ReviewVaccine2022
'Mix and Match' vaccination: Is dengue next?
Review in Vaccine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combating respiratory diseases with mucosal vaccines.Journal of virology · 2026Review
- Review
- Potent Cross-neutralizing Antibodies Reveal Vulnerabilities of Henipavirus Fusion Glycoprotein.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Article
- Recommendations for dengue vaccine implementation in the elderly population.Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy · 2025Review
- Effective cellular and neutralizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 after mRNA booster vaccination is associated with pDC and B cell activation.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and the development of multiple SARS-CoV-2 vaccines expedited vaccine 'mix and match' trials in humans and demonstrated the benefits of mixing vaccines that vary in formulation, strength, and immunogenicity. Heterologous sequential vaccination may be an effective approach for protecting against dengue, as this strategy would mimic the natural route to broad dengue protection and may overcome the imbalances in efficacy of the individual leading live attenuated dengue vaccines. Here we review 'mix and match' vaccination trials against SARS-CoV-2, HIV, and dengue virus and discuss the possible advantages and concerns of future heterologous immunization with the leading dengue vaccines. COVID-19 trials suggest that priming with a vaccine that induces strong cellular responses, such as an adenoviral vectored product, followed by heterologous boost may optimize T cell immunity. Moreover, heterologous vaccination may induce superior humoral immunity compared to homologous vaccination when the priming vaccine induces a narrower response than the boost. The HIV trials reported that heterologous vaccination was associated with broadened antigen responses and that the sequence of the vaccines significantly impacts the regimen's immunogenicity and efficacy. In heterologous dengue immunization trials, where at least one dose was with a live attenuated vaccine, all reported equivalent or increased immunogenicity compared to homologous boost, although one study reported increased reactogenicity. The three leading dengue vaccines have been evaluated for safety and efficacy in thousands of study participants but not in combination in heterologous dengue vaccine trials. Various heterologous regimens including different combinations and sequences should be trialed to optimize cellular and humoral immunity and the breadth of the response while limiting reactogenicity. A blossoming field dedicated to more accurate correlates of protection and enhancement will help confirm the safety and efficacy of these strategies.
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.