ArticleNPJ vaccines2024
A randomized trial comparing safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of self-amplifying mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines.
Article in NPJ vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) and circular RNA (circRNA) vaccines: Progress, evidence gaps, and translational pathways for durable and scalable immunization.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
- Self-amplifying COVID-19 mRNA vaccination induces longitudinally enhanced antibody function in a Phase 3 trial.NPJ vaccines · 2026Article
- Identification, design, andFrontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Polymeric particle-based antigen delivery system: From immunological engineering to clinical translation.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2025Review
- Article
- Review
- Cellular immune breadth of an Omicron-specific, self-amplifying monovalent mRNA vaccine booster for COVID-19.NPJ vaccines · 2025Article
- Therapeutic Vaccination in Lung Cancer: Past Attempts, Current Approaches and Future Promises.Journal of respiratory biology and translational medicine · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This phase 3 trial compared safety, tolerability, immunogenicity and efficacy of the self-amplifying mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, ARCT-154, with ChAdOx1-S adenovirus-vector vaccine. In four centers in Vietnam adult participants aged 18‒85 years were randomly assigned to receive two doses, 28 days apart, of either ARCT-154 (n = 1186) or ChAdOx1-S (n = 1180). Both vaccines were well tolerated with similar safety and reactogenicity profiles consisting of mainly mild-to-moderate solicited adverse events and few related serious adverse events. Higher neutralizing antibody responses persisting to one-year post-vaccination after ARCT-154 compared with ChAdOx1-S were associated with a generally higher efficacy against COVID-19. In an exploratory analysis relative vaccine efficacy of ARCT-154 vs. ChAdOx1-S against any COVID-19 from Day 36 to Day 394 was 19.8% (95% CI: 4.0-33.0). Self-amplifying mRNA vaccine offers potential immunological advantages in terms of immunogenicity and efficacy over adenovirus-vector vaccine without compromising safety.
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.