Observational studyBMC infectious diseases2022
Reactogenicity after heterologous and homologous COVID-19 prime-boost vaccination regimens: descriptive interim results of a comparative observational cohort study.
Observational study in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scoping review of active, participant centred, digital adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance of WHO approved COVID-19 vaccines: A Canadian immunization Research Network study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Safety of heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 primary schedule versus homologous BNT162b2 vaccination: Insights from an Italian post-marketing study, 2021.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Observational
- Observational
- Article
- Safety Profile of Homologous and Heterologous Booster COVID-19 Vaccines in Physicians in Quito-Ecuador: A Cross-Sectional Study.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Heterologous prime-boost immunization with ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2: reactogenicity and immunogenicity in a prospective cohort study.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2023Article
- Adverse Reactions after Booster SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Have Less Impact on Antibody Response than after Basic Vaccination Scheme.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Sex-disaggregated outcomes of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination: A Dutch cohort study and review of the literature.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDue to safety signals after vaccination with COVID-19 vector vaccines, several states recommended to complete the primary immunization series in individuals having received one dose of ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) with an mRNA vaccine. However, data on safety and reactogenicity of this heterologous regimen are still scarce. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the reactogenicity and the frequency of medical consultations after boost vaccination in a heterologous regimen with ChAdOx1 and mRNA-vaccines (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Pfizer or mRNA-1273, Moderna) to homologous regimens with ChAdOx1 or mRNA-vaccines, respectively.
methodsIn an observational cohort study reactogenicity and safety were assessed 14-19 days (short-term) and 40 to 56 days (long-term) after the boost vaccination using web-based surveys. In the short-term survey solicited and unsolicited reactions were assessed, while the long-term survey focussed on health problems leading to medical consultation after the vaccination, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related.
resultsIn total, 9146 participants completed at least one of the surveys (ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1: n = 552, ChAdOx1/mRNA: n = 2382, mRNA/mRNA: n = 6212). In the short-term survey, 86% with ChAdOx1/mRNA regimen reported at least one reaction, in the ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 and mRNA/mRNA cohorts 58% and 76%, respectively (age and sex adjusted p < 0.0001). In the long-term survey, comparable proportions of individuals reported medical consultation (ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 vs. ChAdOx1/mRNA vs. mRNA/mRNA: 15% vs. 18% vs. 16%, age and sex adjusted p = 0.398). Female gender was associated with a higher reactogenicity and more medical consultations. Younger age was associated with a higher reactogenicity, whereas elderly people reported more medical consultations.
conclusionAlthough the short-term reactogenicity was higher with the heterologous regimen than with the homologous regimens, other factors such as higher efficacy and limited resources during the pandemic may prevail in recommending specific regimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.