skip to main content

Title: Epidemiological and evolutionary considerations of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dosing regimes
In the face of vaccine dose shortages and logistical challenges, various deployment strategies are being proposed to increase population immunity levels to SARS-CoV-2. Two critical issues arise: how will the timing of delivery of the second dose affect both infection dynamics and prospects for the evolution of viral immune escape via a build-up of partially immune individuals. Both hinge on the robustness of the immune response elicited by a single dose, compared to natural and two-dose immunity. Building on an existing immuno-epidemiological model, we find that in the short-term, focusing on one dose generally decreases infections, but longer-term outcomes depend on this relative immune robustness. We then explore three scenarios of selection and find that a one-dose policy may increase the potential for antigenic evolution under certain conditions of partial population immunity. We highlight the critical need to test viral loads and quantify immune responses after one vaccine dose, and to ramp up vaccination efforts throughout the world.
Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1917819 2027908
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10218317
Journal Name:
Science
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
eabg8663
ISSN:
0036-8075
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract Background When three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines came to market in Europe and North America in the winter of 2020–2021, distribution networks were in a race against a major epidemiological wave of SARS-CoV-2 that began in autumn 2020. Rapid and optimized vaccine allocation was critical during this time. With 95% efficacy reported for two of the vaccines, near-term public health needs likely require that distribution is prioritized to the elderly, health care workers, teachers, essential workers, and individuals with comorbidities putting them at risk of severe clinical progression. Methods We evaluate various age-based vaccine distributions using a validated mathematical model based on current epidemic trends in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. We allow for varying waning efficacy of vaccine-induced immunity, as this has not yet been measured. We account for the fact that known COVID-positive cases may not have been included in the first round of vaccination. And, we account for age-specific immune patterns in both states at the time of the start of the vaccination program. Our analysis assumes that health systems during winter 2020–2021 had equal staffing and capacity to previous phases of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic; we do not consider the effects of understaffed hospitals or unvaccinated medical staff. Resultsmore »We find that allocating a substantial proportion (>75 % ) of vaccine supply to individuals over the age of 70 is optimal in terms of reducing total cumulative deaths through mid-2021. This result is robust to different profiles of waning vaccine efficacy and several different assumptions on age mixing during and after lockdown periods. As we do not explicitly model other high-mortality groups, our results on vaccine allocation apply to all groups at high risk of mortality if infected. A median of 327 to 340 deaths can be avoided in Rhode Island (3444 to 3647 in Massachusetts) by optimizing vaccine allocation and vaccinating the elderly first. The vaccination campaigns are expected to save a median of 639 to 664 lives in Rhode Island and 6278 to 6618 lives in Massachusetts in the first half of 2021 when compared to a scenario with no vaccine. A policy of vaccinating only seronegative individuals avoids redundancy in vaccine use on individuals that may already be immune, and would result in 0.5% to 1% reductions in cumulative hospitalizations and deaths by mid-2021. Conclusions Assuming high vaccination coverage (>28 % ) and no major changes in distancing, masking, gathering size, hygiene guidelines, and virus transmissibility between 1 January 2021 and 1 July 2021 a combination of vaccination and population immunity may lead to low or near-zero transmission levels by the second quarter of 2021.« less
  2. Type I interferons (IFN-I) are a major antiviral defense and are critical for the activation of the adaptive immune system. However, early viral clearance by IFN-I could limit antigen availability, which could in turn impinge upon the priming of the adaptive immune system. In this study, we hypothesized that transient IFN-I blockade could increase antigen presentation after acute viral infection. To test this hypothesis, we infected mice with viruses coadministered with a single dose of IFN-I receptor–blocking antibody to induce a short-term blockade of the IFN-I pathway. This resulted in a transient “spike” in antigen levels, followed by rapid antigen clearance. Interestingly, short-term IFN-I blockade after coronavirus, flavivirus, rhabdovirus, or arenavirus infection induced a long-lasting enhancement of immunological memory that conferred improved protection upon subsequent reinfections. Short-term IFN-I blockade also improved the efficacy of viral vaccines. These findings demonstrate a novel mechanism by which IFN-I regulate immunological memory and provide insights for rational vaccine design.

  3. Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia virus (VHSV) is a pathogenic fish rhabdovirus found in discrete locales throughout the northern hemisphere. VHSV infection of fish cells leads to upregulation of the host's virus detection response, but the virus quickly suppresses interferon (IFN) production and antiviral genes expression. By systematically screening each of the six VHSV structural and nonstructural genes, we have identified matrix protein (M) as its most potent anti-host protein. VHSV-IVb M alone suppressed mitochondrial antiviral signaling protein (MAVS) and type I IFN-induced gene expression in a dose-dependent manner. M also suppressed the constitutively active SV40 promoter and globally decreased cellular RNA levels. Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) studies illustrated that M inhibited RNA polymerase II (RNAP II) recruitment to gene promoters, and decreased RNAP II CTD Ser2 phosphorylation during VHSV infection. However, transcription directed by RNAP I-III was suppressed by M. To identify regions of functional importance, M proteins from a variety of VHSV strains were tested in cell-based transcriptional inhibition assays. M protein of a particular VHSV-Ia strain, F1, was significantly less potent than -IVb M at inhibiting SV40/luc expression, yet differed by just four amino acids. Mutation of D62 to alanine alone, or in combination with an E181 to alanine mutationmore »(D62A/E181A), dramatically reduced the ability of -IVb M to suppress host transcription. Introducing either M D62A or D62A/E181A mutations into VHSV-IVb via reverse genetics resulted in viruses that replicated efficiently but exhibited less cytotoxicity and reduced anti-transcriptional activities, implicating M as a primary regulator of cytopathicity and host transcriptional suppression. Importance: Viruses must suppress host antiviral responses to replicate and spread between hosts. In these studies, we identified the matrix protein of the deadly fish Novirhabdovirus, VHSV, as a critical mediator of host suppression during infection. Our studies indicated that M alone could block cellular gene expression at very low expression levels. We identified several subtle mutations in M that were less potent at suppressing host transcription. When these mutations were engineered back into recombinant viruses, the resulting viruses replicated well but elicited less toxicity in infected cells and activated host innate immune responses more robustly. These data demonstrated that VHSV M plays an important role in mediating both virus-induced cell toxicity and viral replication. Our data suggest that its roles in these two processes can be separated to design effective attenuated viruses for vaccine candidates.« less
  4. Pathogen management strategies in wildlife are typically accompanied by an array of uncertainties such as the efficacy of vaccines or potential unintended consequences of interventions. In the context of such uncertainties, models of disease transmission can provide critical insight for optimizing pathogen management, especially for species of conservation concern. The endangered Florida panther experienced an outbreak of feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) in 2002–2004, and continues to be affected by this deadly virus. Ongoing management efforts aim to mitigate the effects of FeLV on panthers, but with limited information about which strategies may be most effective and efficient. We used a simulation-based approach to determine optimal FeLV management strategies in panthers. We simulated the use of proactive FeLV management strategies (i.e. proactive vaccination) and several reactive strategies, including reactive vaccination and test-and-removal. Vaccination strategies accounted for imperfect vaccine-induced immunity, specifically partial immunity in which all vaccinates achieve partial pathogen protection. We compared the effectiveness of these different strategies in mitigating the number of FeLV mortalities and the duration of outbreaks. Results showed that inadequate proactive vaccination can paradoxically increase the number of disease-induced mortalities in FeLV outbreaks. These effects were most likely due to imperfect vaccine immunity causing vaccinates to servemore »as a semi-susceptible population, thereby allowing outbreaks to persist in circumstances otherwise conducive to fadeout. Combinations of proactive vaccination with reactive test-and-removal or vaccination, however, had a synergistic effect in reducing the impacts of FeLV outbreaks, highlighting the importance of using mixed strategies in pathogen management. Synthesis and applications. Management-informed disease simulations are an important tool for identifying unexpected negative consequences and synergies among pathogen management strategies. In particular, we find that imperfect vaccine-induced immunity necessitates further consideration to avoid unintentionally worsening epidemics in some conditions. However, mixing proactive and reactive interventions can improve pathogen control while mitigating uncertainties associated with imperfect interventions.« less
  5. Read, Andrew Fraser (Ed.)
    Two of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines currently approved in the United States require 2 doses, administered 3 to 4 weeks apart. Constraints in vaccine supply and distribution capacity, together with a deadly wave of COVID-19 from November 2020 to January 2021 and the emergence of highly contagious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants, sparked a policy debate on whether to vaccinate more individuals with the first dose of available vaccines and delay the second dose or to continue with the recommended 2-dose series as tested in clinical trials. We developed an agent-based model of COVID-19 transmission to compare the impact of these 2 vaccination strategies, while varying the temporal waning of vaccine efficacy following the first dose and the level of preexisting immunity in the population. Our results show that for Moderna vaccines, a delay of at least 9 weeks could maximize vaccination program effectiveness and avert at least an additional 17.3 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 7.8–29.7) infections, 0.69 (95% CrI: 0.52–0.97) hospitalizations, and 0.34 (95% CrI: 0.25–0.44) deaths per 10,000 population compared to the recommended 4-week interval between the 2 doses. Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines also averted an additional 0.60 (95% CrI: 0.37–0.89) hospitalizations and 0.32 (95%more »CrI: 0.23–0.45) deaths per 10,000 population in a 9-week delayed second dose (DSD) strategy compared to the 3-week recommended schedule between doses. However, there was no clear advantage of delaying the second dose with Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in reducing infections, unless the efficacy of the first dose did not wane over time. Our findings underscore the importance of quantifying the characteristics and durability of vaccine-induced protection after the first dose in order to determine the optimal time interval between the 2 doses.« less