News Release

Delaying second dose of COVID-19 vaccines may be an effective public health strategy

Study suggests that prioritizing widespread inoculation with available first doses may reduce new infections, hospitalizations, and deaths

Peer-Reviewed Publication


Delaying second dose of COVID-19 vaccines may be an effective public health strategy

image: During an outbreak, which vaccination strategy would avert more infections, hospitalizations, deaths: a strategy that provides lower protection to more people, or one that provides higher protection to fewer individuals? view more 

Credit: Moghadas (lead author)

Two of the COVID-19 vaccines currently approved in the United States require two doses, administered three to four weeks apart, however, there are few data indicating how best to minimize new infections and hospitalizations with limited vaccine supply and distribution capacity. A study published on 21st April, 2021 in the open access journal PLOS Biology by Seyed Moghadas at York University in Toronto, Canada, and colleagues suggests that delaying the second dose could improve the effectiveness of vaccine programs.

The emergence of novel, more contagious SARS-CoV-2 variants has led to a public health debate on whether to vaccinate more individuals with the first dose of available vaccines and delay the second dose, or to prioritize completion of the two-dose series based on tested schedules in clinical trials.

In order to compare the epidemiological impact of each vaccination strategy, researchers built a mathematical model that simulated both COVID-19 transmission and various delayed second dose vaccination schedules. The model simulated several scenarios, including a range of levels of preexisting immunity in the population and decreased vaccine efficacy of the first dose when followed by a longer interval between doses.

The authors found that delaying the second dose for 9-15 weeks after the first dose avoided more hospitalizations, infections, and deaths compared to following the recommended schedules for Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.

The authors note that the study has several limitations, including a lack of clinical evidence quantifying the durability of the vaccines when administered under different schedules. Researchers thus assumed that protection levels of the first dose were stable if second doses were delayed, and that the protection level after delaying second doses was identical to overall protection after two doses when vaccinating according to schedule. Further studies are needed to pinpoint the optimal time between doses for each type of vaccine.

According to the authors, "When racing against a burgeoning outbreak, our results show that prioritizing vaccine coverage with rapid distribution of the first dose would be critical to mitigating adverse outcomes and allow the healthcare system to also address non-COVID-19 medical needs of the population."

"We still do not have the full picture of vaccine effectiveness as new and more contagious variants spread. Efficacy of vaccines against these variants is an additional factor that would need to be considered in determining the outcomes of on-time versus delayed second dose and interval between doses," said Moghadas, the lead author of the study.


In your coverage please use these URLs to provide access to the freely available articles in PLOS Biology:

Citation: Moghadas SM, Vilches TN, Zhang K, Nourbakhsh S, Sah P, Fitzpatrick MC, et al. (2021) Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination strategies with a delayed second dose. PLoS Biol 19(4): e3001211.

Funding: The authors received funding from the following sources: SMM: Canadian Institutes of Health Research [OV4 - 170643, COVID-19 Rapid Research]; TNV: São Paulo Research Foundation [18/24811-1]; APG, MCF: the National Institutes of Health [1RO1AI151176-01; 1K01AI141576-01]; APG: the National Science Foundation [RAPID 2027755; CCF-1918784]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.