Heterologous prime-boost strategies for COVID-19 vaccines
Journal of Travel Medicine, ISSN: 1708-8305, Vol: 29, Issue: 3
2022
- 68Citations
- 125Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations68
- Citation Indexes58
- 58
- CrossRef18
- Policy Citations9
- Policy Citation9
- Patent Family Citations1
- Patent Families1
- Captures125
- Readers125
- 125
Review Description
Background/Objective: Heterologous prime-boost doses of COVID-19 vaccines ('mix-and-match' approach) are being studied to test for the effectiveness of Oxford (AZD1222), Pfizer (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273) and Novavax (NVX-CoV2373) vaccines for COVID in 'Com-Cov2 trial' in UK, and that of Oxford and Pfizer vaccines in 'CombivacS trial' in Spain. Later, other heterologous combinations of CoronaVac (DB15806), Janssen (JNJ-78436735), CanSino (AD5-nCOV) and other were also being trialled to explore their effectiveness. Previously, such a strategy was deployed for HIV, Ebola virus, malaria, tuberculosis, influenza and hepatitis B to develop the artificial acquired active immunity. The present review explores the science behind such an approach for candidate COVID-19 vaccines developed using 11 different platforms approved by the World Health Organization. Methods: The candidate vaccines' pharmaceutical parameters (e.g. platforms, number needed to vaccinate and intervals, adjuvanted status, excipients and preservatives added, efficacy and effectiveness, vaccine adverse events, and boosters), and clinical aspects must be analysed for the mix-and-match approach. Results prime-boost trials showed safety, effectiveness, higher systemic reactogenicity, well tolerability with improved immunogenicity, and flexibility profiles for future vaccinations, especially during acute and global shortages, compared to the homologous counterparts. Conclusion: Still, large controlled trials are warranted to address challenging variants of concerns including Omicron and other, and to generalize the effectiveness of the approach in regular as well as emergency use during vaccine scarcity.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85131224680&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taab191; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34918097; https://academic.oup.com/jtm/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jtm/taab191/6463576; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taab191; https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/29/3/taab191/6463576
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know