Patenaude Bryan, Ballreich Jeromie
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of International Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, 624 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
J Clim Chang Health. 2022 May;6:100127. doi: 10.1016/j.joclim.2022.100127. Epub 2022 Mar 4.
Climate impacts are rarely considered in health impact and economic assessments of public health programs. This study estimates the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions averted by a novel oral SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) vaccine compared with four existing intramuscular vaccines: AstraZeneca's COVISHIELD®, Pfizer/BioNTech's COMIRNATY®, Moderna's mRNA-1273, and Johnson & Johnson's Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine.
We estimated GHG emissions averted for five vaccine modalities across nine countries. GHG emissions averted were derived from differences in cold chain logistics, production of vaccine supplies, and medical waste disposal. Countryspecific data including population coverage and electricity production mix were included in GHG emissions calculations. Results are presented in averted GHG per vaccine course and country level based on modeled vaccination demand.
Per course, an oral vaccine is estimated to avert between 0.007 and 0.024 kgCOe compared with Johnson & Johnson, 0.013 to 0.048 kgCOe compared with AstraZeneca, 0.23 to 0.108 kgCOe compared with Moderna, and 0.134 to 0.466 kgCOe compared with Pfizer/BioNTech. The total GHG averted varied across countries based upon predicted demand, mix of electrical production, and vaccination strategy with the largest emissions reductions projected for India and the United States.
Our results demonstrate large potential GHG emissions reductions from the use of oral vs. intramuscular vaccines for mass COVID-19 vaccination programs. Up to 82.25 million kgCOe could be averted from utilization of an oral vaccine in the United States alone, which is equivalent to eliminating 17,700 automobiles from the road for one year.
Funding was provided by Vaxart, Inc. Vaxart, Inc. is currently developing an oral COVID-19 vaccine, the characteristics of which were utilized to define the thermostable oral vaccine discussed in this study. Apart from providing data on the characteristics of the oral vaccine under development, the funders had no influence over the study design, methods, statistical analyses, results, framing of results, decision to submit the manuscript for publication, or choice of journal.
在公共卫生项目的健康影响和经济评估中，气候影响很少被考虑。本研究估计了一种新型口服严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2（SARS-CoV-2，即新冠病毒）疫苗与四种现有的肌肉注射疫苗相比所避免的温室气体（GHG）排放，这四种现有疫苗分别是阿斯利康的COVISHIELD®、辉瑞/生物科技的COMIRNATY®、莫德纳的mRNA-1273以及强生的Ad26.COV2.S新冠疫苗。
我们估计了九个国家中五种疫苗接种方式所避免的温室气体排放。避免的温室气体排放源自冷链物流、疫苗供应生产以及医疗废物处理方面的差异。温室气体排放计算中纳入了包括人口覆盖率和电力生产结构在内的特定国家数据。结果以每剂疫苗所避免的温室气体排放量以及基于模拟疫苗接种需求的国家层面数据呈现。
每剂疫苗方面，与强生疫苗相比，口服疫苗估计可避免0.007至0.024千克二氧化碳当量；与阿斯利康疫苗相比，可避免0.013至0.048千克二氧化碳当量；与莫德纳疫苗相比，可避免0.23至0.108千克二氧化碳当量；与辉瑞/生物科技疫苗相比，可避免0.134至0.466千克二氧化碳当量。根据预测需求、电力生产结构和疫苗接种策略的不同，各国避免的温室气体总量有所差异，预计印度和美国的减排量最大。
我们的结果表明，在大规模新冠疫苗接种项目中，使用口服疫苗相较于肌肉注射疫苗有大幅减少温室气体排放的潜力。仅在美国，使用口服疫苗就可避免高达8225万千克二氧化碳当量的排放，这相当于一年内在道路上减少17700辆汽车的排放。
资金由Vaxart公司提供。Vaxart公司目前正在研发一种口服新冠疫苗，本研究中所讨论的热稳定口服疫苗的特性就是基于该疫苗确定的。除了提供有关正在研发的口服疫苗特性的数据外，资助者对研究设计、方法、统计分析、结果、结果的表述、提交稿件发表的决定或期刊的选择均无影响。
