Two-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness with mixed schedules and extended dosing intervals: test-negative design studies from British Columbia and Quebec, Canada - Skowronski, Danuta M; Setayeshgar, Solmaz; Febriani, Yossi; Ouakki, Manale; Zou, Macy; Talbot, Denis; Prystajecky, Natalie; Tyson, John R; Gilca, Rodica; Brousseau, Nicholas; Deceuninck, Geneviève; Galanis, Eleni; et al. (medRxiv, 2021)
Background The Canadian COVID-19 immunization strategy deferred second doses and allowed mixed schedules. We compared two-dose vaccine effectiveness (VE) by vaccine type (mRNA and/or ChAdOx1), interval between doses, and time since second dose in two of Canada’s larger provinces.Methods Two-dose VE against infections and hospitalizations due to SARS-CoV-2, including variants of concern, was assessed between May 30 and October 2, 2021 using test-negative designs separately conducted among community-dwelling adults ≥18-years-old in British Columbia (BC) and Quebec, Canada.Findings In both provinces, two doses of homologous or heterologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were associated with ∼95% reduction in the risk of hospitalization. VE exceeded 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infection when at least one dose was an mRNA vaccine, but was lower at ∼70% when both doses were ChAdOx1. Estimates were similar by age group (including adults ≥70-years-old) and for Delta-variant outcomes. VE was significantly higher against both infection and hospitalization with longer 7-8-week vs. manufacturer-specified 3-4-week interval between doses. Two-dose mRNA VE was maintained against hospitalization for the 5-7-month monitoring period and while showing some decline against infection, remained ≥80%.Interpretation Two doses of mRNA and/or ChAdOx1 vaccines gave excellent protection against hospitalization, with no sign of decline by 5-7 months post-vaccination. A 7-8-week interval between doses improved VE and may be optimal in most circumstances. Findings indicate prolonged two-dose protection and support the use of mixed schedules and longer intervals between doses, with global health, equity and access implications in the context of recent third-dose proposals.Competing Interest StatementGDS received a grant paid to his institution for a meningococcal seroprevalence study from Pfizer in 2016. MK received grants/contracts paid to his institution from Roche, Hologic and Siemens, unrelated to this work. MS has been an investigator on projects, unrelated to the current work, funded by GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Pasteur, Seqirus, Symvivo and VBI Vaccines. All funds have been paid to his institute, and he has not received any personal payments. RG received honoraria for an RSV Coordinators Workshop funded by AbbVie. Other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.Funding StatementProvincial health authorities provided funding but had no role in the design, results, interpretation or decision to submit.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Data linkages and analyses were authorized by the Provincial Health Officer (BC) and National Director of Public Health (Quebec) under respective provincial public health legislation without requirement for research ethics board review. The University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board waived ethical approval for this work in BC; the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Québec-Université Laval Research Ethics Board provided ethical approval for this work in Quebec.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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesSharing of de-identified data that underpin the vaccine effectiveness results reported in this article will be considered upon request with appropriate review and aggregation as required to comply with respective provincial/national privacy and confidentiality legislation and through secure file transfer protocols. Information regarding submitting proposals and accessing data may be obtained through the corresponding authors.