Self-Reported Real-World Safety and Reactogenicity of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Vaccine Recipient Survey

Factors influencing adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination

Various novel platform technologies have been used for the development of COVID-19 vaccines. In this nested cohort study among healthcare workers in Australia and Brazil who received three different COVID-19-specific vaccines, we (a) evaluated the incidence of adverse events following immunization (AEFI); (b) compared AEFI by vaccine type, dose and country; (c) identified factors influencing the incidence of AEFI; and (d) assessed the association between reactogenicity and vaccine anti-spike IgG antibody responses. Of 1302 participants who received homologous 2-dose regimens of ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or CoronaVac (Sinovac), 1219 (94%) completed vaccine reaction questionnaires. Following the first vaccine dose, the incidence of any systemic reaction was higher in ChAdOx1-S recipients (374/806, 46%) compared with BNT162b2 (55/151, 36%; p = 0.02) or CoronaVac (26/262, 10%; p < 0.001) recipients. After the second vaccine dose, the incidence of any systemic reaction was higher in BNT162b2 recipients (66/151, 44%) compared with ChAdOx1-S (164/806, 20%; p < 0.001) or CoronaVac (23/262, 9%; p < 0.001) recipients. AEFI risk was higher in younger participants, females, participants in Australia, and varied by vaccine type and dose. Prior COVID-19 did not impact the risk of AEFI. Participants in Australia compared with Brazil reported a higher incidence of any local reaction (170/231, 74% vs 222/726, 31%, p < 0.001) and any systemic reaction (171/231, 74% vs 328/726, 45%, p < 0.001), regardless of vaccine type. Following a primary course of ChAdOx1-S or CoronaVac vaccination, participants who did not report AEFI seroconverted at a similar rate to those who reported local or systemic reactions. In conclusion, we found that the incidence of AEFI was influenced by participant age and COVID-19 vaccine type, and differed between participants in Australia and Brazil.

Assessing the Reasons and Adverse Effects of Self-Medication in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Sierra Leone. A Case Study of Moriba Town Section

Background

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare resources has led to an increase in self-medication as a coping mechanism. The purpose of the study is to investigate the prevalence of self-medication, the reasons behind it, and its potential consequences during the pandemic.

Methods

A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Moriba Town, Bo City, Southern Sierra Leone. Using a multistage systematic sampling technique, 246 adult participants were selected. Data were collected using Kobo collect electronic platform and analyzed using SPSS version 26.0.

Results

Out of the 246 adult residents who were sampled, 63 (26%) practiced self-medication. Among them, females (33 or 52%) were more prevalent than males (30 or 48%). The most dominant age groups for self-medication were 38-47 (22 or 35%) and 28-37 (18 or 29%). The major reasons for self-medication were fear of infection (189 or 77%), fear of quarantine (199 or 81%), and stigma (189 or 77%). Delays in treatment (113 or 46%) and unavailability of Covid-19 medications (92 or 37%) were also cited. However, a majority of respondents (162 or 66%) denied the influence of friends or media (168 or 68%) on their decision to self-medicate. Reasons like "delay in receiving treatment" and "influence of friends" showed significant association with self-medication (pValue <0.05). More than half of the respondents 177 (72%) did not practice self-medication before the pandemic. Adverse reactions due to self-medication included skin rashes and blisters 29 (45%) and drowsiness 24 (38%).

Conclusion

The prevalence of unsupervised medication before and after the pandemic was minimal suggesting little impact of the pandemic. Fear and social stigma were the main drivers for self-medication. To promote safety and informed health decisions, regulatory measures, and awareness campaigns are essential to control unsupervised medication sales, improve drug labeling, and educate the public about the dangers of self-medication.

Side Effects Reported by Moroccan Medical Students Who Received COVID-19 Vaccines

BACKGROUND

Low confidence in the safety of COVID-19 vaccines was found to be a key promoter of vaccine reluctance especially among youth. Furthermore, young adults are an important demographic for building herd immunity through vaccination. As a result, their reactions to getting COVID-19 vaccines are crucial in our fight against SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVE

The overall goal of this study was to look into the shortterm side effects experienced by Moroccan medical and pharmacy students after receiving COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey-based study to assess the COVID-19 vaccines' short-term AEFIs among Moroccan medical and pharmacy students. The validated questionnaire was delivered in a digital form to explore the side effects (SE) they encountered after the first or the second dose of one of three vaccines namely: AstraZeneca Vaxzevria, PfizerBioNTeck, and SinoPharm vaccines.

RESULTS

There were 510 students in total who took part. After the first and second doses, approximately 72 percent and 78 percent of subjects, respectively, reported no SE. The remainder had localized injection site side effects (26%). Fatigue (21%), fever (19%), headache (17%), and myalgia (16%) were the most common systemic adverse effects after the first dose. There were no serious SEs reported.

CONCLUSION

The majority of the reported AEFIs in our data were mild to moderate in intensity and lasted only one or two days. COVID-19 vaccinations are highly likely safe for young adults, according to the findings of this study.

CanSino COVID-19 Vaccine: Comparison of Vaccine Adverse Effects Among Diabetic and Non-diabetic Recipients

Introduction The emergence of potent vaccines is crucial in the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Two of the many factors influencing the acceptance of the vaccine are perceptions about its efficacy, effectiveness, safety, and side effects. Thus, this study compared patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) who received the CanSino (CanSinoBIO, Tianjin, China) COVID-19 vaccination to identify the prevalence of local and general side effects. Methods This was a multicenter, cross-sectional study performed using a non-probability sampling method. The study period was six months, from August 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023. The study included 600 participants who provided informed consent and had received the CanSino vaccine in a single dose. Demographic characteristics of the participants, including gender, age, weight, and height; comorbidities such as hypertension and diabetes; previous infection with COVID-19; and the prevalence of any local and systemic side effects following vaccination, were documented. Between diabetic and non-diabetic participants, the relationship between local and general side effects and satisfaction levels was assessed using the chi-square test. Results The study findings showed that out of 600 participants, 287 (95.7%) were males and 13 (4.3%) were females who had DM, whereas 229 (76.3%) males and 71 (23.7%) females did not. There was a statistically significant association between the two groups (p < 0.001). After receiving a single dose of the CanSino vaccine, the most frequently noticeable side effect was fever, which was noticed in 260 (86.75%) diabetic patients and 279 (93.0%) non-diabetic participants, with a significant association noted among them (p=0.010). Among the non-diabetic participants, 164 (54.7%) were satisfied, and 155 (51.7%) diabetics and 65 (21.7%) non-diabetic participants were extremely pleased with their vaccinations. Conclusion This study concluded that participants with comorbid diseases such as DM had both general and local side effects far more frequently than those without DM. The most noticeable side effects after a single dose of CanSino were fever, injection site pain, and burning. The CanSino vaccine did not require hospitalization and had a relatively low frequency of local and systemic side effects.

The Effect of Psychological Factors on COVID-19 Vaccination Side Effects: A Cross-Sectional Survey in South Korea

OBJECTIVE

Side effects from the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, such as pain, headache, nausea, and fatigue, have caused vaccine hesitancy. Research on the effects of psychological factors on COVID-19 vaccine side effects is insufficient. This study aims to investigate the effect of psychological factors on COVID-19 vaccination side effects.

METHODS

We recruited a total of 226 individuals registered for the COVID-19 vaccine in Seoul, South Korea, for this study. Participants completed a pre-vaccination questionnaire, including the 5C antecedents of vaccination, and a survey of psychological factors (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9], Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Somatic symptom amplification scale [SSAS], and Illness Attitude Scale [IAS]). After vaccination, participants completed an online questionnaire regarding vaccine side effects at 20 minutes, three days, and seven days after vaccination. We added a discrete set of hierarchical variables with vaccine side effects as the dependent variable to the hierarchical regression analysis: demographics for Model 1, 5C antecedents of vaccination for Model 2, and psychological factors for Model 3.

RESULTS

Our results indicated that the risk factors for side effects 20 minutes after vaccination were young age, high PHQ, and SSAS scores. Risk factors for side effects three days after vaccination were young age, high constraints, and calculation, and the risk factor for side effects at seven days was a high IAS score.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirmed that there is a significant relationship between psychological factors and COVID-19 vaccine side effects in chronological order. Psychosocial factors should be examined when assessing side-effect reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Signal detection of COVID-19 vaccines adverse events using spontaneous reports from South Korea

PURPOSE

Studies on the detection of COVID-19 vaccine signals in South Korea are insufficient. Therefore, to investigate adverse events (AEs) that might be associated with COVID-19 vaccines, signals were detected using spontaneous reports from South Korea. We compared the signals with the vaccine insert lists of the regulators in the four countries.

METHODS

Spontaneous reports from 62 sites were collected by the National Medical Center between January 2013 and May 2022. A descriptive analysis of AEs associated with COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen) was performed, and the proportional reporting ratio, reporting odds ratio, and information component were calculated. We performed five analyses, with five cases and one control group.

RESULTS

During the study period, 68 355 cases were reported, of which 12 485 were COVID-19 vaccine AEs. Injection site pain (2198 cases, 17.6%), myalgia (1552 cases, 12.4%), headache (1145 cases, 9.2%), pyrexia (1003 cases, 8.0%), and fatigue (735 cases, 5.9%) were frequently reported. When comparing all COVID-19 vaccines with other viral vaccines, 20 signals were detected, of which cachexia, dyspepsia, abdominal discomfort, and mood swings were not listed on the vaccine inserts in all four countries. Overall, 20, 17, 29, and 9 signals were detected in vaccines developed by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a disproportionate analysis of COVID-19 vaccine AEs using spontaneous reports from South Korea, different signals were detected for each vaccine manufacturer.

Reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 primary immunisation and booster vaccination regimens: a comparative observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, recommendations regarding the vaccination have been very dynamic. Although the safety and efficacy of different vaccines have been analysed, data were scarce for vaccine regimens combining different vaccines. We therefore aimed to evaluate and compare the perceived reactogenicity and need for medical consultation after the most frequently applied homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens.

METHODS

In an observational cohort study, reactogenicity and safety were assessed within a maximum follow-up time of 124 days using web-based surveys. Reactogenicity was assessed for different vaccination regimens 2 weeks after a vaccination (short-term survey). The following surveys, long-term and follow-up surveys, focused on the utilisation of medical services, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related.

RESULTS

Data of 17,269 participants were analysed. The least local reactions were seen after a ChAdOx1 - ChAdOx1 regimen (32.6%, 95% CI [28.2, 37.2]) and the most after the first dose with mRNA-1273 (73.9%, 95% CI [70.5, 77.2]). Systemic reactions were least frequent in participants with a BNT162b2 booster after a homologous primary immunisation with ChAdOx1 (42.9%, 95% CI [32.1, 54.1]) and most frequent after a ChAdOx1 - mRNA-1273 (85.5%, 95% CI [82.9, 87.8]) and mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 regimen (85.1%, 95% CI [83.2, 87.0]). In the short-term survey, the most common consequences were medication intake and sick leave (after local reactions 0% to 9.9%; after systemic reactions 4.5% to 37.9%). In the long-term and follow-up surveys, between 8.2 and 30.9% of participants reported consulting a doctor and between 0% and 5.4% seeking hospital care. The regression analyses 124 days after the first and after the third dose showed that the odds for reporting medical consultation were comparable between the vaccination regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed differences in reactogenicity between the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination regimens in Germany. The lowest reactogenicity as reported by participants was seen with BNT162b2, especially in homologous vaccination regimens. However, in all vaccination regimens reactogenicity rarely led to medical consultations. Small differences in seeking any medical consultation after 6 weeks diminished during the follow-up period. In the end, none of the vaccination regimens was associated with a higher risk for medical consultation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS DRKS00025881 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025373 ). Registered on 14 October 2021. DRKS DRKS00025373 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025881 ). Registered on 21 May 2021. Registered retrospectively.

The role of blood groups, vaccine type and gender in predicting the severity of side effects among university students receiving COVID-19 vaccines

On March 11^th, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic. To control the pandemic, billions of vaccine doses have been administered worldwide. Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine-related side effects are inconsistently described in the literature. This study aimed to identify the predictors of side effects' severity after COVID-19 vaccination among young adult students at Taif University (TU) in Saudi Arabia. An online, anonymous questionnaire was used. Descriptive statistics were calculated for numerical and categorical variables. Possible correlations with other characteristics were identified using the chi-square test. The study included 760 young adult participants from TU. Pain at the injection site (54.7%), headache (45.0%), lethargy and fatigue (43.3%), and fever (37.5%) were the most frequently reported COVID-19 vaccine-related side effects after the first dose. The most frequent side effects were reported among the 20-25-year-old age group for all doses of all vaccines. Females experienced remarkably more side effects after the second (p < 0.001) and third doses (p = 0.002). Moreover, ABO blood groups significantly correlated with vaccine-related side effects after the second dose (p = 0.020). The participants' general health status correlated with the side effects after the first and second doses (p < 0.001 and 0.022, respectively). The predictors of COVID-19 vaccine-related side effects in young, vaccinated people were blood group B, female gender, vaccine type, and poor health status.

Sinovac COVID-19 Side Effects in Hypertensive Patients: An Observational Study From Pakistan

Background The most important factor in combating the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was the provision of safe and effective vaccines. The acceptance of vaccines is impacted by several variables, including beliefs about the vaccine's safety and adverse effects. Vaccine side effects can vary depending on the type, but they are often moderate, localized, transient, and self-limiting. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of side effects experienced after receiving the Sinovac vaccine by participants hypertensive and non-hypertensive participants. Methodology This was a cross-sectional, multicenter study that was performed using non-probability sampling. The study duration was six months from May 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The study involved 600 individuals who had either received the first or second dose of the Sinovac vaccine. For categorical data, frequencies and percentages were documented. The chi-square test was applied to determine the association between local and systemic side effects among hypertensive and non-hypertensive participants. Results The study findings showed that out of 600 participants, there were 187 (62.3%) males and 113 (37.7%) females with hypertension, and 222 (74.0%) males and 78 (26.0%) females without hypertension, with a significant association (p = 0.002). Following the first dose of the Sinovac vaccine, fever was the most commonly reported side effect in 153 (51.0%) hypertensive participants and 62 (20.7%) non-hypertensive participants, with a significant association (p < 0.001). Similarly, following the second dose of the Sinovac vaccine, fever was the most commonly reported side effect in 108 (36.0%) hypertensive participants and 57 (19.0%) non-hypertensive participants, with a significant association (p < 0.001). Conclusions This study concluded that the presence of hypertension significantly increased the manifestations of local and systemic side effects compared with non-hypertensive participants. Moreover, fever, pain, and swelling at the injection site were the most commonly reported side effects after receiving the first and second doses of the Sinovac vaccine.

Adverse effects, perceptions and attitudes related to BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 or JNJ-78436735 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: Population-based cohort

Long-term control of SARS-CoV-2 requires effective vaccination strategies. This has been challenged by public mistrust and the spread of misinformation regarding vaccine safety. Better understanding and communication of the longer-term and comparative experiences of individuals in the general population following vaccination are required. In this population-based longitudinal study, we included 575 adults, randomly selected from all individuals presenting to a Swiss reference vaccination center, for receipt of BNT162b2, mRNA1273, or JNJ-78436735. We assessed the prevalence, onset, duration, and severity of self-reported adverse effects over 12 weeks following vaccination. We additionally evaluated participants' perceptions of vaccines, trust in public health authorities and pharmaceutical companies, and compliance with public health measures. Most participants reported at least one adverse effect within 12 weeks following vaccination. Adverse effects were mostly mild or moderate, resolved within three days, and rarely resulted in anaphylaxis or hospitalizations. Female sex, younger age, higher education, and receipt of mRNA-1273 were associated with reporting adverse effects. Compared to JNJ-78436735 recipients, a higher proportion of mRNA vaccine recipients agreed that vaccination is important, and trusted public health authorities. Our findings provide real-world estimates of the prevalence of adverse effects following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and highlight the importance of transparent communication to ensure the success of current or future vaccination campaigns.

Adverse Events Following Immunization With mRNA and Viral Vector Vaccines in Individuals With Previous Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection From the Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network

BACKGROUND

Adults previously infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) develop short-term immunity and may have increased reactogenicity to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This prospective, multicenter, active-surveillance cohort study examined the short-term safety of COVID-19 vaccines in adults with a prior history of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Canadian adults vaccinated between 22 December 2020 and 27 November 2021 were sent an electronic questionnaire 7 days post-dose 1, dose 2, and dose 3 vaccination. The main outcome was health events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination that prevented daily activities, resulted in work absenteeism, or required a medical consultation, including hospitalization.

RESULTS

Among 684 998 vaccinated individuals, 2.6% (18 127/684 998) reported a prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection a median of 4 (interquartile range: 2-6) months previously. After dose 1, individuals with moderate (bedridden) to severe (hospitalized) COVID-19 who received BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or ChAdox1-S vaccines had higher odds of a health event preventing daily activities, resulting in work absenteeism or requiring medical consultation (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.96 [3.67-4.28] for BNT162b2, 5.01 [4.57-5.50] for mRNA-1273, and 1.84 [1.54-2.20] for ChAdox1-S compared with no infection). Following dose 2 and 3, the greater risk associated with previous infection was also present but was attenuated compared with dose 1. For all doses, the association was lower or absent after mild or asymptomatic infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with moderate or severe previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to have a health event sufficient to impact routine activities or require medical assessment in the week following each vaccine dose.

Reactogenicity within the first week after Sinopharm, Sputnik V, AZD1222, and COVIran Barekat vaccines: findings from the Iranian active vaccine surveillance system

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the reactogenicity effects of COVID-19 vaccines, used in Iran.

METHODS

At least 1000 people were followed up with phone calls or self-report in a mobile application within 7 days after vaccination. Local and systemic reactogenicities were reported overall and by subgroups.

RESULTS

The presence of one or more local and systemic adverse effects after the first dose of vaccines was 58.9% [(95% Confidence Intervals): 57.5-60.3)] and 60.5% (59.1-61.9), respectively. These rates were reduced to 53.8% (51.2-55.0) and 50.8% (48.8-52.7) for the second dose. The most common local adverse effect reported for all vaccines was pain in the injection site. During the first week after the first dose of vaccines, the frequency of the pain for Sinopharm, AZD1222, Sputnik V, and Barekat was 35.5%, 86.0%, 77.6%, and 30.9%, respectively. The same rates after the second dose were 27.3%, 66.5%, 63.9%, and 49.0%. The most common systemic adverse effect was fatigue. In the first dose, it was 30.3% for Sinopharm, 67.4% for AZD1222, 47.6% for Sputnik V, and 17.1% for Barekat. These rates were reduced to 24.6%, 37.1%, 36.5%, and 19.5%, in the second dose of vaccines. AZD1222 had the highest local and systemic adverse effects rates. The odds ratio of local adverse effects of the AZD1222 vaccine compared to the Sinopharm vaccine were 8.73 (95% CI 6.93-10.99) in the first dose and 4.14 (95% CI 3.32-5.17) in the second dose. Barekat and Sinopharm had the lowest frequency of local and systemic adverse effects. Compared to Sinopharm, systemic adverse effects were lower after the first dose of Barekat (OR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.46-0.67). Reactogenicity events were higher in women and younger people. Prior COVID-19 infection increased the odds of adverse effects only after the first dose of vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain and fatigue were the most common reactogenicities of COVID-19 vaccination. Reactogenicities were less common after the second dose of the vaccines. The adverse effects of AZD1222 were greater than those of other vaccines.

Assessment of acceptance, concerns and side effects towards COVID-19 vaccination among the community: A cross-sectional study from Baghdad, Iraq

Introduction

The newly developed and marketed vaccines along with concerns about vaccine safety and long-term side effects has been raised an alarming in the general population. The aim of this study was to assess the rate of acceptance, perceptions and concerns towards receiving COVID-19 vaccines and to explore the incidence of vaccines' side effects among Iraqi population in Baghdad province, Iraq.

Method

This was a descriptive, cross-sectional study conducted via direct interviews among a convenient sample size of Iraqi population using a structured validated questionnaire consisting of using 24-item questionnaire to assess acceptance, concerns and the incidence of vaccines' side effects towards receiving COVID-19 vaccines.

Results

A total of 500 participants with an average age of 27.8 ± 3.7 years were included. Majority were females (70.6%). 43.4% had a history of COVID-19, and 46% received the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. 73.4% (P < 0.0001) agreed about the importance of receiving the vaccination to protect the community against the COVID-19.46.8% (P < 0.0001) were unsure about the adverse effects and long-term vaccine safety. 72.8% reported that transmission of COVID-19 infection to family members is the main concern for accepting vaccination. Fatigue (60%), injection site reactions (55.8%) were the most common vaccine's side effects. Young age (P = 0.001), females (P < 0.0001), and university educational (P < 0.0001) were the most significant determents for accepting vaccination.

Conclusion

This study highlights that the Iraqi population showed a considerable acceptance rate for the COVID-19 vaccines. However, vaccine safety is considered a high priority concern associated with the willingness of the population to vaccinate.

Vaccines for the Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Older Adults

Institutionalized and community-dwelling older adults have been greatly impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with increased morbidity and mortality. The advent of vaccines and their widespread use in this population has brought about a dramatic turnaround in COVID-19 outcomes. The immunogenicity and effectiveness of the various vaccine options worldwide are discussed. Optimization of vaccine usage will still be important to maximize protection due to reduced initial immunity, development of variant strains, and fading of immunity over time. There are also lessons learned specific to older populations for future pandemics of novel pathogens.

Safety of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity: an Italian Multicentric Study

PURPOSE

Little is known about vaccine safety in inborn errors of immunity (IEI) patients during the current vaccination campaign for COVID-19. To better investigate the reactogenicity and adverse event profile after two, three, and four doses of mRNA vaccines, we conducted an observational, multicentric study on 342 PID patients from four Italian Referral Centres.

METHODS

We conducted a survey on self-reported adverse reactions in IEI patients who received mRNA vaccine by administering a questionnaire after each dose.

RESULTS

Over the whole study period, none of the patients needed hospitalization or had hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis and delayed injection site reaction. After two vaccination doses, 35.4% of patients showed only local reactogenicity-related symptoms (RrS), 44.4% reported both systemic and local RrS, and 5% reported only systemic RrS. In more than 60% of cases, local or systemic RrS were mild. After the first and second booster doses, patients showed fewer adverse events (AEs) than after the first vaccination course. Patients aged 50 years and older reported adverse events and RrS less frequently. Among AEs requiring treatment, one common variable immune deficiency patient affected by T cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia developed neutropenia and one patient had Bell's paralysis perhaps during herpes zoster reactivation.

CONCLUSION

Although our follow-up period is relatively short, the safety data we reported are reassuring. This data would help to contrast the vaccine hesitancy often manifested by patients with IEI and to better inform their healthcare providers.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) following COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The global COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2019, and given the number of casualties and adverse effects on the economy, society, and all aspects of the health system, efforts have been made to develop vaccines from the beginning of the pandemic. Numerous vaccines against COVID-19 infection have been developed in several technologies and have spread rapidly. There have been reported multiple complications of the COVID-19 vaccines as with other vaccines. A number of studies have reported multiple sclerosis (MS ) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) as complications of COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

First, we found 954 studies from 4 databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) from inception to March 1^st, 2022. Next, duplicate articles were eliminated, and 476 studies remained. Then 412 studies were removed according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. After obtaining the full text of 64 articles, 12 studies were selected finally.

RESULTS

The data were extracted from included studies in a table. Our data includes demographic data, comorbidities, vaccines information and side effects, NMOSD and MS symptoms, laboratory and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results, treatment, and outcome of all cases.

CONCLUSION

MS and NMOSD are two neuroinflammatory disorders that arise in the CNS. Cases of MS and NMOSD have been reported following COVID-19 vaccination. Nevertheless, more studies with more subjects are needed to assess any possible relationship between the COVID-19 vaccine and central nervous system demyelination.

Covid-19 vaccination reported side effects and hesitancy among the Syrian population: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Studying post-vaccination side effects and identifying the reasons behind low vaccine uptake are pivotal for overcoming the pandemic.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was distributed through social media platforms and face-to-face interviews. Data from vaccinated and unvaccinated participants were collected and analyzed using the chi-square test, multivariable logistic regression to detect factors associated with side effects and severe side effects.

RESULTS

Of the 3509 participants included, 1672(47.6%) were vaccinated. The most common reason for not taking the vaccine was concerns about the vaccine's side effects 815(44.4). The majority of symptoms were mild 788(47.1%), followed by moderate 374(22.3%), and severe 144(8.6%). The most common symptoms were tiredness 1028(61.5%), pain at the injection site 933(55.8%), and low-grade fever 684(40.9%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that <40 years (vs. ≥40; OR: 2.113, p-value = 0.008), females (vs. males; OR: 2.245, p-value< .001), did not receive influenza shot last year (vs. did receive Influenza shot last year OR: 1.697, p-value = 0.041), AstraZeneca (vs. other vaccine brands; OR: 2.799, p-value< .001), co-morbidities (vs. no co-morbidities; OR: 1.993, p-value = 0.008), and diabetes mellitus (vs. no diabetes mellitus; OR: 2.788, p-value = 0.007) were associated with severe post-vaccine side effects. Serious side effects reported were blood clots 5(0.3%), thrombocytopenia 2(0.1%), anaphylaxis 1(0.1%), seizures 1(0.1%), and cardiac infarction 1(0.1%).

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that most side effects reported were mild in severity and self-limiting. Increasing the public's awareness of the nature of the vaccine's side effects would reduce the misinformation and improve the public's trust in vaccines. Larger studies to evaluate rare and serious adverse events and long-term side effects are needed, so people can have sufficient information and understanding before making an informed consent which is essential for vaccination.

From trial to practice: incidence and severity of COVID-19 vaccine side effects in a medically at-risk and vaccine-hesitant community

Background

The rapid authorization and widespread rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States demonstrated a need for additional data on vaccine side effects, both to provide insight into the range and severity of side effects that might be expected in medically-diverse populations as well as to inform decision-making and combat vaccine hesitancy going forward. Here we report the results of a survey of 4825 individuals from southcentral Kentucky who received two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine between December 14, 2020 and May 1, 2021. As new versions of the vaccine are rolled-out, local initiatives such as this may offer a means to combat vaccine hesitancy in reference to COVID-19, but are also important as we face new viral threats that will necessitate a rapid vaccine rollout, and to combat a growing public distrust of vaccines in general.

Methods

Individuals that received two doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 between December 14, 2020 and May 1, 2021 were sent a survey, created by the research team. Respondents were asked to rate the incidence and severity of 15 potential side effects and two related outcomes following each of their two doses of the vaccine. All statistical analyses were carried out using SYSTAT, version 13. The data were analyzed utilizing a range of statistical tests, including chi-square tests of association, Cohen’s h, Kruskal-Wallis test one-way nonparametric ANOVA, least-squares regression, and Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. Significance was assessed using Bonferroni-adjusted criteria within families of tests.

Results

In general, the pattern and severity in side effects was similar to both clinical trial data as well as other published studies. Responses to the mRNA-1273 vaccine were more severe than to BNT162b2, though all were generally in the mild to moderate category. Individuals who reported having previously tested positive for COVID-19 reported stronger responses following the first dose of either vaccine relative to COVID-naïve individuals. The reported severity to the COVID-19 vaccine was positively correlated with self-reported responses to other vaccines.

Conclusions

Our findings allow broad-scale estimates of the nature and severity of reactions one might expect following vaccination within a clinically-diverse community, and provide a context for addressing vaccine hesitancy in communities such as ours, where locally-generated data and communication may be more influential than national trends and statistics in convincing individuals to become vaccinated. Further, we argue this community-based approach could be important in the future in three key ways: 1) as new boosters and modified vaccines re-volatilize vaccine hesitancy, 2) as new vaccines receive similar testing and rapid authorization, and 3) to combat vaccine hesitancy in other arenas (e.g., annual vaccines, childhood vaccines).

Side effects of COVID-19 vaccines and perceptions about COVID-19 and its vaccines in Bangladesh: A Cross-sectional study

•

Significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy exists globally, mainly due to safety concerns.

•

This study analyzed the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines in Bangladesh.

•

Less than half of those who received a COVID-19 vaccine experienced side effects.

•

The side effects were mild and regular and lasted 1–3 days only.

•

The findings demonstrate the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Objective

Results

Conclusion

Auricular acupressure for adverse events following immunization after COVID-19 vaccine injection: A multicentre, blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Some adverse events following immunization (AEFI) were observed in potential corelation with COVID-19 vaccination but without prevention or ongoing trial for it. We aimed to investigate efficacy of auricular acupressure (AuriAc) therapy in preventing AEFI after first dosage of the vaccine.

METHODS

We performed a multicentre randomized controlled trial with three arms, including AuriAc, SAuriAc (sham auricular acupressure), and TrAsU (treatment as usual) group, carried out in four medical institutions in Chengdu, China, from March 17th to April 23rd, 2021. We enrolled participants based on eligibility criteria and randomized them into three groups: AuriAc (AEFI-specific auricular points applied, n = 52), SAuriAc (n = 51) or TrAsU (n = 44) group. Primary outcomes were percentages of any AEFI and local pain, and secondary outcomes were percentages who reported other AEFI. They were followed at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14 days, by phone or online, with severity evaluated.

RESULTS

147 participants (73.47% females) were included with median age as 31 years (25-45, IQR). One day after the injection, participants in AuriAc group reported significant reduction on percentages of any AEFI [intention-to-treat, difference of percentage (DP) = -20.13, 95%CI: - 0.39, - 0.02, p = 0.01; per-protocol, DP = -22.21, 95%CI: - 0.40, - 0.03, P = 0.02] and local pain (per-protocol, DP = -18.40, 95%CI: -0.36, -0.01, P = 0.04), compared with TrAsU group. The effects were slight at other follow-up days and for other outcomes, and with a low percentage of mild local allergic reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

We firstly explored potential of AuriAc for preventing AEFI related to COVID-19 vaccine injection, which is beneficial for the vaccine recipients, but evidence is limited.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

chictr.org.cn no. ChiCTR2100043210 (http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=121519).

Evaluation and comparison of post-vaccination adverse effects among Janssen and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccinated adult individuals in Debre Tabor Town: A cross- sectional survey in Northwest Ethiopia

COVID 19 vaccination has recently been launched globally to halt the pandemic. But COVID 19 vaccines have some adverse effects that raise concerns in the global community. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the adverse effects of Janssen and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccinated adults. A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from March 15 to 30, 2022 among 421 (211 Janssen and 210 Astra Zeneca vaccinated) adults recruited by a convenience sampling technique in Debre Tabor Town, Northwest Ethiopia. Data were collected via face-to-face interviews and by reviewing the immunization card. Chi-square test, independent t-test, and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare the adverse symptoms and related parameters between the two vaccines. A linear regression model was also used to identify predictors of the number of post-vaccination symptoms. The majority (75.8%) of participants reported at least one side effect after vaccination. Adverse symptoms had a significantly greater occurrence (p < .05) among recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine (84.8%) than receivers of the Janssen vaccine (66.8%). The main adverse symptoms were injection site pain, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, and myalgia in both vaccines. Significant variations (p < .05) between the receipts of the two vaccines were shown in injection site pain, fever, and arthralgia. The total number of symptoms was significantly higher (p < .05) in participants with female sex, younger age, BMI <25 kg/m2, no prior COVID 19, and those who had received AstraZeneca vaccine. Thus, the authors advise that they should receive vaccines with no hesitation, while continuous tracking of vaccine safety is kept in place.

Adverse events following administration of COVID-19 vaccines in Saudi Arabia

Previous studies investigated the frequency of different adverse events of COVID-19 vaccines. However, this study compares these adverse events between the two main COVID-19 vaccines used in Saudi Arabia (Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca) using telemedicine technology. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 958 individuals, 7 days after receiving either Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines during June 2021. Immediate adverse events were reported by 1.04% and 2.09% for Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, respectively, with no serious events. Recipients of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had a higher percentage of local adverse events (24.8% versus 9.8% in AstraZeneca vaccine). The most common reported systemic adverse events in both vaccines respectively were general fatigue (23.1% and 25.1%), fever (18.5% and 27.2%), myalgia (20.6% and 20.3%), and headache (15.2% and 17.2%). No significant difference was recorded between both vaccines regarding overall systemic adverse events; however, they were more frequent following the first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine compared to Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, while the reverse was observed for the second dose. Adverse events were more frequent in females and younger age groups for both vaccines. Most of systemic and local adverse events were mild in nature. Further cohort studies are recommended to investigate the long-term adverse events of COVID-19 vaccines.

Reactogenicity of COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients With a History of COVID-19 Infection: A Survey Conducted in Pakistan

Introduction As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immunizations become more common, concerns about their safety and reactogenicity have grown. It is important to assess and analyze the post-vaccination side effects of several COVID-19 vaccines that have been licensed in Pakistan. Methods and results A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted between October 2021 and January 2022 to collect data on the side effects produced by different COVID-19 vaccines. An online survey was conducted to gather data on participants' demographics, clinical profiles, COVID-19 profiles as well as the intensity and side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) was used to analyze the data collected. Out of 421 participants, 63.2% were males, 36.8% of participants received messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine, 33.2% received viral vector vaccine, 29.9% received inactivated vaccine, and further 71.7% of the total subjects were completely immunized. The majority of the symptoms were mild to moderate in degree. Approximately, 0.7% of the individuals reported experiencing serious adverse effects. Injection site pain (35.9%) was noted to be the most remarkable post-vaccination side effect followed by fever (33.2%) and fatigue (23.1%). Prior COVID-19 infection was not associated with the severity of any COVID-19 vaccine-related side effect (p > 0.05), except dyspnea. Younger participants and the female gender were substantially linked to post-vaccination adverse effects. Conclusion In comparison to viral vector and inactivated vaccines, our data suggest that the mRNA-based vaccination causes more severe adverse effects, and the majority of them were mild to moderate in severity. Participants who had previously contracted COVID-19 were not at a higher risk of developing additional vaccine-related side effects.

SARS-CoV-2-The Role of Natural Immunity: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Both natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity to COVID-19 may be useful to reduce the mortality/morbidity of this disease, but still a lot of controversy exists.

AIMS

This narrative review analyzes the literature regarding these two immunitary processes and more specifically: (a) the duration of natural immunity; (b) cellular immunity; (c) cross-reactivity; (d) the duration of post-vaccination immune protection; (e) the probability of reinfection and its clinical manifestations in the recovered patients; (f) the comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated as to the possible reinfections; (g) the role of hybrid immunity; (h) the effectiveness of natural and vaccine-induced immunity against Omicron variant; (i) the comparative incidence of adverse effects after vaccination in recovered individuals vs. COVID-19-naïve subjects.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

through multiple search engines we investigated COVID-19 literature related to the aims of the review, published since April 2020 through July 2022, including also the previous articles pertinent to the investigated topics.

RESULTS

nearly 900 studies were collected, and 246 pertinent articles were included. It was highlighted that the vast majority of the individuals after suffering from COVID-19 develop a natural immunity both of cell-mediated and humoral type, which is effective over time and provides protection against both reinfection and serious illness. Vaccine-induced immunity was shown to decay faster than natural immunity. In general, the severity of the symptoms of reinfection is significantly lower than in the primary infection, with a lower degree of hospitalizations (0.06%) and an extremely low mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

this extensive narrative review regarding a vast number of articles highlighted the valuable protection induced by the natural immunity after COVID-19, which seems comparable or superior to the one induced by anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Consequently, vaccination of the unvaccinated COVID-19-recovered subjects may not be indicated. Further research is needed in order to: (a) measure the durability of immunity over time; (b) evaluate both the impacts of Omicron BA.5 on vaccinated and healed subjects and the role of hybrid immunity.

Intensity of Humoral Immune Responses, Adverse Reactions, and Post-Vaccination Morbidity after Adenovirus Vector-Based and mRNA Anti-COVID-19 Vaccines

The aim of the study was to compare mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 with adenovirus vector- based vaccines in terms of presence of adverse reactions, immunogenicity, and protection against COVID-19. A total of 270 individuals were enrolled, of which 135 were vaccinated with adenovirus vector-based vaccines and compared with 135 age- and sex-matched participants who received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Serum sampling was performed on all participants on days 21, 42, 90, and 180 following the first dose, to evaluate anti-spike IgG and IgA responses. Antibodies were quantified by chemiluminescent microplate and ELISA assays. We demonstrate that both mRNA and adenovirus vector-based vaccines caused mild side-effects and were effective in inducing adequate antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2, although BNT162b2 was superior concerning the intensity of antibody responses and protection against severe COVID-19. Moreover, we identify that IgG and IgA responses depended primarily on both history of previous COVID-19 infection and vaccination platform used, with individuals immunized with a single-dose vaccine having lower antibody titers over time. Lastly, all vaccine platforms had limited side-effects, with the most frequent pain at the injection site. Our results provide useful information regarding antibody responses after vaccination with different vaccine platforms, which can be useful for public health vaccination strategies.

Safety and Adverse Events Related to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines; a Systematic Review

Introduction:

Knowledge of vaccine-related adverse events is crucial as they are among the most ‎important factors ‎that cause hesitation in receiving vaccines. Therefore, we aimed to systematically ‎review the adverse events ‎related to the mRNA vaccines reported in the literature.‎

Method:

A systematic literature search was carried out in the databases of Scopus, PubMed, ‎Cochrane, and Web ‎of Science. We selected original studies that explored the side effects of ‎mRNA ‎COVID-19 vaccines using a two-phase (title/abstract and full-text) screening process.‎

Results:

Cardiac ‎complications were the most commonly reported severe adverse events. It appeared that ‎systemic adverse reactions are more ‎common after the second dose of vaccines. The number of ‎adverse effects reported after the Pfizer vaccine was ‎higher than other vaccines, mostly due to its ‎earlier approval and more widespread use throughout the world. Cardiac adverse events had a ‎‎higher prevalence but no significant association has been found between COVID-19 mRNA vaccines ‎and cardiac ‎adverse events except for myopericarditis. ‎

Conclusion:

Vaccines ‎play a crucial role in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic and decreasing ‎mortalities and the results of the present ‎review acknowledge the fact that the benefits outweigh the ‎adverse events of these vaccines.‎

A Comparative Analysis of a Self-Reported Adverse Events Analysis after Receiving One of the Available SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Schemes in Ecuador

The COVID-19 pandemic has put a lot of pressure on health systems worldwide. Mass vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has reduced morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite their safety profiles, vaccines, as with any other medical product, can cause adverse events. Yet, in countries with poor epidemiological surveillance and monitoring systems, reporting vaccine-related adverse events is a challenge. The objective of this study was to describe self-reported vaccine adverse events after receiving one of the available COVID-19 vaccine schemes in Ecuador. A cross-sectional analysis based on an online, self-reported, 32-item questionnaire was conducted in Ecuador from 1 April to 15 July 2021. Participants were invited by social media, radio, and TV to voluntarily participate in our study. A total of 6654 participants were included in this study. Furthermore, 38.2% of the participants reported having at least one comorbidity. Patients received AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sinovac vaccines, and these were distributed 38.4%, 31.1%, and 30.5%, respectively. Overall, pain or swelling at the injection site 17.2% (n = 4500) and headache 13.3% (n = 3502) were the most reported adverse events. Women addressed events supposedly attributable to vaccination or immunization [ESAVIs] (66.7%), more often than men (33.2%). After receiving the first dose of any available COVID-19 vaccine, a total of 19,501 self-reported ESAVIs were informed (87.0% were mild, 11.5% moderate, and 1.5% severe). In terms of the vaccine type and brand, the most reactogenic vaccine was AstraZeneca with 57.8%, followed by Pfizer (24.9%) and Sinovac (17.3%). After the second dose, 6776 self-reported ESAVIs were reported (87.1% mild, 10.9% moderate, and 2.1% severe). AstraZeneca vaccine users reported a higher proportion of ESAVIs (72.2%) in comparison to Pfizer/BioNTech (15.9%) and Sinovac Vaccine (11.9%). Swelling at the injection site, headache, muscle pain, and fatigue were the most common ESAVIs for the first as well as second doses. In conclusion, most ESAVIs were mild. AstraZeneca users were more likely to report adverse events. Participants without a history of COVID-19 infection, as well as those who received the first dose, were more prone to report ESAVIs.

Tolerability and Reactogenicity Profile of mRNA SARS-Cov-2 Vaccines from a Mass Vaccination Campaign in a Tertiary Hospital: Between-Vaccine and Between-Population Prospective Observational Study (VigilVacCOVID Study)

Background

The comparative safety profile of SARS-Cov2 vaccines requires further characterization in real-world settings.

Objectives

The aim of the VigilVacCOVID study was to assess the short-term safety of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 during the vaccination campaign of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) at a hospital clinic.

Methods

We conducted an observational, prospective, single-center, post-authorization study to characterize short-term adverse reactions (ARs) after vaccination. The primary endpoint was to assess between-vaccine differences (HCPs receiving BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) and between-population differences (HCPs and SOTRs, both receiving mRNA-1273) in the risk of any ARs. Propensity score and covariate-adjusted multivariate models were used. The key secondary endpoint was to provide a descriptive assessment of the frequencies and intensity distribution of ARs.

Results

We included 5088 HCPs and 1289 patients. mRNA-1273 showed greater reactogenicity than BNT162b2, with an odds ratio (OR) for any AR of 3.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.48–3.73; p value: < 0.001) and a higher frequency and intensity of reported ARs. Compared with HCPs vaccinated with mRNA-1273, SOTRs showed a lower risk of ARs (OR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.25–0.50), with fewer and less severe ARs. Age, sex, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were statistically significant covariates for the risk of any AR. A history of drug allergy was significant in the comparison between vaccines (BNT162b2 vs. mRNA-1273), but not in that between SOTRs and HCPs.

Conclusions

Our study shows that mRNA-1273 had greater reactogenicity than BNT162b2. Overall, both vaccines had an adequate tolerability profile. mRNA-1273 vaccination caused fewer ARs with milder severity in SOTRs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-022-00543-9.

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

The study aimed to assess the adverse events following COVID-19 vaccine (Covaxin) immunization at a tertiary care institution and also assess the predictors of the adverse events following immunization (AEFI). The prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary care institute among the Covaxin beneficiaries between June 28 and September 6, 2021. A total of 1826 participants were assessed for any local or systemic adverse events after seven days of vaccination. A telephonic interview was conducted, and the beneficiaries were assessed according to the adverse event grading. A total of 1826 participants were assessed for AEFI, and 544 (29.8%) reported at least one of the AEFI. No severe adverse events were reported, and about 1.6% had moderate AEFI. Pain at the injection site (14.6%), fever (9.7%), and myalgia (5.9%) were the common adverse events reported by the participants. AEFI incidence was higher in the first dose (38.1%) when compared to the second dose (26.4%), and this finding was significant with a p < 0.001. The major factors associated with AEFI were female sex, history of an allergic reaction, presence of comorbidities, acute infection in the past 3 months, and intake of chronic medications. Precaution needs to be taken while vaccinating individuals having allergies, comorbidities, acute infection in the last 3 months, and individuals on chronic medication.

Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions Induced by COVID-19 Vaccines: Current Trends, Potential Mechanisms and Prevention Strategies

As the world deals with the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccination remains vital to successfully end this crisis. However, COVID-19-vaccine-induced immediate hypersensitivity reactions presenting with potentially life-threatening systemic anaphylactic reactions are one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Recent studies have suggested that different mechanisms, including IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated mast cell activation, may be involved in immediate hypersensitivity. The main culprits triggering hypersensitivity reactions have been suggested to be the excipients of vaccines, including polyethylene glycol and polysorbate 80. Patients with a history of allergic reactions to drugs, foods, or other vaccines may have an increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Various strategies have been suggested to prevent hypersensitivity reactions, including performing skin tests or in vitro tests before vaccination, administering different vaccines for the primary and following boosters, changing the fractionated doses, or pretreating the anti-IgE antibody. This review discusses the current trends, potential mechanisms, and prevention strategies for COVID-19-vaccine-induced immediate hypersensitivity reactions.

Inter-individual variation in objective measure of reactogenicity following COVID-19 vaccination via smartwatches and fitness bands

The ability to identify who does or does not experience the intended immune response following vaccination could be of great value in not only managing the global trajectory of COVID-19 but also helping guide future vaccine development. Vaccine reactogenicity can potentially lead to detectable physiologic changes, thus we postulated that we could detect an individual's initial physiologic response to a vaccine by tracking changes relative to their pre-vaccine baseline using consumer wearable devices. We explored this possibility using a smartphone app-based research platform that enabled volunteers (39,701 individuals) to share their smartwatch data, as well as self-report, when appropriate, any symptoms, COVID-19 test results, and vaccination information. Of 7728 individuals who reported at least one vaccination dose, 7298 received an mRNA vaccine, and 5674 provided adequate data from the peri-vaccine period for analysis. We found that in most individuals, resting heart rate (RHR) increased with respect to their individual baseline after vaccination, peaked on day 2, and returned to normal by day 6. This increase in RHR was greater than one standard deviation above individuals' normal daily pattern in 47% of participants after their second vaccine dose. Consistent with other reports of subjective reactogenicity following vaccination, we measured a significantly stronger effect after the second dose relative to the first, except those who previously tested positive to COVID-19, and a more pronounced increase for individuals who received the Moderna vaccine. Females, after the first dose only, and those aged <40 years, also experienced a greater objective response after adjusting for possible confounding factors. These early findings show that it is possible to detect subtle, but important changes from an individual's normal as objective evidence of reactogenicity, which, with further work, could prove useful as a surrogate for vaccine-induced immune response.

Perceived risk and perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine: A survey among general public in Pakistan

Background

The coronavirus disease has become a global pandemic, and it continues to wreak havoc on global health and the economy. The development of vaccines may offer a potential eradication of COVID-19. This study evaluated the general knowledge, attitude, and perception of COVID-19 vaccines in the Pakistani population.

Methods

A self-reporting e-survey and questionnaire-based survey from vaccination centers of different cities of Pakistan among 502 participants were conducted. The questionnaire comprised four sections inquiring demographics, vaccination status, and perception or attitude towards the vaccine. Univariate logistic regression was applied to predict the knowledge, attitude and behavior of participants.

Results

The mean age of participants was 50.8±20.3 years. 53% of the participants have both doses of vaccine administered. Pain on the site of injection (49.8%) was the most common symptom, followed by asthenia (43.0%), muscle pain (29.5%), and swelling (24.5%) on the site of vaccine administration. Females complain of more symptoms than males. More severe symptoms were reported after the first dose of vaccine administration; these symptoms subsided within a week for most participants. Overall, the respondents have a positive attitude towards the vaccine. 47.4% are sure about the vaccine’s efficacy, 48.6% said getting vaccinated was their own decision, and 79.9% also recommended others to get vaccinated.

Conclusion

The study concluded that the Pakistani population has a positive attitude but inadequate knowledge towards COVID-19 vaccines. Immediate awareness and vaccination education programs should be conducted by the authorities to complete the mass vaccination schedule.

The Side Effects and Adverse Clinical Cases Reported after COVID-19 Immunization

COVID-19 remains a deadly disease that poses a serious threat to humanity. COVID-19 vaccines protect the public and limit viral spread. However, public acceptance is significantly dependent on the efficacy and side effects (SEs) of the vaccinations being produced. Four important mechanisms have been examined for COVID-19 vaccines: DNA-based, mRNA-based, protein-based, and inactivated viruses. Vaccination safety research was formerly limited to manufacturer-sponsored studies, but numerous additional cross-sectional survey-based studies conducted globally have contributed to the generation of vaccine-related safety data reports. Twenty-seven studies and twenty-four case reports published-up till 2021 were overviewed for the presentation of SEs and their severity. Injection site pain remained the most dominant localized SE, while headache and fatigue were the most prevalent systemic SEs. Most studies reported that all vaccinations were safe, with very little or no adverse effects, but the nature of SEs was reported to be more persistent in DNA- and mRNA-based vaccines, while inactivated viral vaccines were associated with longer-duration SEs. Overall, SEs were found to be more dominant in women and youngsters. Case reports of adverse reactions have also been documented, but there is still a need to find out their pathological linkage with the COVID-19 vaccination.

A systematic review on mucocutaneous presentations after COVD-19 vaccination and expert recommendations about vaccination of important immune-mediated dermatologic disorders

With dermatologic side effects being fairly prevalent following vaccination against COVID-19, and the multitude of studies aiming to report and analyze these adverse events, the need for an extensive investigation on previous studies seemed urgent,in order to provide a thorough body of information about these post-COVID-19 immunization mucocutaneous reactions. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive electronic search was performed through the international databases including Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of science, and Google scholar on July 12, 2021, and all articles regarding mucocutaneous manifestations and considerations after COVID-19 vaccine administration were retrieved using the following keywords: COVID-19 vaccine, dermatology considerations and mucocutaneous manifestations. A total of 917 records were retrieved and a final number of 180 articles were included in data extraction. Mild, moderate, severe and potentially life-threatening adverse events have been reported following immunization with COVID vaccines, through case reports, case series, observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and further recommendations and consensus position papers regarding vaccination. In this systematic review, we categorized these results in detail into five elaborate tables, making what we believe to be an extensively informative, unprecedented set of data on this topic. Based on our findings, in the viewpoint of the pros and cons of vaccination, mucocutaneous adverse events were mostly non-significant, self-limiting reactions, and for the more uncommon moderate to severe reactions, guidelines and consensus position papers could be of great importance to provide those at higher risks and those with specific worries of flare-ups or inefficient immunization, with sufficient recommendations to safely schedule their vaccine doses, or avoid vaccination if they have the discussed contra-indications. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Impact of a delayed second dose of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) on risks of all-cause mortality, emergency department visit, and unscheduled hospitalization

BACKGROUND

Safety after the second dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine remains to be elucidated, especially among individuals reporting adverse events after their first dose. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a delayed second dose on all-cause mortality and emergency services.

METHODS

A territory-wide, retrospective cohort of people who had completed two doses of mRNA (BNT162b2) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 (CoronaVac) vaccine between February 23 and July 3, 2021, in Hong Kong was analyzed, with linkage to electronic health records retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Vaccine recipients were classified as receiving a second dose within recommended intervals (21-28 days for BNT162b2; 14-28 days for CoronaVac) or delayed. Study outcomes were all-cause mortality, emergency department (ED) visits, and unscheduled hospitalizations within 28 days after the second dose of vaccination.

RESULTS

Among 417,497 BNT162b2 and 354,283 CoronaVac second dose recipients, 3.8% and 28.5% received the second dose beyond the recommended intervals (mean 34.4 and 31.8 days), respectively. During the study period, there were < 5 daily new cases of COVID-19 infections in the community. Delaying the second dose was not associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.185, 95% CI 0.478-2.937, P = 0.714), risk of ED visit (HR = 0.966, 95% CI 0.926-1.008, P = 0.113), and risk of unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 0.956, 95% CI 0.878-1.040, P = 0.294) compared to that within the recommended interval for CoronaVac recipients. No statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality (HR = 4.438, 95% CI 0.951-20.701, P = 0.058), ED visit (HR = 1.037, 95% CI 0.951-1.130, P = 0.411), and unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 1.054, 95% CI 0.867-1.281, P = 0.597) were identified between people who received a second dose of BNT162b2 within and beyond the recommended intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant association between delayed second dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac and all-cause mortality, ED visit, and unscheduled hospitalization was observed in the present cohort. Regardless of the recommended or delayed schedule for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, a second dose of both vaccines should be administered to obtain better protection against infection and serious disease. The second dose should be administered within the recommended interval following the manufacturer's product information, until further studies support the benefits of delaying vaccination outweighing the risks.

Extension and Severity of Self-Reported Side Effects of Seven COVID-19 Vaccines in Mexican Population

A few studies examined the comparative side effects of Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) vaccines. We compared the extension and severity of self-reported side effects of seven COVID-19 vaccines [BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), CoronaVac (Sinovac Life Sciences), Gam-COVID-Vac (Gamaleya's Sputnik V), Ad5-nCoV (CanSinoBIO), and Ad26.CoV2.S (Johnson & Johnson/Janssen)] in the Mexican population. We also evaluated the association of type of vaccine, sex, age, comorbidity, and history of allergies to the extent and severity of side effects. This was a cross-sectional study carried out online between August 12 and September 3, 2021 in Mexico. The first inclusion criterion was to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and the second, being at least 18 years old. The survey link was distributed via multiple social media platforms. We questioned about the type of vaccine and symptoms based on short-term side effects reported in the literature. Side effect extension was classified as local, systemic, or both. We asked about the need to take medicine, stop activities/miss work, or seek medical attention. Then, a severity index was constructed based on responses. Descriptive and stepwise multivariate logistic ordinal regression analyses were used to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI for each outcome adjusted by potential confounders. The mean age was 38.9 ± 11.0 years (n = 4,024). Prevalence of at least one side effect varied between vaccines and by a number of doses. At dose 1, ChAdOx1 was the vaccine with the highest rate of at least one side effect (85%) followed by Gam-COVID-Vac (80%). Both were associated to greater extension (adjusted OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.16, 2.96 and adjusted OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.76, 3.29, respectively) and severity of side effects (adjusted OR 4.32, 95% CI 3.73, 5.00 and adjusted OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.28, 3.94, respectively). Young age (<50 years), female sex, comorbidity, and history of allergies were associated with greater extension and severity, independent of the type of vaccine and potential confounders. At dose 2, mRNA-1273 was the vaccine with the highest rate of side effects (88%) and the only vaccine associated to greater extension (adjusted OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.59, 5.21) and severity of symptoms (adjusted OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.82, 5.43). Continuous studies are necessary to acknowledge more post-vaccine symptoms in different populations.

The Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines and Its Association With ABO Blood Type Among the General Surgeons in Saudi Arabia

Introduction The benefits of vaccination outweigh its risks as it protects approximately two to three million individuals from infectious diseases annually. With the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, new vaccines have been developed. However, it is crucial to follow and recognize the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Previous studies have shown a relationship between ABO blood groups and coronavirus. Some vaccination side effects, such as muscle pain at the injection site and fatigue, may impair an individual's ability to perform tasks that require fine motor skills, such as those performed by a general surgeon. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the association between ABO blood groups and the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among general surgeons in Saudi Arabia. Method A cross-sectional online survey-based study regarding the side effects following COVID-19 vaccination was conducted among Saudi and non-Saudi general surgeons working in public and private hospitals in Saudi Arabia who had received one or two doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. Results A total of 612 surgeons responded. Approximately, 74.7% of the respondents reported side effects after receiving vaccines. Tiredness was the most commonly reported side effect of the vaccine, followed by severe local pain at the site of injection. Approximately, 16.2% of the participants started showing side effects 12 hours after receiving the vaccine. There was a significant relationship between the type of vaccine administered and the appearance of side effects (p = 0.004). The rate of appearance of side effects was higher in participants who received the Pfizer vaccine. However, there was no significant relationship between the appearance of side effects and age, gender, blood group, number of doses, and past history of COVID-19 infection (p > 0.05). Of the total participants, 256 (41.8%) stated that the side effects of the vaccine affected their work performance. Moreover, there was no significant difference in side effects, symptoms appearing after vaccination, the onset of symptoms, and duration of symptoms between the participants who received one dose and those who received two doses of the vaccine. In addition, there was no significant relationship between the severity of side effects and age, past history of COVID-19 infection, number of doses, and blood type (p > 0.05). However, there was a significant relationship between the severity of side effects and gender and type of vaccine (p = 0.000 and 0.004, respectively). A high percentage of females and those who received the AstraZeneca vaccine stated that their side effects affected their work performance. Conclusion Three-quarters of the participants reported side effects after the COVID-19 vaccination, which affected the work performance of 41% of participating general surgeons. There was no significant relationship between the appearance of symptoms and age, gender, blood group, number of doses, and past history of COVID-19 infection. However, there was a significant relationship between the severity of side effects and gender and type of vaccination. Future large-scale studies are recommended to further evaluate the implication of ABO blood type on COVID-19.

A naturally hypersensitive porcine model may help understand the mechanism of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced rare (pseudo) allergic reactions: complement activation as a possible contributing factor

A tiny fraction of people immunized with lipid nanoparticle (LNP)-enclosed mRNA (LNP-mRNA) vaccines develop allergic symptoms following their first or subsequent vaccinations, including anaphylaxis. These reactions resemble complement (C) activation-related pseudoallergy (CARPA) to i.v. administered liposomes, for which pigs provide a naturally oversensitive model. Using this model, we injected i.v. the human vaccination dose (HVD) of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, CMT) or its 2-fold (2x) or 5-fold (5x) amounts and measured the hemodynamic changes and other parameters of CARPA. We observed in 6 of 14 pigs transient pulmonary hypertension along with thromboxane A2 release into the blood and other hemodynamic and blood cell changes, including hypertension, granulocytosis, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. One pig injected with 5x CMT developed an anaphylactic shock requiring resuscitation, while a repeat dose failed to induce the reaction, implying tachyphylaxis. These typical CARPA symptoms could not be linked to animal age, sex, prior immune stimulation with zymosan, immunization of animals with Comirnaty i.v., or i.m. 2 weeks before the vaccine challenge, and anti-PEG IgM levels in Comirnaty-immunized pigs. Nevertheless, IgM binding to the whole vaccine, used as antigen in an ELISA, was significantly higher in reactive animals compared to non-reactive ones. Incubation of Comirnaty with pig serum in vitro showed significant elevations of C3a anaphylatoxin and sC5b-9, the C-terminal complex. These data raise the possibility that C activation plays a causal or contributing role in the rare HSRs to Comirnaty and other vaccines with similar side effects. Further studies are needed to uncover the factors controlling these vaccine reactions in pigs and to understand their translational value to humans.

Biometrics from a Wearable Device Reveals Temporary Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines on Cardiovascular, Respiratory, and Sleep Physiology

Although vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been proven safe and effective, transient side-effects lasting 24-48 h postvaccination have been reported. To better understand the subjective and objective response to COVID-19 vaccination, we conducted a retrospective analysis on 69,619 subscribers to a wrist-worn biometric device (WHOOP Inc., Boston, MA) who received either the AstraZeneca, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The WHOOP device measures resting heart rate (RHR), heart rate variability (HRV), respiratory rate (RR), and sleep architecture, and these physiological measures were normalized to the same day of the week, 1 wk before vaccination. Averaging across vaccines, RHR, RR, and percent sleep derived from light sleep were elevated on the first night following vaccination and returned to baseline within 4 nights postvaccination. When statistical differences were observed between doses on the first night postvaccination, larger deviations in physiological measures were observed following the first dose of AstraZeneca and the second dose of Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech. When statistical differences were observed between age groups or gender on the first night postvaccination, larger deviations in physiological measures were observed in younger populations and in females (compared with males). When combining self-reported symptoms (fatigue, muscle aches, headache, chills, or fever) with the objectively measured physiological parameters, we found that self-reporting fever or chills had the strongest association with deviations in physiological measures following vaccination. In summary, these results suggest that COVID-19 vaccines temporarily affect cardiovascular, respiratory, and sleep physiology and that dose, gender, and age affect the physiological response to vaccination.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY Here we report the first large-scale study investigating the effect of COVID-19 vaccines on cardiovascular, respiratory, and sleep physiology. We find that vaccines temporarily impact measures of cardiovascular, respiratory, and sleep physiology and that the degree of change in physiology is influenced by the manufacturer and dose of the vaccine and the gender and age of the vaccine recipient. These results provide insights into physiological changes that occur with COVID-19 vaccination and indicate that the unique responses that occur postvaccination may depend on manufacturer, dose, gender, and age.

Side effects of messenger RNA vaccines and prior history of COVID-19, a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

There are concerns regarding immunogenicity with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines among persons with prior history of COVID-19 (PHC). This study was to analyze the short-term side effects of mRNA vaccines among health care workers (HCWs) with and without PHC.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed using an independent online survey questionnaire that gathered responses from HCWs.

RESULTS

Among 1,475 HCWs, 1268 (85.97%) completed the survey, 102/1268 (44/447 in Moderna group and 58/821 in Pfizer-BioNTech group) reported PHC during pre-vaccination period. Symptoms of flushing/P = .05, brain fogging/P= .005, vertigo/P= .041, numbness/P= .023, diarrhea/P= .047, hives/P= .028, itching/P= .028, swelling of lips/mouth/P= .001, shortness of breath/P= .022, and anxiety/P= .048 have greater occurrence among Pfizer-BioNtech group with PHC when compared to Pfizer-BioNtech group with no PHC. Symptoms of chills/P= .027, flushing/P= .045, tremor/P= .05, muscle spasm/P= .039, vomiting/P= .031, diarrhea/P= .015, and cough/P= .011 have higher occurrence among Moderna group with PHC when compared to Moderna group with no PHC.

CONCLUSIONS

Few short-term side effects among mRNA vaccine recipients with PHC may have necessitated transient time-off from work. The PHC can be considered as a predictor for severity of side effects. While the vaccination program continues in the United States, a future COVID legislation that mandates vaccination among employees along with paid time off provision may help with higher compliance and acceptance.

Comparison of Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines: Sinopharm, AstraZeneca, Sputnik V, and Covaxin in Women in Terms of Menstruation Disturbances, Hirsutism, and Metrorrhagia: A Descriptive-Analytical Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Present study assessed whether Sinopharm, AstraZeneca, Sputnik V, and Covaxin's vaccinated women<br />reveal a distinct incidence of menstruation disturbances, hirsutism, and metrorrhagia.<br />Materials and Methods: Data collection was performed from June to August 2021, and 427 women working in seven<br />selected hospitals in Tehran were studied in this descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study. All of these women had<br />received one or both doses of the vaccines with one of the assessed vaccines. Required data was collected via questionnaire<br />and imported to SPSS 16 for further assessment and analysis. Fisher's Exact Test and Chi-Squared test were<br />main statistical tests used to understand whether any significant relation exists or not.<br />Results: The participant's mean age and body mass index (BMI) were 29.78 ± 10.55 and 23.27 ± 3.82, respectively.<br />Three hundred ninety-five cases (92.4%) had received both doses of the vaccines. Also, 154 cases (36.1%) had a history<br />of COVID-19. A total of 38 cases (8.8%) of menstruation disturbances, 20 cases (4.6%) of metrorrhagia, and 7<br />cases (1.6%) of hirsutism were reported after receiving the vaccines. There was a significant difference among the<br />vaccinated groups with the vaccines as mentioned earlier in terms of menstruation disturbances (hypermenorrhea,<br />dysmenorrhea, Amenorrhea) (P=0.01). The highest and the lowest incidence of menstruation disturbances were recorded<br />in the group vaccinated with Covaxin (17.6%) and Sputnik V (5%), respectively. There was also no significant<br />difference amongst the vaccinated groups with the four vaccines regarding the incidence of metrorrhagia and<br />hirsutism (P=0.10 and P=0.12, respectively). There was no significant relationship between all three complications<br />incidence with the previous infection concerning all vaccines (coefficient=0.46, 1.27, -0.15 respectively for menstruation<br />disturbances, metrorrhagia, and, hirsutism).<br />Conclusion: Seemingly, Covaxin revealed the most side effects in terms of menstruation disturbances. As a result, professionals<br />must carry out several studies with reasonable samples to recommend the vaccine to those women confidently.

Adverse reactions to the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in Japan

Introduction

The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines are the main vaccines that have been used for mass vaccination in Japan. Information on adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines in the Japanese population is limited.

Methods

We conducted an online survey on self-reported adverse reactions in individuals who had received two doses of the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine. The incidence of adverse events after each dose of vaccine was investigated. Propensity score matching was used to compare the incidence of adverse reactions after the second dose of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines.

Results

After the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, and the first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, 890, 853, 6401, and 3965 individuals, respectively, provided complete responses. Systemic reactions, including fever, fatigue, headache, muscle/joint pain, and nausea were significantly more common in females, individuals aged <50 years, and after the second dose. The incidence of injection site pain did not differ significantly according to the dose. The incidence of delayed injection site reactions after the first dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine was 3.9% and 0.8% among females and males, respectively, and 10.6% among females aged 40–69 years. Local and systemic reactions after the second dose, including fever, fatigue, headache, muscle/joint pain, nausea, and skin rash were more common in individuals who had received the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

Conclusions

Adverse reactions were more frequently reported in females, younger individuals, and after the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

Local and Systemic Adverse Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Comparing Two Vaccine Types and Occurrence of Previous COVID-19 Infection

The aim of this study was to assess adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, comparing the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines and the presence and seriousness of a previous COVID-19 infection. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of vaccinated healthcare workers at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona (Spain). Thirty-eight percent of vaccine recipients responded to the questionnaire. We compared the prevalence of adverse reactions by vaccine type and history of COVID-19 infections. A total of 2373 respondents had received the BNT162b2 vaccine, and 506 the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The prevalence of at least one adverse reaction with doses 1 and 2 was 41% and 70%, respectively, in the BNT162b2 group, and 60% and 92% in the mRNA-1273 group (p < 0.001). The BNT162b2 group reported less prevalence of all adverse reactions. Need for medical leave was significantly more frequent among the mRNA-1273 group (12% versus 4.6% p < 0.001). Interestingly, respondents with a history of allergies or chronic illnesses did not report more adverse reactions. The frequency of adverse reactions with dose 2 was 96% (95% CI 88–100%) for those with a history of COVID-19 related hospitalization, and 86% (95% CI 83–89%) for those with mild or moderate symptomatic COVID-19, significantly higher than for participants with no history of COVID-19 infections (67%, 95% CI 65–69%). Our results could help inform vaccine recipients of the probability of their having adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

Reactogenicity and Immunogenicity of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccines

Background

The relationships of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination with reactogenicity and the humoral immune response are important to study. The current study aimed to assess the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines among adults in Madinah, Saudi Arabia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study, including 365 randomly selected adult Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine recipients who received a homologous prime-boost vaccination between February 1st and June 30th, 2021. Data of height and weight were collected to assess the weight status of percipients. An evaluation of seropositivity for anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies was assessed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Results

Among the participants, 69% (n = 250) reported at least one vaccine-related symptom. Pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported vaccine-related symptom. The mean total score for vaccine-related symptoms was significantly higher among participants who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, women, and participants with no previous COVID-19 infection (p < 0.05). Spike-specific IgG antibodies were detected in 98.9% of participants after the receipt of two vaccine doses, including 99.5% of Pfizer vaccine recipients and 98.3% of AstraZeneca vaccine recipients. Significantly, higher proportions of participants in the <35-year age group developed a humoral immune response after the first vaccine dose compared with the participants in other age groups.

Conclusion

Participants who received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine reported fewer vaccine-related complications compared with those who received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, but no serious side effects were reported in response to either vaccine. Health status and age were factors that may influence COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness for the generation of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

Auricular acupressure for adverse events following immunization related to COVID-19 vaccine injection: study protocol for a multicenter, three-arm, blinded randomized controlled trial

Background

Some pain, fatigue, and gastrointestinal adverse events were observed in potential association with injection of COVID-19 vaccines, while there was no preventive intervention for it. We aim to investigate the efficacy of auricular acupressure (AA) therapy in preventing and relieving AEFI after injection of COVID-19 vaccine.

Methods

The study design is a randomized, multicentre, three-arm controlled, single-blind trial. Participants meeting the inclusion criteria will be advertised and enrolled and assigned in the medical institutions randomly for post-injection observation. No less than 360 participants will be randomized into one of three groups: auricular acupressure group, sham auricular acupressure group, and wait-list group. Interventions will be performed immediately and will happen 4 to 5 times per day for 5 days. The primary clinical outcomes will be quality and quantity evaluation among participants who reported any AEFI and who reported local pain at injection site. Secondary outcomes will concern headache, muscle and (or) joint pain, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and other potential events. All the outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14 days after the injection. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses will be performed, with significance level determined as 5%.

Discussion

Results of this trial will help to clarify the value of auricular acupressure therapy in preventing and relieving overall and certain adverse events following immunization after injection of COVID-19 vaccine.

Trial registration

China Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) (ChiCTR2100043210). Registered on 8 February, 2021.

The Importance of RNA-Based Vaccines in the Fight against COVID-19: An Overview

In recent years, vaccine development using ribonucleic acid (RNA) has become the most promising and studied approach to produce safe and effective new vaccines, not only for prophylaxis but also as a treatment. The use of messenger RNA (mRNA) as an immunogenic has several advantages to vaccine development compared to other platforms, such as lower coast, the absence of cell cultures, and the possibility to combine different targets. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of mRNA as a vaccine became more relevant; two out of the four most widely applied vaccines against COVID-19 in the world are based on this platform. However, even though it presents advantages for vaccine application, mRNA technology faces several pivotal challenges to improve mRNA stability, delivery, and the potential to generate the related protein needed to induce a humoral- and T-cell-mediated immune response. The application of mRNA to vaccine development emerged as a powerful tool to fight against cancer and non-infectious and infectious diseases, for example, and represents a relevant research field for future decades. Based on these advantages, this review emphasizes mRNA and self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) for vaccine development, mainly to fight against COVID-19, together with the challenges related to this approach.

Self-Reported Adverse Events of COVID-19 Vaccines in Polish Healthcare Workers and Medical Students. Cross-Sectional Study and Pooled Analysis of CoVaST Project Results in Central Europe

BACKGROUND

Optimization of COVID-19 vaccination rate among healthcare personnel is of utmost priority to secure provision of uninterrupted care and to protect the most vulnerable patients. This study, as part of the global CoVaST project, aimed to assess the occurrence of short-term adverse events (SRAEs) of two most administered COVID-19 vaccines, mRNA-based (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) and viral vector-based (AstraZeneca) in healthcare sector workers (HWs).

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out for the first time among 317 Polish healthcare sector personnel and medical students using a validated and pre-tested questionnaire. The online questionnaire included 25 pre-tested, validated questions concerning demographic data, medical parameters, COVID-19-related anamneses, and local or systemic reactions (reactogenicity) associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Descriptive statistics, inferential tests and binary logistic regression were performed.

RESULTS

Out of the 247 participating HWs, 79.8% were females, and 77.5% received mRNA-based vaccines, while 24.5% received a viral vector-based vaccine. Cumulatively, 78.9% and 60.7% of the participants reported at least one local and one systemic SRAE respectively, following their COVID-19 first or second dose of vaccine. A wide array of SRAEs was observed, while pain at injection site (76.9%) was the most common local SRAE, and fatigue (46.2%), headache (37.7%), muscle pain (31.6%) were the most common systemic SRAEs. The vast proportion of local (35.2%) and systemic (44.8%) SRAEs subsided up to 1 day after inoculation with both types of vaccines. The mRNA-based vaccine versions seem to cause higher prevalence of local SRAEs, mainly pain within injection site (81.3% vs. 71.7%; p = 0.435), while the viral vector-based vaccine was linked with increased incidents of mild systemic side effects (76.7% vs. 55.3%; p = 0.004) after both doses. Pooled analysis revealed uniform results while comparing the prevalence of SRAEs in HWs as recipients in four central European countries (OR = 2.38; 95% CI = 2.03-2.79).

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirmed the safety of commonly administered vaccines against COVID-19, which were associated with mild, self-resolving adverse events. No major vaccine-related incidents were reported which would affect every day functioning, significantly. The younger age group (below 29 y.o.) were associated with an increased risk of adverse events generally. The results enhanced current data regarding COVID-19 vaccination active surveillance in selected occupational groups.

Does a lack of vaccine side effects correlate with reduced BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine response among healthcare workers and nursing home residents?

Background

The BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination has mitigated the burden of COVID-19 among residents of long-term care facilities considerably, despite being excluded from the vaccine trials. Data on reactogenicity (vaccine side effects) in this population are limited.

Aims

To assess reactogenicity among nursing home (NH) residents. To provide a plausible proxy for predicting vaccine response among this population.

Methods

We enrolled and sampled NH residents and community-dwelling healthcare workers who received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, to assess local or systemic reactogenicity and antibody levels (immunogenicity).

Results

NH residents reported reactions at a much lower frequency and lesser severity than the community-dwelling healthcare workers. These reactions were mild and transient with all subjects experiencing more local than systemic reactions. Based on our reactogenicity and immunogenicity data, we developed a linear regression model predicting log-transformed anti-spike, anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD), and neutralizing titers, with a dichotomous variable indicating the presence or absence of reported reactions which revealed a statistically significant effect, with estimated shifts in log-transformed titers ranging from 0.32 to 0.37 (all p < 0.01) indicating greater immunogenicity in subjects with one or more reported reactions of varying severity.

Discussion

With a significantly lower incidence of post-vaccination reactions among NH residents as reported in this study, the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine appears to be well-tolerated among this vulnerable population. If validated in larger populations, absence of reactogenicity could help guide clinicians in prioritizing vaccine boosters.

Conclusions

Reactogenicity is significantly mild among nursing home residents and overall, subjects who reported post-vaccination reactions developed higher antibody titers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40520-021-01987-9.