Mixing versus matching booster vaccines: A longitudinal humoral immune kinetics against Omicron in a Malaysian cohort
International Journal of Infectious Diseases·
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijid.2026.109103
- PMID
- 42697472
- PMCID
- —
- OpenAlex
- W7208723411
- Study type
- Cohort study
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
The findings offer immunogenicity evidence relevant to booster vaccination strategy decisions during Omicron-era outbreaks, with particular relevance to settings where inactivated virus priming is used.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The study evaluated how different homologous and heterologous COVID-19 booster regimens shaped the longitudinal humoral immune response during the Omicron outbreak in Malaysia.
Study design
A prospective cohort study followed 268 healthcare professionals and medical students in Malaysia for 24 weeks after booster vaccination, with 190 recipients included in longitudinal immunogenicity analyses using chemiluminescent immunoassay and surrogate virus neutralization testing against Omicron.
Population and setting
The cohort comprised 268 healthcare professionals and medical students in Malaysia, of whom 190 contributed longitudinal immunogenicity data across multiple homologous and heterologous booster regimens.
Main findings
Heterologous booster regimens produced higher and more sustained anti-S IgG and anti-RBD antibody responses than homologous boosters, with the inactivated virus followed by mRNA (IV-mR) regimen showing the strongest effect (statistical significance reported as P<0.05 in the abstract). The authors concluded that heterologous boosting induced a superior and prolonged humoral immune response against COVID-19.
Public-health relevance
The findings offer immunogenicity evidence relevant to booster vaccination strategy decisions during Omicron-era outbreaks, with particular relevance to settings where inactivated virus priming is used.
Important limitations
The supplied abstract does not enumerate explicit limitations of the study. Accordingly, this summary is limited to the supplied single-article abstract and metadata and should be supplemented with the original paper before any decision-grade interpretation.
GIDS interpretation
The article is discoverable through GIDS classifiers for COVID-19/SARS, vaccination, outbreak investigation, and Malaysia. This reflects topic and geographic tagging only and does not, by itself, confirm any surveillance signal or outbreak linkage beyond the Omicron-era context noted in the abstract.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 8 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.