Study of efficacy and antibody duration to fourth-dose booster of Ad5-nCoV or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in Chinese adults: a prospective cohort study
Introduction China experienced a record surge of coronavirus disease 2019 cases in December 2022, during the pandemic. Methods We conducted a randomized, parallel-controlled prospective cohort study to evaluate efficacy and antibody duration after a fourth-dose booster with Ad5-nCoV or inactivated s...
Saved in:
Published in | Frontiers in immunology Vol. 14; p. 1244373 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Frontiers Media S.A
06.09.2023
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Introduction
China experienced a record surge of coronavirus disease 2019 cases in December 2022, during the pandemic.
Methods
We conducted a randomized, parallel-controlled prospective cohort study to evaluate efficacy and antibody duration after a fourth-dose booster with Ad5-nCoV or inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine.
Results
A total of 191 participants aged ≥18 years who had completed a three-dose regimen of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine 6 months earlier were recruited to receive the intramuscular Ad5-nCoV booster or the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The Ad5-nCoV group had significantly higher antibody levels compared with the inactivated vaccine group at 6 months after the fourth vaccination dose. After the pandemic, the breakthrough infection rate for the Ad5-nCoV and the inactivated vaccine groups was 77.89% and 78.13%, respectively. Survival curve analysis (
p
= 0.872) and multivariable logistic regression analysis (
p
= 0.956) showed no statistically significant differences in breakthrough infection between the two groups.
Discussion
Compared with a homologous fourth dose, a heterologous fourth dose of Ad5-nCoV elicited a higher immunogenic response in healthy adults who had been immunized with three doses of inactivated vaccine. Nevertheless, the efficacy of the two vaccine types was equivalent after the pandemic. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 Reviewed by: Larry Ellingsworth, Novavax, Inc., United States; Weina Sun, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship Edited by: Mrinmoy Sanyal, Stanford University, United States |
ISSN: | 1664-3224 1664-3224 |
DOI: | 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1244373 |