Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Different Vaccines at Phase 3

Why Certain Repurposed Drugs Are Unlikely to Be Effective Antivirals to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infections

Most repurposed drugs have proved ineffective for treating COVID-19. We evaluated median effective and toxic concentrations (EC50, CC50) of 49 drugs, mostly from previous clinical trials, in Vero cells. Ratios of reported unbound peak plasma concentrations, (Cmax)/EC50, were used to predict the potential in vivo efficacy. The 20 drugs with the highest ratios were retested in human Calu-3 and Caco-2 cells, and their CC50 was determined in an expanded panel of cell lines. Many of the 20 drugs with the highest ratios were inactive in human Calu-3 and Caco-2 cells. Antivirals effective in controlled clinical trials had unbound Cmax/EC50 ≥ 6.8 in Calu-3 or Caco-2 cells. EC50 of nucleoside analogs were cell dependent. This approach and earlier availability of more relevant cultures could have reduced the number of unwarranted clinical trials.

Efficacy of povidone-iodine nasal rinse and mouth wash in COVID-19 management: a prospective, randomized pilot clinical trial (povidone-iodine in COVID-19 management)

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To assess the efficacy of 0.23% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) nasal rinses and mouth washes on detectability of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus and cycle threshold (Ct) values in nasopharyngeal swabs.

STUDY DESIGN

This was an open-label, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

The study was conducted in King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from August 2021 to July 2022.

METHODS

Participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 were randomly assigned to one of three groups, with participants receiving either 0.23% PVP-I, 0.9% normal saline (NS) nasal rinses and mouth washes, or no intervention (control group). Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken 4, 8, 12, and 18 days after the first swab to measure the detectability of the virus and the Ct.

RESULTS

A total of 19 participants were involved in this study. The mean viral survival was 9.8, 12, and 12.6 days for the PVP-I, NS, and control groups, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.046). The Ct mean values were 23 ± 3.4, 23.5 ± 6.3, and 26.3 ± 5.9 at the time of recruitment and 25.2 ± 3.5, 15 ± 11.7, and 26.9 ± 6.4 after 4 days for the PVP-I, NS, and control groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When used continuously at a concentration of 0.23%, PVP-I showed promising results in terms of decreasing the pandemic burden by reducing the period of infectiousness and viral load. However, the use of PVP-I did not result in significantly different changes in the quality-of-life parameters in recently vaccinated and mild COVID-19 patients.

A Possible Case of Hypertensive Crisis With Aortic Dissection After an Anti-COVID-19 Vaccine

Aortic dissection, a potentially fatal event, usually presents with acute intense chest or back pain. Painless aortic dissections constitute about 10% of all cases. High blood pressure is a common finding in both painless and painful aortic dissections. During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, various anti-COVID vaccines have been massively used. Although these vaccines are generally safe, there is a small risk of adverse effects which are mostly mild and transient, but sometimes they could be life-threatening. We report a case of painless aortic dissection that occurred within minutes of receiving the COVID-19 inactivated vaccine. A 65-year-old woman with chronic controlled systemic hypertension developed slurred speech, decreased level of consciousness, generalized weakness, and dyspnea without chest, back, or abdominal pain a few minutes after receiving the second dose of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine; she had a systolic blood pressure of 220 mmHg and left-sided pleural effusion. Drainage of the pleural effusion revealed gross blood and a spiral chest and mediastinum CT with intravenous contrast showed a penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer in the descending aorta. Therefore, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was carried out, and the patient was discharged in satisfactory condition after 3 days.

Safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials

Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been discovered within a very small duration of time as compared to the traditional way for the development of vaccines, which raised the question about the safety and efficacy of the approved vaccines. The purpose of this study is to look at the effectiveness and safety of vaccine platforms against the incidence of COVID-19. The literature search was performed on PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, and clinical trials.gov databases for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 19 February 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis Statement guidelines were followed. Among 284 articles received by keywords, a total of 11 studies were eligible according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria (studies in special populations, e.g., pregnant women, paediatric patients, editorials, case reports, review articles, preclinical and in vitro studies) of the study. A total of 247,186 participants were considered for randomisation at baseline, among them, 129,572 (52.42%) were provided with vaccine (Intervention group) and 117,614 (47.58%) with the placebo (Control group). A pooled fold change estimation of 0.19 (95% CI: 0.12-0.31, p < 0.0001) showed significant protection against the incidence of COVID-19 in the vaccines received group versus the placebo group. mRNA based, inactivated vaccines and non-replicating viral vector-based vaccines showed significantly protection against the incidence of COVID-19 compared to placebo with pooled fold change estimation was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.10), 0.20 (95% CI: 0.14-0.29) and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.28-0.46), respectively. Injection site discomfort and fatigue were the most common side effect observed in mRNA, non-replicating viral vector, inactivated, and protein subunit-based vaccines. All the approved vaccines were found safe and efficacious but mRNA-based vaccines were found to be more efficacious against SARS-CoV-2 than other platforms.

Spontaneous spinal epidural haematoma following COVID-19 vaccination: a case report

Introduction

COVID-19 vaccination side effects are rare but important medical situations. Spine-affecting side effects are amongst the rarest, but exceedingly important. Haemorrhagic spinal manifestations of COVID-19 and its vaccines are less reported with little knowledge about them.

Case presentation

An 80-year-old male who received his first shot of the COVID-19 vaccine had developed COVID-19 pneumonia, weakness, and sensory problems in his legs followed by sphincter incontinence within 5 days period. MRI showed a spontaneous epidural spinal epidural haematoma (SSEDH) in T10-L1. He underwent laminectomy and haematoma evacuation. One month follow-up showed no clinical improvement.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this was the first post-vaccination SSEDH and second in haemorrhagic spinal complications following COVID-19 vaccination. Considering the neuropathogenesis pathway of COVID-19 and its vaccines, there are common mechanisms of action that could potentially justify post-vaccination SSEDH such as seen in COVID-19 infection, itself. Early Neurosurgical intervention and better preoperative neurological status could be a beneficial modifier for favourable clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

SSEDH and COVID-19 vaccine coincidence is a rare clinical event, still no solid association could be scientifically explained. Further studies are required for a reliable pathophysiologic association. Early diagnosis, interdisciplinary medical approach, and faster intervention are the cornerstone of the treatment paradigm.

Vaccination effects on reducing COVID-19 complications in pregnancy: A large-scale report from Iran

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of maternal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on preventing severe complications of COVID-19 in pregnant women.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in pregnant women infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during pregnancy and/or for up to 6 weeks postpartum between September 1, 2021, to January 30, 2022. The data was retrieved from a national database. The pregnant women were divided into two groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated. The proposed outcomes (the need for hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mechanical ventilation and products of conception complications) were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Approximately 90 000 pregnant women infected with COVID-19 were included in the study. The data of the vaccinated (19 922) and unvaccinated (70 147) groups were analyzed and compared. Pregnant patients in the vaccinated group had a significantly lower rate of hospitalization (21.2% vs 29.4%) (odds ratio [OR], 0.648 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.625-0.673], P = 0.0001) and intensive care unit admission (3.7% vs 7.8%) (OR, 0.453 [95% CI, 0.382-0.535], P = 0.0001). The need for mechanical ventilation was also lower, although not statistically significant, in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (30 of 155 [19.4%] vs 418 of 1597 [26.2%]) (OR, 0.677 [95% CI, 0.448-1.024], P = 0.063). Cesarean section (54.3% vs 58.1%) (OR, 0.856 [95% CI, 0.751-0.977], P = 0.021) and stillbirth (0.4% vs 3.6%) (OR, 0.097 [95% CI, 0.026-0.252], P = 0.0001) were also significantly lower in the vaccinated patients. Most pregnant women in the vaccinated group (18 484-96.14%) received Sinopharm BIBP COVID-19 inactivated vaccine. No significant differences were seen in the effect of different types of COVID-19 vaccines on reducing COVID-19 complications in infected pregnant patients.

CONCLUSION

Maternal COVID-19 immunization is effective in reducing COVID-19 complications in infected pregnant women.

A review of China's compensation program for adverse reactions following immunization

Vaccination is a compelling measure to battle infectious diseases and protect public health. However, because of the constraints on human cognition, it is difficult to ensure that vaccines are safe. Adverse reactions to immunization can cause individual injury. In numerous countries, no-fault programs have been established to compensate individuals for vaccine-related injuries. China also established a vaccine injury compensation system with its own unique characteristics. The Vaccine Administration Law was promulgated in 2019 to establish a compensation system for those who experience adverse reactions following immunization; nevertheless, the compensation system is imperfect. Even when the applicable terms are applied to deal with vaccine-related injuries, some issues remain, such as unreasonable diagnosis and evaluation procedures for adverse reactions, excessively strict standards regarding proof and inconsistent compensation standards across the country. Therefore, to provide effective compensation for vaccine recipients, it is important to clarify the standards of proof and establish a sensible vaccine injury compensation system that includes Corona Virus Disease 2019 vaccine-injury compensation.

COVID-19 Vaccines and Assisted Reproductive Techniques: A Systematic Review

Objective: To review the current knowledge concerning COVID-19 vaccination and assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Methods: A systematic review in Pubmed-Medline, the Cochrane Database, the Web of Science, and the National Guideline was performed. Studies were selected if they were primary studies, included vaccinated (case) and unvaccinated (control) patients, and described fertility treatment response. Results: A total of 24 studies were selected. Outcomes related to the association between COVID-19 vaccination and ART were collected. The vast majority of studies found no statistical differences concerning oocyte stimulation response, embryo quality, implantation rates, or pregnancy outcome (clinical or biochemical pregnancy rates and losses) when comparing cases and controls. Similarly, no differences were found when comparing different types of vaccines or distinct ART (artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and embryo transfer of frozen embryos). Conclusions: Patients receiving ART and health care professionals should be encouraged to complete and recommend COVID-19 vaccination, as the available evidence regarding assisted reproductive outcomes is reassuring.

Effectiveness and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations: An Umbrella Meta-Analysis

Objectives: This umbrella meta-analysis aims to provide comprehensive and synthesized evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations based on current studies. Methods: Studies from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE, published before 10 December 2021, were included in the analysis. The pooled results of effectiveness and safety were estimated and shown in forest plots. Results: We included nineteen studies (fifteen studies regarding safety and nine regarding effectiveness) in the analysis. The mRNA vaccines, adenovirus vector vaccines, subunit vaccines, and inactivated vaccines were found to be effective; however, mRNA vaccines, adenovirus vector vaccines and subunit vaccines were associated with local adverse events and systemic events when compared with inactivated vaccines. Conclusion: Our study suggested that till date, COVID-19 vaccination is still a preferred pharmaceutical way to control the widespread pandemic. However, all reported adverse events should be revisited to provide further evidence for mass vaccinations.

Real-World Safety of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

With the mass vaccination program for COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, there has been sufficient real-world study (RWS) on the topic to summarize their safety in the total population and in immunocompromised (IC) patients who were excluded from phase 3 clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, with a total of 5,132,799 subjects from 122 articles. In the case of the total population vaccinated with first, second, and third doses, the pooled incidence of any adverse events (AEs) was 62.20%, 70.39%, and 58.60%; that of any local AEs was 52.03%, 47.99%, and 65.00%; that of any systemic AEs was 29.07%, 47.86%, and 32.71%. Among the immunocompromised patients, the pooled odds ratio of any AEs, any local AEs, and systemic AEs were slightly lower than or similar to those of the healthy controls at 0.60 (95% CI: 0.33-1.11), 0.19 (95% CI: 0.10-0.37), and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.25-0.54), with pooled incidences of 51.95%, 38.82%, and 31.00%, respectively. The spectrum of AEs associated with the vaccines was broad, but most AEs were transient, self-limiting, and mild to moderate. Moreover, younger adults, women, and people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to experience AEs.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination or Infection With Bell Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Bell palsy (BP) has been reported as an adverse event following the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, but neither a causative relationship nor a higher prevalence than in the general population has been established.

Objective

To compare the incidence of BP in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine recipients vs unvaccinated individuals or placebo recipients.

Data Sources

A systematic search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from the inception of the COVID-19 report (December 2019) to August 15, 2022.

Study Selection

Articles reporting BP incidence with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline and was conducted with the random- and fixed-effect models using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcomes of interest were to compare BP incidence among (1) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine recipients, (2) nonrecipients in the placebo or unvaccinated cohorts, (3) different types of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and (4) SARS-CoV-2-infected vs SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated individuals.

Results

Fifty studies were included, of which 17 entered the quantitative synthesis. Pooling 4 phase 3 randomized clinical trials showed significantly higher BP in recipients of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (77 525 vaccine recipients vs 66 682 placebo recipients; odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% CI, 1.10-8.18; I2 = 0%). There was, however, no significant increase in BP after administration of the messenger RNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in pooling 8 observational studies (13 518 026 doses vs 13 510 701 unvaccinated; OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.16; I2 = 94%). No significant difference was found in BP among 22 978 880 first-dose recipients of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine compared with 22 978 880 first-dose recipients of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.82-1.15; I2 = 0%). Bell palsy was significantly more common after SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 2 822 072) than after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (n = 37 912 410) (relative risk, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.57-6.62; I2 = 95%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests a higher incidence of BP among SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated vs placebo groups. The occurrence of BP did not differ significantly between recipients of the Pfizer/BioNTech vs Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 infection posed a significantly greater risk for BP than SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Prevalence and risk factors of adverse effects after the first COVID-19 booster dose: evidence from Greece

Background

In general, COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, but minor adverse effects are common. However, adverse effects have not been measured in several countries including Greece.

Objective

To estimate the prevalence of adverse effects after the first COVID-19 booster dose, and to identify possible risk factors.

Material and methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study with a convenience sample in Greece during November 2022. We measured several adverse effects after the booster dose, such as fatigue, headaches, fever, chills, nausea, etc. We considered gender, age, chronic disease, self-assessment of health status, COVID-19 diagnóstico, and self-assessment of COVID-19 course as possible predictors of adverse effects.

Results

In our sample, 96% developed at least one adverse effect. Half of the participants (50.2%) developed one to five adverse effects, 35.9% developed six to ten adverse effects, and 9.5% developed 11 to 16 adverse effects. Mean number of adverse effects was 5.5. The most frequent adverse effects were pain at the injection site (84.3%), fatigue (70.8%), muscle pain (61%), swelling at the injection site (55.2%), headache (49.8%), fever (42.9%), and chills (41%). Females developed more adverse effects than males (p < 0.001). The prevalence of adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines was statistically significant and positively associated with the severity of COVID-19 among COVID-recovered individuals (p < 0.05). Moreover, younger age was associated with increased adverse effects (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Almost all participants in our study developed minor adverse effects after the booster dose. Female gender, COVID-19 patients with worse clinical course, and younger individuals experienced more often adverse effects.

Tozinameran (Pfizer, BioNTech) and Elasomeran (Moderna) Efficacy in COVID-19-A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trial Studies

Background: The objective of this research was to test the efficacy and safety profile of tozinameran (30 μg, BNT162b2, Pfizer, BioNTech) and elasomeran (100 μg, mRNA-1273, Moderna) in COVID-19 prevention in ≥16-year-old patients vaccinated with two doses. Methods: A meta-analysis of the literature was conducted using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eight RCTs have been selected. The results were presented using the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A fixed-effect model or random-effect model was applied based on the heterogeneity of the results. Results: BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines are efficient in preventing COVID-19 in comparison to a placebo (MH, RR 0.08 [0.07, 0.09] p < 0.00001 (95% CI)). It was found that administering the vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 was associated with a higher proportion of adverse events in comparison to the placebo (IV, RR 2.14 [1.99, 2.29] p < 0.00001 (95% CI)). Administering the vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 was associated with a higher proportion of serious adverse events in comparison to the placebo (MH, RR 0.98 [0.89, 1.08] p = 0.68 (95% CI)). Conclusions: Tozinameran and elasomeran are effective and safe in preventing the occurrence of COVID-19.

Design and Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 DNA Vaccine Encoding RBD-PVXCP Fusion Protein

The potential of immune-evasive mutation accumulation in the SARS-CoV-2 virus has led to its rapid spread, causing over 600 million confirmed cases and more than 6.5 million confirmed deaths. The huge demand for the rapid development and deployment of low-cost and effective vaccines against emerging variants has renewed interest in DNA vaccine technology. Here, we report the rapid generation and immunological evaluation of novel DNA vaccine candidates against the Wuhan-Hu-1 and Omicron variants based on the RBD protein fused with the Potato virus X coat protein (PVXCP). The delivery of DNA vaccines using electroporation in a two-dose regimen induced high-antibody titers and profound cellular responses in mice. The antibody titers induced against the Omicron variant of the vaccine were sufficient for effective protection against both Omicron and Wuhan-Hu-1 virus infections. The PVXCP protein in the vaccine construct shifted the immune response to the favorable Th1-like type and provided the oligomerization of RBD-PVXCP protein. Naked DNA delivery by needle-free injection allowed us to achieve antibody titers comparable with mRNA-LNP delivery in rabbits. These data identify the RBD-PVXCP DNA vaccine platform as a promising solution for robust and effective SARS-CoV-2 protection, supporting further translational study.

De novo lupus nephritis after SARS-CoV-2 infection

The relationship between viral infection and onset of autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus remains uncertain. During the COVID-19 pandemic, organ-specific and multisystemic autoimmune phenomena temporally related to the viral infection have been described. Immune dysregulation triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 virus leading to hyperactivation of both the innate and adaptive immune systems contributes to the excessive production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, autoantibodies, and subsequent autoimmune manifestations. We report two patients without known autoimmune diseases who developed lupus nephritis shortly after a documented mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Together with other similar cases in the literature, the observation supports a viral trigger of the development of systemic lupus erythematosus in susceptible individuals.

Real-world effectiveness and factors associated with effectiveness of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

The two inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, CoronaVac and BBIBP-CorV, have been widely used to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The influence of multiple factors on inactivated vaccine effectiveness (VE) during long-term use and against variants is not well understood.

METHODS

We selected published or preprinted articles from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, medRxiv, BioRxiv, and the WHO COVID-19 database by 31 August 2022. We included observational studies that assessed the VE of completed primary series or homologous booster against SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19. We used DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models to calculate pooled estimates and conducted multiple meta-regression with an information theoretic approach based on Akaike's Information Criterion to select the model and identify the factors associated with VE.

RESULTS

Fifty-one eligible studies with 151 estimates were included. For prevention of infection, VE associated with study region, variants, and time since vaccination; VE was significantly decreased against Omicron compared to Alpha (P = 0.021), primary series VE was 52.8% (95% CI, 43.3 to 60.7%) against Delta and 16.4% (95% CI, 9.5 to 22.8%) against Omicron, and booster dose VE was 65.2% (95% CI, 48.3 to 76.6%) against Delta and 20.3% (95% CI, 10.5 to 28.0%) against Omicron; primary VE decreased significantly after 180 days (P = 0.022). For the prevention of severe COVID-19, VE associated with vaccine doses, age, study region, variants, study design, and study population type; booster VE increased significantly (P = 0.001) compared to primary; though VE decreased significantly against Gamma (P = 0.034), Delta (P = 0.001), and Omicron (P = 0.001) compared to Alpha, primary and booster VEs were all above 60% against each variant.

CONCLUSIONS

Inactivated vaccine protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection was moderate, decreased significantly after 6 months following primary vaccination, and was restored by booster vaccination. VE against severe COVID-19 was greatest after boosting and did not decrease over time, sustained for over 6 months after the primary series, and more evidence is needed to assess the duration of booster VE. VE varied by variants, most notably against Omicron. It is necessary to ensure booster vaccination of everyone eligible for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and continue monitoring virus evolution and VE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42022353272.

Challenges and Recent Advancements in COVID-19 Vaccines

Vaccination is the most effective method for the prevention of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2, which is still a global epidemic. However, the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 is so rapid that various variants, including the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants, have emerged, lowering the protection rate of vaccines and even resulting in breakthrough infections. Additionally, some rare but severe adverse reactions induced by COVID-19 vaccines may raise safety concerns and hinder vaccine promotion; however, clinical studies have shown that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks caused by adverse reactions. Current vaccines approved with emergency use authorization (EUA) were originally adaptive for adults only, and infants, children, and adolescents are not included. New-generation vaccines are needed to overcome the challenges of limited adaptive age population, breakthrough infection (mainly due to virus variant emergencies), and critical adverse reactions. Fortunately, some advances in COVID-19 vaccines have been obtained regarding enlarged adaptive populations for clinical applications, such as the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine. In this article, we provide a review on the challenges and recent advancements in COVID-19 vaccines. The development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines should lay emphasis on the expansion of adaptive age populations in all individuals, the induction of immune responses to viral variants, the avoidance or alleviation of rare but potentially critical adverse reactions, and the discovery of subunit vaccines with adjuvants encapsulated in nanoparticles.

Immune Response to CoronaVac and Its Safety in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Compared with Healthcare Workers

Background: Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 have been critical for preventing disease. Previous research showed patients with diabetes have impaired immunity. This study aimed to determine the immunity to coronavirus after CoronaVac by comparing patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and healthcare workers (HCW). Materials and methods: A prospective cohort study evaluated immune responses and safety after two doses of CoronaVac in T2D and HCW groups at Chulabhorn Hospital. The levels of total antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (anti-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at baseline and 4 weeks after vaccination were collected. The level of anti-RBD concentrations was reported as geometric mean concentration (GMC) and compared between groups using the geometric mean ratio (GMR). Results: 81 participants were included; 27 had T2D and 54 were HCW. After complete vaccination, anti-RBD concentrations were not significantly different between T2D (57.68 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 29.08; 114.44) and HCW (72.49 BAU/mL, 95% CI = 55.77; 94.22) groups. Subgroup analysis showed the GMC of anti-RBD was significantly lower in T2D patients with dyslipidaemia (50.04 BAU/mL) than in T2D patients without dyslipidaemia (341.64 BAU/mL). Conclusions: The immune response at 4 weeks after two doses of CoronaVac did not significantly differ between patients with T2D and HCW.

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy is not all a conspiracy theory: A qualitative study from Iran

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has burdened disastrous mortality and morbidity rates in society all over the world. While vaccination is one of the most effective immunization methods to control infectious diseases globally, some have avoided receiving the vaccine. We have aimed to investigate the reasons behind the hesitancy of vaccination among healthcare workers.

METHOD

We performed ten semi-structured interviews with volunteered healthcare workers of Rasoul Akram hospital. Then each interview was anonymized, and Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis method was used to analyze the interviews.

RESULTS

Our data analysis revealed thirty-eight different codes as reasons for vaccination hesitancy among our interviewees. All these thirty-eight codes were grouped into ten sub-themes, and these sub-themes were further grouped into our four main themes: 1. Fear of side effects, 2. Distrust, 3. Inefficiency, and 4. Non-necessity. Fear of side effects was the most frequent reason that interviewees mentioned. Also, Half of the interviewees mentioned distrust as a reason for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. At least once, all interviewees mentioned that they believed vaccination is inefficient. Some interviewees had beliefs and reasons that made them assume vaccination is simply not necessary.

CONCLUSION

Fear of side effects, distrust, inefficiency, and non-necessity were the reasons that our participants refused to get vaccinated. Fear of side effects and distrust were the most common reasons that led to non-vaccination.

Applying genetic technologies to combat infectious diseases in aquaculture

Disease and parasitism cause major welfare, environmental and economic concerns for global aquaculture. In this review, we examine the status and potential of technologies that exploit genetic variation in host resistance to tackle this problem. We argue that there is an urgent need to improve understanding of the genetic mechanisms involved, leading to the development of tools that can be applied to boost host resistance and reduce the disease burden. We draw on two pressing global disease problems as case studies-sea lice infestations in salmonids and white spot syndrome in shrimp. We review how the latest genetic technologies can be capitalised upon to determine the mechanisms underlying inter- and intra-species variation in pathogen/parasite resistance, and how the derived knowledge could be applied to boost disease resistance using selective breeding, gene editing and/or with targeted feed treatments and vaccines. Gene editing brings novel opportunities, but also implementation and dissemination challenges, and necessitates new protocols to integrate the technology into aquaculture breeding programmes. There is also an ongoing need to minimise risks of disease agents evolving to overcome genetic improvements to host resistance, and insights from epidemiological and evolutionary models of pathogen infestation in wild and cultured host populations are explored. Ethical issues around the different approaches for achieving genetic resistance are discussed. Application of genetic technologies and approaches has potential to improve fundamental knowledge of mechanisms affecting genetic resistance and provide effective pathways for implementation that could lead to more resistant aquaculture stocks, transforming global aquaculture.

Real-World Study on Effectiveness of Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir–Ritonavir in Unvaccinated Patients with Chronic Respiratory Diseases with Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection Managed in Out-Patient Setting

While molnupiravir (MOV) and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (NMV-r) were developed for treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection, there has been a lack of data on the efficacy among unvaccinated adult patients with chronic respiratory diseases, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchiectasis. A territory-wide retrospective cohort study was conducted in Hong Kong to investigate the efficacy of MOV and NMV-r against severe outcomes of COVID-19 in unvaccinated adult patients with chronic respiratory diseases. A total of 3267 patients were included. NMV-r was effective in preventing respiratory failure (66.6%; 95% CI, 25.6–85.0%, p = 0.007), severe respiratory failure (77.0%; 95% CI, 6.9–94.3%, p = 0.039) with statistical significance, and COVID-19 related hospitalization (43.9%; 95% CI, −1.7–69.0%, p = 0.057) and in-hospital mortality (62.7%; 95% CI, −0.6–86.2, p = 0.051) with borderline statistical significance. MOV was effective in preventing COVID-19 related severe respiratory failure (48.2%; 95% CI 0.5–73.0, p = 0.048) and in-hospital mortality (58.3%; 95% CI 22.9–77.4, p = 0.005) but not hospitalization (p = 0.16) and respiratory failure (p = 0.10). In summary, both NMV-r and MOV are effective for reducing severe outcomes in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients with chronic respiratory diseases.

Safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant receptor-binding domain-based protein subunit vaccine (Noora vaccine™) against COVID-19 in adults: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 trial

The development of a safe and effective vaccine is essential to protect populations against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There are several vaccine candidates under investigation with different mechanisms of action. In the present study, we have evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant receptor-binding domain (RBD)-based protein subunit vaccine (Noora vaccine) against COVID-19 in adults. This Phase 1 trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the recombinant RBD-based protein subunit vaccine (Noora vaccine) against COVID-19 in healthy adults volunteers. Eligible participants were included in this study after evaluating their health status and considering the exclusion criteria. They were then randomized into three groups and received three doses of vaccine (80 µg, 120 µg, and placebo) on Days 0, 21, and 35. Primary outcomes including solicited, unsolicited, and medically attended adverse events were recorded during this study. Secondary outcomes including the humoral and cellular immunity (including anti-RBD IgG antibody and neutralizing antibody) were measured on Days 0, 21, 28, 35, 42, and 49 by using the ELISA kit and the Virus Neutralization Test (VNT) was performed on day 49. Totally 70 cases were included in this Phase 1 trial and 60 of them completed the study. Safety assessments showed no severe adverse events. Local pain at the vaccine injection site occurred in 80% of the vaccinated volunteers. Induration and redness at the injection site were the other adverse reactions of this vaccine. There was no significant difference between the studied groups regarding adverse reactions. Anti-RBD IgG antibody and neutralizing antibody assessment showed significant seroconversion in comparison to the placebo group (80%, and 100% respectively, p < 0.001). The cellular immunity panel also showed mild to moderate induction of TH1 responses and the VNT showed 78% of seroprotection. The results of this Phase 1 trial showed acceptable safety without serious adverse events and significant seroconversions in the humoral and cellular immunity panel. The dose of 80 µg is an appropriate dose for injection in the next phases of the trial.

COVID-19 Vaccines-All You Want to Know

The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has led to an unprecedented public health crisis. The collective global response has led to production of multiple safe and effective vaccines utilizing novel platforms to combat the virus that have propelled the field of vaccinology forward. Significant challenges to universal vaccine effectiveness remain, including immune evasion by SARS-CoV-2 variants, waning of immune response, inadequate knowledge of correlates of protection, and dosing in special populations. This review serves as a detailed evaluation of the development of the current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, their effectiveness, and challenges to their deployment as a preventive tool.

Efficacy of mRNA and Inactivated Whole Virus Vaccines Against COVID-19 in Patients with Chronic Respiratory Diseases

Background

While different COVID-19 vaccines have been developed, there has been lack of data on the efficacy comparison between mRNA and inactivated whole virus vaccine among patients with chronic respiratory diseases, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and bronchiectasis.

Methods

This was a retrospective case control study on the efficacy of BNT162b2 (mRNA vaccine) and CoronaVac (inactivated whole virus vaccine) against COVID-19 in patients with chronic respiratory diseases. A total of 327 patients were included, with 109 patients infected with COVID-19 matched with 218 patients without COVID-19. The co-primary outcomes were vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19, COVID-19-related hospitalization and COVID-19-related respiratory failure. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated using the formula (1-adjusted odds ratio) x 100.

Results

Patients who received at least 2 doses of CoronaVac had lower risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 and developing respiratory failure than those who did not have vaccination, with adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.189 (95% CI = 0.050-0.714, p = 0.014) and 0.128 (95% CI = 0.026-0.638, p = 0.012) respectively. Patients who received at least 2 doses of BNT162b2 had lower risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 and developing respiratory failure than those who did not have vaccination with adjusted OR of 0.207 (95% CI = 0.043-0.962, p = 0.050) and 0.093 (95% CI = 0.011-0.827, p = 0.033) respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the risks of being hospitalized for COVID-19 and developing respiratory failure between patients who received at least 2 doses of CoronaVac or BNT162b2.

Conclusion

BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalization for COVID-19 and respiratory failure complicating COVID-19 among patients with chronic respiratory diseases. Patients with chronic respiratory diseases should be encouraged to have COVID-19 vaccination.

Self-Amplifying RNA Vaccine Candidates: Alternative Platforms for mRNA Vaccine Development

The present use of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 has shown for the first time the potential of mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases. Here we will summarize the current knowledge about improved mRNA vaccines, i.e., the self-amplifying mRNA (saRNA) vaccines. This approach may enhance antigen expression by amplification of the antigen-encoding RNA. RNA design, RNA delivery, and the innate immune responses induced by RNA will be reviewed.

Temporal trends of COVID-19 antibodies in vaccinated healthcare workers undergoing repeated serological sampling: An individual-level analysis within 13 months in the ORCHESTRA cohort

Short summary

We investigated changes in serologic measurements after COVID-19 vaccination in 19,422 subjects. An individual-level analysis was performed on standardized measurements. Age, infection, vaccine doses, time between doses and serologies, and vaccine type were associated with changes in serologic levels within 13 months.

Background

Persistence of vaccine immunization is key for COVID-19 prevention.

Methods

We investigated the difference between two serologic measurements of anti-COVID-19 S1 antibodies in an individual-level analysis on 19,422 vaccinated healthcare workers (HCW) from Italy, Spain, Romania, and Slovakia, tested within 13 months from first dose. Differences in serologic levels were divided by the standard error of the cohort-specific distribution, obtaining standardized measurements. We fitted multivariate linear regression models to identify predictors of difference between two measurements.

Results

We observed a progressively decreasing difference in serologic levels from <30 days to 210-240 days. Age was associated with an increased difference in serologic levels. There was a greater difference between the two serologic measurements in infected HCW than in HCW who had never been infected; before the first measurement, infected HCW had a relative risk (RR) of 0.81 for one standard deviation in the difference [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.85]. The RRs for a 30-day increase in time between first dose and first serology, and between the two serologies, were 1.08 (95% CI 1.07-1.10) and 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05), respectively. The first measurement was a strong predictor of subsequent antibody decrease (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.56-1.64). Compared with Comirnaty, Spikevax (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.92) and mixed vaccines (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51-0.74) were smaller decrease in serological level (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.40-0.54).

Conclusions

Age, COVID-19 infection, number of doses, time between first dose and first serology, time between serologies, and type of vaccine were associated with differences between the two serologic measurements within a 13-month period.

COVID-19 vaccines adverse events: potential molecular mechanisms

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by a single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) virus, known as SARS-CoV-2. The disease, since its first outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, has led to a global pandemic. The pharmaceutical industry has developed several vaccines, of different vector technologies, against the virus. Of note, among these vaccines, seven have been fully approved by WHO. However, despite the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination, some rare adverse effects have been reported and have been associated with the use of the vaccines developed against SARS-CoV-2, especially those based on mRNA and non-replicating viral vector technology. Rare adverse events reported include allergic and anaphylactic reactions, thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, Bell's palsy, transient myelitis, Guillen-Barre syndrome, recurrences of herpes-zoster, autoimmunity flares, epilepsy, and tachycardia. In this review, we discuss the potential molecular mechanisms leading to these rare adverse events of interest and we also attempt an association with the various vaccine components and platforms. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms, according to which the vaccines cause side effects, in conjunction with the identification of the vaccine components and/or platforms that are responsible for these reactions, in terms of pharmacovigilance, could probably enable the improvement of future vaccines against COVID-19 and/or even other pathological conditions.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous immunization schedules with COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Data on the immunogenicity and safety of heterologous immunization schedules are inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous immunization schedules.

METHODS

Multiple databases with relevant studies were searched with an end date of October 31, 2021, and a website including a series of Coronavirus disease 2019 studies was examined for studies before March 31, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different heterologous and homologous regimens among adults that reported immunogenicity and safety outcomes were reviewed. Primary outcomes included neutralizing antibodies against the original strain and serious adverse events (SAEs). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

In all, 11 RCTs were included in the systematic review, and nine were ultimately included in the NMA. Among participants who received two doses of CoronaVac, another dose of mRNA or a non-replicating viral vector vaccine resulted in a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than a third CoronaVac 600 sino unit (SU); a dose of BNT162b2 induced the highest geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 15.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.53-24.39. Following one dose of BNT162b2 vaccination, a dose of mRNA-1273 generated a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than BNT162b2 alone (GMR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.06-1.64), NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.16-2.21), or ChAdOx1 (GMR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.25-2.59). Following one dose of ChAdOx1, a dose of mRNA-1273 was also more effective for improving antibody levels than ChAdOx1 (GMR = 11.09; 95% CI: 8.36-14.71) or NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 2.87; 95% CI: 1.08-3.91). No significant difference in the risk for SAEs was found in any comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to vaccination with two doses of CoronaVac, a dose of BNT162b2 as a booster substantially enhances immunogenicity reactions and has a relatively acceptable risk for SAEs relative to other vaccines. For primary vaccination, schedules including mRNA vaccines induce a greater immune response. However, the comparatively higher risk for local and systemic adverse events introduced by mRNA vaccines should be noted.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; No. CRD42021278149.

An evaluation of the safety and immunogenicity of MVC-COV1901: Results of an interim analysis of a phase III, parallel group, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled immunobridging study in Paraguay

BACKGROUND

Data from previous studies of the MVC-COV1901 vaccine, a subunit vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 based on the stable prefusion spike protein (S-2P) adjuvanted with CpG 1018 adjuvant and aluminum hydroxide, suggest that the vaccine is generally safe and elicits a good immune response in healthy adults and adolescents. By comparing with AZD1222, this study adds to the findings from previous trials and further evaluates the breadth of protection offered by MVC-COV1901.

METHODS

In this phase 3, parallel group, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial conducted in 2 sites in Paraguay, we assigned adults aged 18-91 years in a 1:1 ratio to receive intramuscular doses of MVC-COV1901 or AZD1222 administered as scheduled in the clinical trial. Serum samples were collected on the day of vaccination and 14 days after the second dose. Primary and secondary safety and immunogenicity endpoints were assessed. In addition, other outcomes investigated were cross-reactive immunity against the Omicron strain and the induction of IgG subclasses.

RESULTS

A total of 1,030 participants underwent randomization. Safety data was derived from this set while primary immunogenicity data involved a per-protocol immunogenicity (PPI) subset including 225 participants. Among the participants, 58% are seropositive at baseline. When compared against AZD1222, MVC-COV1901 exhibited superiority in terms of neutralizing antibody titers and non-inferiority in terms of seroconversion rates. Reactogenicity was generally mild and no serious adverse event was attributable to MVC-COV1901. Both vaccines have a Th1-biased response predominated by the production of IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses. Omicron-neutralizing titers were 44.5 times lower compared to wildtype-neutralizing titers among seronegative individuals at baseline. This fold-reduction was 3.0 times among the seropositive.

CONCLUSION

Safety and immunogenicity data of MVC-COV1901 from the study in Paraguay confirm previous results. The previous infection coupled with vaccination of this vaccine may offer protection against the Omicron strain though its durability is still unknown.

Antibody response to different COVID-19 vaccines among the migrant workers of Bangladesh

Background

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, various host countries such as Singapore, imposed entry requirements for migrant workers including pre-departure COVID-19 seroconversion proof. To combat COVID-19 worldwide, several vaccines have acquired conditional approval. This study sought to assess antibody levels after immunization with different COVID-19 vaccines among the migrant workers of Bangladesh.

Methods

Venous blood samples were collected from migrant workers who were vaccinated with different COVID-19 vaccines (n=675). Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) and nucleocapsid protein (N) were determined using Roche Elecsys^® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S and N immunoassay, respectively.

Results

All participants receiving COVID-19 vaccines showed antibodies to S-protein, while 91.36% were positive for N-specific antibodies. The highest anti-S antibody titers were found among the workers who completed booster doses (13327 U/mL), received mRNA vaccines Moderna/Spikevax (9459 U/mL) or Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty (9181 U/mL), and reported SARS-CoV-2 infection in the last six months (8849 U/mL). The median anti-S antibody titers in the first month since the last vaccination was 8184 U/mL, which declined to 5094 U/mL at the end of six months. A strong correlation of anti-S antibodies was found with past SARS-CoV-2 infection (p < 0.001) and the type of vaccines received (p <0.001) in the workers.Conclusion: Bangladeshi migrant workers receiving booster doses of vaccine, vaccinated with mRNA vaccines, and having past SARS-CoV-2 infection, mounted higher antibody responses. However, antibody levels waned with time. These findings suggest a need for further booster doses, preferably with mRNA vaccines for migrant workers before reaching host countries.

The humoral immune response more than one year after SARS-CoV-2 infection: low detection rate of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies via Euroimmun ELISA

PURPOSE

Antibody assays against SARS-CoV-2 are used in sero-epidemiological studies to estimate the proportion of a population with past infection. IgG antibodies against the spike protein (S-IgG) allow no distinction between infection and vaccination. We evaluated the role of anti-nucleocapsid-IgG (N-IgG) to identify individuals with infection more than one year past infection.

METHODS

S- and N-IgG were determined using the Euroimmun enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in two groups: a randomly selected sample from the population of Stuttgart, Germany, and individuals with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were five years or older. Demographics and comorbidities were registered from participants above 17 years.

RESULTS

Between June 15, 2021 and July 14, 2021, 454 individuals from the random sample participated, as well as 217 individuals with past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mean time from positive PCR test result to antibody testing was 458.7 days (standard deviation 14.6 days) in the past infection group. In unvaccinated individuals, the seroconversion rate for S-IgG was 25.5% in the random sample and 75% in the past infection group (P = < 0.001). In vaccinated individuals, the mean signal ratios for S-IgG were higher in individuals with prior infection (6.9 vs 11.2; P = < 0.001). N-IgG were only detectable in 17.1% of participants with past infection. Predictors for detectable N-IgG were older age, male sex, fever, wheezing and in-hospital treatment for COVID-19 and cardiovascular comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

N-IgG is not a reliable marker for SARS-CoV-2 infection after more than one year. In future, other diagnostic tests are needed to identify individuals with past natural infection.

Psychological treatment of traumatic memories in COVID-19 survivors

The COVID-19 pandemic, which has affected a significant number of individuals worldwide, is generating serious mental health issues. Recovered COVID-19 patients have experienced traumatic events related to their symptoms, isolation, possible hospitalization, bereavement, fear of infecting loved ones and the physical consequences of COVID-19. One effective psychological treatment for these patients is Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). The aim of this paper is to describe the therapeutic intervention and effects of EMDR in a pool of COVID-19 survivors referred to an integrated psychological/psychiatric outpatient service. Twelve patients, comprising of nine males and three females, underwent EMDR psychotherapy from October 2020 to February 2022. Each patient received 8-16 weekly treatment sessions. The standard EMDR protocol of eight stages was administered to enable desensitization and reprocessing of four main targets: first positive swab, hospitalization, isolation and fear for relatives' health. Efficacy of EMDR was demonstrated by the significant improvement at clinical scale for subjective distress caused by traumatic events. For the therapists, carrying out these treatments was an intense and challenging experience. In fact, the perceived distance between therapist and patient was less defined than in other hospital settings because the pandemic affects everyone equally. However, with the widespread availability of vaccines and although the pandemic is still ongoing with the emergence of new variants, a window of improvement in the mental health landscape is starting to open up.

Characteristics and management of multiple sclerosis patients during the Omicron era: is there a concern about the MS course in the face of the new variant of COVID-19?

INTRODUCTION

The Omicron variant of COVID-19 is highly transmissible, triggering unprecedented infection rates. The present study aimed to investigate the course of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the Omicron era among Iranian patients with MS.

METHODS

This observational study was designed on MS patients of the national MS registry of Iran through a self-designed online questionnaire. A questionnaire was prepared as a Google Form for MS patients during the Omicron outbreak from 1 March to 30 April 2022.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-four patients with a mean age of 37.3 ± 9.04 were enrolled. Of the patients, 95.97% used DMT, the most common of which were rituximab and fingolimod. Of the patients, 77.58% were fully vaccinated for COVID-19. Regardless of the COVID-19 vaccination status, 76 patients developed COVID-19, which was mild to moderate. Except for recent corticosteroid therapy and secondary progressive MS (SPMS), other demographic and MS characteristics were not significantly associated with the severity of COVID-19. There was also a marginal association between the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the severity of COVID-19. In addition, 17.10% of patients reported MS relapse following COVID-19 leading to escalation therapy in eight patients.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that in the Omicron era, most patients developed mild COVID-19. Although the predominant COVID-19 variant in this period was Omicron, we could not separate the pathogenic variants. The risk factors for COVID-19 during the Omicron era were not different from other pandemic waves. Our preliminary results revealed that the MS relapse following COVID-19 was higher than in previous waves.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To analyze the differences in efficacy and safety of different types of novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) vaccines in different age groups (young adults and elderly). Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 vaccine in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library were searched by computer, and eight eligible studies were analyzed. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 and RevMan5.4 software. Results: The mean geometric titer (GMT) of the virus in the elderly was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (SMD = 0.91, 95% CI (0.68, 1.15), p < 0.01), presenting no obvious difference compared with the young adults (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI (0.38, 0.01), p = 0.06). Meanwhile, the effect of multiple vaccinations was better than that of single vaccination (SMD = 0.83, 95% CI (0.33, 1.34), p < 0.01). However, the number of adverse events (AEs) in the elderly was lower than that in the young adults (OR = 0.35, 95% CI (0.29, 0.42), p < 0.01). Conclusions: The immunization effect of COVID-19 vaccine in the elderly is obvious, especially after multiple vaccinations, and the incidence of AEs in the elderly is low, which proves that the vaccination of the elderly is safe and effective.

The clinical characteristics and risk factors for severe COVID-19 in patients with COVID-19 and tuberculosis coinfection

Background

Under the wave of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant Omicron epidemic, the number of infectious cases has increased dramatically in Jilin Province, China since March 2022.The clinical features and severity of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection in tuberculosis (TB) patients are not yet clear.

Methods

Data were obtained from 153 patients with the Omicron variant and TB coinfection and 153 non-TB COVID-19 patients who had been hospitalized at Changchun Infectious Disease Hospital from March to June 2022.

Results

Among these coinfection patients, 17 patients showed COVID-19-related pneumonia on chest imaging and 11 were diagnosed with severe COVID-19. The median duration of SARS-CoV-2 clearance was 13 days. The negative conversion time was associated with age, COVID-19-related pneumonia and antibody IgG. A higher white blood cell count, a lower lymphocyte percentage, a higher CRP level, and a higher D-dimer level were found in the severe group. Age and increased PCT were individual risk factors for the severity of COVID-19. Compared with the non-TB patients, the coinfection patients had higher severity of COVID-19 and the elder coinfection patients had a longer negative conversion time.

Conclusion

This study found an association between age, pneumonia, antibody IgG and RNA negative conversion time in COVID-19 and TB coinfection patients, and age and increased PCT were risk factors for the severity of COVID-19.

Spontaneous intramedullary hematoma following COVID-19 vaccination: A case report

A 67-year-old female was hospitalized due to right-sided hemiparesis and neck pain with rapid deterioration to a deep coma. She had received the Sinopharm vaccine 2 days earlier. MRI showed extensive cervicothoracic hematomyelia. She received intensive medical care for 2 months and was discharged. An 18-month follow-up showed significant neurological recovery.

Seroconversion rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with solid cancer have an increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the currently available evidence about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with solid cancer. We included prospective studies comparing the immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines between patients with solid cancer and healthy individuals. Relative risks of seroconversion after the first and second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were separately pooled with the use of random effects meta-analysis. Thirty studies with 11,245 subjects met the inclusion criteria. After first vaccine dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy individuals was 0.54 (95% CI 0.38-0.78, I² = 94%). After a second dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy controls was 0.87 (0.86-0.88, I² = 87%). Our review suggests that, compared with healthy individuals, COVID-19 vaccines show favorable immunogenicity and efficacy in patients with solid cancer. A second dose is associated with significantly improved seroconversion, although it is slightly lower in patients with solid cancer compared with healthy individuals.

Metabolic syndrome and aberrant immune responses to viral infection and vaccination: Insights from small animal models

This review outlines the propensity for metabolic syndrome (MetS) to induce elevated disease severity, higher mortality rates post-infection, and poor vaccination outcomes for viral pathogens. MetS is a cluster of conditions including high blood glucose, an increase in circulating low-density lipoproteins and triglycerides, abdominal obesity, and elevated blood pressure which often overlap in their occurrence. MetS diagnoses are on the rise, as reported cases have increased by greater than 35% since 1988, resulting in one-third of United States adults currently diagnosed as MetS patients. In the aftermath of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, a link between MetS and disease severity was established. Since then, numerous studies have been conducted to illuminate the impact of MetS on enhancing virally induced morbidity and dysregulation of the host immune response. These correlative studies have emphasized the need for elucidating the mechanisms by which these alterations occur, and animal studies conducted as early as the 1940s have linked the conditions associated with MetS with enhanced viral disease severity and poor vaccine outcomes. In this review, we provide an overview of the importance of considering overall metabolic health in terms of cholesterolemia, glycemia, triglyceridemia, insulin and other metabolic molecules, along with blood pressure levels and obesity when studying the impact of metabolism-related malignancies on immune function. We highlight the novel insights that small animal models have provided for MetS-associated immune dysfunction following viral infection. Such animal models of aberrant metabolism have paved the way for our current understanding of MetS and its impact on viral disease severity, dysregulated immune responses to viral pathogens, poor vaccination outcomes, and contributions to the emergence of viral variants.

Prevalence and Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance in South East Asia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1,166,275 Respondents

Despite its importance in guiding public health decisions, studies on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and its determinants in South East Asia (SEA) are lacking. Therefore, this study aims to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and the variables influencing the vaccine's acceptance. This review is registered under PROSPERO CRD42022352198. We included studies that reported vaccination acceptance from all SEA countries, utilising five academic databases (Pubmed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar), three Indonesian databases (the Indonesian Scientific Journal Database, Neliti, and Indonesia One Search), two pre-print databases (MedRxiv and BioRxiv), and two Thailand databases (ThaiJo and Thai-Journal Citation Index). The analysis was conducted using STATA 17.0 with metaprop commands. The prevalence for COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in SEA was 71% (95%CI 69-74; I2 99.87%, PI: 68.6-73.5). Myanmar achieved the highest COVID-19 vaccination acceptance prevalence, with 86% (95%CI 84-89), followed by Vietnam with 82% (95% CI 79-85; I2 99.04%) and Malaysia with 78% (95%CI 72-84; I2 99.88%). None of the ten determinants studied (age, sex, education, previous COVID-19 infections, smoking and marriage status, health insurance, living together, chronic diseases, and healthcare workers) were significantly associated with acceptance. This result will be useful in guiding vaccination uptake in SEA.

Immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Available data show that COVID-19 vaccines may be less effective in people living with HIV (PLWH) who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in PLWH with healthy individuals.

Methods

Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Risk ratios of seroconversion were separately pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, and a systematic review without meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibody titer levels was performed after the first and second doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Results

A total of 22 studies with 6522 subjects met the inclusion criteria. After the first vaccine dose, seroconversion in PLWH was comparable to that in healthy individuals. After a second dose, seroconversion was slightly lower in PLWH compared with healthy controls, and antibody titers did not seem to be significantly affected or reduced among participants of both groups.

Conclusion

COVID-19 vaccines show favorable immunogenicity and efficacy in PLWH. A second dose is associated with consistently improved seroconversion, although it is slightly lower in PLWH than in healthy individuals. Additional strategies, such as a booster vaccination with messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines, might improve seroprotection for these patients.

COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy (VBH) among Healthcare Professionals of Pakistan, a Nationwide Survey

Background: The waning vaccine immunity and emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2 led health authorities across the globe to administer booster doses (BDs) of the COVID-19 vaccine. Hence, the current study aimed to assess the COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy (VBH) amongst Pakistani healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: A nationwide survey-based study was carried out from April 2022 to May 2022. The online self-administered questionnaire was utilized to collect data regarding demographics (age, gender, marital status, profession, residential area, and province), COVID-19 infection history (infection history, onset, and clinical severity of disease), previous COVID-19 vaccination (type of vaccination and the number of doses), attitudes towards BDs (acceptance, rejection, and hesitancy), and psychological drivers of VBH (perceived effectiveness, vaccine safety, risk/benefit ratio, and vaccine type preference). We assessed the association between the dependent variable attitudes of study participants, regarding BDs and independent variables (demographics, COVID-19 infection history, previous COVID-19 vaccination, and psychological drivers of VBH), by using the Chi-square test/Fisher exact test. Results: Among the 1164 study participants, 51.4% were male, and 80.4% were medical professionals. The half of study participants (52.1%) agreed to take the COVID-19 vaccine BD or had already taken it, while the rest of them refused (34.7%) or hesitated (24.2%) to take it. These attitudes of the participants were significantly associated (p < 0.001) with psychological divers about the COVID-19 vaccine BD. Conclusion: This study revealed that Pakistani HCPs hesitant to take the COVID-19 vaccine BD had concerns about the safety, efficacy, and risk/benefits ratio of the vaccine’s BD. To eliminate the hesitancy, regarding BD in HCPs, certain educational strategies should be implemented by health authorities to address the concerns of HCPs.

Life-Space Mobility and Objectively Measured Movement Behavior in Older Adults with Hypertension after Receiving COVID-19 Vaccination

This study examined the changes in life-space (LS) mobility and objectively measured movement behavior in older adults with hypertension after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine and their associations with housing type. A total of 32 participants were included in this exploratory longitudinal study with a 1-year follow-up. LS mobility and accelerometer-based physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) were assessed before and ~2 months after receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Participants residing in apartment/row housing showed an increase in LS mobility composite score (β = 14, p < 0.05). In addition, they showed an increase in light PA on weekdays and the weekend (β = 3.5%; β = 6.5%; p < 0.05) and a decrease in SB on weekdays and the weekend (β = -3.7%; β = -6.6%; p < 0.05). Furthermore, changes in SB pattern were found (less time spent in bouts of ≥10 and 30 min, more breaks/day and breaks/hour). Significant associations were found between changes in LS mobility composite score and PA (positive association) and SB (negative association) in older adults residing in apartment/row housing (p < 0.05). Older adults with hypertension, particularly those who resided in houses with limited outdoor space (apartment/row housing), showed positive changes in LS mobility and objectively measured movement behavior in a period after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine and characterized by social distancing policies without mobility restrictions when compared with the period of social distancing policies with high mobility restrictions and without vaccine.

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Older adults are more susceptible to severe health outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Universal vaccination has become a trend, but there are still doubts and research gaps regarding the COVID-19 vaccination in the elderly. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older people aged ≥ 55 years and their influencing factors.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials from inception to April 9, 2022, were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We estimated summary relative risk (RR), rates, or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects meta-analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314456).

Results

Of the 32 eligible studies, 9, 21, and 25 were analyzed for efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively. In older adults, vaccination was efficacious against COVID-19 (79.49%, 95% CI: 60.55−89.34), with excellent seroconversion rate (92.64%, 95% CI: 86.77−96.91) and geometric mean titer (GMT) (SMD 3.56, 95% CI: 2.80−4.31) of neutralizing antibodies, and provided a significant protection rate against severe disease (87.01%, 50.80−96.57). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses consistently found vaccine types and the number of doses to be primary influencing factors for efficacy and immunogenicity. Specifically, mRNA vaccines showed the best efficacy (90.72%, 95% CI: 86.82−93.46), consistent with its highest seroconversion rate (98.52%, 95% CI: 93.45−99.98) and GMT (SMD 6.20, 95% CI: 2.02−10.39). Compared to the control groups, vaccination significantly increased the incidence of total adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.59, 95% CI: 1.38−1.83), including most local and systemic AEs, such as pain, fever, chill, etc. For inactivated and DNA vaccines, the incidence of any AEs was similar between vaccination and control groups (p &gt; 0.1), while mRNA vaccines had the highest risk of most AEs (RR range from 1.74 to 7.22).

Conclusion

COVID-19 vaccines showed acceptable efficacy, immunogenicity and safety in older people, especially providing a high protection rate against severe disease. The mRNA vaccine was the most efficacious, but it is worth surveillance for some AEs it caused. Increased booster coverage in older adults is warranted, and additional studies are urgently required for longer follow-up periods and variant strains.

Comparison of the Immune Responses to COVID-19 Vaccines in Bangladeshi Population

Background: The adaptive immune response is a crucial component of the protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2, generated after infection or vaccination. Methods: We studied antibody titers, neutralizing antibodies and cellular immune responses to four different COVID-19 vaccines, namely Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna Spikevax, AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccines in the Bangladeshi population (n = 1780). Results: mRNA vaccines Moderna (14,655 ± 11.3) and Pfizer (13,772 ± 11.5) elicited significantly higher anti-Spike (S) antibody titers compared to the Adenovector vaccine AstraZeneca (2443 ± 12.8) and inactivated vaccine Sinopharm (1150 ± 11.2). SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibodies as well as IFN-γ-secreting lymphocytes were more abundant in Pfizer and Moderna vaccine recipients compared to AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccine recipients. Participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 exhibited higher post-vaccine immune responses (S-specific and neutralizing antibodies, IFN-γ-secreting cells) compared to uninfected participants. Memory B (B_MEM), total CD8⁺T, CD4⁺ central memory (CD4⁺_CM) and T-regulatory (T_REG) cells were more numerous in AstraZeneca vaccine recipients compared to other vaccine recipients. Plasmablasts, B-regulatory (B_REG) and CD4⁺ effector (CD4⁺_EFF) cells were more numerous in mRNA vaccine recipients. Conclusions: mRNA vaccines generated a higher antibody response, while a differential cellular response was observed for different vaccine types, suggesting that both cellular and humoral responses are important in immune monitoring of different types of vaccines.

Age and product dependent vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation among adults in Norway: a national cohort study, July-November 2021

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccines have been crucial in the pandemic response and understanding changes in vaccines effectiveness is essential to guide vaccine policies. Although the Delta variant is no longer dominant, understanding vaccine effectiveness properties will provide essential knowledge to comprehend the development of the pandemic and estimate potential changes over time.

METHODS

In this population-based cohort study, we estimated the vaccine effectiveness of Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech; BNT162b2), Spikevax (Moderna; mRNA-1273), Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca; ChAdOx nCoV-19; AZD1222), or a combination against SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalisations, intensive care admissions, and death using Cox proportional hazard models, across different vaccine product regimens and age groups, between 15 July and 31 November 2021 (Delta variant period). Vaccine status is included as a time-varying covariate and all models were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, county of residence, country of birth, and living conditions. Data from the entire adult Norwegian population were collated from the National Preparedness Register for COVID-19 (Beredt C19).

RESULTS

The overall adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased from 81.3% (confidence interval (CI): 80.7 to 81.9) in the first 2 to 9 weeks after receiving a second dose to 8.6% (CI: 4.0 to 13.1) after more than 33 weeks, compared to 98.6% (CI: 97.5 to 99.2) and 66.6% (CI: 57.9 to 73.6) against hospitalisation respectively. After the third dose (booster), the effectiveness was 75.9% (CI: 73.4 to 78.1) against infection and 95.0% (CI: 92.6 to 96.6) against hospitalisation. Spikevax or a combination of mRNA products provided the highest protection, but the vaccine effectiveness decreased with time since vaccination for all vaccine regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though the vaccine effectiveness against infection waned over time, all vaccine regimens remained effective against hospitalisation after the second vaccine dose. For all vaccine regimens, a booster facilitated recovery of effectiveness. The results from this support the use of heterologous schedules, increasing flexibility in vaccination policy.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in androgen sensitive phenotypes – A study on associated factors for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and its adverse effects among androgenetic alopecia and benign prostate hyperplasia patients

Background

Androgen sensitivity, which was established as the leading etiology of androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), plays an important role in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccination is essential for AGA and BPH patients in view of the high risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Purpose

We aimed to investigate the associated factors for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and its side effects in populations with AGA and BPH.

Method

We collected the data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and adverse reactions of male AGA and BPH patients visited the outpatient of Xiangya hospital by telephone and web-based questionnaires. Vaccination rate and adverse reactions were compared by different vaccine types and use of anti-androgen therapy.

Result

A total of 457 AGA patients and 397 BPH patients were recruited in this study. Among which, 92.8% AGA patients and 61.0% BPH patients had at least the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (p &lt; 0.001). Having comorbidities and use of anti-androgen therapy increased the risk of un-vaccination among AGA by 2.875 and 3.729 times, respectively (p &lt; 0.001). Around 31.1% AGA patients and 9.5% BPH patients presented adverse reactions, which were mostly mild. Anti-androgen therapy increased the inclination of injection site pain after vaccination (18.7% vs 11.9%; OR: 1.708, 95% CI: 1.088-2.683, p = 0.019).

Conclusion

Co-existence of other systemic diseases and anti-androgen therapy were the limiting factors for SARS-CoV-2 unvaccination, especially in AGA patients. The importance of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines should be strengthened and popularized in androgen sensitive phenotypes.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several vaccines showed a good safety profile and significant efficacy against COVID-19. Moreover, in the absence of direct head to head comparison between COVID-19 vaccines, a network meta-analysis that indirectly compares between them is needed.

METHODS

Databases PubMed, CENTRAL, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Studies were included if they were placebo-controlled clinical trials and reported the safety profile and/or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for nonrandomized trials.

RESULTS

Forty-nine clinical trials that included 421,173 participants and assessed 28 vaccines were included in this network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that Pfizer is the most effective in preventing COVID-19 infection whereas the Sputnik Vaccine was the most effective in preventing severe COVID-19 infection. In terms of the local and systemic side, the Sinopharm and V-01 vaccines were the safest.

CONCLUSION

We found that almost all of the vaccines included in this study crossed the threshold of 50% efficacy. However, some of them did not reach the previously mentioned threshold against the B.1.351 variant while the remainder have not yet investigated vaccine efficacy against this variant. Since each vaccine has its own strong and weak points, we strongly advocate continued vaccination efforts in individualized manner that recommend the best vaccine for each group in the community which is abundantly required to save lives and to avert the emergence of future variants.

Multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies and COVID-19 vaccines: a practical review and meta-analysis

Studies among people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) receiving disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) have provided adequate evidence for an appraisal of COVID-19 vaccination policies among them. To synthesise the available evidence addressing the effect of MS DMTs on COVID-19 vaccines' immunogenicity and effectiveness, following the Cochrane guidelines, we systematically reviewed all observational studies available in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, MedRxiv and Google Scholar from January 2021 to January 2022 and extracted their relevant data. Immunogenicity data were then synthesised in a quantitative, and other data in a qualitative manner. Evidence from 28 studies suggests extensively lower B-cell responses in sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator (S1PRM) treated and anti-CD20 (aCD20) treated, and lower T-cell responses in interferon-treated, S1PRM-treated and cladribine-treated pwMS-although most T cell evidence currently comprises of low or very low certainty. With every 10-week increase in aCD20-to-vaccine period, a 1.94-fold (95% CI 1.57 to 2.41, p<0.00001) increase in the odds of seroconversion was observed. Furthermore, the evidence points out that B-cell-depleting therapies may accelerate postvaccination humoral waning, and boosters' immunogenicity is predictable with the same factors affecting the initial vaccination cycle. Four real-world studies further indicate that the comparative incidence/severity of breakthrough COVID-19 has been higher among the pwMS treated with S1PRM and aCD20-unlike the ones treated with other DMTs. S1PRM and aCD20 therapies were the only DMTs reducing the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination among pwMS. Hence, it could be concluded that optimisation of humoral immunogenicity and ensuring its durability are the necessities of an effective COVID-19 vaccination policy among pwMS who receive DMTs.

Vaccination Is Associated With Shorter Time to Target Cycle Threshold Value in Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant

Background

Limited data are available on the responses to vaccination for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant in the Chinese population. This study aimed to investigate whether vaccination could alter the disease course of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

Methods

A retrospective cohort included 142 patients who had no or mild symptoms and were admitted to our department for centralized isolation after being locally infected with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant from March 4 to 30, 2022, in Shanghai, China.

Results

Of the 142 subjects with the mean age of 43.1 years, 53.5% were male and 90.8% had been vaccinated before the infection. Comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated patients, there was no difference in patient characteristics, but patients with vaccination had shorter time to target cycle threshold value (TtCT) (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, 12.6 ± 3.4 vs. 14.8 ± 4.7 days, P = 0.039). There was no difference in TtCT between heterogeneous and homologous vaccination. Of subjects with homologous vaccination, 43.1% were vaccinated with CoronaVac (Sinovac Life Science), 47.2% with Sinopharm BBIBP-CorV, 4.9% with Sinopharm WIBP, 3.3% with CanSinoBio, and 1.6% with Zhifei Longcom. No difference in TtCT was observed among different vaccines. Comparing two-dose primary vaccination with three-dose booster vaccination, we found no difference in TtCT either.

Conclusion

Vaccination is associated with shorter TtCT in patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

Analysis of Immunization, Adverse Events, and Efficacy of a Fourth Dose of BNT162b2 Vaccine in Health Workers in Mexico, a Pilot Study

There is scarce information on seroconversion and adverse events after immunization (AEFI) with the fourth dose of BNT162b2. Our aim was to correlate the magnitude of the antibody response to this vaccination regimen in terms of clinical conditions and AEFI. This was an observational pilot study in which SARS-CoV-2 S1−S2 IgG antibodies titers were measured 21−28 days after the first and second dose, three months after the second dose, 1−7 and 21−28 days after the third dose, before the fourth dose, and 21−28 days after the fourth dose. We recruited 112 subjects in a hospital in Mexico, 74% women, with an average age of 43 (SD 9) years. After the first dose, subjects had a median IgG AU/mL (IQR) of 122 (1904) that increased to 1875 (2095), 3020 (2330), and 4230 (3393) 21−28 days after the second, third, and fourth doses, respectively (p < 0.01). The number (%) who experienced any AEFI between the first and fourth doses was 90 (80.4), 89 (79), 65 (58), and 69 (61.5), respectively (p < 0.001). After the fourth dose, the most frequent of AEFI was pain at the injection site (87%). There was a correlation between AEFI and gender after the fourth dose, as well as with antibody levels (p < 0.05). During the Omicron outbreak, six (5.3%) had mild COVID-19 for 8−28 days after the fourth dose. The median increase in S1/S2 IgG was 30.8-fold after the fourth BNT162b2 dose when compared with the first dose and caused mild AEFI.