Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine as evidence for policy action: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies

Comparison of Phenotypes of Headaches After COVID-19 Vaccinations Differentiated According to the Vaccine Used

Background/Objectives: In this ongoing, multicenter, global cohort observational study, phenotypes of headaches after COVID-19 vaccination were directly compared between different vaccines. Methods: Phenotypes of postvaccinal headache were recorded in 18,544 participants. The study was launched immediately after the start of the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign on 12 January 2021 and continued until 1 August 2023. Specific aspects of headaches and related variables were collected via an online questionnaire. The clinical headache characteristics of patients vaccinated with the Comirnaty (BioNTech), Jcovden (Johnson & Johnson), Sputnik V (Gamelaya), Covilo (Sinopharm), Spikevax (Moderna), Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca), and Convidecia (CanSino Biologics) vaccines were investigated. Results: Across all vaccines, the median and mean latency of headache onset after vaccine administration were 12 h and 23.3 h, respectively. The median and mean headache duration were 12 h and 23.3 h, respectively. When the nonreplicating viral vector vaccine Sputnik V was used, headaches occurred the fastest, with a latency of 17 h. The latencies for the Vaxzevria and Convidecia nonreplicating viral vector vaccines were 14.9 h and 19.1 h, respectively. The Covilo inactivated whole-virus vaccine had a latency of 20.5 h. The latencies of the mRNA-based Comirnaty and Spikevax vaccines were 26.0 h and 22.02 h, respectively. Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in the mean duration of postvaccinal headache for the vaccines tested. Compared with the Comirnaty, Covilo, and Vaxzevria vaccines, the Spikevax vaccine induced significantly greater headache intensities. Vaxzevria was associated with a significantly higher frequency of concomitant symptoms than the other vaccines. Conclusions: The phenotype of postvaccinal headache can vary significantly between vaccines. These results have clinical implications for differentiating between postvaccinal headache and other primary and secondary headaches. This knowledge is clinically relevant in differentiating life-threatening vaccination complications, such as thrombotic syndromes, which are also associated with headaches. Based on these results, new diagnostic criteria for postvaccinal headaches can be developed.

Bias and negative values of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness estimates from a test-negative design without controlling for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection

Test-negative designs (TNDs) are used to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE). Protection from infection-induced immunity may confound the association between case and vaccination status, but collecting reliable infection history can be challenging. If vaccinated individuals have less infection-induced protection than unvaccinated individuals, failure to account for infection history could underestimate VE, though the bias is not well understood. We simulated individual-level SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination histories and a TND. VE against symptomatic infection and VE against severe disease estimates unadjusted for infection history underestimated VE compared to estimates adjusted for infection history, and unadjusted estimates were more likely to be below 0%, which could lead to an incorrect interpretation that COVID-19 vaccines are harmful. TNDs assessing VE immediately following vaccine rollout introduced the largest bias and potential for negative VE against symptomatic infection. Despite the potential for bias, VE estimates from TNDs without prior infection information are useful because underestimation is rarely more than 8 percentage points.

Changes in Local and Systemic Adverse Effects following Primary and Booster Immunisation against COVID-19 in an Observational Cohort of Dutch Healthcare Workers Vaccinated with BNT162b2 (Comirnaty®)

In healthcare workers (HCWs) and in the general population, fear of adverse effects is among the main reasons behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We present data on self-reported adverse effects from a large cohort of HCWs who underwent primary (N = 470) and booster (N = 990) mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. We described general patterns in, and predictors of self-reported adverse effect profiles. Adverse effects following immunisation (AEFI) were reported more often after the second dose of primary immunisation than after the first dose, but there was no further increase in adverse effects following the booster round. Self-reported severity of systemic adverse effects was less following booster immunisation. Prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 was found to be a significant predictor of AEFI following primary immunisation, but was no longer a predictor after booster vaccination. Compared to other studies reporting specifically on adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in healthcare workers, we have a relatively large cohort size, and are the first to compare adverse effects between different rounds of vaccination. Compared to studies in the general population, we have a considerably homogenous population. Insights in AEFI following primary and booster vaccinations may help in addressing vaccine hesitancy, both in HCWs and in the general population.

A summary of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) use of a benefit-risk assessment framework during the first year of COVID-19 vaccine administration in the United States

To inform Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) COVID-19 vaccine policy decisions, we developed a benefit-risk assessment framework that directly compared the estimated benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to individuals (e.g., prevention of COVID-19-associated hospitalization) with risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines. This assessment framework originated following the identification of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination in April 2021. We adapted the benefit-risk assessment framework for use in subsequent policy decisions, including the adverse events of myocarditis and Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) following mRNA and Janssen COVID-19 vaccination respectively, expansion of COVID-19 vaccine approvals or authorizations to new age groups, and use of booster doses. Over the first year of COVID-19 vaccine administration in the United States (December 2020-December 2021), we used the benefit-risk assessment framework to inform seven different ACIP policy decisions. This framework allowed for rapid and direct comparison of the benefits and potential harms of vaccination, which may be helpful in informing other vaccine policy decisions. The assessments were a useful tool for decision-making but required reliable and granular data to stratify analyses and appropriately focus on populations most at risk for a specific adverse event. Additionally, careful decision-making was needed on parameters for data inputs. Sensitivity analyses were used where data were limited or uncertain; adjustments in the methodology were made over time to ensure the assessments remained relevant and applicable to the policy questions under consideration.

Estimated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against seroconversion from SARS-CoV-2 Infection, March-October, 2021

BACKGROUND

Monitoring the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infections remains important to inform public health responses. Estimation of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection might provide an alternative measure of the benefit of vaccination against infection.

METHODS

We estimated mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against development of SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies in March-October 2021, during which the Delta variant became predominant. Participants were enrolled from four participating healthcare systems in the United States, and completed electronic surveys that included vaccination history. Dried blood spot specimens collected on a monthly basis were analyzed for anti-spike antibodies, and, if positive, anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. We used detection of new anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to indicate SARS-CoV-2 infection, and estimated VE by comparing 154 case-participants with new detection of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to 1,540 seronegative control-participants matched by calendar period. Using conditional logistic regression, we estimated VE ≥ 14 days after the 2nd dose of an mRNA vaccine compared with no receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose, adjusting for age group, healthcare worker occupation, urban/suburban/rural residence, healthcare system region, and reported contact with a person testing positive for SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

Among individuals who completed a primary series, estimated VE against seroconversion from SARS-CoV-2 infection was 88.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.6%-93.9%) after any mRNA vaccine, 87.8% (95% CI, 75.9%-93.8%) after BioNTech vaccine and 91.7% (95% CI, 75.7%-97.2%) after Moderna vaccine. VE was estimated to be lower ≥ 3 months after dose 2 compared with < 3 months after dose 2, and among participants who were older or had underlying health conditions, although confidence intervals overlapped between subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

VE estimates generated using infection-induced antibodies were consistent with published estimates from clinical trials and observational studies that used virologic tests to confirm infection during the same period. Our findings support recommendations for eligible adults to remain up to date with COVID-19 vaccination.