Vaxzervria Dose Intervals
Dear Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI),
Current advice suggests:
.'..the preferred interval between doses of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is between 4 and 8 weeks (usually 12 weeks in non-outbreak situations).'
This appears confusing as much as it seems contradictory to the contemporary evidence(1,2). It appears to set up a prickly situation whereby a facet of the population (<40yo) whom have had their first Vaxzveria shot early- for, among many reasons, primarily to free up COMIRNATY availability in the prior months- are now having to short change our peak antibody titers on the basis or delay that seems to see direction sought from incomplete evidence to make these current recommendations. From a logical interpretation of the literature linked- it appears that those in such a situation would indeed be better off not having an expedited interval (or even standard 12 week interval)- whereby the significance of antibody titers (and potentially T-cell response/concentration) appears no different between 2 doses at 4 weeks interval to 1 dose over the same period. I certainly would like to optimize my antibody titers as per the seminal results of the research- however I now have to balance that with the fact that 'double vaxxed' is the standard for which Australia are basing policy on (I understand the point of differentiation for this under your purview)- and should I use the contemporary evidence to guide my decisions- I will be worse off complying with Australian policy.
I understand you have cited the current applicable advice with (2)- however as this does now appear to be potentially outdated- can you please provide any additional sources that you have used to direct this?
(1) Flaxman, A., Marchevsky, N., Jenkin, D., Aboagye, J., Aley, P. K., Angus, B. J., ... & Lambe, T. (2021). Tolerability and immunogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222).
(2) Voysey, M., Clemens, S. A. C., Madhi, S. A., Weckx, L. Y., Folegatti, P. M., Aley, P. K., ... & Bird, O. (2021). Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials. The Lancet, 397(10277), 881-891.
Yours faithfully,
Nicholas Fearon
Thank you for contacting the ATAGI Secretariat. We will endeavour to
respond to your email within 5 working days.
If your email is related to COVID- 19 vaccine eligibility, supply and
demand or any other COVID-19 vaccine related query, your email will be
forwarded to the COVID taskforce for their response. Please note, due to
the high number of queries relating to this, you may experience some
delays with receiving a response.
"Important: This transmission is intended only for the use of the
addressee and may contain confidential or legally privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use or
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
receive this transmission in error please notify the author immediately
and delete all copies of this transmission."
Dear Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI),
Can you please provide me a response to the request?
The cited paper authored by the same group whom developed Vaxzervria(1) in my request, that suggests far greater IgG seroconversion after 6 months between doses, has now been peer reviewed and published- providing more credence to my request for your sources that have guided current recommendations.
There is the obvious contradiction here whereby; by law- I am required to be 'double vaxxed' and this is preclusive to my conveniences of everyday life should I only be 'single vaxxed'. Yet a timely response to my request, is also bound by law, however the inconveniences consequential seem only to have effect on the requestor!
Yours faithfully,
Nicholas
Attention: Nicholas
I refer to your correspondence of 15 October 2021 to the Department of Health (department).
Section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act) requires that a request for access meets certain requirements including stating that the request is an application for the purposes of the FOI Act, and providing sufficient information about the document(s) you are seeking access to enable the department to identify documents and process the request.
The FOI Act provides a mechanism for individuals to access 'documents' held by entities such as the department. It does not provide a mechanism for making enquiries or asking questions about issues.
Please clarify the specific document(s) you are seeking from the department to enable us to process your request.
Grateful if you can provide a response by COB Thursday, 4 November 2021.
Kind regards
FOI Officer
Freedom of Information Section
Legal & Assurance Division | Corporate Operations Group
Legal Advice & Legislation Branch
Australian Government Department of Health
E: [email address]
GPO Box 9848, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
The Department of Health acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Australia and their continued connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to all Elders past and present.
If you receive this email in error, please delete it and contact the sender immediately.
Kind regards
From: Nicholas <[FOI #7864 email]>
Sent: Friday, 15 October 2021 8:18 AM
To: ATAGI Secretariat <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Vaxzervria Dose Intervals
REMINDER: Think before you click! This email originated from outside our organisation. Only click links or open attachments if you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI),
Can you please provide me a response to the request?
The cited paper authored by the same group whom developed Vaxzervria(1) in my request, that suggests far greater IgG seroconversion after 6 months between doses, has now been peer reviewed and published- providing more credence to my request for your sources that have guided current recommendations.
There is the obvious contradiction here whereby; by law- I am required to be 'double vaxxed' and this is preclusive to my conveniences of everyday life should I only be 'single vaxxed'. Yet a timely response to my request, is also bound by law, however the inconveniences consequential seem only to have effect on the requestor!
Yours faithfully,
Nicholas