Factors Associated with Adverse Reactions to BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine in a Cohort of 3969 Hospital Workers

What is the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Immunocompromised Patients? Results from the European "Covid Vaccine Monitor" Active Surveillance Study

BACKGROUND

The safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients has not been comprehensively evaluated.

AIM

To measure the frequency of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the first/second/booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised subject versus matched cohort. As a secondary objective, the time course, evaluated as time to onset (TTO) and time to recovery (TTR), of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs was explored.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study, based on electronic questionnaires filled by vaccinees from 11 European countries in the period February 2021 to February 2023 was conducted. All immunocompromised vaccinees who provided informed consent and registered to the project's web-app within 48 h after first/booster vaccine dose administration of any EMA-authorised COVID-19 vaccine were recruited. Participants filled baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires (FU-Qs) over 6 months from vaccination, collecting information on suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs. As a control group, non-immunocompromised vaccinees from the same source population were 1:4 matched by sex, age, vaccine dose, and brand. A descriptive analysis of demographic/clinical characteristics of vaccinees was conducted. Heatmaps of the frequency of solicited ADRs, stratified by gender and vaccine brand, were generated. Median TTO/TTR of reported ADRs were visualised using violin/box-plots.

RESULTS

A total of 773 immunocompromised vaccines were included in the analyses. Most participants were females (F/M ratio: 2.1 and 1.6) with a median age of 56 (43-74) and 51 (41-60) years, at the first vaccination cycle and booster dose, respectively. Injection-site pain and fatigue were the most frequently reported ADRs in immunocompromised vaccinees with higher frequency than matched control, especially after the first dose (41.2% vs 37.8% and 38.2% vs 32.9%, respectively). For both cohorts, all solicited ADRs were more frequently reported in females than males, and in those who had received a first dose of the Vaxzevria vaccine. Dizziness was the most frequently reported unsolicited ADR after the first dose in both groups (immunocompromised subjects: 2.5% and matched controls: 2.1%). At the booster dose, lymphadenopathy (3.9%) and lymphadenitis (1.8%) were the most reported unsolicited ADRs for immunocompromised subjects and matched controls, respectively. A very low number of subjects reported adverse event of special interest (AESI) (2 immunocompromised, 3 matched controls) and serious ADRs (5 immunocompromised, 5 matched controls). A statistically significant difference among study cohorts was observed for median TTO after the booster dose, and for median TTR after the first vaccination cycle and booster dose (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The overall safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised people was favourable, with minor differences as compared to non-immunocompromised vaccinees. Participants mostly experienced mild ADRs, mainly reported after the first dose of Vaxzevria and Jcovden vaccines. Serious ADRs and AESI were rare.

Reactogenicity and Peak Anti-RBD-S1 IgG Concentrations in Individuals with No Prior COVID-19 Infection Vaccinated with Different SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of immune response with vaccination adverse effects at peak anti-receptor-binding domain spike subunit 1 (anti-RBDS1) IgG after full vaccination with Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria.

METHODS

Anti-RBDS1 IgG concentrations after vaccination were determined in healthy adults vaccinated with the Comirnaty, Spikevax, and Vaxzevria vaccines. The association of reactogenicity and peak antibody response after vaccination was tested.

RESULTS

Anti-RBDS1 IgG values were significantly higher in the Comirnaty and Spikevax group, compared with the Vaxzevria group (P < .001). Fever and muscle pain were found to be significant independent predictors of peak anti-RBDS1 IgG in the Comirnaty and Spikevax groups (P = .03 and P = .02, respectively). The multivariate model, adjusted for covariates, showed that no association between reactogenicity and peak antibody concentrations was found in the Comirnaty, Spikevax, and Vaxzevria groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No association between reactogenicity and peak anti-RBDS1 IgG after vaccination with the Comirnaty, Spikevax, and Vaxzevria vaccine was found.

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.

Dermatological adverse reactions after vaccination with BNT162b2 in a cohort of healthcare workers

Background

The description of the skin reactions produced by the different vaccines against SARS‐CoV‐2 has focused on the symptoms reported by the general population. There are few studies with very different measurement methods focused on healthcare workers.

Methods

A longitudinal observational study was conducted on all the healthcare workers from the Hospital Universitario San Cecilio that received vaccination against COVID‐19 with BNT162b2. The recruitment period was from December 2020 to September 2021. The recommended regimen was double, with a minimum interval of 21 days between doses. All dermatological reactions reported as adverse effects of the vaccine were evaluated by the Staff of the Dermatology Unit of our center.

Results

A total of 3969 healthcare workers of our center were followed. Only 0.7% of them reported dermatological adverse reactions. The most frequently reported reactions were morbilliform rash and COVID arm. In the multivariate analysis, the vaccination regimen (one dose) and the history of COVID‐19 infection remained the main factors associated with the report of dermatological adverse reactions.

Conclusion

The rate of dermatological adverse reactions after vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer‐BioNTech) is extraordinarily low. No patient required hospitalization, which supports the safety of this vaccination in a population of healthcare workers.

Adverse Events Associated with BNT162b2 and AZD1222 Vaccines in the Real World: Surveillance Report in a Single Italian Vaccine Center

Aim: Despite huge efforts in developing specific drugs, vaccination represents the only effective strategy against COVID-19. Efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines were established during clinical trials. Nonetheless, it is very important to perform continuous surveillance. This observational study aimed to report potential Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) following the first dose of two different COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 and AZD1222. Methods and Results: Subjects who underwent vaccination at the vaccine center of the University Hospital of Salerno, Italy, were interviewed using an ad hoc questionnaire. AZD-vac group (n = 175) who received AZD1222 had a higher number of AEFI than the BNT-vac group (n = 1613) who received BNT162b2 (83% vs. 42%). The most frequent AEFI associated with AZD1222 and BNT162b2 were fever and pain at the injection site, respectively. The AZD-vac group used drugs to contrast AEFI more frequently than the BNT-vac group. In the BNT-vac group, there was a higher incidence of AEFI in women than in men (26.2% vs. 15.8%, p = 0.01), while no gender-related difference was observed in the AZD-vac group. Conclusions: AZD1222 and BNT162b2 vaccines show a good safety profile. Based on our results and literature data, there are no reasons to justify the reluctance that persists towards immunization.