ArticleThe Lancet. Public health2023
Quantifying the effect of delaying the second COVID-19 vaccine dose in England: a mathematical modelling study.
Article in The Lancet. Public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of Waning of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine-Induced Immunity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Modeling the impact of vaccine dose prioritization strategies during the 2022 mpox outbreak.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Genomic and clinical epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Lebanon: a prospective multicenter study 2020-2024.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Third exposure to COVID-19 infection or vaccination differentially impacts T cell responses.The Journal of infection · 2025Observational
- Impact of vaccination on Omicron's escape variants: Insights from fine-scale modelling of waning immunity in Hong Kong.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2025Article
- Evaluating the impact of extended dosing intervals on mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in adolescents.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Deviation from the recommended schedule: optimal dosing interval for a two-dose vaccination programme.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Evaluating the impact of extended dosing intervals on mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in adolescents.Research square · 2024Article
- The impact of health inequity on spatial variation of COVID-19 transmission in England.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Modelling the impact of hybrid immunity on future COVID-19 epidemic waves.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Covid19Vaxplorer: A free, online, user-friendly COVID-19 vaccine allocation comparison tool.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Covid19Vaxplorer: a free, online, user-friendly COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation Comparison Tool.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Epidemiological drivers of transmissibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2 in England.Nature communications · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe UK was the first country to start national COVID-19 vaccination programmes, initially administering doses 3 weeks apart. However, early evidence of high vaccine effectiveness after the first dose and the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant prompted the UK to extend the interval between doses to 12 weeks. In this study, we aimed to quantify the effect of delaying the second vaccine dose in England.
methodsWe used a previously described model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, calibrated to COVID-19 surveillance data from England, including hospital admissions, hospital occupancy, seroprevalence data, and population-level PCR testing data, using a Bayesian evidence-synthesis framework. We modelled and compared the epidemic trajectory in the counterfactual scenario in which vaccine doses were administered 3 weeks apart against the real reported vaccine roll-out schedule of 12 weeks. We estimated and compared the resulting numbers of daily infections, hospital admissions, and deaths. In sensitivity analyses, we investigated scenarios spanning a range of vaccine effectiveness and waning assumptions.
findingsIn the period from Dec 8, 2020, to Sept 13, 2021, the number of individuals who received a first vaccine dose was higher under the 12-week strategy than the 3-week strategy. For this period, we estimated that delaying the interval between the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses from 3 to 12 weeks averted a median (calculated as the median of the posterior sample) of 58 000 COVID-19 hospital admissions (291 000 cumulative hospitalisations [95% credible interval 275 000-319 000] under the 3-week strategy vs 233 000 [229 000-238 000] under the 12-week strategy) and 10 100 deaths (64 800 deaths [60 200-68 900] vs 54 700 [52 800-55 600]). Similarly, we estimated that the 3-week strategy would have resulted in more infections compared with the 12-week strategy. Across all sensitivity analyses the 3-week strategy resulted in a greater number of hospital admissions. In results by age group, the 12-week strategy led to more hospitalisations and deaths in older people in spring 2021, but fewer following the emergence of the delta variant during summer 2021.
interpretationEngland's delayed-second-dose vaccination strategy was informed by early real-world data on vaccine effectiveness in the context of limited vaccine supplies in a growing epidemic. Our study shows that rapidly providing partial (single-dose) vaccine-induced protection to a larger proportion of the population was successful in reducing the burden of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths overall.
fundingUK National Institute for Health Research; UK Medical Research Council; Community Jameel; Wellcome Trust; UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; and EU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.