Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34370971›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2021

Safety and immunogenicity of heterologous versus homologous prime-boost schedules with an adenoviral vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Com-COV): a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

Xinxue Liu, Robert H Shaw, Arabella S V Stuart, Melanie Greenland, Parvinder K Aley, Nick J Andrews, J Claire Cameron, Sue Charlton, Elizabeth A Clutterbuck, Andrea M Collins and 28 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05132855 (Safety, Reactogenicity, and Immunogenicity of Heterologous Boost Third Dose of mRNA and Protein COVID-19 Vaccine), which is not on this map. Cited by 348 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
348citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
33.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05132855 phase1 / phase2unknown statusnot on this map

Safety, Reactogenicity, and Immunogenicity of Heterologous Boost Third Dose of mRNA and Protein COVID-19 Vaccine: a Single-blind and Randomized Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorChang Gung Memorial HospitalRan2021 to 2023Enrolled340ConditionsCOVID-19, Breakthrough InfectionArmsBNT162b2, mRNA-1273, MVC-COV1901
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

348 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 540 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Article

288 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

38 authors at 17 institutions in 1 country.

Xinxue LiuOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Robert H ShawOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Arabella S V StuartOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Melanie GreenlandOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Parvinder K AleyOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nick J AndrewsStatistics, Modelling and Economics Department, Public Health England, London, UK; Immunisation and Countermeasures Division, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
J Claire CameronHealth Protection Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
Sue CharltonPublic Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, UK.
Elizabeth A ClutterbuckOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrea M CollinsLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Tanya DineshOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anna EnglandPublic Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, UK.
Saul N FaustNIHR Southampton Clinical Research Facility and Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK; Faculty of Medicine and Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Daniela M FerreiraLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Adam FinnSchool of Population Health Sciences and School of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Christopher A GreenNIHR/Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Bassam HallisPublic Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, UK.
Paul T HeathThe Vaccine Institute, St George's University of London, London, UK.
Helen HillLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Teresa LambeJenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rajeka LazarusNorth Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Vincenzo LibriNIHR UCLH Clinical Research Facility and NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Fei LongOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Yama F MujadidiOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Emma L PlestedOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Samuel Provstgaard-MorysOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Maheshi N RamasamyOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Mary RamsayImmunisation and Countermeasures Division, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Robert C ReadNIHR Southampton Clinical Research Facility and Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK; Faculty of Medicine and Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Hannah RobinsonOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nisha SinghOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David P J TurnerUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Paul J TurnerNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Laura L WalkerOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rachel WhiteOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-TamDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham School of Medicine, Nottingham, UK.
Matthew D SnapeOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: matthew.snape@paediatrics.ox.ac.uk.
Com-COV Study Group
University of Oxford · GBPublic Health England · GBLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBHealth Protection Scotland · GBImperial College London · GBJenner Institute · GBNorth Bristol NHS Trust · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBOxford BioMedica (United Kingdom) · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSt George's, University of London · GBUCL Biomedical Research Centre · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBWellcome Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N013204/1Medical Research Council MR/N026993/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines.

methodsCom-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139.

findingsBetween Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation.

interpretationDespite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines.

fundingUK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.

Indexed as

Immunogenicity, VaccineAgedAntibodies, ViralBNT162 VaccineChAdOx1 nCoV-19COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesEquivalence Trials as TopicFemaleHumansImmunization ScheduleImmunoglobulin GIntention to Treat AnalysisMaleMiddle AgedSingle-Blind MethodAntibodies, ViralBNT162 VaccineChAdOx1 nCoV-19COVID-19 VaccinesImmunoglobulin GSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus

Identifiers

PMID34370971
PMCPMC8346248
OpenAlexW3189762432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.