Skip to main content
. 2022 Feb 5;399(10324):521–529. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00094-0

Table 2.

Comparisons of heterologous versus homologous regimens

Ad26.COV2-S BNT162b2 ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 CoronaVac p value*
Anti-spike IgG by multiplex immunoassay
All participants
Number of participants 294 333 296 281 ··
Geometric mean ratio 6·7 (5·8–7·7) 13·4 (11·6–15·3) 7·0 (6·1–8·1) ref <0·0001
18–60 years
Number of participants 152 165 150 148 ··
Geometric mean ratio 6·1 (5·1–7·2) 12·1 (10·3–14·2) 6·4 (5·5–7·6) ref ··
61 years and over
Number of participants 142 168 146 133 ··
Geometric mean ratio 7·3 (5·8–9·2) 15·0 (12·0–18·6) 7·6 (6·1–9·5) ref ··
Pseudovirus neutralisation titres
All participants
Number of participants 47 49 52 46 ··
Geometric mean ratio 8·7 (5·9–12·9) 21·5 (14·5–31·9) 10·6 (7·2–15·6) ref <0·0001
18–60 years
Number of participants 22 23 26 22 ··
Geometric mean ratio 7·2 (4·5–11·4) 15·6 (9·8–24·7) 8·2 (5·2–12·9) ref ··
61 years and over
Number of participants 25 26 26 24 ··
Geometric mean ratio 10·5 (5·6–19·5) 30·7 (16·5–57·1) 14·2 (7·6–26·5) ref ··

Data are the geometric mean ratio of heterologous versus homologous (95% CI), unless otherwise specified.

*

p value from ANOVA model comparing log-geometric means across all four groups.

p value <0·0001, values from superiority comparisons comparing heterologous schedules to homologous schedules.