the nine JCVI priority groups, and hence we are most interested in efficacy against death. Unfortunately, efficacy against death is extremely difficult to measure from Phase 3 trials (no-one taking part in the Pfizer/BioNTech trials, in either the control or vaccine arm, died with COVID-19 [1], with one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group of Oxford/AstraZeneca trials [5]), and so we need to rely on data from the large-scale national programmes. Early data from the UK on those over 80 years of age (and therefore amongst the first to receive the vaccine) suggests that a first dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine generates a vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection of 70% (95% CI 59-78%) after four weeks and an additional 51% (95% CI 37-62%) lower risk of death if infected, giving a combined efficacy against death of 85% [7]. This is therefore a lower-bound on our required relative efficacy.
We predict that, for relatively high protection from the first dose (compared to the efficacy derived from two doses), a substantial number of first doses should be administered before attention switches to giving second doses (Fig. 5). We expect these simple trade-offs to occur either if there is a limited supply of vaccine, or until that point is reached in an on-going campaign. As such, under these circumstances, early vaccine roll-out ought to be targeted towards giving as many people one dose as possible, until the switch-point is reached. Our results agree with findings from earlier modelling work (applied in a non-UK context) that found, when a single dose retains the majority of the effectiveness against disease of two doses, immunising as many persons as possible with a single-dose regimen may achieve a greater reduction in disease from COVID-19 than a 2-dose regimen in a smaller population [14–16].
While this modelling provides important generic insights into the benefits of first and second doses, there are a number of elements that are absent from this simple analysis. Most notably, the vaccination programme is a dynamic process in which different amounts of vaccine are available at different points in time; therefore, while it is possible to read Fig. 5 as a chronology, it does not take into account the necessary restrictions on the separation between doses. Our model computes the protection derived from a specified amount of vaccine doses being instantaneously administered amongst the population. This lack of a dynamic perspective means that we cannot address questions that relate to the precise timing of vaccination. In particular, very long delays between doses may have implications for both short- and long-term immunity; similarly the model cannot directly capture the delay between vaccination and the development of immunity. In addition, our model also assumes that priority groups are completed in order of greatest risk - whereas in practice, and for a number of practical reasons, the delivery schedule is blurred, often vaccinating groups that are most easy to reach.
Our determination of dose allocation was based on averting deaths, with no regard for hospital admissions (and therefore pressure on the health services), the implications of long-COVID nor any form of life-years lost or quality adjusted life year assessment. The prioritisation of first doses compared to second doses, for a given relative efficacy, may differ under an alternative metric or collection of measures (as found in the study by Matrajt et al. [16], who determined that the optimal allocation strategy with one and two doses of vaccine was different when minimising one of five distinct metrics of disease and healthcare burden under various degrees of viral transmission). Furthermore, in terms of the demography and empirical data on mortality risk due to COVID-19, our analysis has been carried out using data corresponding to the population of England. Thus, these findings will not necessarily directly translate to other settings, in particular where the population structure and mortality are vastly different. Finally, our static modelling framework does not account for the transmission dynamics of infection; the fact that individuals have been immunised does not change the risk to the remaining population and hence we do not capture the structured reduction in risk that can occur. General declines (or increases) in risk that apply equally to the entire population do not affect our results.
In summary, given the strong evidence that a single dose is highly effective, our model results would indicate that early prioritisation of one dose (compared to re-vaccinating with a second doses) averts the greater number of deaths. The precise timing of first and second doses is contingent on the speed of the delivery programme, with more rapid delivery favouring early deployment of second doses. The policy adopted in the UK was dependent upon a number of practical considerations - not least the greater second dose efficacy of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine after a 12-week delay [5], and the need for a simple, consistent message across all priority groups and vaccines. However, this work clearly shows that, given particular combinations of demographic and vaccine attributes, a strategy of prioritising first doses can have substantial public health benefits.
Data Availability
The data used to conduct this study are provided in the main manuscript. Code is available at https://github.com/EdMHill/fixed_num_vaccine_doses_one_vs_two_dose_prioritisation.
Author contributions
Edward M. Hill: Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.
Matt J. Keeling: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Visualisation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.
Financial disclosure
This report is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Policy Research Programme, Mathematical & Economic Modelling for Vaccination and Immunisation Evaluation, and Emergency Response; NIHR200411]. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. It has also been supported by the Medical Research Council through the COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call [grant number MR/V009761/1] and through the JUNIPER modelling consortium [grant number MR/V038613/1]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Data and code availability
The data used to conduct this study are provided in the main manuscript. Code is available at https://github.com/EdMHill/fixed_num_vaccine_doses_one_vs_two_dose_prioritisation.
Competing interests
All authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ian Hall and Department of Health and Social Care for assisting with provision of priority group population estimates.