Impact of media coverage on side effect reports from the COVID-19 vaccine

COVID-19 Vaccines and Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: The Impact of Media Attention on Reporting to EudraVigilance

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, over 34,000 reports of heavy menstrual bleeding following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines originating in the Economic European Area were submitted to EudraVigilance, the European Union database of suspected adverse drug reactions. More than 90% of these reports were sent by consumers while the remaining by healthcare professionals. Public concerns regarding menstruation disorders in COVID-19 vaccinees were also covered by the media. We investigated the impact of media attention on the reporting trends of heavy menstrual bleeding to EudraVigilance.

METHODS

We used media outlets published in the Economic European Area on menstrual disorders and COVID-19 vaccines from the beginning of the vaccination campaign in the Economic European Area (1 January, 2021) until December 2022 (i.e., after the regulatory request to add the adverse event to the product information) and spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance.

RESULTS

We found that the publication of safety updates from regulatory authorities and subsequent coverage in media outlets preceded increased reporting to EudraVigilance. Furthermore, the heavy menstrual bleeding reported in the cases occurred several weeks or months earlier and were not submitted to the respective date. The analysis suggests that the spikes in reporting of heavy menstrual bleeding were to some extent influenced by media coverage in some countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Consumer reporting to the European Union spontaneous data collection system, EudraVigilance, was of high value for regulatory safety reviews, albeit the reporting behaviours were not free of the influence of the media. These sources of information can be investigated to understand the context of safety concerns of public health interest.

Translating knowledge on placebo and nocebo effects into clinical practice

Introduction

Positive and negative treatment expectations are powerful modulators of health and treatment outcomes. A substantial part of treatment success is due to contextual factors modulating patient's expectations towards a treatment. Consequently, treatment expectations should be a target of therapeutic interventions themselves.

Objectives

This article highlights the neurobiological underpinnings of treatment expectations as well as strategies to modulate contextual factors to optimize treatment outcomes in daily clinical settings.

Methods

This clinical update aligns with the 2022 IASP Global Year Translating Pain Knowledge into Practice and selectively reviews the best available evidence and practice.

Results

The effects of treatment expectations, also known as placebo and nocebo effects, are observed in various clinical conditions and physiological systems. However, most of our knowledge comes from the field of pain, where expectation effects substantially contribute to overall analgesic treatment outcomes. Experimental placebo analgesia paradigms provide the best illustration of how analgesic effects can be attributed not only to a pharmacological or specific treatment, but instead are the result of the expectation towards the treatment. The impact of expectations on treatment outcome is highly variable between individuals, and the identification of factors predicting an individual's response has proven to be challenging. Further research is required to provide personalized treatment strategies for the daily clinical practice.

Conclusion

Patient's previous experiences and expectations are powerful modulators of treatment efficacy, tolerability, and adherence. By providing a comprehensive overview of recent advances in this field, this review offers valuable insights for clinicians and researchers seeking to improve patient-clinician interaction.

Head CT Scans in the Emergency Department during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Use or Overuse?

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic seemed to mainly involve the respiratory system, but it was realized that it could affect any organ, including the CNS. The pandemic has followed a wave-like trend, with its peaks being due to the COVID-19 different variants and the introduction of the vaccine, which led to an apparent reduction in hospitalizations but also brought about perplexities related to its adverse effects. The aim of this study was to analyze the changes in the use of head CT/contrast CT and their impacts on the onset of cerebrovascular disease in our emergency department during the COVID-19 period and the vaccine rollout.

METHODS

Patients ≥ 18 years old admitted to our emergency department from January 2018 to September 2021 were enrolled. The patients were divided into three groups. The COVID-19 period included patients who visited our emergency department from 1 March 2020 to 31 January 2021; the vaccine period was considered to range from 1 February 2021 to 30 September 2021. The patients who visited the emergency department from 1 January 2018 to 31 January 2020 were considered the controls.

RESULTS

We found an increase in head CT/contrast CT requests during the COVID-19 period and increase in head contrast CT during the vaccine period, without an increase in the incidence of cerebrovascular disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The uncertainty regarding the possible thrombotic events associated with COVID-19 and its vaccine increased the relative use of head CT/contrast CT by about 20% compared to the control period.

Political orientation of online media sources and reporting of Covid-19 vaccine myocarditis

BACKGROUND

Political orientation may play a formative role in perceptions of risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination including vaccine myocarditis (CVM). Whether political alignment of news sources plays a role in perception of this risk is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the relationship between political orientation of online media sites and aspects of reporting of CVM.

METHODS

Media sites were classified as "left" or "right" biased using the Allsides media bias rating report. For each site "COVID vaccine myocarditis" was searched in articles posted May 2021 to December 2022. Each search return was reviewed for the following: 1) Did it contain numerical data regarding CVM risk? 2) Did it report benefits of covid vaccination? 3) Did it mention covid infection-related myocarditis? Monthly reports of vaccine-related adverse events were obtained from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

RESULTS

A total of 487 online reports regarding CVM were reviewed. Comparison of monthly report volumes from left vs. right biased media sources demonstrated significant correlation (r = 0.546, p = 0.013). Additionally monthly reporting of CVM was temporally related to monthly volume of VAERS reporting (r = 0.519, p = 0.023). These data suggest that monthly reporting volumes were driven by availability of information regarding CVM rather than media political alignment. Left biased media sources were significantly more likely to include numerical CVM data vs. right biased sources (76.6% vs. 24.3%, p<0.001) and likewise were more likely to include data supporting benefits of covid vaccination (85.1% vs. 21.7%. p<0.001). In contrast, there was no difference regarding mention of COVID-19 infection-related myocarditis (24.5% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.957).

CONCLUSION

Political orientation of online news sites was not associated with frequency of CVM reports but was related to report content, most notably whether reports included numerical data regarding CVM risk. These differential reporting characteristics may contribute to the relationship between political orientation and patient conceptualization of risk of CVM.

Health Scares: Tracing Their Nature, Growth and Spread

Background

Health scares are highly publicised threats to health that increase public concern and protective behaviours but are later shown to be unfounded. Although health scares have become more common in recent times, they have received very little research attention. This is despite the fact that health scares often have negative outcomes for individuals and community by affecting health behaviours and causing high levels of often unnecessary anxiety.

Method

In this paper we undertook a review and analysis of the major types of health scares as well as the background factors associated with health scares and their spread.

Results

We found most health scares fell into seven main categories; environmental contaminants, food, malicious incidents, medical treatments, public health interventions, radiation from technology and exotic diseases. For most health scares there are important background factors and incident characteristics that affect how they develop. Background factors include conspiracy theories, trust in governmental agencies, anxiety, modern health worries and wariness of chemicals. Incident characteristic include being newly developed, not understood or unseen, man-made rather than natural and whether the incident is out of personal control. We also identified the aspects of traditional and social media that exacerbate the rapid spread of health scares.

Conclusion

More research is needed to identify the characteristics of media stories that intensify the levels of public concern. Guidelines around the media's reporting of health incidents and potential health threats may be necessary in order to reduce levels of public anxiety and the negative public health impact of health scares.

Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

In the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple vaccines were developed. Little was known about reactogenicity and safety in comparison to established vaccines, e.g. influenza, pneumococcus, or herpes zoster. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare self-reported side effects in persons vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with the incidence of side effects in persons receiving one of the established vaccines.

METHODS

A longitudinal observational study was conducted over a total of 124 days using web-based surveys. Persons receiving either a vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 or one of the established vaccines (comparator group) were included. In the first questionnaire (short-term survey), 2 weeks after vaccination, mainly local and systemic complaints were evaluated. The long-term survey (42 days after vaccination) and follow-up survey (124 weeks after vaccination) focused on medical consultations for any reason. Multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the vaccine type (SARS-CoV-2 vs. comparator) and demographic factors.

RESULTS

In total, data from 16,636 participants were included. Self-reported reactogenicity was lowest in the comparator group (53.2%) and highest in the ChAdOx1 group (85.3%). Local reactions were reported most frequently after mRNA-1273 (73.9%) and systemic reactions mainly after vector-based vaccines (79.8%). Almost all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines showed increased odds of reporting local or systemic reactions. Approximately equal proportions of participants reported medical consultations. None in the comparator group suspected a link to vaccination, while this was true for just over one in 10 in the mRNA-1273 group. The multivariate analysis showed that people with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were not more likely to report medical consultations; patients who had received a regimen with at least one ChAdOx1 were even less likely to report medical consultations. Younger age, female gender and higher comorbidity were mostly associated with higher odds of medical consultations.

CONCLUSION

The rate of adverse reactions after established vaccinations was roughly comparable to previous studies. Two weeks after vaccination, participants in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination group reported more local and systemic local reactions than participants in the comparator group. In the further course, however, there were no higher odds of medical consultations in either of the two groups. Thus, altogether, we assume comparable safety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS-ID DRKS00025881 and DRKS-ID DRKS00025373.

Identifying and Managing Those at Risk for Vaccine-Related Allergy and Anaphylaxis

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines, the most severe of which is anaphylaxis, are uncommon events occurring in fewer than 1 in a million doses administered. These reactions are infrequently immunoglobulin E-mediated. Because they are unlikely to recur, a reaction to a single dose of a vaccine is rarely a contraindication to redosing. This narrative review article contextualizes the recent knowledge we have gained from the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic rollout of the new mRNA platform with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines within the much broader context of what is known about immediate reactions to other vaccinations of routine and global importance. We focus on what is known about evidence-based approaches to diagnosis and management and what is new in our understanding of mechanisms of immediate vaccine reactions. Specifically, we review the epidemiology of immediate hypersensitivity vaccine reactions, differential diagnosis for immune-mediated and nonimmune reaction clinical phenotypes, including how to recognize immunization stress-related responses. In addition, we highlight what is known about mechanisms and review the rare but important contribution of excipient allergies and specifically when to consider testing for them as well as other key features that contribute to safe evaluation and management.

Psychological factors associated with reporting side effects following COVID-19 vaccination: A prospective cohort study (CoVAccS - Wave 3)

OBJECTIVE

To investigate symptom reporting following the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses, attribution of symptoms to the vaccine, and factors associated with symptom reporting.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study (T1: 13-15 January 2021, T2: 4-15 October 2021). Participants were aged 18 years or older, living in the UK. Personal, clinical, and psychological factors were investigated at T1. Symptoms were reported at T2. We used logistic regression analyses to investigate associations.

RESULTS

After the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, 74.1% (95% CI 71.4% to 76.7%, n = 762/1028) of participants reported at least one injection-site symptom, while 65.0% (95% CI 62.0% to 67.9%, n = 669/1029) reported at least one other (non-injection-site) symptom. Symptom reporting was associated with being a woman and younger. After the second dose, 52.9% (95% CI 49.8% to 56.0%, n = 532/1005) of participants reported at least one injection-site symptom and 43.7% (95% CI 40.7% to 46.8%, n = 440/1006) reported at least one other (non-injection-site) symptom. Symptom reporting was associated with having reported symptoms after the first dose, having an illness that put one at higher risk of COVID-19 (non-injection-site symptoms only), and not believing that one had enough information about COVID-19 to make an informed decision about vaccination (injection-site symptoms only).

CONCLUSIONS

Women and younger people were more likely to report symptoms from vaccination. People who had reported symptoms from previous doses were also more likely to report symptoms subsequently, although symptom reporting following the second vaccine was lower than following the first vaccine. Few psychological factors were associated with symptom reporting.