Side Effects of mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccine: Nationwide Phase IV Study among Healthcare Workers in Slovakia

Safety and efficiency of COVID-19 vaccine in North Africa

Background In the absence of a specific treatment for COVID-19, preventive measures have been implemented to control this pandemic and vaccination is one of them. However, it is crucial to verify the safety and efficiency of every vaccine. The aim was to determinate the predictive factors of side effects and reinfection after COVID-19 vaccine. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in February 2022 among Tunisians infected with COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2022, using an online self-administered questionnaire. We conducted univariate and multivariate analyses using binary stepwise logistic regression. Results A total of 1541 was selected from 1911 individuals. Comorbidities affected a quarter of the population (22.3%). Before the initial infection, 39.3% had received full vaccination, and 8.7% had received partial vaccination. By February 2022, the majority (82.9%) had received at least two vaccine doses. The reinfection rate was 30.6%. All vaccines prior to the first infection was identified as a protective factor against reinfection. Inactivated virus vaccinations were less likely to induce adverse effects. Conclusion ach vaccine has its own set of advantages and disadvantages: mRNA-based vaccines had a higher incidence of side effects but all vaccines provided better protection against reinfection.

Targeting Lipoprotein(a): Can RNA Therapeutics Provide the Next Step in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease?

Numerous genetic and epidemiologic studies have demonstrated an association between elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) and cardiovascular disease. As a result, lowering Lp(a) levels is widely recognized as a promising strategy for reducing the risk of new-onset coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. Lp(a) consists of a low-density lipoprotein-like particle with covalently linked apolipoprotein A (apo[a]) and apolipoprotein B-100, which explains its pro-thrombotic, pro-inflammatory, and pro-atherogenic properties. Lp(a) serum concentrations are genetically determined by the apo(a) isoform, with shorter isoforms having a higher rate of particle synthesis. To date, there are no approved pharmacological therapies that effectively reduce Lp(a) levels. Promising treatment approaches targeting apo(a) expression include RNA-based drugs such as pelacarsen, olpasiran, SLN360, and lepodisiran, which are currently in clinical trials. In this comprehensive review, we provide a detailed overview of RNA-based therapeutic approaches and discuss the recent advances and challenges of RNA therapeutics specifically designed to reduce Lp(a) levels and thus the risk of cardiovascular disease.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Comparison of Salivary Secretion, pH, and Buffer Capacity Between COVID-19 Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Child Patients Visiting Dental Clinics of University Hospitals in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia

Objective

This study aimed to assess and compare the salivary secretion, pH, and buffer capacity between COVID-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated child patients visiting the clinics of private university dental hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Methods

This is the first comparative assessment of salivary parameters between unvaccinated and COVID-19-vaccinated child patients. The study sample comprised COVID-19 unvaccinated (n = 66) and vaccinated (n = 66) pediatric dental patients aged 4-12 years seeking dental care in clinics of private university hospitals. Paraffin-stimulated saliva was collected from unvaccinated and vaccinated study participants, and the amount of saliva secreted per minute was noted. Salivary pH and buffering capacity (by 5 mmol Hydrochloric acid titration) were measured using a benchtop digital pH meter. The data obtained were compared between unvaccinated and vaccinated participants using an independent t-test.

Results

The results showed a significantly higher salivary secretion rate in unvaccinated than vaccinated study participants (0.83 ± 0.24 mL/min vs 0.67 ± 0.24 mL/min, p = 0.001). Similarly, unvaccinated subjects compared to vaccinated subjects exhibited a significantly higher pH (7.33 ± 0.39 vs 7.04 ± 0.46, p < 0.001) and buffering capacity (6.31 ± 1.55 vs 5.40 ± 1.22, p < 0.001). Moreover, unvaccinated females demonstrated a significantly higher salivary secretion (0.87 ± 0.23 vs 0.71 ± 0.25, t = 2.627, p = 0.011) and buffering capacity 6.19 ± 1.52 vs 5.34 ± 1.25, t = 2.404, p = 0.019) than vaccinated females. Similarly, unvaccinated male exhibited significantly higher salivary secretion (0.80 ± 0.25 vs 0.64 ± 0.23, t = 2.670, p = 0.009), salivary pH (7.39 ± 0.45 vs 6.94 ± 0.41, t=4.309, p<0.001) and buffering capacity (6.42 ± 1.60 vs 5.45 ± 1.21, t = 2.875, p = 0.005) than the vaccinated male subjects.

Conclusion

The vaccinated subjects showed a significantly lower mean salivary secretion, pH, and buffering capacity than unvaccinated participants. Hence, COVID-19 vaccination is likely to affect salivary parameters among pediatric patients.

Oral adverse events following COVID-19 and influenza vaccination in Australia

Vaccine hesitancy, spurred by misinterpretation of Adverse Events (AEs), threatens public health. Despite sporadic reports of oral AEs post-COVID-19 vaccination, systematic analysis is scarce. This study evaluates these AEs using the Australian Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN). A secondary analysis of DAEN data was conducted, with the analysis period commencing from the start of the COVID-19 vaccination rollout in February 2021 and the inception of the influenza vaccine database in 1971, both through until December 2022. The focus of the analysis was on oral AEs related to COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Reports were extracted according to a predefined schema and then stratified by vaccine type, sex, and age. Oral paresthesia was the most common oral AE after COVID-19 vaccination (75.28 per 10,000 reports), followed by dysgeusia (73.96), swollen tongue (51.55), lip swelling (49.43), taste disorder (27.32), ageusia (25.85), dry mouth (24.75), mouth ulceration (18.97), oral hypoaesthesia (15.60), and oral herpes (12.74). While COVID-19 and influenza vaccines shared most oral AEs, taste-related AEs, dry mouth, and oral herpes were significantly more common after COVID-19 vaccination. mRNA vaccines yielded more oral AEs than other types. Females had higher oral AE incidence. Most oral AEs did not differ significantly between COVID-19 and influenza vaccination. However, specific oral AEs, particularly taste-related, dry mouth, and oral herpes, were more prevalent after COVID-19 vaccination compared with seasonal influenza, especially in females and mRNA vaccine recipients.

Immediate adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination among 16-65-year-old Danish citizens

INTRODUCTION

There is sparse knowledge of immediate adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to estimate the frequency and number of immediate adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination in a Danish population.

METHODS

The study used data from the Danish population-based cohort study BiCoVac. The frequencies of 20 self-reported adverse reactions were estimated for each vaccine dose stratified by sex, age, and vaccine type. Also, the distributions of number of adverse reactions following each dose were estimated stratified by sex, age, vaccine type, and prior COVID-19 infection.

RESULTS

A total of 889,503 citizens were invited and 171,008 (19 %) vaccinated individuals were included in the analysis. The most frequently reported adverse reaction following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine was redness and/or pain at the injection site (20 %) while following the second and third dose, tiredness was the most frequently reported adverse reaction (22 % and 14 %, respectively). Individuals aged 26-35 years, females, and those with a prior COVID-19 infection were more likely to report adverse reactions compared with older individuals, males, and those with no prior COVID-19 infection, respectively. Following the first dose, individuals vaccinated with ChAdOx1-2 (AstraZeneca) reported more adverse reactions compared with individuals vaccinated with other vaccine types. Individuals vaccinated with mRNA-1273 (Moderna) reported more adverse reactions following the second and third dose compared with individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech).

CONCLUSION

The frequency of immediate adverse reactions was highest among females and younger persons, however, most of the Danish citizens did not experience immediate adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination.

Herbal medicine use in Republic of Korea to alleviate side effects of COVID-19 vaccines: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide, and several virus variants have emerged. Vaccines are administered to help prevent the infection. In Republic of Korea, most people take herbal medicine. This study investigated the use of herbal medicine to counter the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey. Chi-square tests were used to determine differences in the use of herbal medication according to sociodemographic characteristics. Independent two-sample and paired t-tests were performed to examine the effect and satisfaction of herbal medicine use for countering the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine vaccine-related differences.

RESULTS

A total of 233 and 181 participants received the first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, respectively. The majority of herbal medicine users were in their thirties, had a bachelor's degree, suffered from side effects of vaccination, and received Vaxzevria for their first COVID-19 vaccine dose and Comirnaty for their second dose. The herbal medicine group had a higher satisfaction level of post-vaccination side effects than the non-herbal medicine group (P < 0.0001). The numeric rating scale scores for vaccination side effects were lower among participants who took herbal medication to alleviate those symptoms (P < 0.0001). The most commonly used herbal formula was Shuanghetang.

CONCLUSION

A third of participants receiving COVID-19 vaccines used herbal medication to counter the side effects of vaccination. The use of herbal medicine was associated with age, education level, vaccine brand, and whether side effects of vaccination occurred. Herbal medication use was associated with greater satisfaction compared to vaccine recipients not using herbal medication.

Understanding the challenges to COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options, herd immunity and probability of reinfection

Unlike pandemics in the past, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which rapidly spread worldwide, was met with a different approach to control and measures implemented across affected countries. The lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of the outbreak continues to make COVID-19 challenging to manage for both healthcare practitioners and the scientific community. Challenges to vaccine development and evaluation, current therapeutic options, convalescent plasma therapy, herd immunity, and the emergence of reinfection and new variants remain the major obstacles to combating COVID-19. This review discusses these challenges in the management of COVID-19 at length and highlights the mechanisms needed to provide better understanding of this pandemic.

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.

Oral side effects of COVID-19 vaccines in 32 European countries: Analysis of EudraVigilance reports

The recent reports of oral side effects (SEs) following COVID-19 vaccination warrant further investigation into their prevalence, severity, and aetiology. This study was conducted to synthesize the first-ever population-level evidence about oral SEs of COVID-19 vaccines in Europe. The European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Pharmacovigilance (EudraVigilance) database was accessed in August 2022 to extract summary data of all potential oral SEs reported after COVID-19 vaccination. The data were reported descriptively and cross-tabulated to facilitate sub-group analysis per vaccine type, sex, and age group. Dysgeusia was the most commonly reported oral SE (0.381 case per each 100 received reports), followed by oral paraesthesia (0.315%), ageusia (0.296%), lip swelling (0.243%), dry mouth (0.215%), oral hypoaesthesia (0.210%), swollen tongue (0.207%), and taste disorder (0.173%). Females had significantly (Sig. < 0.001) a higher prevalence of all most common (top 20) oral SEs, except for salivary hypersecretion, which was equally prevalent among females and males. The present study revealed a low prevalence of oral SEs, with taste-related, other sensory and anaphylactic SEs being the most common SEs in Europe, similar to what was found earlier among the US population. Future studies should explore the potential risk factors of oral sensory and anaphylactic SEs to verify whether they are causally linked to COVID-19 vaccines.

Spontaneous reporting of adverse reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine in health care professionals: A descriptive observational study conducted in a Portuguese hospital

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was classified as a pandemic in March 2020 by the World Health Organization. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was the first to be authorized in the European Union, based on data from phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials of limited duration. Concerns have been raised regarding the vaccine's safety profile. Some of the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with vaccines may not have been identified during clinical trials. This study aimed to identify ADRs associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in health care professionals at a Portuguese tertiary university hospital.

Methods

The data used in this analysis consist of ADRs reported through a spontaneous notification system from vaccines administered between December 27, 2020, and January 31, 2021. ADRs were categorized according to the MedDRA terminology.

Results

A total of 8,605 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines were administered to 4568 health care professionals. ADRs were reported among 520 of the vaccines, with an incidence of 13.56% in women and 5.31% in men. The mean age of the population reporting ADRs was 41.52 years, with a standard deviation of 9.83 years. The most frequent ADRs were myalgia (n = 274), headache (n = 199), pyrexia (n = 164), injection site pain (n = 160), fatigue (n = 84), nausea (n = 81), chills (n = 65), lymphadenopathy (n = 64), and arthralgia (n = 53). Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 15 health care professionals, with no anaphylactic reactions observed. A total of four Important Medical Events were observed, which consisted of two cases of syncope, one case of sudden hearing loss, and one case of transverse myelitis.

Conclusion

The vaccine was well-tolerated among the study participants. Reactogenicity was greater after the second dose. The incidence of ADRs was higher in women and individuals aged between 40 to 49 years. Systemic adverse reactions were most frequently reported. Systematic monitoring of ADRs of COVID-19 vaccines in real-life context is essential for a more robust establishment of its safety profile.

Use of Self-Collected Dried Blood Spots and a Multiplex Microsphere Immunoassay to Measure IgG Antibody Response to COVID-19 Vaccines

Serosurveys can determine the extent and spread of a pathogen in populations. However, collection of venous blood requires trained medical staff. Dried blood spots (DBS) are a suitable alternative because they can be self-collected and stored/shipped at room temperature. As COVID-19 vaccine deployment began in early 2021, we rapidly enrolled laboratory employees in a study to evaluate IgG antibody levels following vaccination. Participants received a DBS collection kit, self-collection instructions, and a brief questionnaire. Three DBS were collected by each of 168 participants pre- and/or postvaccination and tested with a multiplex microsphere immunoassay (MIA) that separately measures IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike-S1 and nucleocapsid antigens. Most DBS (99.6%, 507/509) were suitable for testing. Participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 7) generated high S antibody levels after the first vaccine dose. Naïve individuals (n = 161) attained high S antibody levels after the second dose. Similar antibody levels were seen among those vaccinated with Moderna (n = 29) and Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 137). For those receiving either mRNA vaccine, local side effects were more common after the first vaccine dose, whereas systemic side effects were more common after the second dose. Individuals with the highest antibody levels in the week prior to the second vaccine dose experienced more side effects from the second dose. Our study demonstrated that combining self-collected DBS and a multiplex MIA is a convenient and effective way to assess antibody levels to vaccination and could easily be used for population serosurveys of SARS-CoV-2 or other emerging pathogens. IMPORTANCE Serosurveys are an essential tool for assessing immunity in a population (1, 2). However, common barriers to effective serosurveys, particularly during a pandemic, include high-costs, resources required to collect venous blood samples, lack of trained laboratory technicians, and time required to perform the assay. By utilizing self-collected dried blood spots (DBS) and our previously developed high-throughput microsphere immunoassay, we were able to significantly reduce many of these common challenges. Participants were asked to self-collect three DBS before and/or after they received their COVID-19 vaccines to measure antibody levels following vaccination. Participants successfully collected 507 DBS that were tested for IgG antibodies to the spike and nucleocapsid proteins of SARS-CoV-2. When used with self-collected DBS, our relatively low-cost assay significantly reduced common barriers to collecting serological data from a population and was able to effectively assess antibody response to vaccination.

Global incidence pattern and factors associated with common cutaneous reactions related to COVID-19 vaccination of 2.55 million participants in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Understanding the incidence pattern of cutaneous reactions is crucial for promoting COVID-19 vaccination. We aimed to report the global incidence pattern of, and factors associated with common cutaneous reactions related to COVID-19 vaccination in real-world settings.

Methods

We searched five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang) from inception to May 13, 2022, for studies reporting the incidence of common cutaneous reactions related to COVID-19 vaccines in real-world settings. The outcomes were the systematic skin reactions (rash and urticaria) and the local injection site reactions (pain, swelling, redness, and erythema). We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and explored associated factors using multi-step statistical analyses.

Results

We included 35 studies and assessed 2 549 968 participants from 23 countries. The pooled incidence of overall systemic skin reactions was 3.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.4%-5.5%) with short duration (about one week). Specifically, the pooled incidence rates of rash and urticaria were 3.0% (95% CI = 2.1%-3.9%) and 1.1% (95% CI = 0.7%-1.5%), respectively. For overall local injection site reactions, the pooled incidence was 72.4% (95% CI = 65.7%-78.7%) with short duration (1 to 4.5 days). Except for local pain (72.2%, 95% CI = 65.3%-78.5%), other localized reactions had low incidence, including swelling (13.3%, 95% CI = 9.5%-17.7%), redness (11.5%, 95% CI = 5.7%-19.0%), and erythema (5.8%, 95% CI = 0.7%-15.4%). Geographically, different distribution patterns were observed for these reactions. Regarding associated factors, mRNA vaccines showed lower incidence of urticaria (P < 0.001). Asia population showed higher incidence of urticaria (P < 0.001). We observed lower incidence rates of overall local injection site reactions and pain among inactivated vaccines (P < 0.001). We found no significant difference among reactions between the first and the second dose of vaccines.

Conclusions

We examined the global incidence pattern of common cutaneous reactions related to COVID-19 vaccination and found low incidence and short duration of systemic skin reactions and local injection site reactions (except for pain); discrepancies in these reactions were observed across different vaccine types. The cutaneous side effects related to COVID-19 vaccination do not seem to cause concern.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42021258012.

Survey of glucocorticoid dose escalation in patients with adrenal insufficiency during the peri-COVID-19 vaccination period

There is uncertainty regarding the need for COVID-19 peri-vaccination glucocorticoid coverage in patients with adrenal insufficiency. In this survey conducted in a single tertiary medical institution, 167 consecutive outpatients taking physiological glucocorticoids because of adrenal insufficiency were included. The patients declared if they developed an adrenal crisis after vaccination, and the amount and duration of an increase in their glucocorticoid dosage, if any. None of the patients without preventive glucocorticoid increase suffered an adrenal crisis after COVID-19 vaccination. Only 8.3% (14 cases) and 27.5% (46 cases) of the patients needed to escalate the dose of glucocorticoids when systemic symptoms appeared after the first and second injections, respectively. Glucocorticoids were increased in patients <60 years of age more than in patients ≥60 years of age at the time of both the first (p = 0.026) and second injections (p = 0.005). Sex and the causes of adrenal insufficiency were not associated with the frequency of the patients who needed glucocorticoid dose escalation. In the cases with increased glucocorticoids, the median dosage for escalation was 10 mg (hydrocortisone equivalent). In conclusion, even without prophylactic glucocorticoid administration, adrenal crisis did not occur during the peri-COVID-19 vaccination period. The dose escalation of steroid was more frequent in younger patients following the second vaccination. Careful monitoring of adverse effects and the appropriate management of glucocorticoids when necessary are essential following COVID-19 vaccinations.

Sex-disaggregated outcomes of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination: A Dutch cohort study and review of the literature

Background

Albeit the need for sex-disaggregated results of adverse events after immunization (AEFIs) is gaining attention since the COVID-19 pandemic, studies with emphasis on sexual dimorphism in response to COVID-19 vaccination are relatively scarce. This prospective cohort study aimed to assess differences in the incidence and course of reported AEFIs after COVID-19 vaccination between males and females in the Netherlands and provides a summary of sex-disaggregated outcomes in published literature.

Methods

Patient reported outcomes of AEFIs over a six month period following the first vaccination with BioNTech-Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna or the Johnson&Johnson vaccine were collected in a Cohort Event Monitoring study. Logistic regression was used to assess differences in incidence of 'any AEFI', local reactions and the top ten most reported AEFIs between the sexes. Effects of age, vaccine brand, comorbidities, prior COVID-19 infection and the use of antipyretic drugs were analyzed as well. Also, time-to-onset, time-to-recovery and perceived burden of AEFIs was compared between the sexes. Third, a literature review was done to retrieve sex-disaggregated outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination.

Results

The cohort included 27,540 vaccinees (38.5% males). Females showed around two-fold higher odds of having any AEFI as compared to males with most pronounced differences after the first dose and for nausea and injection site inflammation. Age was inversely associated with AEFI incidence, whereas a prior COVID-19 infection, the use of antipyretic drugs and several comorbidities were positively associated. The perceived burden of AEFIs and time-to-recovery were slightly higher in females.

Discussion

The results of this large cohort study correspond to existing evidence and contribute to the knowledge gain necessary to disentangle the magnitude of the effect sex in response to vaccination. Whilst females have a significant higher probability of experiencing an AEFI than males, we observed that the course and burden is only to a minor extent different between the sexes.

The effect of COVID-19 vaccines on sperm parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Published data were gathered for a meta-analysis to determine the difference in sperm parameters before and after administration of different types of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, because the reproductive toxicity of COVID-19 vaccines has not yet been evaluated in clinical trials and COVID-19 has been associated with decreases in sperm quality. The preferred procedures for systematic reviews and meta-analyses were followed in the conduct and reporting of this study. The average sperm parameters of all sperm donors' multiple sperm donations were compared before and after receiving various COVID-19 vaccinations. Semen volume, total sperm motility, total sperm count, morphological change, and sperm concentration were the primary outcome measures. We compiled and analyzed the results of six studies on total sperm motility, six studies on semen volume, six studies on sperm concentration, two studies on morphological change, and two studies on total sperm count. Parameter comparisons with patients who had and had not been vaccinated were only reported in one of the included studies. When different types of COVID-19 vaccine injections were compared, no discernible differences in parameters were observed. According to the available data, the parameters of semen are unaffected by inactivated or messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccinations. To support these findings, additional prospectively designed research is required.

Short-term Side Effects of mRNA-based COVID-19 Vaccine Among Jordanian Population; a Cross-sectional Study

Introduction

One type of the developed COVID-19 vaccines that received emergency permission and was approved by the food and drug administration (FDA) is the mRNA-based vaccine. The aim of this study is to gather information on the Jordanian population's experience with the vaccine's side effects.

Methods

The study objectives were addressed through a cross-sectional study, which collected information regarding the short-term side effects experienced by the vaccinated individuals within one month following the injection of an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. Data collection was carried out in August 2021. Participants were invited to take part in a self-administered web-based survey created using Google Forms.

Results

Among the study's participants (n= 533), about 56% experienced side effects after the first dose of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. The most commonly reported side effects after the first dose were sore arm at the injection site (91.6%), and fatigue (83.06%). The female gender was significantly associated with experiencing fatigue, discomfort, chills, and hair loss. Being over 30 years old was significantly associated with experiencing cough. Being a smoker was significantly associated with experiencing shortness of breath and gastrointestinal symptoms.

Conclusion

The mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine side effects were common, yet, mild, local, and self-limited. The local pain at the injection site was the most commonly reported side effect. Hopefully, the study's findings will aid in lowering resistance to vaccination.

Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines Primer Doses: Experience of Saudi Healthcare Workers Participating in CoVaST-SA

BACKGROUND

Side effects emerging after COVID-19 vaccines may adversely impact public confidence in vaccines. Therefore, this study was designed to explore the short-term side effects of COVID-19 vaccines as a part of the COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Tracking (CoVaST) study.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out to collect data from healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia. The study was initiated between June and December 2021. A validated questionnaire was used in this study consisting of four categories, including demographic characteristics and medical anamnesis of the participants, COVID-19-associated anamnesis, and side effects of vaccine uptake.

RESULTS

The study included 1039 participants, of which 70.2% were females, and their median age was 34. About 82.9% and 52.3% of the participants reported a minimum of both one local and systemic side effect, respectively. Females, young participants (≤34 years old), and non-obese participants had more potential to disclose post-vaccination side effects than their counterparts. Heterologous schedules and viral vector-based vaccines were linked with a greater rate of systemic side effects, whereas homologous vaccination schedules and mRNA-based vaccines were linked with a greater rate of local side effects.

CONCLUSION

Future studies on COVID-19 vaccines should focus on the role of BMI, previous infection, and vaccination schedule in terms of vaccine safety and reactogenicity.

Post COVID-19 vaccination side effects and associated factors among vaccinated health care providers in Oromia region, Ethiopia in 2021

BACKGROUND

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS COV-2) known as COVID-19 since its outbreak in 2019, more than 375 and 5.6 million were infected and dead, respectively. Its influence in all disciplines stimulated different industries to work day to night relentlessly to develop safe and effective vaccines to reduce the catastrophic effect of the disease. With the increasing number of people globally who have been vaccinated, the reports on possible adverse events have grown and gained great public attention. This study aims to determine post-COVID-19 vaccination adverse effects and associated factors among vaccinated Health care providers in the Oromia region, Ethiopia in 2021.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 912 health care workers working in government hospitals in the central Oromia region from November 20 to December 15/2021. Respondents absent from work due to different reasons were excluded during the interview. The outcome variable was COVID-19 side effects (response as Yes/No). A descriptive analysis displayed findings in the form of the frequencies and percentages, and logistic regression was employed to see the association of different variables with side effects experienced.

RESULT

Overall, 92.1% of the participants experienced side effects either in 1st or 2nd doses of post-COVID-19 vaccination; 84.0% and (71.5%) of participants experienced at least one side effect in the 1st and 2nd dose of the vaccines, respectively. COVID-19 infection preventive protocols like keeping distance, hand wash using soap, wearing mask and using sanitizer were decreased post vaccination. About 74.3% of the respondents were worried about the adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine they received. The majority (80.2%) of the respondent felt fear while receiving the vaccine and 22.5% of the respondents suspect the effectiveness of the vaccine they took. About 14.8% of the vaccinated Health workers were infected by COVID-19 post-vaccination. Engaging in moderate physical activity and feeling fear when vaccinated were the independent factors associated with reported side effects of post-COVID-19 vaccination using multiple logistic regression. Respondents who did not engage in physical activity were 7.54 fold more likely to develop post-COVID-19 vaccination side effects compared to those who involved at least moderate-intensity physical activity[AOR = 7.54, 95% CI;2.46,23.12]. The odds of experiencing side effects among the respondents who felt fear when vaccinated were 10.73 times compared not felt fear (AOR = 10.73, 95% CI; 2.47,46.64), and similarly, those who felt little fear were 4.28 times more likely to experience side effects(AOR = 4.28, 95% CI; 1.28, 14.39).

CONCLUSION

Significant numbers of the respondents experienced side effects post COVID-19 vaccination. It is recommended to provide pre-awareness about the side effects to reduce observed anxiety related to the vaccine. It is also important to plan monitoring and evaluation of the post-vaccine effect using standard longitudinal study designs to measure the effects directly.

Toxic epidermal necrosis following Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV): A case report and literature review

This study reports a patient developing TEN after the first dose of (BBIBP-CorV). He developed numerous purpuric and dusky patches with flaccid bullae and areas of epidermal detachment covered more than 30% of the body area within 6 days. After treatment with dexamethasone and cyclosporin, he recovered within 14 days.

Prevalence of side-effects associated with the booster dose of Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) of COVID-19 Vaccine among vaccinated adults in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia

Background

Reports of local and systemic side-effects of COVID-19 vaccination may play an important role in public confidence in the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine booster dose.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study among adults living in Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. A link to the survey was distributed to community members via WhatsApp, SMS, or e-mail. Participants' general and demographic information was also collected, as well as information about any local and systemic side-effects reported following vaccination.

Results

A total of 370/390 (94.87%) of respondents reported one or more side-effects. Pain or redness at the site of injection (88.92%), fatigue (43.78%), body pain fever (37.84%), and headache (15.95%) were the most commonly reported side-effects. Moreover, 2.43% of the participants reported side-effects needed to see a physician; only four were admitted to the hospital. The non-healthcare respondents (n=273 (97.15%), OR (95% CI) = 5.22 (2.02, 13.48, P <0.001) were more likely to report side-effects compared to the healthcare related respondents (n=36 (85.71%), OR (95% CI) = 0.25 (0.10, 0.70), P=0.013).

Conclusion

According to this study, the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine was safe when given to Saudi Arabian adults. All reported side-effects were mild to moderate. The findings will likely persuade vaccine-hesitant individuals and pessimists to accept booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine.

A retrospective evaluation of side-effects associated with the booster dose of Pfizer-BioNTech/BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine among females in Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUNDS

The development of several types of vaccines to avert COVID-19 has taken place. Despite several reports of undesirable reactions noted post-COVID-19 vaccine administration, later remains one of the best prevention and management tools in fighting the spread of the virus and its variants and reducing the harshness of this viral attack. The purpose of the current paper was to explore the side-effects experienced by the females in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia directly after receiving the booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech/BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study among adults living in the East-ern Province, Saudi Arabia was applied. A survey link was, distributed through WhatsApp, SMS, or e-mail to community members. Respondent's demographic information was acquired, as well as information about any local and systemic side-effects reported following booster dose of BioNTech/BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine.

RESULTS

A total of 72.36% (432/597) of the respondents who participated in this study reported at least one side-effect. Pain and redness at the injection site (75.93%), myalgia (71.99%), headache (53.24%), fever (33.56%), and fatigue (43.78%) were the highest frequently stated side-effects. Furthermore, 9.25% of the respondents had to see a physician due to side effects, plus merely four participants were admitted to the hospital. The respondents working in the non-healthcare-related sector had a 1.677-fold more possibility of side effects in comparison with the other respondents (adjusted odds ratio = 1.677; 95% CI = 1.363, 2.064).

CONCLUSIONS

All reported side-effects were mild to moderate. These findings might persuade pessimists and refusers to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Myalgia and pain or redness at the site of injection were the most common reported side-effects in our study.

Global prevalence and clinical manifestations of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Although vaccination is widely accepted as an effective method of preventing and controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, many people are concerned about possible cutaneous side-effects, which can delay or prevent them from being vaccinated. The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the global prevalence and clinical manifestations of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for articles published from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021, and reference lists for each selected article were screened. Case reports, case series, observational studies and randomized controlled trials that provided information on cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccines were included. A total of 300 studies were included in a systematic review of which 32 studies with 946 366 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of cutaneous manifestations following COVID-19 vaccination was 3.8% (95% CI, 2.7%-5.3%). COVID-19 vaccines based on the mRNA platform had a higher prevalence than other platforms at 6.9% (95% CI, 3.8%-12.3%). Various cutaneous manifestations have been reported from injection site reactions, which were the most common (72.16%) to uncommon adverse reactions such as delayed inflammatory reactions to tissue filler (0.07%) and flares of pre-existing dermatoses (0.07%). Severe cutaneous reactions such as anaphylaxis have also been reported, but in rare cases (0.05%). In conclusion, cutaneous adverse reactions are common, especially in those receiving mRNA vaccines. Most reactions are mild and are not contraindications to subsequent vaccination except for anaphylaxis, which rarely occurs. COVID-19 vaccination may also be associated with flares of pre-existing dermatoses and delayed inflammatory reactions to tissue filler. Patients with a history of allergies, pre-existing skin conditions or scheduled for filler injections should receive additional precounselling and monitoring. A better understanding of potential side-effects may strengthen public confidence in those wary of new vaccine technologies.

Short-Term Adverse Effects Following Booster Dose of Inactivated-Virus vs. Adenoviral-Vector COVID-19 Vaccines in Algeria: A Cross-Sectional Study of the General Population

COVID-19 booster vaccines have been adopted in almost all countries to enhance the immune response and combat the emergence of new variants. Algeria adopted this strategy in November 2021. This study was conducted to consider the self-reported side effects of COVID-19 booster vaccines by Algerians who were vaccinated with a booster dose of one of the approved inactivated-virus vaccines, such as BBIBP-CorV and CoronaVac, or one of the adenoviral-vector-based vaccines, such as Gam-COVID-Vac, AZD1222 and Ad26.COV2.S, and to determine the eventual risk factors. A cross-sectional study using an online self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) was conducted in Algeria between 28 April 2022, and 20 July 2022. A descriptive analysis of the 196 individuals who were included showed a nearly equal distribution of adenoviral- (52%) and inactivated-virus vaccines (48%) and of males (49.5%) and females (50.5%). The results showed that 74.7% of the studied population reported at least one local or systemic side effect. These side effects were more frequent among adenoviral-vector vaccinees (87.3%) than inactivated-virus vaccinees (60.6%) (sig. < 0.001). Injection site pain (40.3%), heat at the injection site (21.4%), and arm pain (16.3%) were the most common local side effects. These signs generally appeared in the first 12 h (73.3%) and generally lasted less than 24 h (32.8%). More interestingly, these signs differed from those that followed the administration of primer doses (48.5%) and were generally more severe (37%). The same observation was reported for systemic side effects, where the signs were especially most severe in the adenoviral-vaccinated group (49.4% vs. 20.8%; sig. = 0.001). These signs generally appeared within the first day (63.6%) and mostly disappeared before two days (50.8%), with fatigue (41.8%), fever (41.3%), and headache (30.1%) being the most common. Adenoviral-vector vaccinees (62.7%) were more likely to use medications to manage these side effects than were inactivated-virus vaccinees (45.7%) (sig. = 0.035) and paracetamol (48.5%) was the most used medication. Adenoviral-based vaccines were the types of vaccines that were most likely to cause side effects. In addition, being female increased the risk of developing side effects; regular medication was associated with local side effects among inactivated-virus vaccinees; and previous infection with COVID-19 was associated with systemic and local side effects among adenovirus-based vaccinees. These results support the short-term safety of booster vaccines, as has been reported for primer doses.

Cardiac MRI Findings in COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Myocarditis: A Pooled Analysis of 468 Patients

Understanding the pattern and severity of myocarditis caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is imperative for improving the care of the patients, and cardiac evaluation by MRI plays a key role in this regard. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize cardiac MRI findings in COVID-19 vaccine-related myocarditis. We performed a comprehensive systematic review of literature in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases using key terms covering COVID-19 vaccine, myocarditis, and cardiac MRI. Individual-level patient data (IPD) and aggregated-level data (AD) studies were pooled through a two-stage analysis method. For this purpose, all IPD were first gathered into a single data set and reduced to AD, and then this AD (from IPD studies) was pooled with existing AD (from the AD studies) using fixed/random effect models. I2 was used to assess the degree of heterogeneity, and the prespecified level of statistical significance (P value for heterogeneity) was <0.1. Based on meta-analysis of 102 studies (n = 468 patients), 79% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 54%-97%) of patients fulfilled Lake Louise criteria (LLC) for diagnosis of myocarditis. Cardiac MRI abnormalities included elevated T2 in 72% (95% CI: 50%-90%), myocardial late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in 93% (95% CI: 83%-99%; nearly all with a subepicardial and/or midwall pattern), impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (<50%) in 4% (95% CI: 1.0%-9.0%). Moreover, elevated T1 and extracellular volume fraction (ECV) (>30), reported only by some IPD studies, were detected in 74.5% (76/102) and 32% (16/50) of patients, respectively. In conclusion, our findings may suggest that over two-thirds of patients with clinically suspected myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination meet the LLC. COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis may show a similar pattern compared to other acute myocarditis entities. Notably, preserved LVEF is probably a common finding in these patients. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

mRNA and Viral Vector COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Affect Male Fertility: A Prospective Study

PURPOSE

To assess whether mRNA and viral vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines detrimentally affected semen parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective study, we enrolled 101 men vaccinated for COVID-19 (76% received mRNA vaccines, 20% viral vector vaccines, 2% a mixed formulation, and for 2 men no information about vaccine type was available) in 2021 and with a previous semen analysis. For each man we compared semen parameters before and after vaccination.

RESULTS

Post-vaccine samples were obtained at a median of 2.3±1.5 months after the second dose. After vaccination, the median sample volume significantly decreased (from 3.0 to 2.6 mL, p=0.036), whereas the median sperm concentration, the progressive motility, and total motile sperm count increased (from 25.0 to 43.0 million/mL, p<0.0001; from 50% to 56%, p=0.022; from 34.8 to 54.6 million, p<0.0001, respectively). Thirty-four patients were oligospermic before the vaccine, and also in these patients we observed a significant increase of sperm parameters after vaccine. Finally, we confirmed the aforementioned results in men who received a mRNA or a viral vector vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

The semen parameters following COVID-19 vaccination did not reflect any causative detrimental effect from vaccination, and for the first time we demonstrated that this applies to both mRNA and viral-vector vaccines. The known individual variation in semen and the reduced abstinence time before the post-vaccine sample collection may explain the increases in sperm parameters.

Complications of COVID-19 Vaccines during Pregnancy; a Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Rare serious complications have been documented after COVID-19 vaccination as clinical research proceeded and new target populations, such as children and ‎pregnant women, were included. In this study, we attempted to review the literature relevant to ‎pregnancy complications and maternal outcomes of COVID-19 immunization in pregnant women. ‎.

METHODS

We searched the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science on 31 August 2022. The records were downloaded and underwent a two-step screening; 1) title/abstract and then 2) full-text screening to identify the eligible studies. We included English original studies that evaluated the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Information such as the type of ‎study, geographical location, type of vaccine injected, gestational age, maternal underlying diseases, and ‎complications following the vaccination were extracted into pre-designed tables.

RESULTS

According to the findings of included studies, in most of them vaccination had a positive impact and no negative effects were observed. Also, no medical history was reported in 11 articles, and pregnant women had no underlying diseases. Some serious adverse events were reported after ‎vaccination, including miscarriage, paresthesia, uterine contraction, vaginal bleeding, preterm birth, major ‎congenital anomalies, intrauterine growth restriction, and seizure. ‎.

CONCLUSION

Because of limited data availability and the cross-sectional design of most studies, we could neither infer ‎causation between vaccines and incidence of adverse effects nor comment with certainty about any ‎possible adverse outcome of COVID-19 vaccines in vaccinated pregnant women. Consequently, more longitudinal and experimental studies are needed to define the exact adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women.

Comparison of the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a reduced and standard booster dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in healthy adults after two doses of inactivated vaccine

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a serious healthcare problem worldwide since December 2019. The third dose of heterologous vaccine was recently approved by World Health Organization. The present study compared the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of the reduced and standard third booster dose of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccine in adults who previously received the two-dose CoronaVac vaccine. Results showed that headache, joint pain, and diarrhea were more frequent in the 15 μg- than the 30 μg-BNT162b2 groups, whereas joint pain and chilling were more frequent in the 100 μg- than the 50 μg-mRNA-1273 groups. No significant differences in immunogenicity were detected. These findings demonstrate that the reduced dose of the mRNA vaccines elicited antibody responses against the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants that were comparable to the standard dose. The reduced dose could be used to increase vaccine coverage in situations of limited global vaccine supply.

Cutaneous Adverse Reactions to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: An increasing number of cutaneous adverse reactions (CARs) to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been reported, but their incidence is debated. Objective: To estimate the pooled incidence of CARs to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of original articles published on MEDLINE via PubMed and Web Of Science from 1 January 2020 to 18 July 2022 was undertaken. Studies reporting the incidence proportion of CARs (defined as number of new cases of CARs on the total of vaccinated people) were included. All types of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were included. People receiving at least one dose were considered eligible. Local cutaneous reactions were excluded. Results: A total of 970 records were identified and screened by title and abstract; 22 observational studies were included with aggregate data on 93,165 participants. The pooled incidence of overall CARs was 5% (95%CI 4−6%; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001), ranging from <0.01 to 19.00%. Most CARs were new onset dermatitis including rash, urticaria and vascular lesions; one case of Steven−Johnson syndrome and six cases of erythema multiforme were reported. In the sensitivity analysis we found that the incidence of CARs after the first and second dose was similar, i.e., 3% (95%CI 2−3%; I2 = 96%; p < 0.001) and 3% (95%CI 2−4%; I2 = 97%; p < 0.001), respectively. The magnitude of incidence of CARs remained unchanged independently of vaccine platform and in the general population versus healthcare workers. Conclusions: CARs associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are frequent but mild and self-remitting, whereas severe CARs are rare.

Oral lesions after COVID-19 vaccination: Immune mechanisms and clinical approach

COVID-19 vaccination, although is a promising tool to overcome the pandemic, has side effects. There are increasing reports of oral lesions after COVID-19 vaccination. The aim of this review is to identify the occurrence of some oral lesions after COVID-19 vaccination, and highlight the underlying immune mechanisms involved. A narrative literature review was performed by searching electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science to investigate the oral lesions after COVID-19 vaccination. The inclusion criteria were original studies, including the case reports, case series, letter to the editor, and cross-sectional studies. The exclusion criteria included the studies which examined the oral lesions caused by COVID-19 infection. The information, including the number of participant(s) receiving vaccine, type of vaccine, dose number, side effect(s), time of onset following vaccination, healing time, treatment strategies for the existing lesions, and related mechanisms were then summarized in a data extraction sheet. The results of this review showed that some vaccines had side effects with oral involvement such as pemphigus vulgaris, bullous pemphigoid, herpes zoster, lichen planus, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Behçet's disease. Future research needs to elucidate the physiopathology of oral manifestations after the COVID-19 vaccination, and better understand the risk factors associated with such responses. Sometimes vaccine's side effects may be due to the nocebo effect, which means that the person expects some adverse events to occur following the vaccine administration.

Do Side Effects to the Primary COVID-19 Vaccine Reduce Intentions for a COVID-19 Vaccine Booster?

BACKGROUND

Vaccines are being administered worldwide to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine boosters are essential for maintaining immunity and protecting against virus variants. The side effects of the primary COVID-19 vaccine (e.g., headache, nausea), however, could reduce intentions to repeat the vaccination experience, thereby hindering global inoculation efforts.

PURPOSE

The aim of this research was to test whether side effects of a primary COVID-19 vaccine relate to reduced intentions to receive a COVID-19 booster. The secondary aim was to test whether psychological and demographic factors predict booster intentions.

METHODS

Secondary data analyses were conducted on a U.S. national sample of 551 individuals recruited through the online platform Prolific. Key measures in the dataset were side effects reported from a primary COVID-19 vaccination and subsequent intentions to receive a booster vaccine. Psychological and demographic variables that predicted primary vaccination intentions in prior studies were also measured.

RESULTS

Booster intentions were high. COVID-19 booster vaccine intentions were uncorrelated with the number of side effects, intensity of side effects, or occurrence of an intense side effect from the primary COVID-19 vaccine. Correlational and regression analyses indicated intentions for a booster vaccination increased with positive vaccination attitudes, trust in vaccine development, worry about the COVID-19 pandemic, low concern over vaccine side effects, and democratic political party affiliation.

CONCLUSIONS

Side effects of a primary COVID-19 vaccine were not directly associated with lower intentions to receive a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine early in the pandemic. However, many variables that predict primary vaccination intentions also predict booster intentions.

Cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccinations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccines are currently the most effective interventions in controlling and preventing severe disease progression. Dermatologic reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations may be rare among clinical trial participants. However, since global mass vaccination became a reality, these adverse effects may become more widespread, and different skin reactions would arise.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the cutaneous adverse reactions in cases subject to vaccines for COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Embase databases, identifying the relevant records and including the eligible observational ones. After assessing the methodological quality of the included studies, we qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized the data regarding the cutaneous side effects experienced by those in the studies' population.

RESULTS

Overall, 36 studies were included in our systematic review, with the majority being cross-sectional. We found that pain, erythema, and swelling were the most common local side effects, while different types of rashes, urticaria, and angioedema were the most non-local. Few cases also reported experiencing flare-ups of their underlying diseases or developing newly-onset diseases of various etiologies. Our meta-analyses also found that while viral vector-based vaccines are, though insignificantly, safer in injection site complaints, individuals who received mRNA vaccines developed significantly fewer non-local cutaneous adverse events.

DISCUSSION

Cutaneous reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines are similar to common cutaneous drug eruptions and COVID-19 cutaneous manifestations. However, we believe that further high-quality research is needed to assess better how and why cutaneous reactions occur in different vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy (VBH) of healthcare professionals and students in Poland: Cross-sectional survey-based study

Since healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a critical role in shaping their local communities' attitudes toward vaccines, HCPs' beliefs and attitudes toward vaccination are of vital importance for primary prevention strategies. The present study was designed as a cross-sectional survey-based study utilizing a self-administered questionnaire to collect data about COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy (VBH) among Polish HCPs and students of medical universities (MUSs). Out of the 443 included participants, 76.3% were females, 52.6% were HCPs, 31.8% were previously infected by SARS-CoV-2, and 69.3% had already received COVID-19 vaccine booster doses (VBD). Overall, 74.5% of the participants were willing to receive COVID-19 VBD, while 7.9 and 17.6% exhibited their hesitance and rejection, respectively. The most commonly found promoter for acceptance was protection of one's health (95.2%), followed by protection of family's health (81.8%) and protection of community's health (63.3%). Inferential statistics did not show a significant association between COVID-19 VBH and demographic variables, e.g., age and gender; however, the participants who had been previously infected by SARS-CoV-2 were significantly more inclined to reject the VBD. Protection from severe infection, community transmission, good safety profile, and favorable risk-benefit ratio were the significant determinants of the COVID-19 VBD acceptance and uptake. Fear of post-vaccination side effects was one of the key barriers for accepting COVID-19 VBD, which is consistent with the pre-existing literature. Public health campaigns need to highlight the postulated benefits of vaccines and the expected harms of skipping VBD.

Self-reported side effects of the Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers in Ethiopia, Africa: A cross-sectional study

Introduction

Ethiopia is the second most populous country in Africa. Ethiopia received most of its COVID-19 vaccines through donations. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is the first to be donated to Ethiopia by the COVAX facility. Healthcare workers were the priority population that received the Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. However, there was no nationwide study on the safety of the vaccine in Ethiopia. This study aimed to measure the prevalence and predictors of self-reported side effects of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine.

Materials and methods

The study employed a cross-sectional design. A sample of healthcare workers who took Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was drawn from four regions of Ethiopia; namely, Amhara, Oromia, Somali, and Southwest. Data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, medical anamnesis, COVID-19 related anamnesis, and COVID-19 vaccine anamnesis via telephone interview. Descriptive and inferential analyses were done. The software, IBM SPSS Statistics v21.0, was used for analyses of data.

Results

Out of 384 people, 346 responded (response rate: 90.1%). Female accounted for 34.1% of the respondents. The mean age of the respondents was 31.0 years (Standard Deviation (SD) = 7.4). Nurses accounted for 43.7% of the respondents. The prevalence of at least one local- and systemic-side effect was 50.6 and 44.5%, respectively. The most frequent local- and systemic- side effect were injection site pain and headache, respectively. Both types of side effects mostly subsided in the first 3 days. A third of healthcare workers with side effects took at least one medication. Paracetamol followed by diclofenac sodium were taken by healthcare workers to overcome side effects. There was no independent predictor of local side effect. After controlling for age and chronic diseases, the odds of healthcare workers with COVID-19 like symptoms to experience systemic side effects was 1.38 (Confidence Interval (CI): 1.04–1.82) times more than that of healthcare workers without COVID-19 like symptoms.

Conclusions

The prevalence of local- and systemic-side effects of the Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was modest. As the symptoms were mostly common in the first 3 days, it is preferable to monitor healthcare workers at least in the first 3 days following the administration of the vaccine.

Oral Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination: Analysis of VAERS Reports

Background

Oral adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 vaccination have been sporadically reported during the previous months, warranting further investigation for their prevalence and suspected relationship with vaccine-elicited immune response.

Methods

A retrospective analysis using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data was conducted to evaluate AEs within the oral cavity (mucosa, tongue, lips, palate, dentition, salivary glands) and AEs involving taste and other sensations. Oral AEs reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccination (test group) and seasonal influenza vaccination (control group) were extracted and cross-tabulated to assess their relative prevalence.

Results

Among the 128 solicited (suspected) oral AEs, oral paresthesia (0.872%) was most reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccines, followed by the swelling of lips (0.844%), ageusia (0.722%), oral hypoesthesia (0.648%), swollen tongue (0.628%), and dysgeusia (0.617%). The reported prevalence of oral AEs was higher in the COVID-19 vaccine group than in the seasonal influenza group. The distribution pattern of the most reported oral AEs was similar for both COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines. Female sex, older age (>39 years old), primer doses, and mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines exhibited a higher reported prevalence of oral AEs.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, COVID-19 vaccines were found to be associated with rare oral AEs that are predominantly similar to those emerging following seasonal influenza vaccines. The most commonly reported oral AEs were oral paraesthesia (mouth-tingling), lip swelling, and ageusia, representing various pathophysiologic pathways that remain unclear. Taste-related AEs should be acknowledged in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public should be adequately informed about a potential taste dysfunction after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Dentists and dental teams need to be aware of the prevalence, severity, and prognosis of oral AEs to inform their patients and increase public confidence in vaccines.

Knowledge, attitude, and hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccine among university students of Bangladesh

Global vaccination coverage is an urgent need to recover the recent pandemic COVID-19. However, people are concerned about the safety and efficacy of this vaccination program. Thus, it has become crucial to examine the knowledge, attitude, and hesitancy towards the vaccine. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among university students of Bangladesh. Total of 449 university students participated. Most of these students used the internet (34.74%), social media (33.41%), and electronic media (25.61%) as a source of COVID-19 vaccine information. Overall, 58.13% and 64.81% of university students reported positive knowledge and attitude towards the COVID-19 vaccine. 54.34% of these students agreed that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective. 43.88% believed that the vaccine could stop the pandemic. The Spearman’s Rank correlation determined the positive correlation between knowledge and attitude. The negative correlation was determined between positive knowledge and hesitancy, and positive attitude and hesitancy. University students with positive knowledge and attitude showed lower hesitancy. Multiple logistic regression analyses determined the university type and degree major as the predictors of knowledge, whereas only degree major was the predictor of attitudes. 26.06% of the study population showed their hesitancy towards the vaccine. University type and degree major were also determined as predictors of this hesitancy. They rated fear of side effects (87.18%) and lack of information (70.94%) as the most reasons for the hesitancy. The findings from this study can aid the ongoing and future COVID-19 vaccination plan for university students. The national and international authorities can have substantial information for a successful inoculation campaign.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Supplementary Information

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

Side Effects of COVID-19 Inactivated Virus vs. Adenoviral Vector Vaccines: Experience of Algerian Healthcare Workers

Healthcare workers were prioritized in vaccination campaigns globally because they are exposed to the highest risk of contamination by SARS-CoV-2. This study evaluated the self-reported post-vaccination side effects of inactivated (BBIBP-CorV and CoronaVac) and adenoviral vector-based (AZD1222, Gam-COVID-Vac and Ad26.COV2.S) vaccines among Algerian healthcare workers using a validated questionnaire. The final analysis included 721 healthcare workers, with a predominance of females (59.1%) and younger individuals 20–30 years old (39.4%). Less than half (49.1%) of the respondents reported at least one local side effect, while 53.8% reported at least one systemic side effect. These side effects were more prevalent among viral vector vaccinees than inactivated virus vaccinees. The most common local side effects were injection site pain (39%) and arm pain (25.4%), while fatigue (34.4%), fever (28.4%), headache (24.8%) and myalgia (22.7%) were the most prevalent systemic side effects. The side effects appeared earlier among inactivated virus vaccines recipients and generally lasted for 2 to 3 days for the two vaccinated groups. The risk factors associated with a higher prevalence of side effects included female gender, allergic individuals, individuals with regular medication, those who contracted the COVID-19 disease and those who received two doses for both inactivated and viral-based vaccines groups. Despite the higher prevalence of post-vaccination side effects among adenoviral vector vaccines recipients, both vaccines groups were equally effective in preventing symptomatic infections, and no life-threatening side effects were reported in either vaccine group.

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

Introduction

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Prevalence and Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy Among German University Students and Employees

COVID-19 booster hesitancy (VBH) is a serious public health challenge which acts simultaneously with the waning vaccine-elicited immunity and the emerging viral variants to prolong the pandemic interval. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of COVID-19 VBH among a highly educated subset of the German population and to explore the potential demographic, anamnestic, and psychosocial determinants of this problem. A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted in December 2021 among German university students and employees to evaluate their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine booster (VB) doses. The study used a self-administered questionnaire that was developed and disseminated digitally, and the questionnaire inquired about participants' demographic characteristics, COVID-19-related anamnesis, COVID-19 vaccine-related anamnesis, and psychosocial predictors of COVID-19 VBH. A total of 930 participants were recruited, of which 608 (65.4%) were students, 682 (73.3%) were females, and their mean age was 29.08 ± 10.93 years. Fifty-five participants (5.9%) had been previously infected by COVID-19 and the vast majority of infections happened before the first vaccine dose. Over 95% of the participants had received at least one vaccine dose, and the most commonly administered vaccine was BNT162b2. The overall COVID-19 VB acceptance was satisfactory (87.8%) and induced by various altruistic promoters, e.g., family health protection, community health protection, and patients' health protection. The students (86.3%), the previously infected participants (76.4%), the participants who did not receive primer doses of COVID-19 vaccines (2.5 %), and those who were hospitalized (40%) and sought medical care/treatment after receiving primer doses (86.8%) were less likely to accept COVID-19 VB compared to the employees (90.7%), the participants who were not previously infected (88.6%) and those who received primer dose (91.7%), and the participants who were not hospitalized (92%) nor sought medical care/treatment after primer doses (92.9%), respectively. The perceived effectiveness of COVID-19 VB against severe illness (adjusted odds ratio "AOR": 47.65-95% confidence interval "CI": 23.65-96.49), symptomatic infection (AOR: 9.87-95% CI: 5.20-18.71), community transmission (AOR: 5.34-95% CI: 3.00-9.49) and emerging variants (AOR: 19.12-95% CI: 10.57-34.55) were key predictors for COVID-19 VB acceptance; therefore, it needs to be highlighted in vaccine messaging. In addition, the perceived safety of COVID-19 VB and ethical dilemmas of vaccine justice need to be addressed publicly.

Evaluating Pharmacists’ Pharmacological Knowledge and Views Regarding Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in Saudi Arabia

Background

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has been widely used and approved for the prevention of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) for individuals aged 16 years and older in Saudi Arabia. The emergency use authorization of this vaccine is crucial to managing the pandemic in the Kingdom. This vaccination strategy requires proper usage, knowledge, and management by pharmacists and other health professionals.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted using several previously validated questionnaires. Pharmacists working in different health sectors in Saudi Arabia in March–July 2021 participated via an online questionnaire. Comparative and descriptive analyses were used to analyze the data, and a P-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

A total of 145 pharmacists with a mean age of 35.2 years (SD ± 5.59) were included. The study sample showed adequate general knowledge of COVID-19 and its causative virus signs. Overall, the results showed good knowledge of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and its pharmacological application among pharmacists in Saudi Arabia with significant chi square values (p< 0.0001).

Conclusion

Pharmacists have good knowledge and understanding of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine; interestingly, the majority expressed a high level of awareness and agreed that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is a valuable vaccine for COVID-19 management.

Adverse events reported after administration of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines among hospital workers: a cross-sectional survey-based study in a Spanish hospital

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic in March 2020. The first vaccine became available in December, with practically no post-marketing data.

METHODS

An analytical cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted in a third-level hospital in Spain between March and April 2021 to describe the difference in adverse events with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines. The participants were hospital workers who completed a survey voluntarily at least 14 days after the last vaccine. The STROBE checklist was followed.

RESULTS

One thousand two hundred and forty-nine respondents completed the survey; 48% (599) received mRNA-1273 and 52% (650) BNT162b2. Fourteen thousand four hundred and two adverse reactions were recorded, 6896 local (3939 with mRNA-1273 and 2957 with BNT162b2 (6.6 vs 4.4 reactions per patient)) and 7506 systemic (4460 with mRNA-1273 and 3046 with BNT162b2 (7.4 vs 4.7 per patient)). Local reactions were more frequent after the first dose, while systemic reactions were higher after the second, for both vaccines and in a higher percentage with mRNA-1273 compared to BNT162b2 (p-value<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Licensed mRNA vaccines were highly safe when administered under post-marketing conditions among working-age adults. The main adverse events were mild, although they occurred in most patients, especially after the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

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

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

Safety Profile of COVID-19 Vaccines among Healthcare Workers in Poland

The aim of the study was to compare the safety profiles (prevalence of both local and systemic side effects) of COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer−BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford−AstraZeneca) among healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, and pharmacists) administered with a first and a second dose of the vaccines. Another goal of the research was to evaluate potential demographic and clinical risk factors for the frequency and intensity of side effects. A post-marketing, cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out on a sample of 971 respondents (323 doctors, 324 nurses, and 324 pharmacists), all more than 18 years old, who have taken two doses of the following SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: BNT162b2 (Pfizer−BioNTech) (group 1), mRNA-1273 (Moderna) (group 2), and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford−AstraZeneca) (group 3). A validated, self-administered questionnaire was developed and delivered online to the target population group of healthcare workers. The survey was conducted during the third wave of the COVID-19 (1 February 2021−1 July 2021) pandemic. It was based on the CAWI (computer-assisted web interview) method. Questionnaires were disseminated using selected social media. The BNT162b2 (Pfizer−BioNTech) vaccine was the most commonly administered COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare professionals in Poland (69.61%). Side effects following a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were reported by 53.11% of respondents in group 1, 72% in group 2, and 67.59% in group 3. The following were the most common side effects regardless of the type of vaccine administered: pain at the injection site, headache, muscle pain, fever, chills, and fatigue. The number and intensity of reported side effects following administration of a BNT162b2 (Pfizer−BioNTech) vaccine were significantly lower than in the other two study groups (p < 0.00001). Risk factors for side effects following administration of one of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines subject to the analysis included being female, young, and suffering from a diagnosed allergy. Our results clearly show that the short-term safety profiles of the eligible COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer−BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford−AstraZeneca) are acceptable. Nevertheless, the two-dose COVID-19 vaccines available in Poland differ significantly in the frequency of both local and systemic side effects and their intensity. Women, young people, and patients diagnosed with allergies are particularly exposed to the risk of side effects. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2) Side Effects: A Systematic Review

Vaccinations prevented severe clinical complications of COVID-19. It was considered a vital component of living endemically with COVID-19. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is the first mRNA-based vaccination that enhances immunity. Resulting in various adverse effects that may emerge after vaccination. This systematic review was undertaken to assess the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine side effects by reviewing the previous studies. A total of 107 PubMed and Google Scholar publications were screened for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine side effects. Fourteen articles met the study inclusion criteria. The included searching terms were a combination of "Pfizer vaccine and Side effects," "BioNTech vaccine and side effects," and "BNT162b2 vaccine and side effects," as well as all synonyms. The total number of participants in the 14 studies was 10,632 participants. Average of the most frequent side effects of 14 studies were injection site pain 77.34%, fatigue 43%, muscle pain 39.67%, local swelling 33.57%, headache 33.27%, joint pain 25.75%, chills 18.34%, fever 18%, itching 9.38%, lymph nodes swelling 7.86%, nausea 7.58%, dyspnea 7.86%,and diarrhea 6.36%. The average side effects after the first dose were 79% compared with 84% after the second dose. The average occurs side effects in females at 69.8% compared with males 30.2%. Our study reveals that side effects after the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are common, but they are usually mild and self-limited. Local reactions like pain at the injection site are the most common. Anaphylactic shock or severe reactions are rare. We hope that our results will reassure the public that the benefits of vaccination far exceed the dangers. Also, help reduce vaccine hesitancy among individuals worried about vaccine safety and possible adverse effects.

COVID-19 Vaccination Does Not Affect Reproductive Health Parameters in Men

With the implementation of COVID-19 vaccine up-take, doubts regarding the impact of immunization on future fertility have begun to emerge. We have examined vaccine safety on male reproductive health. We set up a multicentre (three infertility centers), retrospective study in order to assess semen parameters and fertilization rate of one hundred-six men in a pairwise comparison between the first and second assisted reproduction technology (ART) attempt, performed respectively before and after COVID-19 vaccination. Median time (range) between the first vaccine dose and the second ART cycle was 75 days (39-112). Semen parameters did not change before and after the exposure. Fertilization rate was also similar before and after vaccination. Twenty-five patients (24%) were oligozoospermic before the vaccination while 26 (25%) after the exposure (P = 0.87). Severe asthenozoospermia were present in 11 patients before as well as after the exposure. No difference was observed even after considering different types of vaccines (mRNA or viral vector). COVID-19 vaccination did not affect sperm quality and fertilization capacity of men undergoing ART treatments and should be considered safe for men's reproductive health.

SARS‐CoV‐2 and its variants of concern including Omicron: looks like a never ending pandemic

The ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 is associated with high morbidity and mortality. This zoonotic virus has emerged in Wuhan of China in December 2019 from bats and pangolins probably and continuing the human‐to‐human transmission globally since last two years. As there is no efficient approved treatment, a number of vaccines were developed at an unprecedented speed to counter the pandemic. Moreover, vaccine hesitancy is observed that may be another possible reason for this never ending pandemic. In the meantime, several variants and mutations were identified and causing multiple waves globally. Now the safety and efficacy of these vaccines are debatable and recommended to determine whether vaccines are able to interrupt transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 variant of concern (VOC). Moreover, the VOCs continue to emerge that appear more transmissible and less sensitive to virus‐specific immune responses. In this overview, we have highlighted various drugs and vaccines used to counter this pandemic along with their reported side effects. Moreover, the preliminary data for the novel VOC “Omicron” are discussed with the existing animal models.