It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Small trials have suggested that heterologous vaccination with first-dose ChAdOx1 and second-dose BNT162b2 may generate a better immune response than homologous vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1. In this cohort analysis, we use linked data from Catalonia (Spain), where those aged <60 who received a first dose of ChAdOx1 could choose between ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 for their second dose. Comparable cohorts were obtained after exact-matching 14,325/17,849 (80.3%) people receiving heterologous vaccination to 14,325/149,386 (9.6%) receiving homologous vaccination by age, sex, region, and date of second dose. Of these, 464 (3.2%) in the heterologous and 694 (4.8%) in the homologous groups developed COVID-19 between 1st June 2021 and 5th December 2021. The resulting hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) is 0.66 [0.59–0.74], favouring heterologous vaccination. The two groups had similar testing rates and safety outcomes. Sensitivity and negative control outcome analyses confirm these findings. In conclusion, we demonstrate that a heterologous vaccination schedule with ChAdOx1 followed by BNT162b2 was more efficacious than and similarly safe to homologous vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1. Most of the infections in our study occurred when Delta was the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in Spain. These data agree with previous phase 2 randomised trials.
Different homologous and heterologous vaccination regimens have been used for COVID-19. Here the authors show in a cohort analysis from Catalonia that heterologous vaccination with ChAdOx1 followed by BNT162b2 has better vaccine effectiveness than two doses of ChAdOx1.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details






1 Generalitat de Catalunya, Direcció assistencial d’Atenció Primària i a la Comunitat, Institut Català de la Salut (ICS), Barcelona, Spain (GRID:grid.454735.4) (ISNI:0000000123317762); Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Idiap Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain (GRID:grid.7080.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2296 0625)
2 Generalitat de Catalunya, Direcció assistencial d’Atenció Primària i a la Comunitat, Institut Català de la Salut (ICS), Barcelona, Spain (GRID:grid.454735.4) (ISNI:0000000123317762)
3 University of Oxford, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948)
4 University of Oxford, Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948)
5 Generalitat de Catalunya, Public Health Secretariat, Department of Health, Barcelona, Spain (GRID:grid.454735.4) (ISNI:0000000123317762)
6 University of Oxford, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948); Erasmus University Medical Center, Department of Medical Informatics, Rotterdam, Netherlands (GRID:grid.5645.2) (ISNI:000000040459992X)