Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Predicting the Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines from SARS-CoV-2 Variants Neutralisation Data

Oleg Volkov, Svetlana Borozdenkova, Alexander Gray
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.06.21263160
Oleg Volkov
1Xitific LTD, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: oleg{at}xitific.blue
Svetlana Borozdenkova
1Xitific LTD, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander Gray
2IDEAPharma, Milton Keynes, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Rapid and accurate prediction of Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness is crucial to response against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Despite intensive research, several prediction tasks are not well supported, such as predicting effectiveness of partial vaccination, of vaccine boosters and in vaccinated subpopulations. This paper introduces a novel predictive framework to accommodate such tasks and improve prediction accuracy. It was developed for predicting the symptomatic effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Vaxzevria) vaccines but could apply to other vaccines and effectiveness types. Direct prediction within the framework uses levels of vaccine-induced neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants to fit efficacy and effectiveness estimates from studies with a given vaccine. Indirect prediction uses a model fitted for one vaccine to predict the effectiveness of another. The directly predicted effectiveness of Comirnaty against the Delta variant was 44.8% (22, 69) after one and 84.6% (64, 97) after two doses, which is close to 45.6% and 85.5%, the average estimates from effectiveness studies with the vaccine. The corresponding direct predictions for Vaxzevria were 41.6% (18, 68) and 63.2% (37, 86); and the indirect predictions, from the model fitted to Comirnaty data, were 45.5% (23, 70) and 61.2% (37, 83). Both sets of predictions are comparable to the average estimates, 42.5% and 66.3%, from effectiveness studies with Vaxzevria. Further results are presented on age subgroups; prediction biases and their mitigation; and implications for vaccination policies.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This work received no external funding.

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:

The paper only used publicly available data collected externally.

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

  • We added predictions for the Vaxzevria vaccine and an assessment of potential confounders. The paper was edited and its structure was improved.

Data Availability

All data and R code used for this paper will be freely available in October 2021.

https://github.com/spockoyno/pfizer_biontech_vaccine_paper

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted October 07, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Predicting the Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines from SARS-CoV-2 Variants Neutralisation Data
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Predicting the Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines from SARS-CoV-2 Variants Neutralisation Data
Oleg Volkov, Svetlana Borozdenkova, Alexander Gray
medRxiv 2021.09.06.21263160; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.06.21263160
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Predicting the Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines from SARS-CoV-2 Variants Neutralisation Data
Oleg Volkov, Svetlana Borozdenkova, Alexander Gray
medRxiv 2021.09.06.21263160; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.06.21263160

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (427)
  • Allergy and Immunology (753)
  • Anesthesia (220)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (3281)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (362)
  • Dermatology (274)
  • Emergency Medicine (478)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1164)
  • Epidemiology (13340)
  • Forensic Medicine (19)
  • Gastroenterology (896)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (5130)
  • Geriatric Medicine (479)
  • Health Economics (781)
  • Health Informatics (3253)
  • Health Policy (1138)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1189)
  • Hematology (427)
  • HIV/AIDS (1014)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (14613)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (910)
  • Medical Education (475)
  • Medical Ethics (126)
  • Nephrology (522)
  • Neurology (4900)
  • Nursing (261)
  • Nutrition (725)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (879)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (795)
  • Oncology (2516)
  • Ophthalmology (722)
  • Orthopedics (280)
  • Otolaryngology (346)
  • Pain Medicine (323)
  • Palliative Medicine (90)
  • Pathology (539)
  • Pediatrics (1297)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (548)
  • Primary Care Research (554)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (4193)
  • Public and Global Health (7482)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1702)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1010)
  • Respiratory Medicine (979)
  • Rheumatology (478)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (495)
  • Sports Medicine (424)
  • Surgery (546)
  • Toxicology (71)
  • Transplantation (235)
  • Urology (203)