ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2024
Effectiveness of heterologous and homologous COVID-19 vaccination among immunocompromised individuals: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adjuvanted Protein Vaccines Boost RNA-Based Vaccines for Broader and More Potent Immune Responses.Vaccines · 2025Article
- Vaccination Strategies: Mixing Paths Versus Matching Tracks.Vaccines · 2025Review
- T and B cell responses in different immunization scenarios for COVID-19: a narrative review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We assessed the effectiveness of heterologous vaccination strategy in immunocompromised individuals regarding COVID-19 outcomes, comparing it to homologous approaches. Design: Systematic literature review/meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1, 2020 to September 29, 2023. We included studies that evaluated the heterologous vaccination strategy on immunocompromised individuals through outcomes related to COVID-19 (levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG, neutralizing antibodies, symptomatic COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death) in comparison to homologous schemes. We also used random-effect models to produce pooled odds ratio estimates. Heterogeneity was investigated with I Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Fourteen of them provided quantitative data for inclusion in the meta-analysis on vaccine response, being four of them also included in the vaccine effectiveness meta-analysis. The vaccination strategies (heterologous vs homologous) showed no difference in the odds of developing anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG (odds ratio 1.12 [95% Cl: 0.73-1.72]). Heterologous schemes also showed no difference in the production of neutralizing antibodies (odds ratio 1.48 [95% Cl: 0.72-3.05]) nor vaccine effectiveness in comparison to homologous schemes (odds ratio 1.52 [95% CI: 0.66-3.53]). Conclusions: Alternative heterologous COVID-19 vaccinations have shown equivalent antibody response rates and vaccine effectiveness to homologous schemes, potentially aiding global disparity of vaccine distribution.
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.