ArticleVaccines2024
Omicron XBB.1.16-Adapted Vaccine for COVID-19: Interim Immunogenicity and Safety Clinical Trial Results.
Article in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Antibody and B-Cell Responses to PHH-1V81 XBB.1.16-Adapted SARS-CoV-2 Booster Vaccination Are Associated With Variant Neutralization.Journal of medical virology · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: The global coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination adapts to protect populations from emerging variants. This communication presents interim findings from the new Omicron XBB.1.16-adapted PHH-1V81 protein-based vaccine compared to an XBB.1.5-adapted mRNA vaccine against various acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strains. (2) Methods: In a Phase IIb/III pivotal trial, adults previously vaccinated with a primary scheme and at least one booster dose of an EU-approved mRNA vaccine randomly received either the PHH-1V81 or BNT162b2 XBB.1.5 vaccine booster as a single dose. The primary efficacy endpoint assessed neutralization titers against the Omicron XBB.1.16 variant at day 14. Secondary endpoints evaluated neutralization titers and cellular immunity against different variants. Safety endpoints comprised solicited reactions up to day 7 post-vaccination and serious adverse events until the cut-off date of the interim analysis. Changes in humoral responses were assessed by pseudovirion-based or virus neutralization assays. (3) Results: At the cut-off date, immunogenicity assessments included 599 participants. Both boosters elicited neutralizing antibodies against XBB.1.16, XBB.1.5, and JN.1, with PHH-1V81 inducing a higher response for all variants. The PHH-1V8 booster triggers a superior neutralizing antibody response against XBB variants compared to the mRNA vaccine. A subgroup analysis consistently revealed higher neutralizing antibody responses with PHH-1V81 across age groups, SARS-CoV-2 infection history, and the number of prior vaccination shots. A safety analysis (n = 607) at the day 14 visit revealed favorable safety profiles without any serious vaccine-related adverse events. (4) Conclusions: PHH-1V81 demonstrates superiority on humoral immunogenicity compared to the mRNA vaccine against XBB variants and non-inferiority against JN.1 with a favorable safety profile and lower reactogenicity, confirming its potential as a vaccine candidate.
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.