Comparison of Adverse Effects of Two SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Administered in Workers of the University of Padova

Reported side-effects following Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in the north-west province, Iran: A cross-sectional study

While the vaccination was introduced as a promising tool to control the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, concerns about vaccine-related side effects had grown. Due to the widespread administration of the COVID-19 vaccine worldwide for the first time, it was necessary to evaluate the safety and potential side effects in recipients. This study aims to assess, the incidence of adverse effects following Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccination and identify their related factors. In this cross-sectional survey-based study, 453 volunteers participated, including 235 men and 218 women. The reported adverse reactions from recipients of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccine were collected by using a questionnaire. The findings showed that the incidence of adverse reactions, such as neurological, systematic, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and local symptoms were significantly higher after the first dose compared to the second dose. Systematic symptoms were the most prevalent reported side effects after the first and second dose injection. The demographical study of participants showed that individuals aged 18-34 and females were more prone to present adverse events following vaccination. However, no significant relationship was found between the occurrence of side effects and the recipients' body mass index. Despite the life-saving role of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, it may have some adverse reactions in recipients. The severity and frequency of side effects were different. So, they were dependent on several factors, including gender and age. Altogether, post-vaccination adverse reactions were mild and tolerable.

COVID-19 Antibody Seroconversion in Cancer Patients: Impact of Therapy Cessation-A Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

The effective development of COVID-19 vaccination has mitigated its harm. Using two laboratory methods, we investigated the efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA and BBIBP-CorV COVID-19 vaccines on seroconversion rates in cancer patients undergoing active cancer treatment.

METHODS

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were scheduled for 134 individuals. The consenting participants submitted three venous blood samples. Three samples: T0, T1, and T2. The ABBOTT-SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant and Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays were used to evaluate the samples and convert the antibody titers to WHO (BAU)/mL units.

RESULTS

Cancer patients exhibited a higher seroconversion rate at T2, regardless of vaccination type, and the mean antibody titers at T1 and T2 were higher than those at T0. BBIBP-CorV patients required a booster because BNT162b2 showed a higher seroconversion rate between T0 and T1. Statistics indicate that comparing Abbott and Roche quantitative antibody results without considering the sample collection time is inaccurate.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccines can still induce a humoral immune response in patients undergoing cancer-targeted therapy. The strength of this study is the long-term monitoring of antibody levels after vaccination in cancer patients on active therapy using two different immunoassays. Further multicenter studies with a larger number of patients are required to validate these findings.