Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39076371›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

Deviation from the recommended schedule: optimal dosing interval for a two-dose vaccination programme.

Zhen Wang, Gergely Röst, Seyed M Moghadas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Zhen WangAgent-Based Modelling Laboratory, York University, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada.
Gergely RöstNational Laboratory for Health Security, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Seyed M MoghadasAgent-Based Modelling Laboratory, York University, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4414-0227

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimizing vaccination impact during an emerging disease becomes crucial when vaccine supply is limited, and robust protection requires multiple doses. Facing this challenge during the early stages of the COVID-19 vaccine deployment, a pivotal policy question arose: whether to administer a single dose to a larger proportion of the population by deferring the second dose, or to prioritize stronger protection for a smaller subset of the population with the established dosing interval from clinical trials. Using a delay-differential model and considering waning immunity and distribution capacity, we compared these strategies. We found that the efficacy of the first dose significantly influences the impact of delaying the second dose. Even for a relatively low efficacy of the first dose, a delayed strategy may outperform vaccination with the recommended dosing interval in reducing short-term hospitalizations and deaths despite increase in infections. The optimal delay, however, depends on the specific outcome measured and timelines within which the vaccination strategy is evaluated. We found transition lines for the relative reduction of infection, hospitalization and death below which vaccination with the recommended schedule is the preferred strategy. In a realistic parameter space, our results highlight scenarios in which the conclusions of previous studies are invalid.

Indexed as

epidemic dynamicsintegro-differential equationssimulationvaccination

Identifiers

PMID39076371
PMCPMC11285767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.