Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34415818›Full record

SynthesisExpert review of vaccines2021

To mix or not to mix? A rapid systematic review of heterologous prime-boost covid-19 vaccination.

Nan-Chang Chiu, Hsin Chi, Yu-Kang Tu, Ya-Ning Huang, Yu-Lin Tai, Shun-Long Weng, Lung Chang, Daniel Tsung-Ning Huang, Fu-Yuan Huang, Chien-Yu Lin

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Expert review of vaccines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nan-Chang ChiuDepartment of Pediatrics, MacKay Children's Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hsin ChiDepartment of Pediatrics, MacKay Children's Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yu-Kang TuInstitute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ya-Ning HuangDepartment of Pediatrics, MacKay Children's Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yu-Lin TaiDepartment of Pediatrics, Hsinchu MacKay Memorial Hospital, Hsinchu City, Taiwan.
Shun-Long WengDepartment of Obsterics and Genecology, Hsinchu MacKay Memorial Hospital, Hsinchu City, Taiwan.
Lung ChangDepartment of Medicine, MacKay Medical College, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Daniel Tsung-Ning HuangDepartment of Pediatrics, MacKay Children's Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Fu-Yuan HuangDepartment of Pediatrics, MacKay Children's Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chien-Yu LinDepartment of Medicine, MacKay Medical College, New Taipei City, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-4630-8724
Mackay Memorial Hospital · TWNational Taiwan University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had an enormous impact worldwide, and vaccination is believed to be the method that will control the pandemic. Several types of vaccines developed using different platforms have been authorized, but the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous prime-boost vaccination with different vaccines remain largely unclear. AREAS COVERED: Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, Research Square, and SSRN were searched to investigate the immunogenicity and reactogenicity associated with heterologous vaccination.As of 30 June 2021, four trials including 1,862 participants were identified. Heterologous administration of BNT162b2 (BNT) in ChAdOx1 (ChAd)-primed participants (ChAd/BNT) showed noninferior immunogenicity to homologous BNT administration (both prime and booster were BNT vaccines, BNT/BNT) with tolerable reactogenicity and higher T cell responses. Compared with homologous ChAdOX1 vaccination (ChAd/ChAd), heterologous ChAd/BNT was found to elicit higher immunogenicity (ChAd/BNT vs. ChAd/ChAd, antibody titer ratio: 9.2). EXPERT OPINION: Our systematic review found robust immunogenicity and tolerable reactogenicity of heterologous administration of a BNT162b2 boost in ChAdOx1-primed participants. An additional benefit of stronger T cellular immunity was also observed. Heterologous vaccination is a reasonable and feasible strategy to combat COVID-19. Further studies are warranted to confirm the benefits and identify the optimal combinations, doses, and intervals.

Indexed as

BNT162 VaccineCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansImmunogenicity, VaccineSARS-CoV-2VaccinationBNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 VaccinesBNT162B2boostchadox1COVID-19heterologousmRNASars-COV-2vaccination

Identifiers

PMID34415818
PMCPMC8425437
OpenAlexW3196028820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.