Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40746973›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia2025

Safety and immunogenicity of booster doses of an XBB.1.5 RBD subunit COVID-19 vaccine among individuals aged 5-80 years in India: a phase 3, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Subhash Thuluva, Vikram Paradkar, SubbaReddy Gunneri, Rammohan Reddy Mogulla, Vijay Yerroju, Chirag Dhar, Siddalingaiah Ningaiah, Mallikarjuna Panchakshari, Chandrashekhar S Gillurkar, Manish Narang and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Subhash ThuluvaBiological E Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Vikram ParadkarBiological E Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
SubbaReddy GunneriBiological E Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Rammohan Reddy MogullaBiological E Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Vijay YerrojuBiological E Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Chirag DharBiological E Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Siddalingaiah NingaiahBiological E Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Mallikarjuna PanchakshariBiological E Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Chandrashekhar S GillurkarGillurkar Multispeciality Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Manish NarangGuru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, India.
Shivnitwar Sachin KisanLifepoint Multispeciality Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
A Venkateshwar RaoSt. Theresa's Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to evolve with recent variants such as the omicron sub-variants potentially exhibiting increased transmissibility. Of note, the XBB.1.5 variant has been associated with vaccine-breakthrough cases. We utilised the same platform previously used to develop CORBEVAX™, an ancestral Wuhan strain COVID-19 RBD subunit vaccine, to now develop an XBB.1.5 RBD subunit vaccine. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of the new XBB.1.5 RBD subunit vaccine compared to an ancestral Wuhan strain RBD subunit vaccine. Methods: This prospective, single-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial was conducted in participants aged 5-80 years. Participants who had not received any other approved COVID-19 vaccine within the last 6 months were enrolled and randomised in a 2:1 ratio to receive two booster doses of either the test vaccine or the control vaccine. The vaccines were administered on Day 0 and Day 28 with immunogenicity assessments on Day 0, Day 28, and Day 42. Safety assessments included the collection of solicited and unsolicited adverse events (AEs) up to Day 56. The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate immunogenic superiority of the test vaccine booster series compared to the control vaccine series. This superiority objective was to be met if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the anti-XBB.1.5.RBD neutralising antibody (nAb) geometric mean titre (GMT) ratio of test: control was >1.0 on either Day 28 or Day 42. Given the emergence of JN.1 as the prevalent SARS-CoV-2 strain during the conduct of this study, Day 42 anti-JN.1 nAb levels were measured in a Findings: A total of 360 participants (32.8% female) were enrolled and randomised across seven sites in India. The nAb GMT ratio of test: control participants was 2.08 (95% CI 1.64-2.63) on Day 28 and 2.91 (95% CI 2.38-3.56) on Day 42. The geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) of neutralising antibodies (nAb) was 7.637 (95% CI 6.090-9.578) on Day 28 and 17.02 (95% CI 13.79-21.01) on Day 42 in the test booster series arm. The nAb GMFRs in the control booster series arm at the same time points were 3.033 (95% CI 2.340-3.932) and 4.824 (95% CI 3.731-6.236), respectively. Interpretation: The new XBB.1.5 RBD subunit vaccine was found to be both safe and robustly immunogenic when administered as a two-dose booster series in individuals aged 5-80 years. In particular, the vaccine induced a significant rise in neutralising antibodies against the XBB.1.5 strain as well as cross-protective neutralising antibodies against the JN.1 SARS-CoV-2 strain. These data are in line with studies of other XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccines and support a positive risk-benefit profile. Real-world studies may provide additional evidence about the effectiveness of this new updated vaccine. Funding: Biological E Limited, India.

Indexed as

BoosterCOVID-19Randomised controlled trialSubunit vaccineXBB.1.5 variant

Identifiers

PMID40746973
PMCPMC12311575

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.