↓ Skip to main content

Inactivated vaccine Covaxin/BBV152: A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, August 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
43 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inactivated vaccine Covaxin/BBV152: A systematic review
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, August 2022
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2022.863162
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tousief Irshad Ahmed, Saqib Rishi, Summaiya Irshad, Jyoti Aggarwal, Karan Happa, Sheikh Mansoor

Abstract

We systematically reviewed and summarized studies focusing on Bharat Biotech's Whole Virion Inactivated Corona Virus Antigen BBV152 (Covaxin), which is India's indigenous response to fighting the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Studies were searched for data on the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety profile of BBV152. All relevant studies published up to March 22, 2022, were screened from major databases, and 25 studies were eventually inducted into the systematic review. The studies focused on the virus antigen (6 μg) adjuvanted with aluminium hydroxide gel and/or Imidazo quinolin gallamide (IMDG), aTLR7/8 agonist. Pre-clinical, phase I, and II clinical trials showed appreciable immunogenicity. Both neutralizing and binding antibody titers were significant and T cell responses were Th1-biased. Phase III trials on the 6 μg +Algel-IMDG formulation showed a 93.4% efficacy against severe COVID-19. Data from the trials revealed an acceptable safety profile with mostly mild-moderate local and systemic adverse events. No serious adverse events or fatalities were seen, and most studies reported milder and lesser adverse events with Covaxin when compared with other vaccines, especially Oxford-Astra Zeneca's AZD1222 (Covishield). The immunogenicity performance of Covaxin, which provided significant protection only after the second dose, was mediocre and it was consistently surpassed by Covishield. One study reported adjusted effectiveness against symptomatic infection to be just 50% at 2 weeks after the second dose. Nonetheless, appreciable results were seen in previously infected individuals administered both doses. There was some evidence of coverage against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants. However, neither Covaxin nor Covishield showed sufficient protection against the Omicron variant. Two studies reported super-additive results on mixing Covaxin with Covishield. Further exploration of heterologous prime-boost vaccination with a combination of an inactivated vaccine and an adenoviral vector-based vaccine for tackling future variants may be beneficial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 24 49%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 27 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,113,763
of 26,515,106 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#996
of 33,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,710
of 439,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#67
of 2,088 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,515,106 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,088 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.