BACKGROUND: To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of three or four heterologous versus homologous booster regimens.
METHODS: From November 3 2022 to December 21, 2023, we searched five databases for randomised clinical trials (RCT). Reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed bias risks independently with the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. We conducted meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) on our primary (all-cause mortality; laboratory confirmed symptomatic and severe COVID-19; serious adverse events [SAE]) and secondary outcomes (quality of life [QoL]; adverse events [AE] considered non-serious). We assessed the evidence with the GRADE approach. Subgroup analyses were stratified for trials before and after 2023, three or four boosters, immunocompromised status, follow-up, risk of bias, heterologous booster vaccine platforms, and valency of booster.
RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs with 43 comparisons (12,538 participants). Heterologous booster regimens may not reduce the relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality (11 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.26; I2 0%; very low certainty evidence); laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 (14 trials; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; I2 0%; very low certainty); or severe COVID-19 (10 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.33; I2 0%; very low certainty). For safety outcomes, heterologous booster regimens may have no effect on SAE (27 trials; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95; I2 0%; very low certainty) but may raise AE considered non-serious (20 trials; RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; I2 64.4%; very low certainty). No data on QoL was available. Our TSAs showed that the cumulative Z curves did not reach futility for any outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: With our current sample sizes, we were not able to infer differences of effects for any outcomes, but heterologous booster regimens seem to cause more non-serious AE. Furthermore, more robust data are instrumental to update this review.

It is accepted that booster vaccinations of chickens with live Salmonella vaccines are essential part of vaccinations schemes to induce an effective adaptive immune response. As manufacturer of registered live Salmonella vaccines recommend different times of booster the question raises whether the duration between the first and second immunisation might influence the protective effect against Salmonella exposure. Chickens were immunised with a live Salmonella Enteritidis vaccine on day 1 of age followed by a booster vaccination at different intervals (day 28, 35 or 42 of age) to study the effects on the colonisation and invasion of the Salmonella vaccine strain, the humoral immune response and the efficacy against infection with Salmonella Enteritidis on day 56 of age. Immunisation of all groups resulted in a very effective adaptive immune response and a high degree of protection against severe Salmonella exposure, however, the time of booster had only an unverifiable influence on either the colonisation of the vaccine strain, the development of the humoral immune response or the colonisation of the Salmonella challenge strain. Therefore, the first oral immunisation of the chicks on day 1 of age seems to be of special importance and prerequisite for the development of the effective immune response. A booster immunisation should be carried out, however, the time of booster may vary between week 3 and week 7 of age of the chickens without adversely impact on the efficacy of the adaptive immune response or the protective effects.