Assessing the Combined Public Health Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions on Pandemic Transmission and Mortality: An Example in SARS CoV-2.

To assess the combined role of anti-viral monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and vaccines in reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and mortality in the United States, an agent-based model was developed that accounted for social contacts, movement/travel, disease progression, and viral shedding. The model was calibrated to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality between October 2020 and April 2021 (aggressive pandemic phase), and projected an extended outlook to estimate mortality during a less aggressive phase (April-August 2021). Simulated scenarios evaluated mAbs for averting infections and deaths in addition to vaccines and aggregated non-pharmaceutical interventions. Scenarios included mAbs as a treatment of COVID-19 and for passive immunity for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) during a period when variants were susceptible to the mAbs. Rapid diagnostic testing paired with mAbs was evaluated as an early treatment-as-prevention strategy. Sensitivity analyses included increasing mAb supply and vaccine rollout. Allocation of mAbs for use only as PEP averted up to 14% more infections than vaccine alone, and targeting individuals ≥ 65 years averted up to 37% more deaths. Rapid testing for earlier diagnosis and mAb use amplified these benefits. Doubling the mAb supply further reduced infections and mortality. mAbs provided benefits even as proportion of the immunized population increased. Model projections estimated that ~ 42% of expected deaths between April and August 2021 could be averted. Assuming sensitivity to mAbs, their use as early treatment and PEP in addition to vaccines would substantially reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission and mortality even as vaccination increases and mortality decreases. These results provide a template for informing public health policy for future pandemic preparedness.

Testing fractional doses of COVID-19 vaccines.

Due to the enormous economic, health, and social costs of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are high expected social returns to investing in parallel in multiple approaches to accelerating vaccination. We argue there are high expected social returns to investigating the scope for lowering the dosage of some COVID-19 vaccines. While existing evidence is not dispositive, available clinical data on the immunogenicity of lower doses combined with evidence of a high correlation between neutralizing antibody response and vaccine efficacy suggests that half or even quarter doses of some vaccines could generate high levels of protection, particularly against severe disease and death, while potentially expanding supply by 450 million to 1.55 billion doses per month, based on supply projections for 2021. An epidemiological model suggests that, even if fractional doses are less effective than standard doses, vaccinating more people faster could substantially reduce total infections and deaths. The costs of further testing alternative doses are much lower than the expected public health and economic benefits. However, commercial incentives to generate evidence on fractional dosing are weak, suggesting that testing may not occur without public investment. Governments could support either experimental or observational evaluations of fractional dosing, for either primary or booster shots. Discussions with researchers and government officials in multiple countries where vaccines are scarce suggests strong interest in these approaches.

Testing Fractional doses of COVID-19 Vaccines

Due to the enormous economic, health, and social costs of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are high expected social returns to investing in parallel in multiple approaches to accelerating vaccination. We argue there are high expected social returns to investigating the scope for lowering the dosage of some COVID-19 vaccines. While existing evidence is not dispositive, available clinical data on the immunogenicity of lower doses combined with evidence of a high correlation between neutralizing antibody response and vaccine efficacy suggests that half- or even quarter-doses of some vaccines could generate high levels of protection, particularly against severe disease and death, while potentially expanding supply by 450 million to 1.55 billion doses per month, based on supply projections for 2021. An epidemiological model suggests that even if fractional doses are less effective than standard doses, vaccinating more people faster could substantially reduce total infections and deaths. The costs of further testing alternative doses are much lower than the expected public health and economic benefits. However, commercial incentives to generate evidence on fractional dosing are weak, suggesting that testing may not occur without public investment. Governments could support either experimental or observational evaluations of fractional dosing, for either primary or booster shots. Discussions with researchers and government officials in multiple countries where vaccines are scarce suggest strong interest in these approaches.

Preparing for a Pandemic: Accelerating Vaccine Availability

Vaccinating the world’s population quickly in a pandemic has enormous health and economic benefits. We analyze the problem faced by governments in determining the scale and structure of procurement for vaccines. We analyze alternative approaches to procurement. We find that if the goal is to accelerate the vaccine delivery timetable, buyers should directly fund manufacturing capacity and shoulder most of the risk of failure, while maintaining some direct incentives for speed. We analyzed the optimal portfolio of vaccine investments for countries with different characteristics as well as the implications for international cooperation. Our analysis, considered in light of the experience of 2020, suggests lessons for future pandemics.

Could Vaccine Dose Stretching Reduce COVID-19 Deaths?

We argue that alternative COVID-19 vaccine dosing regimens could potentially dramatically accelerate global COVID-19 vaccination and reduce mortality, and that the costs of testing these regimens are dwarfed by their potential benefits. We first use the high correlation between neutralizing antibody response and efficacy against disease (Khoury et. al. 2021) to show that half or even quarter doses of some vaccines generate immune responses associated with high vaccine efficacy. We then use an SEIR model to estimate that under these efficacy levels, doubling or quadrupling the rate of vaccination by using fractional doses would dramatically reduce infections and mortality. Since the correlation between immune response and efficacy may not be fully predictive of efficacy with fractional doses, we then use the SEIR model to show that fractional dosing would substantially reduce infections and mortality over a wide range of plausible efficacy levels. Further immunogenicity studies for a range of vaccine and dose combinations could deliver outcomes in weeks and could be conducted with a few hundred healthy volunteers. National regulatory authorities could also decide to test efficacy of fractional dosing in the context of vaccination campaigns based on existing immune response data, as some did for delayed second doses. If efficacy turned out to be high, the approach could be implemented broadly, while if it turned out to be low, downside risk could be limited by administering full doses to those who had received fractional doses. The SEIR model also suggests that delaying second vaccine doses will likely have substantial mortality benefits for multiple, but not all, vaccine-variant combinations, underscoring the importance of ongoing surveillance. Finally, we find that for countries choosing between approved but lower efficacy vaccines available immediately and waiting for mRNA vaccines, using immediately available vaccines typically reduces mortality.