Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36272876›Full record

ArticleVaccine2022

Identifying COVID-19 optimal vaccine dose using mathematical immunostimulation/immunodynamic modelling.

Sophie Rhodes, Neal Smith, Thomas Evans, Richard White

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sophie RhodesTB Modelling Group, CMMID, TB Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK. Electronic address: sophie.rhodes@lshtm.ac.uk.
Neal SmithDefence and Science Technology Laboratory, UK.
Thomas EvansVaccitech, Oxford, UK.
Richard WhiteTB Modelling Group, CMMID, TB Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
University of London · GBVaccitech (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIdentifying optimal COVID-19 vaccine dose is essential for maximizing their impact. However, COVID-19 vaccine dose-finding has been an empirical process, limited by short development timeframes, and therefore potentially not thoroughly investigated. Mathematical IS/ID modelling is a novel method for predicting optimal vaccine dose which could inform future COVID-19 vaccine dose decision making.

methodsPublished clinical data on COVID-19 vaccine dose-response was identified and extracted. Mathematical models were calibrated to the dose-response data stratified by subpopulation, where possible to predict optimal dose. Predicted optimal doses were summarised across vaccine type and compared to chosen dose for the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines to identify vaccine doses that may benefit from re-evaluation.

results30 clinical dose-response datasets in adults and elderly population were extracted for four vaccine types and optimal doses predicted using the models. Results suggest that, if re-assessed for dose, COVID-19 vaccines Ad26.cov, ChadOx1 n-Cov19, BNT162b2, Coronavac, and NVX-CoV2373 could benefit from increased dose in adults and mRNA-1273 and Coronavac, could benefit from increased and decreased dose for the elderly population, respectively. DISCUSSION: Future iterations of COVID-19 vaccines could benefit from re-evaluating dose to ensure most effective use of the vaccine and mathematical modelling can support this.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAdultAgedBNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansImmunizationModels, TheoreticalBNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 VaccinesNVX-CoV2373 adjuvated lipid nanoparticleVaccines

Identifiers

PMID36272876
PMCPMC9574467
OpenAlexW4306405748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.