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.

Details

Title
Comparative effectiveness and safety of homologous two-dose ChAdOx1 versus heterologous vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2
Author
Hermosilla, Eduardo 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Coma Ermengol 2   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Xie Junqing 3   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Feng Shuo 4   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Cabezas, Carmen 5 ; Méndez-Boo Leonardo 2   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Fina Francesc 2 ; Ballo Elisabet 2 ; Martínez Montserrat 5 ; Medina-Peralta, Manuel 2 ; Argimon, Josep Maria 5 ; Prieto-Alhambra, Daniel 6   VIAFID ORCID Logo 

 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) 
 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) 
 University of Oxford, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948) 
 University of Oxford, Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948) 
 Generalitat de Catalunya, Public Health Secretariat, Department of Health, Barcelona, Spain (GRID:grid.454735.4) (ISNI:0000000123317762) 
 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) 
Publication year
2022
Publication date
2022
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group
e-ISSN
20411723
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
2642176779
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.