Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36712811›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia2023

Immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous booster vaccination of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELD™) and BBV152 (COVAXIN®): a non-inferiority phase 4, participant and observer-blinded, randomised study.

Winsley Rose, Reshma Raju, Sudhir Babji, Anna George, Ramya Madhavan, Julian Vivek Leander Xavier, Jenita Sharon David Chelladurai, Origanti Sharon Nikitha, Arpitha Anbu Deborah, Shalini Vijayakumar and 8 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

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

18 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Winsley RoseDepartment of Pediatrics, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Reshma RajuDepartment of Pediatrics, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Sudhir BabjiThe Wellcome Trust Research Laboratory, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Anna GeorgeThe Wellcome Trust Research Laboratory, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Ramya MadhavanThe Wellcome Trust Research Laboratory, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Julian Vivek Leander XavierDepartment of Pediatrics, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Jenita Sharon David ChelladuraiDepartment of Pediatrics, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Origanti Sharon NikithaDepartment of Pediatrics, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Arpitha Anbu DeborahDepartment of Pediatrics, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Shalini VijayakumarDepartment of Pediatrics, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Sushil ImmanuelThe Wellcome Trust Research Laboratory, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Jacob JohnDepartment of Community Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Priscilla RupaliDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Kundavaram P P AbhilashDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Venkata Raghava MohanDepartment of Community Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Karthik Bharadwaj TallapakaCentre for Cellular & Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India.
Prasanna SamuelThe Wellcome Trust Research Laboratory, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Gagandeep KangThe Wellcome Trust Research Laboratory, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Christian Medical College, Vellore · INCentre for Cellular and Molecular Biology · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has been shown to wane with time and provide lower protection from disease with new viral variants, prompting the WHO to recommend the administration of booster doses. We determined the safety and immunogenicity of homologous or heterologous boosters with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELD™) or BBV152 (COVAXIN®), the two vaccines used widely for primary immunization in India, in participants who had already received two primary doses of these vaccines. Methods: Participants primed with two doses each of COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® 12-36 weeks previously, were randomised to receive either COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® booster in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was day 28 post-booster anti-spike IgG seropositivity and secondary outcomes were anti-spike IgG levels and assessment of safety and reactogenicity. The results of 90 days intention-to-treat analysis are presented. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (CTRI/2021/08/035648). Findings: In the COVISHIELD™ primed group with 200 participants, the seropositivity 28 days post booster in the heterologous COVAXIN® arm was 99% and non-inferior to the homologous COVISHIELD™ arm, which was also 99% (difference 0%; 95% CI: -2.8% to 2.7%). The geometric mean concentration (GMC) of anti-spike antibodies following heterologous COVAXIN® boost on day 28 was 36,190.78 AU/mL (95% CI: 30,526.64-42,905.88) while the GMC following homologous COVISHIELD™ boost was 97,445.09 AU/mL (82,626.97-114,920.7). In the COVAXIN® primed group with 204 participants, the seropositivity 28 days post booster in the heterologous COVISHIELD™ arm was 100% and non inferior to the homologous COVAXIN® arm which was 96% (difference 4%, 95% CI: 0.2%-7.8%). The GMC following heterologous COVISHIELD™ boost was 241,681.6 AU/mL (95% CI: 201,380.2-290,048.3) compared to homologous COVAXIN® boost, which was 48,473.94 AU/mL (95% CI: 38,529.56-60,984.95). The day 28 geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the anti-spike IgG between the heterologous and homologous boosted arms was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.34-0.52) in the COVISHIELD™ primed group and 5.11 (95% CI: 3.83-6.81) in the COVAXIN® primed group. There were no related serious adverse events reported in any group. Interpretation: Homologous and heterologous boosting with COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® in COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® primed individuals are immunogenic and safe. A heterologous boost with COVISHIELD™ after COVAXIN® prime offers the best immune response among the four combinations evaluated. Funding: Azim Premji Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

BBV152ChAdOx1 nCov-19CovaxinCOVID-19COVISHIELDHeterologous boosterHomologous boosterImmunogenicitySafetyVaccine trial

Identifiers

PMID36712811
PMCPMC9870748
OpenAlexW4318542652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.