We kept seeing 1 dose vax after prior infxn boosting Ab tires 3X higher than 2 doses at the standard 3 week interval. Some of us wondered if this was from optimised prime-boost interval at the time...
3 weeks on short side of intervals, where immune response hasn't completely matured after prime stimulus.
Delay may selectively expand population of long lived plasma cells (B cell derivatives) too.
Delayed boost shown to have better Ab response across prev vax types👇
3/
This is particularly important in the vulnerable elderly population where immune response is slower with later detectable seroconversion, and lower final Ab level too.
4/
When it comes to variants the way we measure 'immune evasion' typically in labs (in vitro) is what concentration or dilution of blood serum containing Ab is needed to neutralise the virus to prevent growth on plates. (usually 50% of baseline viral plaque growth)
5/
For Pfizer serum after 3 week dose interval compared to wild type SAR-COV-2 virus it takes approximately 3X higher serum concentration to achieve viral neutralisation for UK B1.1.7 and Brazilian P.1 and 8X higher serum concentration for South African B1.351.
6/
This happens bc mutations in viral spike protein alter its amino acid residues and the protein shape our antibodies recognise and form hydrogen bonds with.
The mutations lower affinity (or binding association constant) between our generated antibodies and the spike protein.
7/
Spike mutations thus affect antibody binding equilibrium constant (Keq), the reaction of antigen (Ag) and antibody (Ab) binding to form antigen-antibody complex (Ab-Ag).
Shifting equilibrium to the left (unbound)
(Ka/Kd= Ka =Keq, where Kd is the dissociation constant)
8/
Since Ab bind less strongly to mutant spike antigen the virus is no longer trapped and free to infect cells and replicate.
But simply by increasing concentration of serum Ab we can mitigate this and shift antibody binding equilibrium back to where it was pre-mutation.
9/
Whilst not exactly linear nor necessarily at equilibrium in dynamic human system, serum w/ 3.5X higher Ab level should neutralise variants B1.1.7, P.1 and even Indian B1.617.2 similarly as serum from someone w/ 3 week Pfizer interval neutralising wild type virus.
10/
In addition to providing likely better effectiveness against variants in the short term, delayed dosing will also increase durability of protection.
Ab levels decay w/ time and starting from a higher initial peak helps.
But decay rate itself is proportional to peak level!
11/
This is seen both in Ab longevity studies from natural SARS-COV-2 infection and also after vaccination of other viruses. Where higher initial Ab titres lower the rate of Ab decay.
So duration of protection is even longer than expected from using a static decay model.
12/
In summary JCVI delayed 12 dose:
⬆️ Ab level, particularly valuable in vulnerable elderly
- will effectively neutralize variants as well as WT (except B1.351) if compared to 3 week interval
- longer protection at high level (area under Ab curve)
- maximised vax resources
13/
Puts UK in a strong position to deal with emerging variants in the coming months/years. More leeway for amount of 'immune escape' and time if boosters needed etc.
Canada following suit with 16 week interval now.
NB. Delayed boost increases Ab tires/VE for Oxford/AZ too👇
14/
If accelerating dose interval <<12 weeks there should be real pressing need/risk of immediate infection...
2 doses definitely provides better protection against infxn, hospitalisation and death v 1 dose at any interval, but shorter interval will forgo longer term benefits.
End/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
▪️ 173,248
mentions on death certificates to 24th Dec'21
▪️ 150,154
within 28 days of positive test reported by 9th Jan'22
▪️ 119,600
age standardised excess deaths from Continuous Mortality Investigation (CMI) to 24th Dec'21
1/
1. Mentions on death cert: filled by physicians who knew the patient w/access to medical history. But includes primary cause (1a) and contributing factor or co-existing. So likely overestimate.
Proportion of 1 or 'due to' covid cause has varied over time 80-90% (ONS).
2/
2. Within 28 days of +ve test: includes incidental in period after test and where C19 may contribute but not 1o CoD (NB every hosp adms tested) = overestimate.
However, when test capacity lacking eg 1st wave spring 2020 this will lead to underestimate. (CMI chart for E&W).
Can this Kaplan-Meier curve apply to countries as a whole?
Thought experiment on survivorship bias in South Africa and question of Omicron 'mildness' (as we wait for better data - UKHSA case control/retrospective matched studies in 2-3 weeks)...
1/
Firstly, we need to recognise that the attack rate in RSA is very very high. Modelling from excess deaths, even if adjusting for a higher low income country IFR would place AR at over 85% and closer to 100%.
278k excess deaths = 0.5% of a demographically young population
2/
Ab serosurveys likewise showed 32-63% positivity in Jan'21 across RSA provinces before Beta wave finished or Delta wave arrived.
Projecting forward for further waves and accounting for Ab wane below limit of detection also places AR >95%.
3rd dose immunogenicity v AZ or PF/BNT 2dose primary course
▪️2883 randomised w/ multiple cntrl groups
▪️7 different vax boosters + some 1/2 doses
▪️1/2 age >70
▪️>84 days from 2nd dose PF and >70d for AZ til boost
On point 1. Glad JCVI exist and appraise vaccine/immunology data.
Booster trial effectiveness is based on 6 month gap (may not be same with shorter gap) and immunogenicity studies show longer the gap between dose2 and 3 stronger the immune response.
The most robust data for vax effectiveness waning is from randomised control trials. Pfizer👇
2doses holds up well- but still complete the course and boost!
This is real world data. Prospective randomisation only reduces confounding we face in retrospective observations.
1/
Sources of bias/confounding in observational data (eg UKHSA case control study below):
▪️ accrued natural immunity in control (>45% 🏴 infected) & only a fraction tested
▪️ difficulty of retrospective matching/case controlling (high clinical risk vaxxed first, not just age)
2/
▪️ break throughs disproportionately sample higher risk (immunocompromised, preexisting conditions, etc)
▪️ lower test seeking behaviour in unvaxxed
▪️ pop highest risk of infection (urban, young, ethic minority, high deprivation) also lower vax uptake