Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38678636›Full record

ArticleEmerging microbes & infections2024

Relative effectiveness of a heterologous booster dose with adenovirus type 5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine versus three doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine in adults during a nationwide outbreak of omicron predominance, in China: a retrospective, individually matched cohort-control study.

Siyue Jia, Zundong Yin, Hongxing Pan, Fuzhen Wang, Xiaoqiang Liu, Qing Wang, Li Zhang, Jihai Tang, Hao Yang, Jiangbo Du and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emerging microbes & infections, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

21 authors.

Siyue JiaNHC Key Laboratory of Enteric Pathogenic Microbiology, Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Zundong YinChina Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hongxing PanNHC Key Laboratory of Enteric Pathogenic Microbiology, Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Fuzhen WangChina Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xiaoqiang LiuYunnan Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Kunming, People's Republic of China.
Qing WangChongqing Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
Li ZhangShandong Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Jinan, People's Republic of China.
Jihai TangAnhui Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hefei, People's Republic of China.
Hao YangHunan Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Changsha, People's Republic of China.
Jiangbo DuNational Vaccine Innovation Platform and Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Zhiguo WangNHC Key Laboratory of Enteric Pathogenic Microbiology, Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Pengfei JinNHC Key Laboratory of Enteric Pathogenic Microbiology, Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Zhihang PengNational Vaccine Innovation Platform and Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Rong TangNHC Key Laboratory of Enteric Pathogenic Microbiology, Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Guodong KangNHC Key Laboratory of Enteric Pathogenic Microbiology, Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Xuewen WangCanming Medical Technology Co., Ltd, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Simin LiSchool of Public Health, Southeast University; Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Weixiao WangNational Vaccine Innovation Platform and Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Jingxin LiNHC Key Laboratory of Enteric Pathogenic Microbiology, Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Hongbing ShenNational Vaccine Innovation Platform and Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Fengcai ZhuNHC Key Laboratory of Enteric Pathogenic Microbiology, Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effectiveness of heterologous booster regimes with ad5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine in a large, diverse population during the national-scale outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 omicron predominance in China has not been reported, yet. We conducted a large-scale cohort-control study in six provinces in China, and did a retrospective survey on the COVID-19 attack risk during this outbreak. Participant aged ≥18 years in five previous trials who were primed with 1 to 3 doses of ICV received heterologous booster with either intramuscular or orally inhaled ad5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine were included in the heterologous-trial cohort. We performed propensity score-matching at a ratio of 1:4 to match participants in the heterologous-trial cohort individually with the community individuals who received three-dose of ICV as a control (ICV-community cohort). From February 4 to April 10, 2023, 41504 (74.5%) of 55710 individuals completed the survey. The median time since the most recent vaccination to the onset of the symptoms of COVID-19 was 303.0 days (IQR 293.0-322.0). The attack rate of COVID-19 in the heterologous-trial cohort was 55.8%, while that in the ICV-community cohort was 64.6%, resulting in a relative effectiveness of 13.7% (95% CI 11.9 to 15.3). In addition, a higher relative effectiveness against COVID-19 associated outpatient visits, and admission to hospital was demonstrated, which was 25.1% (95% CI 18.9 to 30.9), and 48.9% (95% CI 27.0 to 64.2), respectively. The heterologous booster with ad5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine still offered some additional protection in preventing COVID-19 breakthrough infection versus homologous three-dose regimen with ICV, 10 months after vaccination.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesDisease OutbreaksImmunization, SecondarySARS-CoV-2AdultAgedChinaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesVaccine EfficacyVaccines, InactivatedYoung AdultCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccines, InactivatedCOVID-19 vaccineEffectivenesshazard ratioheterologous immunizationhomologous immunization

Identifiers

PMID38678636
PMCPMC11057405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.