Adverse events following immunization of COVID-19 (Covaxin) vaccine at a tertiary care center of India

Self-reported side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among health professions students in India

Studies focusing on the safety and common side effects of vaccines play a crucial role in enhancing public acceptance of vaccination. Research is scarce regarding the usage of COVID-19 vaccines and the side effects experienced by health professions students in India and other countries. This study aimed to document self-reported side effects associated with COVID-19 vaccination among medical and dental students of six medical and dental colleges and teaching hospitals in four states (Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and West Bengal) of India. A cross-sectional survey using purposive sampling of medical and dental students was conducted from 26 April to 26 May 2021. Data was collected using a Google Forms questionnaire capturing information regarding receiving COVID-19 vaccines, side effects and symptoms, onset and duration of symptoms, use of treatment to alleviate symptoms, awareness of haematologic risks associated with vaccination, and side effects from previous (non-COVID-19) vaccinations. The majority (94.5%) of participants received both doses of the Covishield/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Among participants (n = 492), 45.3% (n = 223) reported one or more side effects. The most frequently reported side effects were soreness of the injected arm (80.3%), tiredness (78.5%), fever (71.3%), headache (64.1%), and hypersomnia (58.7%). The two most common severe symptoms were fever (14.8%) and headache (13%). Most side effects appeared on the day of vaccination: soreness of the injection site (57%), fever (43.1%), and tiredness (42.6%). Most reported symptoms persisted for one to three days-soreness of the injection site (53%), fever (47.1%), and headache (42.6%). Logistic regression showed that women were almost 85% less likely to report side effects. The study's findings corroborate the safety of the Covishield/AstraZeneca vaccine's first dose, evidenced by the relatively minor and transient nature of the side effects. However, the study underscores the necessity for ongoing research to assess the long-term impacts of COVID-19 vaccines, especially in the context of booster doses, thereby contributing to the global understanding of vaccine safety and efficacy.

Exploring the reported adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccinated Arab populations: a multi-national survey study

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a major challenge worldwide for the past years with high morbidity and mortality rates. While vaccination was the cornerstone to control the pandemic and disease spread, concerns regarding safety and adverse events (AEs) have been raised lately. A cross-sectional study was conducted between January 1st and January 22nd, 2022, in six Arabic countries namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Algeria. We utilized a self-administered questionnaire validated in Arabic which encompassed two main parts. The first was regarding sociodemographic data while the second was about COVID-19 vaccination history, types, doses, and experienced AEs. A multistage sampling was employed in each country, involving the random selection of three governorates from each country, followed by the selection of one urban area and one rural area from each governorate. We included the responses of 1564 participants. The most common AEs after the first and second doses were local AEs (67.9% and 46.6%, respectively) followed by bone pain and myalgia (37.6% and 31.8%, respectively). After the third dose, the most common AEs were local AEs (45.7%) and fever (32.4%). Johnson and Johnson, Sputnik Light, and Moderna vaccines showed the highest frequency of AEs. Factors associated with AEs after the first dose included an increase in age (aOR of 61-75 years compared to the 12-18 years group: 2.60, 95% CI: 1.59-4.25, p = 0.001) and male gender (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.63-0.82, p < 0.001). The cumulative post-vaccination COVID-19 disease was reported with Sinovac (16.1%), Sinopharm (15.8%), and Johnson and Johnson (14.9) vaccines. History of pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection significantly increases the risk of post-vaccination COVID-19 after the first, second, and booster doses (OR: 3.09, CI: 1.9-5.07, p < 0.0001; OR: 2.56, CI: 1.89-3.47, p < 0.0001; and OR: 2.94, CI: 1.6-5.39, p = 0.0005 respectively). In conclusion, AEs were common among our participants, especially local AEs. Further extensive studies are needed to generate more generalizable data regarding the safety of different vaccines.

Delayed adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with systemic sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases: a substudy of the COVAD-2 cohort

Data on short-term safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) were explored previously in the first COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune diseases (COVAD) survey conducted in 2021. However, delayed adverse events (ADEs) (occurring > 7 days post-vaccination) are poorly characterized in these patients with SSc. In this study, we analysed delayed COVID-19 vaccine-related ADEs among patients with SSc, other systemic autoimmune and inflammatory disorders (SAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs) using data from the second COVAD study conducted in 2022. The COVAD-2 study was a cross-sectional, patient self-reported global e-survey conducted from February to June 2022. Data on demographics, SSc/SAID disease characteristics, COVID-19 infection history, and vaccination details including delayed ADEs as defined by the Centre for Disease Control were captured and analysed. Among 17,612 respondents, 10,041 participants fully vaccinated against COVID-19 were included for analysis. Of these, 2.6% (n = 258) had SSc, 63.7% other SAIDs, and 33.7% were HCs. BNT162b2 Pfizer (69.4%) was the most administered vaccine, followed by MRNA-1273 Moderna (32.25%) and ChadOx1 nCOV-19 Oxford/AstraZeneca (12.4%) vaccines. Among patients with SSc, 18.9% reported minor, while 8.5% experienced major delayed ADEs, and 4.6% reported hospitalization. These frequencies were comparable to those of the ADEs reported by other patients with SAIDs and HCs. However, patients with SSc reported a higher frequency of difficulty in breathing than HCs [OR 2.3 (1.0-5.1), p = 0.042]. Patients with diffuse cutaneous SSc experienced minor ADEs [OR 2.1 (1.1-4.4), p = 0.036] and specifically fatigue more frequently [OR 3.9 (1.3-11.7), p = 0.015] than those with limited cutaneous SSc. Systemic sclerosis patients with concomitant myositis reported myalgia more frequently [OR 3.4 (1.1-10.7), p = 0.035], while those with thyroid disorders were more prone to report a higher frequency of joint pain [OR 5.5 (1.5-20.2), p = 0.009] and dizziness [OR 5.9 (1.3-27.6), p = 0.024] than patients with SSc alone. A diagnosis of SSc did not confer a higher risk of delayed post-COVID-19 vaccine-related ADEs overall compared with other SAIDs and HCs. However, the diffuse cutaneous phenotype and coexisting autoimmune conditions including myositis and thyroid disease may increase the risk of minor ADEs. These patients may benefit from pre-vaccination counselling, close monitoring, and early initiation of appropriate care in the post-COVID-19 vaccination period.

Side effects of COVID-19 vaccines in the middle eastern population

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe worldwide health concerns since its first description as the SARS-COV-2 virus in December 2019. The wide dissemination of this virus, together with the lack of treatment, prompted vaccine development within a short period of time to elicit a protective immunity against COVID-19. Due to their rapid development, potential subsequent side effects of COVID-19 vaccines were overlooked, which might lead to many health concerns. This is especially true for patients at a greater risk of harm from COVID-19, such as pregnant women, children, and patients with pre-existing chronic diseases. In this review, we provide a summary of common to rare side effects of administrated COVID-19 vaccines in a Middle Eastern population. We have found that the distinction between side effects from COVID-19 vaccines in terms of frequency and severity is attributed to the differences in study populations, gender, and age. Pain at the injection site, fever, headache, fatigue, and muscle pain were the most common reported side effects. Vaccinated subjects with previous COVID-19 infection exhibited an equivalent neutralizing response after just one dose compared to two doses of vaccine. Consequently, individuals who experienced more side effects had significantly higher antibody levels. This indicates that having better immunity correlates with higher antibody levels, leading to a higher frequency of vaccine side effects. Individuals with underlying comorbidities, particularly having known allergies and with illnesses such as diabetes and cancer, might be more prone to post-vaccination side effects. Studies of a high-risk population in Middle Eastern countries are limited. Future studies should be considered to determine long-term side effects, side effects after booster doses, and side effect differences in cases of heterologous and homologous vaccination for better understanding and proper handling of high-risk populations and patients who experience these side effects.

Sputnik V vaccine perception and hesitancy in a tertiary health care centre transformed to Covid-19 vaccine centre: A case study

BACKGROUND

Sputnik V vaccine was approved in India in April 2021 to tackle the pandemic situation. However, there was lack of information on the effects, side effects, and peoples' perception toward it. The present case study aims to evaluate the vaccine coverage, the awareness, and perception toward it and compare the adverse effects after each dose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A unique case study was conducted in a sample of 200 participants comparing 2 groups of population who took first and second dose of Sputnik V vaccine during June to November 2021. The data were collected by a prevalidated questionnaire, follow-up telephonic interviews focused on knowledge, awareness, side effects of vaccine, and analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentages, mean, and standard deviation.

RESULTS

The vaccine coverage for first and second doses were 98.3% and 96.5%, respectively. The mean age of the participant was 29 + 9.5 years and majority 68.5% were males. Seventeen percent experienced the S/E for the vaccine with 9.5% from second dose. There were usual side effects; however, it was more after second dose of vaccination. Friends and healthcare workers were the main source of information (33.5%) and motivation (43%). Majority (73.5%) were aware of the side effects. Forty three point five percent took vaccine attributed to its protective role, availability, and peer pressure. There was no significant association between type of doses and side effects of the respective doses of vaccine.

CONCLUSION

The vaccine coverage was >90%. Participants were well aware of the vaccine and side effects which were more in second dose. However, there was no significant difference between the two doses of vaccine.

COVID-19 vaccines and their underbelly: Are we going the right way?

Background

Historically, a critical aetiological agent of health concern stays till eternity after its discovery, so shall it be with the COVID-19 outbreak. It has transformed human life to a 'new normal' with huge tolls on the social, psychological, intellectual and financial spheres.

Aim

This perspective aimed to collate numerous reported COVID-19 vaccine-associated adverse events and the predisposing factors. It focussed on the efficacy of mix-n-match (cocktail) vaccines to effectively counter COVID-19 infection to facilitate future research and possible interventions.

Material and Methods

Databases like Scopus, Pubmed and the Web-of-science were searched for published literature on 'adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccine'. The reports and updates from health agencies like the WHO and CDC were also considered for the purpose. The details with respect to the adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination and the predisposing factors were compiled to obtain insights and suggest possible future directions in vaccine research.

Results

India stood strong to manage its health resources in time and turned into a dominant global vaccine supplier at a time when healthcare infrastructure of many countries was still significantly challenged. Developing indigenous vaccines and the vaccination drive in India were its major achievements during the second and the subsequent COVID-19 waves. The fully indigenous Covaxin vaccine, primarily as an emergency intervention, was successfully rapidly launched. Similar such vaccines for emergency use were developed elsewhere as well. However, all of these reached the marketplace with a 'emergency use only' tag, without formal clinical trials and other associated formalities to validate and verify them as these would require much longer incubation time before they are available for human use.

Discussion

Many adverse events associated with either the first or the second/booster vaccination doses were reported. Evidently, these associated adverse events were considered as 'usually rare' or were often underreported. Without the additional financial or ethical burden on the vaccine companies, fortunately, the Phase IV (human) clinical trials of their manufactured vaccines are occurring by default as the human population receives these under the tag 'emergency use'. Thus, focused and collaborative strategies to unveil the molecular mechanisms in vaccine-related adverse events in a time-bound manner are suggested.

Conclusion

Reliable data particularly on the safety of children is lacking as majority of the current over-the-counter COVID-19 vaccines were for emergency use. Many of these were still in their Phase III and Phase IV trials. The need for a mutant-proof, next-gen COVID-19 vaccine in the face of vaccine-associated adverse events is opined.

Active surveillance of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines in a tertiary care hospital

Background

Vaccination is a safe and effective way to prevent disease and save lives, but it may also produce some undesirable adverse events (AEs)which may affect healthy individuals. Therefore, the monitoring of AE following immunization (AEFIs) is necessary. The objective of this study was to assess the AEs following COVID-19 vaccinations in a tertiary care hospital.

Methodology

The study was conducted as active vaccine safety surveillance for a period of 6 months among the COVID-19 vaccine beneficiaries of the study site. Active surveillance was conducted via initiating two telephone contacts. The first surveillance was conducted in 8 days and the second surveillance after 28 days of post-vaccination. All identified AEs following immunizations (AEFIs) were reported and analysed by the AEFI investigation team at the study site. The causality assessment of each identified AEFI was performed using the World Health Organization's causality assessment algorithm.

Results

A total of 2927 enrolled study population completed the study with a response rate of 80.85%. The study identified 902 AEFIs from 614 study populations with an incidence rate of 20.97%. Of which 794 and 79 AEFIs were associated with COVISHIELD™ and COVAXIN®, respectively. The majority of the events were reported among the age group of 18-29 years. Overall, only three events were serious and no deaths were reported among the study population. A total of 75.59% of events had a consistent causal association with vaccination and were categorized as vaccine product-related reactions. The study identified various factors such as gender (p = 0.019), age (p < 0.05), co-morbid status (p = 0.032) and dose number (p = 0.001) as potential predictors for development of AEFI.

Conclusion

The study identified only 0.33% of events as serious, and 99.67% of the study population recovered from the AEFIs, which reveals that COVISHIELD™ and COVAXIN® have a generally favourable safety profile. However, close monitoring is required to identify the potential signals, as the safety data from the clinical trials are limited.

Adverse Events Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents with Endocrinological Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective

The aim was to evaluate the adverse events seen after Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in pediatric patients with diagnosed endocrinological problems and to compare them with healthy controls.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, patients aged 12-18 years who attended a single department between January and May 2022 and were followed up for at least six months due to endocrine diseases, and healthy subjects in the same age group, all of whom had received a COVID-19 vaccine [BNT162b2 mRNA or inactivated vaccine] were included. Adverse events experienced after the vaccination were evaluated by questionnaire.

Results

A total of 160 subjects (85 patients, 75 healthy controls) with a median (25-75p) age of 15.5 (14.1-16.9) years were included. The frequency of adverse events was higher in those vaccinated with the mRNA vaccine compared to the inactivated one after the first dose (p=0.015). The incidence of adverse events observed after the first and second doses of both COVID-19 vaccines was similar in the patient and control groups (p=0.879 and p=0.495, respectively), with local reactions being the most common. The frequency of adverse events was similar among the patients who did or did not receive any endocrinological treatment (p>0.05). The incidence and severity of systemic reactions were similar to those in healthy subjects for both vaccine doses, regardless of the underlying diagnosis, autoimmunity state, or treatment regimen used in patients with endocrine diseases.

Conclusion

The incidence and severity of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccinations in adolescents with endocrinological disorders were similar to healthy subjects, in the early post-vaccination period.

COVID-19 Booster Dose Coverage and Hesitancy among Older Adults in an Urban Slum and Resettlement Colony in Delhi, India

BACKGROUND

The high prevalence of vaccine booster hesitancy, with the concomitant waning of humoral vaccine or hybrid immunity, and the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern can accentuate COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. The study objective was to ascertain the COVID-19 vaccination coverage, including the administration of precaution (booster) dose vaccination, among the older population in an urban slum and resettlement colony population in Delhi, India.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey in an urban resettlement colony, slum, and village cluster in the Northeast district of Delhi among residents aged ≥50 years.

RESULTS

A total of 2217 adults (58.28%) had obtained a COVID-19 booster (precaution) dose vaccine, 1404 (36.91%) had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine without booster dose, 121 (3.18%) were unvaccinated, while 62 (1.63%) participants received a single dose. Based on adjusted analysis, older adults (>65 years), higher education, and higher per-capita income were statistically significant predictors of booster dose vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

More than four in ten adults in an urban slum and resettlement colony in Delhi lacked COVID-19 booster dose vaccination despite high rates of double-dose vaccination (~95%). Public health programming should provide an enhanced focus on reducing complacency with renewed prioritization for improving ease of access to COVID-19 vaccination services, particularly in underserved areas.

The dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated populations in Mumbai, India, between 28 December 2020 and 30 August 2021

The emergence and evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants that could compromise vaccine efficacy (VE) with re-infections in immunized individuals have necessitated continuous surveillance of VE. Here, the occurrence and dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the context of vaccination during the second wave of infection in Mumbai were evaluated. RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values of the open reading frame (ORF)/envelope (E)/nucleocapsid (N) genes obtained from a total of 42415 samples, comprising unvaccinated (96.88%) and vaccinated cases (3.12%) were analyzed between December 28, 2020, and August 30, 2021. A lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated cases (5.07%) compared to partially vaccinated cases (6.5%) and unvaccinated cases (13.453%) was recorded. VE was significant after the first dose of vaccination (ORF gene p-value = 0.003429, and E/N gene p-value = 0.000866). Furthermore, VE was observed to be significant when the post-immunization (first dose) period was stratified to within 30 days (ORF gene p-value = 0.0094 and E/N gene p-value = 0.0023) and to 60 days following the second dose of vaccination (ORF gene p-value = 0.0238). Also, significantly higher efficacy was observed within individuals receiving two doses compared to a single dose (ORF gene p-value = 0.0132 and E/N gene p-value = 0.0387). The emergence of breakthrough infections was also evident (odds ratio= 0.34; 95% confidence interval= 0.27-0.43). Interestingly, viral loads trended towards being higher in some groups of partially vaccinated individuals compared to completely vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Finally, our results delineated a significantly higher incidence of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in males, asymptomatic individuals, individuals with comorbidities, and those who were unvaccinated.

Application of Traditional Vaccine Development Strategies to SARS-CoV-2

Over the past 150 years, vaccines have revolutionized the relationship between people and disease. During the COVID-19 pandemic, technologies such as mRNA vaccines have received attention due to their novelty and successes. However, more traditional vaccine development platforms have also yielded important tools in the worldwide fight against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A variety of approaches have been used to develop COVID-19 vaccines that are now authorized for use in countries around the world. In this review, we highlight strategies that focus on the viral capsid and outwards, rather than on the nucleic acids inside. These approaches fall into two broad categories: whole-virus vaccines and subunit vaccines. Whole-virus vaccines use the virus itself, in either an inactivated or an attenuated state. Subunit vaccines contain instead an isolated, immunogenic component of the virus. Here, we highlight vaccine candidates that apply these approaches against SARS-CoV-2 in different ways. In a companion article (H. M. Rando, R. Lordan, L. Kolla, E. Sell, et al., mSystems 8:e00928-22, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00928-22), we review the more recent and novel development of nucleic acid-based vaccine technologies. We further consider the role that these COVID-19 vaccine development programs have played in prophylaxis at the global scale. Well-established vaccine technologies have proved especially important to making vaccines accessible in low- and middle-income countries. Vaccine development programs that use established platforms have been undertaken in a much wider range of countries than those using nucleic acid-based technologies, which have been led by wealthy Western countries. Therefore, these vaccine platforms, though less novel from a biotechnological standpoint, have proven to be extremely important to the management of SARS-CoV-2. IMPORTANCE The development, production, and distribution of vaccines is imperative to saving lives, preventing illness, and reducing the economic and social burdens caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccines that use cutting-edge biotechnology have played an important role in mitigating the effects of SARS-CoV-2. However, more traditional methods of vaccine development that were refined throughout the 20th century have been especially critical to increasing vaccine access worldwide. Effective deployment is necessary to reducing the susceptibility of the world's population, which is especially important in light of emerging variants. In this review, we discuss the safety, immunogenicity, and distribution of vaccines developed using established technologies. In a separate review, we describe the vaccines developed using nucleic acid-based vaccine platforms. From the current literature, it is clear that the well-established vaccine technologies are also highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 and are being used to address the challenges of COVID-19 globally, including in low- and middle-income countries. This worldwide approach is critical for reducing the devastating impact of SARS-CoV-2.

Side effects of Sputnik V, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, and Covaxin and their associations with other variables among healthcare workers of a tertiary hospital in Iran

BACKGROUND

Misinformation about the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccines' side effects (SEs) has led to concerns about and mistrust of vaccine safety. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccines' SEs.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional survey-based study on the healthcare workers (HCWs) of a tertiary hospital in Iran, the SEs of Sputnik V, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, and Covaxin were evaluated through a face-to-face interview by a researcher-made questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 368 HCWs received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The prevalence of people with at least one SE was higher among those who received the Oxford-AstraZeneca (95.8 %) and Sputnik V (92.1 %) vaccines than those who received Covaxin (70.5 %) or Sinopharm (66.7 %). Following the first and second doses, injection site pain (50.3 % and 58.2 %), body/muscle pain (53.5 % and 39.4 %), fever (54.5 % and 32.9 %), headache (41.3 % and 36.5 %), and fatigue (44.4 % and 32.4 %) were the most common SEs. Overall, SEs were often initiated within 12 h and subsided within 72 h of vaccination. The prevalence of SEs after the first dose of Sputnik V was higher among those aged ≤ 31 years (93.3 %) than those aged > 31 years (80.5 %). In the Sputnik V group, the number of SEs experienced after the first dose was higher in women with underlying diseases than those without such diseases. Furthermore, the body mass index of participants with SEs was lower than that of participants without SEs.

CONCLUSION

Compared to Sinopharm or Covaxin, the Sputnik V and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines were associated with a higher prevalence of SEs, a greater number of SEs per individual, and more severe SEs.

New insights from nanotechnology in SARS-CoV-2 detection, treatment strategy, and prevention

The recent outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 resulted into the deadly COVID-19 pandemic, which has made a profound impact on mankind and the world health care system. SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted within the population via symptomatic carriers, enters the host cell via ACE2 and TMPSSR2 receptors and damages the organs. The standard diagnostic tests and treatment methods implemented lack required efficiency to beat SARS-CoV-2 in the race of its spreading. The most prominently used diagnostic test,reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (a nucleic acid-based method), has limitations including a prolonged time taken to reveal results, limited sensitivity, a high rate of false negative results, and lacking specificity due to a homology with other viruses. Furthermore, as part of the treatment, antiviral drugs such as remdesivir, favipiravir, lopinavir/ritonavir, chloroquine, daclatasvir, atazanavir, and many more have been tested clinically to check their potency for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 but none of these antiviral drugs are the definitive cure or suitable prophylaxis. Thus, it is always required to combat SARS-CoV-2 spread and infection for a better and precise prognosis. This review answers the above mentioned challenges by employing nanomedicine for the development of improved detection, treatment, and prevention strategies for SARS-CoV-2. In this review, nanotechnology-based detection methods such as colorimetric assays, photothermal biosensors, molecularly imprinted nanoparticles sensors, electrochemical nanoimmunosensors, aptamer-based biosensors have been discussed. Furthermore, nanotechnology-based treatment strategies involving polymeric nanoparticles, metallic nanoparticles, lipid nanoparticles, and nanocarrier-based antiviral siRNA delivery have been depicted. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 prevention strategies, which include the nanotechnology for upgrading personal protective equipment, facemasks, ocular protection gears, and nanopolymer-based disinfectants, have been also reviewed. This review will provide a one-site informative platform for researchers to explore the crucial role of nanomedicine in managing the COVID-19 curse more effectively.

Media Reporting Relating to COVID-19 Vaccination as a Driver of Vaccine Hesitancy Prior to the Second Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in India: A Content Analysis of Newspaper and Digital Media Reports

Background Over 2,40,000 deaths were attributed to the SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) variant in India during the second wave of the pandemic from April to June 2021 with most deaths occurring in the unvaccinated population. High levels of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy contributed to significantly reduced vaccination coverage in the eligible population especially among healthcare workers, comorbid and older people. The existing global evidence suggests misinformation through social media to accentuate, while newspaper and mainstream media reporting to be protective against vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Content analysis of regular press coverage of COVID-19 vaccination in India during the period of initial deployment and until the onset of the second wave of the pandemic can provide useful learnings and strengthen preparedness for addressing potential vaccine hesitancy concerns during future pandemics. Therefore, we conducted this inductive content analysis of press coverage related to the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in India prior to the second (Delta) wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We examined news reports related to COVID-19 vaccination in India for the period from 1st January 2021 to 28 February 2021 from a high circulation English language daily (Hindustan Times), Hindi (vernacular) language daily (Dainik Jagran), and English language news reports from selected digital news portals. The inclusion criterion was any news report related to COVID-19 vaccination including editorials and guest opinion pieces that could potentially generate COVID-19-related vaccine hesitancy. The news items were classified depending on their potential to drive vaccine hesitancy by either avoiding reporting of positive information related to COVID-19 vaccines, or attributing directly or indirectly, negative or misleading commentary relating to vaccine safety or efficacy. Reports with possible risk of increasing vaccine hesitancy were further analyzed based on content, source of information, and the extent of fact-checking. Results Most of the published newspaper reports examined in this study echoed official news sources and views from government health agencies promoting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and dispelling doubts on concerns regarding vaccine safety. There were eight unique newspaper reports after excluding duplicated bilingual entries and four news items from online digital Indian news sources that met our criterion of reports with possible contribution to vaccine hesitancy. The reports possibly contributed to vaccine hesitancy were grouped into two themes: (i) Doubts on the safety and efficacy of local manufactured vaccines: most of these reports focused on the granting of emergency use authorization for Covaxin (BBV152) in 'clinical trial mode' without the completion and publication of Phase-3 efficacy data (ii). Doubts on vaccine requirement considering high seroprevalence and reduced virus transmission.  Conclusions Concerns about the efficacy and safety of Covaxin (BBV152), safety of the Covishield vaccine, and questioning the necessity of immunizing all adults with COVID-19 vaccines were observed in multiple press reports with attempts at politicization of vaccination-related decisions. The press reporting with potential for contributing to significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy since launch and until the Delta wave of the pandemic in India has important lessons in future pandemic preparedness.

Post COVID-19 Vaccination Side Effects and Associated Factors Among Vaccinated Clients in Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia

Introduction

The lack of local side effect profiles for vaccines could hinder vaccination uptake. Since all COVID-19 vaccines are brand-new medications, it is crucial to keep track of any safety related concern.

Objective

This study is aimed to investigate post-vaccination side effects of COVID-19 vaccines and associated factors in Bahir Dar city.

Method

An institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted among vaccinated clients. A simple random and a systematic random sampling method were used to select the health facilities and the participants, respectively. Bi-variable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were executed with odds ratio at 95% confidence intervals at p < .05.

Results

A total of 72(17.4%) participants reported at least one side effect following vaccination. The proportion prevalence was higher after the first dose than that of the second dose and the difference was also found to be statistically significant. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis female participants (AOR = 3.39, 95% CI =  1.53, 7.52), participants with a history of regular medication use (AOR = 3.34, 95% CI  =  1.52, 7.33), participants aged 55 and above (AOR = 2.93, 95% CI  =  1.23, 7.01), and participants who had taken only the first dose (AOR = 14.81, 95% CI  =  6.40, 34.31) were more likely to develop side effects for COVID 19 vaccination compared to their counterparts.

Conclusion

A significant number (17.4%) of participants reported at least one side effect following vaccination. Sex, medication, occupation, age, and type of vaccination dose were factors statistically associated with the reported side effects.

Stimulated Reporting of Adverse Events Following Immunization with COVID-19 Vaccines

In India, up until December 2021, Covishield and Covaxin vaccines against COVID-19 were being used for mass vaccination programs. In view of the urgency of fighting the ongoing pandemic, many vaccines have been granted emergency use approval while phase 2/3 clinical trials were still underway. Even for vaccines that have completed phase 3 trials, safety data may not be comprehensive. This retrospective observational study was conducted at a designated Regional Training Centre for Pharmacovigilance cum Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Centre (AMC) under the Pharmacovigilance Programme of India. The data sources were stimulated spontaneous reports of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) due to the COVID-19 vaccines from 10 January to 31 December 2021. A total of 51,010 COVID vaccine doses were administered during the study period. There were 330 AEFI reported (AEFI rate: 0.65%). Six AEFI were serious events among which three were Adverse Events of Special Interest. The majority of the AEFI were systemic, reported after the first dose, and with an onset between 1 and 24 h after vaccination. On comparing Covishield and Covaxin, there were no statistically significant differences in the AEFI reported with either vaccine in terms of gender, seriousness, lag period, duration, recovery, causality, treatment received for AEFI, presence of co-morbidity, or history of COVID-19 infection. Overall, the rates of AEFI was uncommon, and serious AEFI were rare with both Covishield and Covaxin, with a higher rate after the first dose. Whether immunological tolerance or allayed anxiety was responsible for the lower AEFI risk with the second dose remains to be investigated.

COVID-19 Vaccines, Effectiveness, and Immune Responses

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has captivated the globe's attention since its emergence in 2019. This highly infectious, spreadable, and dangerous pathogen has caused health, social, and economic crises. Therefore, a worldwide collaborative effort was made to find an efficient strategy to overcome and develop vaccines. The new vaccines provide an effective immune response that safeguards the community from the virus' severity. WHO has approved nine vaccines for emergency use based on safety and efficacy data collected from various conducted clinical trials. Herein, we review the safety and effectiveness of the WHO-approved COVID-19 vaccines and associated immune responses, and their impact on improving the public's health. Several immunological studies have demonstrated that vaccination dramatically enhances the immune response and reduces the likelihood of future infections in previously infected individuals. However, the type of vaccination and individual health status can significantly affect immune responses. Exposure of healthy individuals to adenovirus vectors or mRNA vaccines causes the early production of antibodies from B and T cells. On the other hand, unhealthy individuals were more likely to experience harmful events due to relapses in their existing conditions. Taken together, aligning with the proper vaccination to a patient's case can result in better outcomes.

Multimorbidity and Its Effect on Self-Reported Adverse Effects Following COVID-19 Vaccination

Introduction The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination has been suggested for those with comorbidities, although there are concerns regarding the vaccine's safety. This study aimed to compare the severity and incidence of post-vaccination side effects in people with and without comorbidities. Another aim of this study was also to look for the effect of multimorbidity on adverse events. Methods This observational study was conducted from November 2021 to February 2022. Data were collected from all over Pakistan using a self-administered online questionnaire that inquired about the subject's demographic, clinical, and COVID-19 vaccination profiles. Data analysis was done by using SPSS software version 22.0. (Chicago, IL, IBM Corp.). Results A total of 421 participants were included in the study, and 31.4% of individuals had underlying comorbidity. The overall mean age was 33 years (range: 13-85 years). This study included recipients of all major types of COVID-19 vaccines being used in Pakistan. Only 67.4% of the subjects had only underlying comorbidity, and hypertension was the most common one out of all comorbidities. Participants with comorbidities were not at a greater risk to produce vaccine-related adverse events when compared to those with no comorbidities. Comorbidity was also found to be statistically non-significant to the severity of the side effects. Only one subject with comorbidity produced a side effect and required hospitalization. Multimorbidity was not associated with a greater incidence of side effects. Multimorbidity was not significantly linked with the severity of the adverse effects, except muscle pain (p<0.05) and breathlessness (p<0.05). Conclusion It can be concluded that comorbidities do not affect the COVID-19 vaccine's reactogenicity but studies on an extensive scale should be conducted regarding individuals with multiple pre-existing comorbidities.

Vaccine-Related adverse events following AZD1222 (ChAdOx1-nCoV-19) Covid-19 vaccine in solid malignancy patients receiving cancer treatment, as compared to age-matched healthy controls

The study aimed to evaluate vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) following ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in solid cancer patients receiving treatment compared to healthy controls. 399 cancer patients and 90 healthy volunteers were enrolled. In the overall population, the incidence of VRAEs was significantly lower in cancer patients than in healthy volunteers (57% vs 80%, P < .001). Because the mean age of the cancer patients was higher than the healthy volunteers (59 vs 48 years, P < .001), we analyzed age-matched comparison and found that there was no significant difference of VRAEs between two groups (74% vs 79%, P .32). Most VRAEs were of mild severity in both groups. The most common local VRAE was pain at the injection site in both groups, and the most common systemic VRAE was fatigue in the cancer cohort, while myalgia was the most common VRAE among the healthy controls. In the cancer cohort, fever was the only VRAE that led to interruption of the cancer treatment (in two cases). Among the cancer treatment types, patients undergoing chemotherapy-containing regimens had a lower likelihood of experiencing VRAEs. In summary, the overall incidence of VRAEs following ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in actively treated cancer patients was comparable to healthy controls after adjusting for age. The VRAEs that occurred rarely interfered with the cancer treatment. These findings substantiate that vaccination with AZD1222 is safe in cancer patients undergoing treatment.

Miller-Fisher syndrome and Guillain-Barre syndrome overlap syndrome following inactivated COVID-19 vaccine: Case report and scope review

Miller-Fisher syndrome (MFS) is a rare variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) manifesting as the triad of ataxia, areflexia, and ophthalmoplegia. With the extensive 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) immunization program, cases of GBS or MFS following vaccination are increasingly being reported. A 64-y-old Chinese man presented with new-onset paresthesia of the extremities, bilateral abduction limitation, right facial palsy, areflexia of bilateral lower limbs, and left-dominant limb ataxia 12 d after the second dose of inactivated vaccine against COVID-19. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis indicated albumin-cytological dissociation and was positive for anti-GQ1b IgG and anti-GT1b IgG. Nerve conduction studies of limbs showed evidence of axonal neuropathy with reduced sensory amplitudes. Based on the clinical presentations, temporal progression of symptoms, and laboratory findings, the diagnosis of MFS-GBS overlap syndrome was made. The patient was treated with intravenous immunoglobulin and acupuncture and made a complete recovery 54 d after the onset of his initial neurological signs. To the best of our knowledge, we report the first case of MFS-GBS overlap syndrome following the inactivated COVID-19 vaccination. However, a coincidental relationship with this inactivated vaccine cannot be excluded. Although the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination largely outweigh its risk and the prognosis of MFS is generally favorable, a close surveillance of neurological complications post-COVID-19 vaccination is always necessary, considering its potentially disabling and lethal effects on vaccinated populations.

Fast-track development of vaccines for SARS-CoV-2: The shots that saved the world

In December 2019, an outbreak emerged of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which leads to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The World Health Organisation announced the outbreak a global health emergency on 30 January 2020 and by 11 March 2020 it was declared a pandemic. The spread and severity of the outbreak took a heavy toll and overburdening of the global health system, particularly since there were no available drugs against SARS-CoV-2. With an immediate worldwide effort, communication, and sharing of data, large amounts of funding, researchers and pharmaceutical companies immediately fast-tracked vaccine development in order to prevent severe disease, hospitalizations and death. A number of vaccines were quickly approved for emergency use, and worldwide vaccination rollouts were immediately put in place. However, due to several individuals being hesitant to vaccinations and many poorer countries not having access to vaccines, multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants quickly emerged that were distinct from the original variant. Uncertainties related to the effectiveness of the various vaccines against the new variants as well as vaccine specific-side effects have remained a concern. Despite these uncertainties, fast-track vaccine approval, manufacturing at large scale, and the effective distribution of COVID-19 vaccines remain the topmost priorities around the world. Unprecedented efforts made by vaccine developers/researchers as well as healthcare staff, played a major role in distributing vaccine shots that provided protection and/or reduced disease severity, and deaths, even with the delta and omicron variants. Fortunately, even for those who become infected, vaccination appears to protect against major disease, hospitalisation, and fatality from COVID-19. Herein, we analyse ongoing vaccination studies and vaccine platforms that have saved many deaths from the pandemic.

Current clinical status of new COVID-19 vaccines and immunotherapy

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is a positive-strand RNA belonging to Coronaviridae family, along with MERS and SARS. Since its first report in 2019 in Wuhan, China, it has affected over 530 million people and led to 6.3 million deaths worldwide until June 2022. Despite eleven vaccines being used worldwide already, new variants are of concern. Therefore, the governing bodies are re-evaluating the strategies for achieving universal vaccination. Initially, the WHO expected that vaccines showing around 50-80% efficacy would develop in 1-2 years. However, US-FDA announced emergency approval of the two m-RNA vaccines within 11 months of vaccine development, which enabled early vaccination for healthcare workers in many countries. Later, in January 2021, 63 vaccine candidates were under human clinical trials and 172 under preclinical development. Currently, the number of such clinical studies is still increasing. In this review, we have summarized the updates on the clinical status of the COVID-19 and the available treatments. Additionally, COVID-19 had created negative impacts on world's economy; affected agriculture, industries, and tourism service sectors; and majorly affected low-income countries. The review discusses the clinical outcomes, latest statistics, socio-economic impacts of pandemic and treatment approaches against SARS-CoV-2, and strategies against the new variant of concern. The review will help understand the current status of vaccines and other therapies while also providing insights about upcoming vaccines and therapies for COVID-19 management.

Intranasal Immunization with Liposome-Displayed Receptor-Binding Domain Induces Mucosal Immunity and Protection against SARS-CoV-2

The global pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has led to efforts in developing effective vaccine approaches. Currently, approved coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are administered through an intramuscular (I.M.) route. Here, we show that the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) glycoprotein receptor-binding domain (RBD), when displayed on immunogenic liposomes, can be intranasally (I.N.) administered, resulting in the production of antigen-specific IgA and antigen-specific cellular responses in the lungs. Following I.N. immunization, antigen-presenting cells of the lungs took up liposomes displaying the RBD. K18 human ACE2-transgenic mice that were immunized I.M or I.N with sub-microgram doses of RBD liposomes and that were then challenged with SARS-CoV-2 had a reduced viral load in the early course of infection, with I.M. achieving complete viral clearance. Nevertheless, both vaccine administration routes led to full protection against lethal viral infection, demonstrating the potential for the further exploration and optimization of I.N immunization with liposome-displayed antigen vaccines.

A Prospective Observational Study on BBV152 Coronavirus Vaccine Use in Adolescents and Comparison with Adults: Interim Results of the First Real-World Safety Analysis

Introduction

The BBV152 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (COVAXIN) has recently been approved for adolescents.

Objective

We provide the first real-world safety data of COVAXIN use in adolescents and compare with adults.

Methods

A prospective observational study was initiated in January 2022. Enrolled adolescents and adults were contacted by telephone after 14 days of receiving the BBV152 vaccine. The primary outcome was vaccine safety assessed as rate of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). Severity grading of AEFIs was done using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scale. Interim results are presented.

Results

A total of 698 adolescents and 326 adults were enrolled. AEFIs after the first dose developed in 243 out of 670 adolescents (36.3%), with 21% reporting only local AEFIs and 15.2% reporting systemic AEFIs. Among 340 adolescents who had received the second dose of vaccine, 129 (37.9%) developed AEFIs, with only local involvement in 20.3% and systemic involvement in 17.6%. Injection site pain and fever were the common AEFIs. The majority of AEFIs were mild-moderate. Nearly 0.9% of adolescents receiving the first dose reported severe AEFIs. Atypical AEFIs were observed in 0.6–0.9% of adolescents. The majority of the AEFIs resolved in 1–2 days. AEFIs were persistent in > 2% of adolescents at day 14 after the second dose, and also in 3.7% of adults overall at follow-up. No difference was observed in AEFI incidence and patterns between adolescents and adults. Regression analysis showed females and those with a history of allergy to be, respectively, at 1.6 times and 3 times increased risk of AEFIs among adolescents.

Conclusions

COVAXIN carries an overall favorable short-term safety profile in adolescents. The observed AEFI rates in adolescents are much lower than that reported with mRNA vaccines, but head–head comparisons in the same population are required to generate relative vaccine safety data. Female adolescents and those with a history of allergy need watchfulness for severe and persistent AEFIs. With some AEFIs persisting at 14 days, a longer follow-up is recommended to strengthen the safety data of COVAXIN.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40264-022-01226-8.