BACKGROUND Circadian rhythms are evident in basic immune processes, but it is unclear if rhythms exist in clinical endpoints like vaccine protection. Here, we examined associations between COVID-19 vaccination timing and effectiveness.METHODS We retrospectively analyzed a large Israeli cohort with timestamped COVID-19 vaccinations (n = 1,515,754 patients over 12 years old, 99.2% receiving BNT162b2). Endpoints included COVID-19 breakthrough infection and COVID-19–associated emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Our main comparison was among patients vaccinated during morning (800–1159 hours), afternoon (1200–1559 hours), or evening hours (1600–1959 hours). We employed Cox regression to adjust for differences in age, sex, and comorbidities.RESULTS Breakthrough infections differed based on vaccination time, with lowest the rates associated with late morning to early afternoon and highest rates associated with evening vaccination. Vaccination timing remained significant after adjustment for patient age, sex, and comorbidities. Results were consistent in patients who received the basic 2-dose series and who received booster doses. The relationship between COVID-19 immunization time and breakthrough infections was sinusoidal, consistent with a biological rhythm that modifies vaccine effectiveness by 8.6%–25%. The benefits of daytime vaccination were concentrated in younger (<20 years old) and older patients (>50 years old). COVID-19–related hospitalizations varied significantly with the timing of the second booster dose, an intervention reserved for older and immunosuppressed patients (HR = 0.64, morning vs. evening; 95% CI, 0.43–0.97; P = 0.038).CONCLUSION We report a significant association between the time of COVID-19 vaccination and its effectiveness. This has implications for mass vaccination programs.FUNDING NIH.
Guy Hazan, Or A. Duek, Hillel Alapi, Huram Mok, Alex Ganninger, Elaine Ostendorf, Carrie Gierasch, Gabriel Chodick, David Greenberg, Jeffrey A. Haspel
Usage data is cumulative from December 2023 through December 2024.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 3,196 | 1,117 |
898 | 151 | |
Figure | 686 | 11 |
Table | 244 | 0 |
Supplemental data | 363 | 23 |
Citation downloads | 158 | 0 |
Totals | 5,545 | 1,302 |
Total Views | 6,847 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.