Trial reportHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2026
Modeling of antibody waning after heterologous boosting with Ad5-nCoV in individuals primed with two-dose CoronaVac previously.
Trial report in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Safety and Immunogenicity of Sequential Immunization of Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine and Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine (Ad5 Vector) in Chinese Healthy Adults Aged 18-59 Years: a Randomized, Observer-blind, Parallel-controlled Clinical Trial
Safety and Immunogenicity of Sequential Immunization of Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccine and Recombinant COVID-19 Vaccine (Ad5 Vector) inChinese Healthy Adults Aged 60 and Above: a Randomized, Observer-blind,Parallel-controlled Clinical Trial
Immunogenicity and Safety of the Heterologous Prime-boost Immunization with an Aerosolised Adenovirus Type-5 Vector-based COVID-19 Vaccine (Ad5-nCoV) After Two-dose Priming with an Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Adults At 18 Years of Age or Above: a Randomised, Open-label, Parallel-controlled Clinical Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heterologous boosting with aerosolized or intramuscular Ad5-nCoV following a two-dose CoronaVac prime has been shown to induce higher antibody levels than a homologous CoronaVac booster. However, no specific modeling has been reported to characterize the kinetics of antibody waning for these heterologous regimens. By integrating longitudinal serological data from three randomized trials conducted in Jiangsu, China (NCT04892459, NCT04952727, NCT05043259), we applied linear mixed-effects models to establish both exponential and power-law decay models for neutralizing antibodies, including live-virus neutralizing antibodies against the prototype, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, and pseudovirus neutralizing antibodies against Omicron BA.4/5 variant, respectively. The findings showed that the power-law model exhibited a superior fit over the exponential model across all antibody types (all ΔAICc < 0). According to the power-law model (at day 90), the half-lives of live-virus neutralizing antibodies against the wild-type SRAS-CoV-2 strain was 195 d (95% CI: 185-210) in the aerosolized Ad5-nCoV group, 226 d (220-252) in the intramuscular Ad5-nCoV group, versus 230 d (95% CI: 222-257) in the three-dose CoronaVac group. For the Omicron BA.1 variant, the half-life was 314 d (248-453) in the aerosolized Ad5-nCoV group, 168 d (159-180) in the intramuscular Ad5-nCoV group, compared to 196 d (174-230) in the three-dose CoronaVac group. Our model indicated that the heterologous booster with Ad5-nCoV after two-dose CoronaVac, particularly the aerosolized Ad5-nCoV, induces longer-lasting neutralizing antibodies than three-dose CoronaVac, preferably characterized by power-law decay models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.