ArticleVaccines2023
Immunogenicity of Mix-and-Match CoronaVac/BNT162b2 Regimen versus Homologous CoronaVac/CoronaVac Vaccination: A Single-Blinded, Randomized, Parallel Group Superiority Trial.
Article in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting Efficacies of Fractional Doses of Vaccines by Using Neutralizing Antibody Levels: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Pooled it
- Baseline cohort profile: clinical and molecular characterisation of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients recruited into a longitudinal COVID-19 cohort study (COVGEN) in Malaysia.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Review
- Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Immune Responses to COVID-19 Vaccination Among Recipients of Solid Organ Transplants.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: This study aimed to compare the immunogenicity of the mix-and-match CoronaVac/BNT162b2 vaccination to the homologous CoronaVac/CoronaVac regimen. (2) Methods: We conducted a simple-blinded randomized superiority trial to measure SARS-CoV-2 neutralization antibodies and anti-spike receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG concentrations in blood samples of participants who had received the first dose of CoronaVac vaccine followed by a dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccine. The primary endpoint for immunogenicity was the serum-neutralizing antibody level with a percentage of inhibition at 90% at 21-35 days after the boost. A difference of 25% between groups was considered clinically relevant. (3) Results: Among the 240 eligible participants, the primary endpoint data were available for 100 participants randomly allocated to the mix-and-match group versus 99 participants randomly allocated to the homologous dose group. The mix-and-match regimen elicited significantly higher levels of neutralizing antibodies (median level of 96%, interquartile range (IQR) (95-97) versus median level of 94%, IQR (81-96) and anti-spike IgG antibodies (median level of 13,460, IQR (2557-29,930) versus median level of 1190, IQR (347-4964) compared to the homologous group. Accordingly, the percentage of subjects with a percentage of neutralizing antibodies > 90% was significantly higher in the mix-and-match group (90.0%) versus the homologous (60.6%). Interestingly, no severe events were reported within 30 days after the second dose of vaccination in both groups. (4) Conclusions: Our data showed the superiority of the mix-and-match CoronaVac/BNT162b2 vaccination compared to the CoronaVac/CoronaVac regimen in terms of immunogenicity, thus constituting a proof-of-concept study supporting the use of inactivated vaccines in a mix-and-match strategy while ensuring good immunogenicity and safety.
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.