Gender Differences in Adverse Events Following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

Omission of alcohol skin cleansing and risk of adverse events in long-term care residents undergoing COVID-19 vaccination: A cohort study

Despite a lack of clinical data demonstrating the effectiveness of alcohol swab cleansing prior to vaccinations as a prophylactic measure to prevent skin infections, it is recommended for vaccine administration by the Canadian Immunization Guide. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of adverse events after omitting alcohol skin cleansing in long-term care (LTC) residents receiving vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two medium-sized LTC homes participated in a cohort study, whereby one LTC used alcohol swab cleansing prior to resident vaccinations and the other did not. All residents received two doses of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine separated by an average (SD) 29.3 (8.5) days. The electronic chart records of participants were reviewed by researchers blinded to group allocation to assess for the presence of adverse events following immunization (AEFI), including reactogenicity, cellulitis, abscess, or systemic reactions. Log-binomial regression was used to compute risk ratios (with 95% confidence intervals) of an AEFI according to alcohol swab status. 189 residents were included, with a total of 56 AEFI between the two doses. The risk of reactogenicity (adjusted RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17-1.73) or systemic reactions (adjusted RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.26-2.13) did not differ for the residents that received alcohol skin antisepsis compared to those that did not. There were no cases of cellulitis or abscess. This study did not demonstrate an elevated risk of AEFI in LTC residents receiving two doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID vaccine without alcohol skin antisepsis.

The conneXion between sex and immune responses

There are notable sex-based differences in immune responses to pathogens and self-antigens, with female individuals exhibiting increased susceptibility to various autoimmune diseases, and male individuals displaying preferential susceptibility to some viral, bacterial, parasitic and fungal infections. Although sex hormones clearly contribute to sex differences in immune cell composition and function, the presence of two X chromosomes in female individuals suggests that differential gene expression of numerous X chromosome-linked immune-related genes may also influence sex-biased innate and adaptive immune cell function in health and disease. Here, we review the sex differences in immune system composition and function, examining how hormones and genetics influence the immune system. We focus on the genetic and epigenetic contributions responsible for altered X chromosome-linked gene expression, and how this impacts sex-biased immune responses in the context of pathogen infection and systemic autoimmunity.

Experience and side effects of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among university students: a cross-sectional survey study

Introduction

Many people expressed concern over coronavirus vaccinations' reliability and side effects. This research aimed to assess university students' perceptions and experiences regarding the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines in Bangladesh.

Method

We conducted an online cross-sectional survey to collect responses from university students vaccinated with any vaccines administered in Bangladesh between November 2021 to April 2022. Bangladeshi university students over the age of 18 and having an internet connection was included in the study. A binary logistic regression analysis along with Pearson's Chi-square test were used to identify COVID-19 vaccine-related side effects predictors after receiving the first dose.

Results

A total of 1,176 participants responded voluntarily to the online study, and most were vaccinated. More than half of the participants received the Sinopharm vaccine (56.5%), while others received Covishield (8.9%), Moderna (7.3%), and Pfizer (5.8%) vaccine. Around 32% of the participants reported side effects after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, including pain and edema (78.4%), body temperature (20.3%), and headache (14.5%), while a few experienced allergy, anxiety, and uneasy feelings. About 17% of the participants reported experiencing side effects after the second dose of the vaccine, including pain and edema (7.5%), body temperature (8.8%), and headache (7.3%). Most side effects were significantly associated with the Moderna vaccine (p < 0.001). Female students and those previously infected with COVID-19 were significantly associated with the side effects after taking the first dose of the vaccine.

Conclusion

We found that side effects are mild and did not pose a significant challenge to Bangladesh's effort in managing and reducing the risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Sex and gender differences in adverse events following influenza and COVID-19 vaccination

INTRODUCTION

Active and passive surveillance studies have found that a greater proportion of females report adverse events (AE) following receipt of either the COVID-19 or seasonal influenza vaccine compared to males. In a predominately young adult female population of healthcare workers, we sought to determine the intersection of biological sex and sociocultural gender differences in prospective active reporting of vaccine outcomes, which remains poorly characterized.

METHODS

This cohort study enrolled Johns Hopkins Health System healthcare workers (HCWs) who were recruited from the mandatory annual fall 2019-2022 influenza vaccine and the fall 2022 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine campaigns. Vaccine recipients were enrolled the day of vaccination and AE surveys were administered two days post-vaccination for bivalent COVID-19 and influenza vaccine recipients. Data were collected regarding the presence of a series of solicited local and systemic AEs. Open-ended answers about participants' experiences with AEs also were collected for the COVID-19 vaccine recipients.

RESULTS

Females were more likely to report local AEs after either influenza (OR = 2.28, p = 0.001) or COVID-19 (OR = 2.57, p = 0.008) vaccination compared to males, regardless of age or race. Males and females had comparable probabilities of reporting systemic AEs after either influenza (OR = 1.18, p = 0.552) or COVID-19 (OR = 0.96, p = 0.907) vaccination. Hormonal birth control use did not impact the rates of reported AEs following influenza vaccination among reproductive-aged female HCWs. Women reported more interruptions in their daily routine following COVID-19 vaccination than men and were more likely to seek out self-treatment. More women than men scheduled their COVID-19 vaccination before their days off in anticipation of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the need for sex- and gender-inclusive policies to inform more effective mandatory occupational health vaccination strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential disruption of AEs on occupational responsibilities following mandated vaccination for healthcare workers, a predominately female population, and to more fully characterize the post-vaccination behavioral differences between men and women.

Incidence and Outcomes of COVID-19 Vaccine Hypersensitivity Reactions and Success of COVID-19 Vaccine Provocation Tests Post Previous COVID-19 Vaccine Hypersensitivity

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to high mortality rates. There have been reports of hypersensitivity reactions with mild to severe symptoms. The COVID-19 vaccine provocation test is a vaccination protocol for individuals with a history of hypersensitivity. This study aims to determine the benefits of COVID-19 vaccine provocation tests in patients with a history of hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and its influencing factors. Objective: To determine the incidence, severity, outcome of hypersensitivity reactions, and success of the COVID-19 vaccine provocation test. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, using subjects taken from medical record data at the RSCM who had received COVID-19 vaccination with a history of hypersensitivity. Data was taken from the COVID-19 vaccination records at the RSCM, BPJS Health Primary Care application. Results: From a total of 29,036 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, 44 patients experienced hypersensitivity reactions. As many as 38.64% did not continue vaccination, 2.27% experienced mild hypersensitivity, and 59.44% were successfully vaccinated. Conclusions: People with a history of hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines can still receive subsequent COVID-19 vaccinations at healthcare facilities equipped with anaphylaxis kits and immunology allergists.

Immune Cells, Gut Microbiota, and Vaccines: A Gender Perspective

The development of preventive and therapeutic vaccines has played a crucial role in preventing infections and treating chronic and non-communicable diseases, respectively. For a long time, the influence of sex differences on modifying health and disease has not been addressed in clinical and preclinical studies. The interaction of genetic, epigenetic, and hormonal factors plays a role in the sex-related differences in the epidemiology of diseases, clinical manifestations, and the response to treatment. Moreover, sex is one of the leading factors influencing the gut microbiota composition, which could further explain the different predisposition to diseases in men and women. In the same way, differences between sexes occur also in the immune response to vaccines. This narrative review aims to highlight these differences, focusing on the immune response to vaccines. Comparative data about immune responses, vaccine effectiveness, and side effects are reviewed. Hence, the intricate interplay between sex, immunity, and the gut microbiota will be discussed for its potential role in the response to vaccination. Embracing a sex-oriented perspective in research may improve the efficacy of the immune response and allow the design of tailored vaccine schedules.

The Role of Biological Sex in Pre-Clinical (Mouse) mRNA Vaccine Studies

In this study, we consider the influence of biological sex-specific immune responses on the assessment of mRNA vaccines in pre-clinical murine studies. Recognising the established disparities in immune function attributed to genetic and hormonal differences between individuals of different biological sexes, we compared the mRNA expression and immune responses in mice of both biological sexes after intramuscular injection with mRNA incorporated within lipid nanoparticles. Regarding mRNA expression, no significant difference in protein (luciferase) expression at the injection site was observed between female and male mice following intramuscular administration; however, we found that female BALB/c mice exhibit significantly greater total IgG responses across the concentration range of mRNA lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) in comparison to their male counterparts. This study not only contributes to the scientific understanding of mRNA vaccine evaluation but also emphasizes the importance of considering biological sex in vaccine study designs during pre-clinical evaluation in murine studies.

Short term safety of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among children aged 5-11 years, a nationwide parental survey

PURPOSE

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safety is of major interest worldwide, and transparent information about potential side effects is essential to decrease vaccine hesitancy. The aim of this study was to assess SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine short-term side effects among children aged 5-11 years.

METHODS

An observational, cross sectional study of vaccine side-effects using electronic surveys sent to parents one week post administration of BNT162b2 vaccine to their child in a large health maintenance organization in Israel.

RESULTS

First dose and second dose surveys were filled for 5,842 and 6,126 children, respectively, with a response rate of 32.1% and 24.8%. Local side effects were reported by 68.7% and 69.1% of the first and second survey respondents, and general side effects were reported by 20.8% and 34.5% of them. The symptoms most frequently reported were fatigue, headache and myalgia. Duration of symptoms lasted three days or less among 86.5% and 81.5% of first and second dose survey respondents. Most respondents (92%) reported that their child did not need any medical consultation following vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

We found further support for the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine short- term safety among children aged 5-11 years. With ongoing pandemic and future booster COVID-19 vaccines, these findings can encourage vaccine confidence for parents and providers.

Association of the Magnitude of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Side Effects with Sex, Allergy History, Chronic Diseases, Medication Intake, and SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Vaccination provides the best protection against the increasing infections of SARS-CoV-2. The magnitude and type of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine side effects (SEs) depend on parameters that are not fully understood. In this cross-sectional study, the associations between different anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine SEs and age, sex, the presence of chronic diseases, medication intake, history of allergies, and infections with SARS-CoV-2 were investigated. Our survey used the Google platform and had 866 participants, contacted through e-mails, social media and chain referral sampling (margin of error ≈ 4.38%, 99% confidence). More than 99% of the participants received the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1-S vaccines. Being female, having chronic diseases, taking medicines routinely and the presence of a SARS-CoV-2 infection (p < 0.05) were associated with strong SEs after the BNT162b2 vaccine second dose. Having a history of allergies and a female sex (p < 0.01) were associated with strong SEs after the ChAdOx1-S vaccine second dose. Furthermore, the results reveal, for the first time, the associations between having a history of allergies, chronic diseases, medication usage, and SEs of a strong magnitude for the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1-S vaccines. Additionally, this study supports the association of the female sex and infection with SARS-CoV-2 with an increased potential of developing stronger SEs with certain anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Sex and gender differences in adverse events following receipt of influenza and COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers

Introduction

Active and passive surveillance studies have found that a greater proportion of females report adverse events (AE) following receipt of either the COVID-19 or seasonal influenza vaccine compared to males. We sought to determine the intersection of biological sex and sociocultural gender differences in prospective active reporting of vaccine outcomes, which remains poorly characterized.

Methods

This cohort study enrolled Johns Hopkins Health System healthcare workers (HCWs) who were recruited from the annual fall 2019-2022 influenza vaccine and the fall 2022 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine campaigns. Vaccine recipients were enrolled the day of vaccination and AE surveys were administered two days post-vaccination (DPV) for bivalent COVID-19 and Influenza vaccine recipients. Data were collected regarding the presence of a series of solicited local and systemic AEs. Open-ended answers about participants' experiences with AEs also were collected for the COVID-19 vaccine recipients.

Results

Females were more likely to report local AEs after influenza (OR=2.28, p=0.001) or COVID-19 (OR=2.57, p=0.008) vaccination compared to males, regardless of age or race. Males and females had comparable probabilities of reporting systemic AEs after influenza (OR=1.18, p=0.552) or COVID-19 (OR=0.96, p=0.907) vaccination. Exogenous hormones from birth control use did not impact the rates of reported AEs following COVID-19 vaccination among reproductive-aged female HCWs. Women reported more interruptions in their daily routine following COVID-19 vaccination than men and were more likely to seek out self-treatment. More women than men scheduled their COVID-19 vaccination before their days off in anticipation of AEs.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight the need for sex- and gender-inclusive policies to inform more effective occupational health vaccination strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential disruption of AEs on occupational responsibilities following mandated vaccination for healthcare workers and to more fully characterize the post-vaccination behavioral differences between men and women.

KEY MESSAGE

What is already known on this topic: ⇒ Among diversely aged adults 18-64 years, females report more AEs to vaccines, including the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines, than males.⇒ Vaccine AEs play a role in shaping vaccine hesitancy and uptake.⇒ Vaccine uptake related to influenza and COVID-19 are higher among men than women.⇒ Research that addresses both the sex and gender disparities of vaccine outcomes and behaviors is lacking.What this study adds: ⇒ This prospective active reporting study uses both quantitative and qualitative survey data to examine sex and gender differences in AEs following influenza or COVID-19 vaccination among a cohort of reproductive-aged healthcare workers.How this study might affect research, practice, or policy: ⇒ Sex and gender differences in AEs and perceptions relating to vaccination should drive the development of more equitable and effective vaccine strategies and policies in occupational health settings.

Adverse Effects Post COVID-19 Vaccination and its Association with Age, Gender and Comorbid Disease in Basrah City Southern of Iraq

BACKGROUND

Vaccination against COVID-19 virus is the most valuable tool available for protection during the pandemic of coronavirus. The clinical manifestation post-vaccination is a barrier to vaccination for many people in Iraq and worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is identifying various clinical manifestations occurring after receiving vaccines among individuals in Basrah Governorate. Moreover, we examine its association with respondents' demographics and the type of vaccine they received.

METHODS

A cross-section study was conducted in Basrah, southern Iraq. Research data were collected through an online questionnaire. The data were analyzed using both descriptive and analytic statistical tools using the SPSS program.

RESULTS

Most of the participants (86.68%) received the vaccine. The side effects were reported in 71.61% of vaccinated individuals. Fever and muscle pain were the two most experienced clinical manifestations, while lymph node enlargement and disturbances in taste and/or smell sensations were reported infrequently. Adverse effects were mostly reported with the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine receiver. Females and those in the younger age group also reported a significantly higher incidence of side effects.

CONCLUSION

Most adverse effects related to the COVID-19 vaccine were minor and could be tolerated without the need for hospital admission.

Assessing the prevalence and patterns of COVID-19 vaccine side effects among Syrian adults: A cross-sectional study

Aim

This study aimed to assess the prevalence and patterns of COVID-19 vaccine side effects among Syrian adults, with a focus on the AstraZeneca and Sputnik Light vaccines, in light of the low vaccination rate in Syria (below 18%) attributed to fear of side effects.

Method

A cross-sectional study was conducted between January and May 2022, using probability-based and convenient sampling strategies. Data was collected through online, paper, and face-to-face questionnaires that included demographic and vaccine-related questions.

Result

Out of 3,766 participants, the majority were female (56.7 %) and aged 18-24 years (53.3 %). Most participants had a university-level qualification (71.2 %) and were related to the medical sector (53.2 %). A significant proportion (47.0 %) received AstraZeneca, Sputnik Light (22.1 %) and Sinopharm (14.7 %). Common side effects included sleepiness and lethargy (50.0 %), fever and chills (45.0 %), and pain/swelling at the injection site (35.9 %). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that male (OR: 0.57, CI: 0.48-0.68) and participants aged 45-65 years (OR: 0.53, CI: 0.40-0.70) were less likely to experience side effects. Participants who believed COVID-19 posed a high threat to their personal life had higher odds of side effects (OR: 1.74, CI: 1.22-2.46). Vaccine type was also associated with side effects, with Sputnik Light (OR: 2.52, CI: 1.85-3.46) and AstraZeneca (OR: 1.61, CI: 1.26-2.05) having increased odds.

Conclusion

Our study found that COVID-19 vaccines are well tolerated among the Syrian population, with short-term side effects that typically resolve within three days. These findings are expected to bolster vaccination rates through enhanced public confidence and acceptance.

Vaccine conspiracy association with higher COVID-19 vaccination side effects and negative attitude towards booster COVID-19, influenza and monkeypox vaccines: A pilot study in Saudi Universities

Conspiracies regarding vaccines are widely prevalent, with negative consequences on health-seeking behaviors. The current study aimed to investigate the possible association between the embrace of vaccine conspiracies and the attitude to booster COVID-19, seasonal influenza, and monkeypox (mpox) vaccinations as well as the perceived side effects following COVID-19 vaccination. The target population involved academic staff and university students in health colleges in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed in January 2023 to collect data on participants' demographics, self-reported side effects following each dose, willingness to get booster COVID-19, seasonal influenza, and mpox vaccinations, as well as an evaluation of vaccine conspiracies and attitude to mandatory vaccination. Among the 273 participants, the willingness to receive yearly booster COVID-19 vaccination was observed among 26.0% of the participants, while it was 46.9% and 34.1% for seasonal influenza and mpox vaccinations, respectively. Multinomial logistic regression analyses demonstrated a significant correlation between endorsing vaccine conspiracies and higher frequency of self-reported side effects following uptake of the second and third doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine conspiracies were also correlated with attitude toward booster COVID-19, influenza, mpox, and mandatory vaccination. The findings of this pilot study highlighted the potential adverse impact of the preexisting notions and negative attitudes toward vaccines, which could have contributed to heightened perceived side effects following COVID-19 vaccination. The study also highlighted the ongoing divisions concerning mandatory vaccination policies, emphasizing the need for cautious implementation of this strategy as a last resort for public health benefit.

Adverse events following the first, second and third doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify adverse events following the first three doses of COVID-19 vaccines in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Risk factors associated with postvaccination adverse events were explored.

METHODS

Postvaccination adverse events in 438 HD patients who received 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccines were prospectively assessed. The adverse events among three doses were compared using generalized linear mixed models. Factors associated with adverse events were assessed with multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The vast majority of participants received Oxford/AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 as their first two doses and Moderna mRNA-1273 as their third dose. Overall, 79%, 50% and 84% of the participants experienced at least one adverse event after their first, second, and third doses, respectively. These adverse events were mostly minor, short-lived and less than 5% reported daily activities being affected. Compared with the first dose, the second dose caused a lower rate of adverse events. Compared with the first dose, the third dose elicited a higher rate of injection site reactions and a lower rate of systemic reactions. Multivariate analyses showed that every 10-year increase of age (odds ratio 0.67, 95% confidence intervals 0.57-0.79) was associated with decreased risk of adverse events, while female sex (2.82, 1.90-4.18) and arteriovenous fistula (1.73, 1.05-2.84) were associated with increased risk of adverse events. Compared with Oxford/AstraZeneca ChAdOx1, Moderna mRNA-1273 was associated with an increased risk of injection site reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccination was well tolerated in HD patients. Age, sex, dialysis vascular access and vaccine types were associated with postvaccination adverse events.

Sex differences in COVID-19 symptom severity and trajectories among ambulatory adults

Background

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led to hundreds of millions of infections worldwide. Although differences in COVID-19 hospitalization rates between males and females have been described, many infections in the general population have been mild, and the severity of symptoms during the course of COVID-19 in non-hospitalized males and females is not well understood.

Methods

We conducted a case-ascertained study to examine household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Nashville, Tennessee, between April 2020 and April 2021. Among enrolled ambulatory adult participants with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, we assessed the presence and severity of symptoms (total, systemic, and respiratory) daily using a symptoms severity questionnaire, from illness onset and throughout the 2-week follow-up period. We compared the mean daily symptom severity scores (0-3: none, mild, moderate, and severe) and change in symptoms between males and females using a multivariable linear mixed effects regression model.

Results

The analysis included 223 enrolled adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (58% females, mostly white, non-Hispanic) from 146 households with 2917 total daily symptom reports. The overall mean severity of total symptoms reported over the illness period was 1.04 and 0.90 for females and males, respectively. Mean systemic and respiratory scores were higher for females than for males (p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, females reported more severe total and systemic symptoms during the illness period compared with males. However, no significant differences in reported respiratory symptoms were observed.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that among ambulatory adults with SARS-CoV-2 infections, females reported slightly higher symptom severity during their illness compared with males.

Differences in Coronavirus disease - 19 vaccination related side effects in patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease in Japan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

It has been recommended that individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) be vaccinated against Coronavirus disease - 19 (COVID-19). Recently, we documented the incidence of side effects (SEs) after COVID-19 immunization among individuals with IBD in Japan. However, the study did not show differences between the types of IBD or the patients' clinical backgrounds. In this survey, we aimed at investigating whether the frequency of SEs differed among patients with IBD.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adult patients with IBD at Kobe University between March 2022 and September 2022.

RESULTS

Total 195 patients, including 134 with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 61 with Crohn's disease (CD), completed the questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Of these, 92.3%, 91.3% and 44.1% received the initial, second and third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, respectively. The frequency of local symptoms following the initial, second and third dose of the vaccine was comparable between patients with UC and CD (69.6% vs. 72.7%, 64.2% vs. 69.1% and 63.5% vs. 73.9%, respectively). Muscle pain after the initial and second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine was more common among patients treated with corticosteroids (58.1% vs. 37.6% and 60.0% vs. 31.8%, p < 0.05). Female sex, younger age and current or former smoking were associated with an increased incidence of fever or chills after the initial dose of the vaccine (p < 0.05). In contrast, corticosteroid use was identified as a factor associated with an increased incidence of muscle pain after the initial dose of vaccine (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of corticosteroids could increase the risk of muscle pain following COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, factors such as female sex, younger age and current or former smoking can affect the incidence of fever or chills. This information should encourage patients with IBD to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

Immediate and Long-Term Adverse Events of COVID-19 Vaccines: A One-Year Follow-Up Study From the Kurdistan Region of Iraq

Background The administration of COVID-19 vaccines has been critical in controlling the spread of the virus. However, understanding the potential adverse events (AEs) associated with these vaccines is crucial for public health. While most previous studies observed only short-term AEs, this study aimed to investigate the immediate and long-term AEs following the first and second doses of Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sinopharm vaccines, providing valuable long-term insights. Methodology A prospective, one-year, follow-up study was conducted by tracking 922 vaccinated individuals to assess short-term and long-term AEs. Demographics, clinical characteristics, vaccine types, and dose effects were taken into consideration. AEs were classified based on severity and duration. Statistical analyses were performed to compare differences among the vaccine groups, with p-values <0.05 considered significant. Bowker's and chi-square tests were performed using JMP Pro 14.3.0. Results Of the 922 participants, 55.53% (n = 512) were vaccinated with Pfizer, and 23.32% (n = 215) and 21.15% (n = 195) were vaccinated with Sinopharm and AstraZeneca, respectively. Overall, 72.34% of participants (n = 667) were suffering from AEs after the first dose, with a lower prevalence of AEs after the second dose (52.71%, n = 486). Pfizer exhibited the highest percentage and severity of AEs, followed by AstraZeneca and Sinopharm. Most AEs reported in this study were mild and resolved within 72 hours, with females experiencing more frequent AEs. The common short-term AEs observed were fever, injection-site pain, myalgia, fatigue, and headache. Notably, there were no chronic AEs, and only one case of myocarditis was associated with AstraZeneca. Conclusions Despite the variation in the prevalence of AEs among the three vaccines, the vaccination process proved to be safe with no serious short-term AEs. However, the long-term AEs associated with AstraZeneca and the decrease in the prevalence of AEs after the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccines warrant further investigations and priority for future research.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS-ID DRKS00025881 and DRKS-ID DRKS00025373.

Signal detection of COVID-19 vaccines adverse events using spontaneous reports from South Korea

PURPOSE

Studies on the detection of COVID-19 vaccine signals in South Korea are insufficient. Therefore, to investigate adverse events (AEs) that might be associated with COVID-19 vaccines, signals were detected using spontaneous reports from South Korea. We compared the signals with the vaccine insert lists of the regulators in the four countries.

METHODS

Spontaneous reports from 62 sites were collected by the National Medical Center between January 2013 and May 2022. A descriptive analysis of AEs associated with COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen) was performed, and the proportional reporting ratio, reporting odds ratio, and information component were calculated. We performed five analyses, with five cases and one control group.

RESULTS

During the study period, 68 355 cases were reported, of which 12 485 were COVID-19 vaccine AEs. Injection site pain (2198 cases, 17.6%), myalgia (1552 cases, 12.4%), headache (1145 cases, 9.2%), pyrexia (1003 cases, 8.0%), and fatigue (735 cases, 5.9%) were frequently reported. When comparing all COVID-19 vaccines with other viral vaccines, 20 signals were detected, of which cachexia, dyspepsia, abdominal discomfort, and mood swings were not listed on the vaccine inserts in all four countries. Overall, 20, 17, 29, and 9 signals were detected in vaccines developed by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a disproportionate analysis of COVID-19 vaccine AEs using spontaneous reports from South Korea, different signals were detected for each vaccine manufacturer.

Dilemmas and options for COVID-19 vaccination in children

Over 16 million children have been detected positive for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States since the outbreak of the pandemic. In general, children infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 tend to have lighter symptoms than adults. However, in some cases, the infection can develop into severe forms, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Moreover, long-term public health preventive interventions have had some negative effects on the physical and mental health of children. Given the important role that vaccination plays in reducing severe illness and mortality, it is essential for the efficient implementation of vaccination in the pediatric population. Nevertheless, parental distrust of vaccination, especially with regard to its safety and efficacy, hinders this process. Herein, we comprehensively summarize the available data on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in children. The results show that the currently approved COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective for children. Although two doses of vaccine in children seem insufficient to prevent Omicron infection, the booster dose provides enhanced protection against infection and severe illness. Most importantly, the bivalent vaccine has been approved for use in the pediatric population to extend the immune response to currently circulating Omicron variant. And the immune protection afforded to newborns after maternal vaccination appears to last only 6 months. Therefore, in the current situation where the rate of virus mutation is accelerating and the COVID-19 pandemic is still severe, it is crucial to extend vaccine protection to children over 6 months of age to weave a tighter safety net.

A Nationwide Survey of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccinee's Experiences on Adverse Events and Its Associated Factors

BACKGROUND

Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been distributed worldwide under emergency use authorization, the real-world safety profiles of mRNA vaccines still need to be clearly defined. We aimed to identify the overall incidence and factors associated with adverse events (AEs) following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

We conducted web-based survey from December 2 to 10 in 2021 with a 2,849 nationwide sampled panel. Study participants were individuals who had elapsed at least two-weeks after completing two dosing schedules of COVID-19 vaccination aged between 18-49 years. We weighted the participants to represent the Korean population. The outcome was the overall incidence of AEs following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and associated factors. We estimated the weighted odds ratios (ORs) using multivariable logistic regression models to identify the factors associated with AEs.

RESULTS

Of the 2,849 participants (median [interquartile range] age, 35 [27-42] years; 51.6% male), 90.8% (n = 2,582) for the first dose and 88.7% (n = 2,849) for the second dose reported AEs, and 3.3% and 4.3% reported severe AEs, respectively. Occurrence of AEs was more prevalent in mRNA-1273 (OR, 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.59-2.67 vs. BNT162b2), female sex (1.88; 1.52-2.32), and those with dermatologic diseases (2.51; 1.32-4.77). History of serious allergic reactions (1.96; 1.06-3.64) and anticoagulant medication use (4.72; 1.92-11.6) were associated with severe AEs.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 90% of participants reported AEs following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Substantial factors, including vaccine type (mRNA-1273), female sex, and dermatologic diseases were associated with AEs. Our findings could aid policymakers in establishing vaccination strategies tailored to those potentially susceptible to AEs.

Explaining the gender gap in COVID-19 vaccination attitudes

BACKGROUND

Women have been significantly more likely than men to express hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination and, to a lesser extent, to refuse vaccination altogether. This gender gap is puzzling because women have been more likely to perceive higher risks from COVID-19, to approve more restrictive measures to fight the pandemic and to be more compliant with such measures.

METHODS

This article studies the gender gap in COVID-19 vaccination attitudes using two nationally representative surveys of public opinion fielded in February 2021 and May 2021 in 27 European countries. The data are analyzed using generalized additive models and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

The data analyses show that hypotheses about (i) pregnancy, fertility and breastfeeding concerns, (ii) higher trust in Internet and social networks as sources of medical information, (iii) lower trust in health authorities and (iv) lower perceived risks of getting infected with COVID-19 cannot account for the gender gap in vaccine hesitancy. One explanation that receives support from the data is that women are more likely to believe that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe and ineffective and this leads them to perceive the net benefits of vaccination as lower than the associated risks.

CONCLUSIONS

The gender gap in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy results to a large extent from women perceiving higher risks than benefits of the vaccines. While accounting for this and other factors decreases the gap in vaccine hesitancy, it does not eliminate it completely, which suggests further research is needed.

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.

Real-life safety profile of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19: an analysis of VAERS database

Introduction

Since the first COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines became available globally for emergency or conditional use, post-marketing surveillance activities have been implemented for the monitoring of any adverse events that might arise in daily clinical practice and were not detected earlier during clinical trials.

Methods

Safety data concerning the BNT162b2 and the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines were collected from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for the period from December 2020 to October 15, 2021. In addition to a descriptive analysis of individuals who experienced an adverse event after vaccination, a case-non-case analysis was performed by using the Reporting Odds Ratio with 95% confidence interval as statistical parameter for detecting differences in reporting rates between the two mRNA vaccines.

Results

At the cut-off date, a total of 758,040 reports were submitted to VAERS, of which 439,401 were related to the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine and 318,639 to the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273). Most common adverse events following immunization for both mRNA vaccines were headache, fatigue, pyrexia, dizziness, nausea, pain, chills, and pain in extremity. A disproportionality was found for BNT162b2 as compared with mRNA-1273 for some events of special interest, such as myocarditis [ROR 2.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.93 to 2.06], Bell’s palsy (1.34; 1.29 to 1.39), and anaphylactic shock (3.23; 2.96 to 3.53).

Conclusion

Even if some rare adverse events were identified, our survey of post-marketing surveillance has provided further evidence of the favourable safety profile of mRNA vaccines.

Do different platforms of coronavirus vaccines have different impacts on psoriasis flares?

This study evaluated the impacts on psoriasis flares of 3 vaccine platforms: inactivated, viral vector and mRNA. Respectively, 198 and 96 psoriasis patients with and without COVID-19 vaccination during the study period. Group comparison revealed no increased risk of psoriasis flaring after COVID-19 vaccination. The vaccinated group received 425 doses of vaccine (140 inactivated, 230 viral vector and 55 mRNA). Patients' self-reported symptoms included all three platforms causing psoriasis flare, but the highest was among patients administered with mRNA vaccines. Most flares were mild to moderate, and most patients (89.8%) managed their flare-up lesions without rescue therapy. In conclusion, our study showed that the rate of psoriasis flare was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Factors that might explain psoriasis flare include vaccine-related psychological stress and side effects from vaccination. Different platforms of corona vaccines seemed to have different impact of psoriasis flares. Based on our results and the recommendations of several consensus guidelines, the benefits of COVID vaccinations outweigh the risks to patients with psoriasis. Patients with psoriasis should receive a COVID vaccine as soon as one is available.

Adverse events of a third dose of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine among Korean healthcare workers

Due to the urgency of controlling the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, coronavirus disease 2019 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines have been expeditiously approved and introduced in several countries without sufficient evaluation for adverse events. We analyzed adverse events among Korean healthcare workers who received all 3 doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. This survey was conducted among hospital workers of Inha University Hospital who had received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine for their first, second, third rounds, and using a diary card. The surveyed adverse events included local (redness, edema, and injection site pain) and systemic (fever, fatigue, headache, chill, myalgia, arthralgia, vomiting, diarrhea, pruritis, and urticaria) side effects and were divided into 5 grades (Grade 0 = none - Grade 4 = critical). Based on adverse events reported at least once after any of the 3 doses, the most common systemic adverse reactions were chills and headache (respectively, 62.6%, 62.4%), followed by myalgia (55.3%), arthralgia (53.4%), fatigue (51.6%), pruritus (38.1%), and fever (36.5%). The frequency and duration of adverse events were significantly greater in women (P < .05) than men. Except for redness, pruritus, urticaria, and most adverse reactions had a higher rate of occurrence after the third dose in subjects who also had reactions with the second dose. However, grade 4 adverse events did occur with the third dose in some patients, even if there were no side effects with the first and second doses. Adverse events experienced with the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in Korean healthcare workers increased the incidence of adverse events at the time of the third dose. On the other hand, grade 4 adverse events could still occur with the third dose even though there were no side effects with the first and second doses.

Anaphylactic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines: An Updated Assessment Based on Pharmacovigilance Data

This study aimed at producing an updated assessment of the incidence of anaphylaxis associated with COVID-19 vaccines based on pharmacovigilance data. Anaphylactic reaction and anaphylactic shock data post-COVID-19-vaccination reported from week 52, 2020 to week 1 or week 2, 2023 were collected from the VAERS and EudraVigilance databases, respectively, and analyzed comparatively. Incidence rates were calculated using the corresponding administered vaccine doses as denominators for all licensed vaccines and both platform types (mRNA or vectored). The latest data from the present analysis showed lower anaphylaxis incidence associated with COVID-19 vaccination compared to previous estimates from week 52, 2020 to week 39, 2021 (anaphylactic reaction: 8.96 (95% CI 8.80-9.11)/million doses overall (EEA: 14.19 (95% CI 13.92-14.47)/million/US: 3.17 (95% CI 3.03-3.31)/million); anaphylactic shock: 1.46 (95% CI 1.39-1.52)/million doses overall (EEA: 2.47 (95% CI 2.36-2.58)/million/US: 0.33 (95% CI 0.29-0.38)/million)). Incidence rates varied by vaccine and were higher as captured in EudraVigilance compared to the VAERS and for vectored compared to mRNA vaccines. Most reported cases had a favorable outcome. The extremely rare fatalities (overall rates across continents 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06)/million doses for anaphylactic reaction and 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.03)/million vaccine doses for anaphylactic shock) were also associated with vector-rather than mRNA-based vaccines. The diminished incidence of anaphylaxis post-vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines offers assurance about their safety, as does the continuous potential adverse events monitoring through specialized pharmacovigilance databases.

Sex differences in adverse drug reactions: Are women more impacted?

Pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology studies regarding the sex difference in adverse drug reactions are numerous, and it is now a challenge to take them into account in order to increase drug safety. Here, we present an overview of this topic through data on epidemiology, mechanisms, and methods used for assessing sex differences in drug safety. Because the literature is extensive, we choose to expose a few examples of studies for cardiovascular drugs, anti-infectious, psychotropics, antidiabetics, anticancer drugs and some specific drugs to illustrate our purpose. Many studies show a higher risk in women for most of drugs involving in sex differences. However, physiological, methodological and subjective points have to be taken into account to interpret these results. Clinical trials must also enroll more women to better evaluate sex differences both in efficacy and pharmacovigilance. Nevertheless, when there is a pharmacological rationale underlying the observed association between sex and drug safety profile, it is now unavoidable to think about its consideration for a personalized prescription.

Adverse Events to Comirnaty Vaccine Are Linked to Sex, Age and BMI: Should We Consider Reducing the Dose for Females?

An important issue that is often neglected is the difference between male and female genders in response to medical treatments. In the context of COVID-19 vaccine administration, despite identical protocol strategies, it has been observed that females often suffer more adverse consequences than males. Here, we analyzed the adverse events (AEs) of the Comirnaty vaccine in a population of 2385 healthcare workers as a function of age, sex, COVID-19 history and BMI. Using logistic regression analysis, we showed that these variables may contribute to the development of AEs, particularly in young subjects, females and individuals with a BMI below 25 kg/m2. Moreover, partial dependence plots indicate a 50% probability of developing a mild AE for a long period of time (≥7 days) or a severe AE of any duration in women below 40 years old and with a BMI < 20 kg/m2. As this effect is more evident after the second dose of the vaccine, we propose to reduce the amount of vaccine for any additional booster dose in relation to age, sex and BMI. This strategy might reduce adverse events without affecting vaccine efficacy.

Evolution of Public Attitudes and Opinions Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination During the Vaccine Campaign in China: Year-Long Infodemiology Study of Weibo Posts

BACKGROUND

Monitoring people's perspectives on the COVID-19 vaccine is crucial for understanding public vaccination hesitancy and developing effective, targeted vaccine promotion strategies. Although this is widely recognized, studies on the evolution of public opinion over the course of an actual vaccination campaign are rare.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to track the evolution of public opinion and sentiment toward COVID-19 vaccines in online discussions over an entire vaccination campaign. Moreover, we aimed to reveal the pattern of gender differences in attitudes and perceptions toward vaccination.

METHODS

We collected COVID-19 vaccine-related posts by the general public that appeared on Sina Weibo from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021; this period covered the entire vaccination process in China. We identified popular discussion topics using latent Dirichlet allocation. We further examined changes in public sentiment and topics during the 3 stages of the vaccination timeline. Gender differences in perceptions toward vaccination were also investigated.

RESULTS

Of 495,229 crawled posts, 96,145 original posts from individual accounts were included. Most posts presented positive sentiments (positive: 65,981/96,145, 68.63%; negative: 23,184/96,145, 24.11%; neutral: 6980/96,145, 7.26%). The average sentiment scores were 0.75 (SD 0.35) for men and 0.67 (SD 0.37) for women. The overall trends in sentiment scores showed a mixed response to the number of new cases and significant events related to vaccine development and important holidays. The sentiment scores showed a weak correlation with new case numbers (R=0.296; P=.03). Significant sentiment score differences were observed between men and women (P<.001). Common and distinguishing characteristics were found among frequently discussed topics during the different stages, with significant differences in topic distribution between men and women (January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2021: χ²₃=3030.9; April 1, 2021, to September 30, 2021: χ²₄=8893.8; October 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021: χ²₅=3019.5; P<.001). Women were more concerned with side effects and vaccine effectiveness. In contrast, men reported broader concerns around the global pandemic, the progress of vaccine development, and economics affected by the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding public concerns regarding vaccination is essential for reaching vaccine-induced herd immunity. This study tracked the year-long evolution of attitudes and opinions on COVID-19 vaccines according to the different stages of vaccination in China. These findings provide timely information that will enable the government to understand the reasons for low vaccine uptake and promote COVID-19 vaccination nationwide.

Self-Reported Allergic Adverse Events Following Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine (TURKOVAC™) among General and High-Risk Population

TURKOVAC™ is a whole-virion inactivated COVID-19 vaccine which was developed and granted emergency use and conditional marketing authorization in December 2021 in Türkiye. The objective of this study is to assess the distribution and the severity of allergic adverse events following the administration of the vaccine as the primary or the booster dose in 15 provinces in Türkiye. In this cohort study, between February and May 2022, in the selected 15 provinces having an adequate number of health care personnel in the community health centers to conduct the study, 32,300 people having the first, the second, or the booster dose of the vaccine were invited to the survey. A total of 29,584 people voluntarily agreed to participate to the survey and were given a structured questionnaire after a minimum of 10 days following the vaccination. In our study, only 0.5% of the participants (142 persons) reported to experience any allergic reaction, and 12 of them (8.5%) reported to be given medical treatment in a health center. Male predominance (55.6%) was observed among participants reported to experience any allergic reaction. No hospitalization was recorded. Of the participants, 4.4% (1315 people) reported to have a history of allergy. The most reported allergens were drugs. Among the participants without a known history of allergy (n = 28,269), 0.4% of them (110 people) reported to experience an allergic reaction following the vaccination, and 5.4% of the allergic reactions (six people) were reported to be treated in a health center. The percentage of the participants given any medical treatment among the participants without a known history of allergy is 0.02%. No immediate or anaphylactic reaction was reported. Among the participants with a known history of allergy (n = 1315), 32 people (2.4% of them) reported to experience an allergic reaction following the vaccination, and 18.7% of the allergic reactions (six people) were reported to be prescribed a medical treatment. The percentage of the participants given any medical treatment among the participants with a known history of allergy is 0.4%. A known history of allergy increased the risk of having an allergic experience by approximately six times following vaccination. As a whole-virion inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the TURKOVAC™ vaccine, with a low allergic reaction-related adverse event profile, can be an alternative to other COVID-19 vaccines.

Safety Monitoring of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Children Aged 5 to 11 Years by Using EudraVigilance Pharmacovigilance Database: The CoVaxChild Study

Although the safety profiles of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2) were evaluated in pre-authorization clinical trials, real-world data allow us to better define their benefit/risk ratio in the paediatric population. The current study aimed to evaluate the safety profiles of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in children by analysing the pharmacovigilance data of the European spontaneous reporting system database EudraVigilance (EV) in the period from 1 January 2021, to 1 October 2022. During our study period, overall 4838 ICSRs related to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines referring to 5-11-year-old subjects were retrieved from EV, of which 96.9% were related to BNT162b2 and 49.3% were related to males. A total of 12,751 Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFIs) were identified, of which 38.7% were serious. The most frequently reported AEFIs were pyrexia, headache, and vomiting. Only 20 Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) reported Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS) as an AEFI, all related to BNT162b2. The majority of MIS cases were females, and six cases were completely resolved at the time of reporting. Our results show a favourable risk-benefit profile for all mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in this paediatric sub-population, supporting their use in children. Considering the peculiarity and fragility of children, continuous safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines is required.

Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Japan

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are recommended to receive the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. However, a recent survey showed that patients with IBD are more hesitant to receive the vaccine than the general population. Detailed information on the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine is necessary to encourage vaccination among patients with IBD.

AIM

To investigate the frequency of side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IBD in Japan.

STUDY DESIGN

a cross-sectional survey was conducted using a questionnaire administered to adult patients with IBD in a tertiary medical facility.

RESULTS

Among the participants who answered the questionnaire, 92.6%, 91.5%, and 41.5% of the participants had received their first, second, and third doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, respectively. Of the vaccinated participants, 88.3%, 86.3%, and 89.0% experienced side effects after receiving the first, second, and third doses of the vaccine, respectively. The incidences of fever, chills, and headaches were significantly higher among female participants than among male participants (p < 0.05). However, the frequencies of most side effects were comparable between the BNT162b2 mRNA and mRNA-1273 vaccines.

CONCLUSION

The findings of our survey can help encourage patients with IBD to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

A Cross-Sectional Study to Assess mRNA-COVID-19 Vaccine Safety among Indian Children (5-17 Years) Living in Saudi Arabia

The objective of this study is to assess the frequency and severity of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) in Indian children aged 5-17 years who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, as well as to investigate for predictors of AEFI. To examine AEFI following the first and second doses of Pfizer's vaccine, semi-structured questionnaires were distributed as Google forms at Indian schools in Saudi Arabia. The 385 responses included 48.1% male and 51.9% female children, with 136 responses of children aged 5-11 years (group A) and 249 responses from children aged 12-17 years (group B). Overall, 84.4% of children had two shots. The frequency of AEFI was reported to be higher after the first dose than after the second (OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.57-2.86). The reported AEFIs included myalgia, rhinitis, local reaction with fever, a temperature of 102 °F or higher, and mild to moderate injection site reactions. While group B frequently reported multiple AEFIs, group A typically reported just one. Local reaction with low grade fever was more frequently reported in group B after the first dose (24.1%) and second dose (15.4%), while local reaction without low grade fever was most frequently observed in group A after the first (36.8%) and second dose (30%). Only prior COVID-19 infection (OR = 2.98, 95% CI = 1.44-6.2) was associated with AEFI after the second dose in the study sample, whereas male gender (OR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.13-2.6) and prior COVID-19 infection (OR = 2.95, 95% CI = 1.38-6.3) were predictors of AEFI after the first dose. Non-serious myocarditis was reported by only one child. According to the analysis conducted, the Pfizer's mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was found to be safe in Indian children.

[Headache associated with COVID-19 vaccination: how to classify?]

INTRODUCTION

In the setting of acute COVID-19 infection, headache occurs in 10-60% of patients and may last for days and, in a smaller proportion of patients, weeks (about 10%). However, it is less recognized that headache may also occur after vaccination with a short latency and may persist for a longer period in a still unclear number of patients.

METHODS

Retrospective description of headache and course in a case series of 32 outpatients with headache that changed or recurred after COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

The majority of patients experienced an exacerbation of migraine headache; rare headache syndromes such as intracranial hypertension or thunderclap headache occurred in 2 patients. Headache manifested in more than 50% of patients within the first 48 h after vaccination. Over 50% of patients who received a triptan improved.

CONCLUSION

The pathophysiological relationship between vaccination and persistent headache is not yet clearly understood. The short latency, partial efficacy of cortisone, and initial findings showing an increase of various inflammatory markers during the course of headache in COVID infection suggest a possible involvement of the innate immune system and here the inflammasome. Furthermore, the response to triptan in a proportion of patients also indicates activation of the trigeminovascular system.

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Developed Shortly after mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination: Report of a Case and Review of the Literature

We report on a 66-year-old man who presented with a right axillary lymphadenopathy approximately 10 days after receiving the third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. The lymphadenopathy gradually enlarged, and physical examination and ultrasound (US) revealed one right axillary 6.99 cm and one right supraclavicular 2.36 cm lymphadenopathy. Histologic examination of the right axillary nodule revealed anaplastic large-cell lymphoma that was ALK negative and CD30 positive. A total body computerized tomography (CT) scan, positron emission tomography (PET) and bone-marrow biopsy showed a stage-II non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The patient was treated with chemotherapy and a scheme of Brentuximab Vedotin, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin and Prednisone (BV-CHP) for six cycles and is now well and in complete remission. The revision of the literature revealed eight additional cases of NHL developed shortly after COVID-vaccination. There were four cases of diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (one in a patient who was a heart transplant recipient and developed an Epstein-Bar-virus-positive DLBCL), one case of extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, one patient with subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma, one case of marginal zone B-cell lymphoma and one primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (PC-ALCL). In five cases, the lymphoma developed after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination, including one case after ChAdOx1 nCOV-19, one case after the adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vaccine and one after mRNA-1273/Spikevax (ModernaTX). We are aware that the link between COVID-19 vaccination and lymphoma most likely is a chance phenomenon, and that COVID-19 vaccines represent very efficient products for many people around the world. However, we believe that clinical events, even if only temporally associated with novel treatments or novel vaccines, should be reported for the benefit of the patients and the scientific community.

Shoulder injury following COVID-19 vaccine administration: a case series and proposed diagnostic algorithm

BACKGROUND

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) is a preventable adverse event following incorrect vaccine administration, which can result in significant long-term morbidity. There has been a notable surge in reported cases of SIRVA as a rapid national population-based COVID-19 immunization program has been rolled out across Australia.

METHODS

Surveillance of Adverse Events Following Vaccination in the Community (SAEFVIC) in Victoria identified 221 suspected cases of SIRVA following the commencement of the COVID-19 vaccination program, reported between February 2021 and February 2022. This review describes the clinical features and outcomes of SIRVA in this population. Additionally, a suggested diagnostic algorithm is proposed, in order to facilitate early recognition and management of SIRVA.

RESULTS

151 cases were confirmed as SIRVA, with 49.0% having received vaccines at state vaccination centers. 75.5% were suspected incorrect administration site, with most patients experiencing shoulder pain and restricted movement within 24 hours of vaccination, lasting on average 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Improved awareness and education regarding SIRVA is imperative in a pandemic vaccine roll-out. The development of a structured framework for evaluating and managing suspected SIRVA will aid in timely diagnosis and treatment, essential to mitigate potential long-term complications.

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.

Effects of Biological Sex and Pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 Pathogenesis and Vaccine Outcomes

SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent of COVID-19 in humans and has resulted in the death of millions of people worldwide. Similar numbers of infections have been documented in males and females; males, however, are more likely than females to be hospitalized, require intensive care unit, or die from COVID-19. The mechanisms that account for this are multi-factorial and are likely to include differential expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 molecules that are required for viral entry into hosts cells and sex differences in the immune response, which are due to modulation of cellular functions by sex hormones and differences in chromosomal gene expression. Furthermore, as comorbidities are also associated with poorer outcomes to SARS-CoV-2 infection and several comorbidities are overrepresented in males, these are also likely to contribute to the observed sex differences. Despite their relative better prognosis following infection with SARS-CoV-2, females do have poorer outcomes during pregnancy. This is likely to be due to pregnancy-induced changes in the immune system that adversely affect viral immunity and disruption of the renin-angiotensin system. Importantly, vaccination reduces the severity of disease in males and females, including pregnant females, and there is no evidence that vaccination has any adverse effects on the outcomes of pregnancy.

Effects of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on male fertility: A retrospective cohort study

Numerous studies have revealed severe damage to male fertility from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, raising concerns about the potential adverse impact on reproductive function of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine developed based on the virus. Interestingly, there are several researchers who have studied the impact of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine since then but have come up with conflicting results. As a near-ideal candidate for mass immunization programs, inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has been widely used in many countries, particularly in less wealthy nations. However, little is known about its effect on male fertility. Here, we conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single large center for reproductive medicine in China between December 2021 and August 2022. Five hundred and nineteen fertile men with no history of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were included and categorized into four groups based on their vaccination status: unvaccinated group (n = 168), one-dose vaccinated group (n = 8), fully vaccinated group (n = 183), and booster group (n = 160). All of them underwent a semen analysis and most had serum sex hormone levels tested. There were no significant differences in all semen parameters and sex hormone levels between the unvaccinated group and either vaccinated group. To account for possible vaccination-to-test interval-specific changes, sub-analyses were performed for two interval groups: ≤90 and >90 days. As expected, most of the semen parameters and sex hormone levels remained unchanged between the control and vaccinated groups. However, participants in vaccinated group (≤90 days) have decreased total sperm motility and increased follicle-stimulating hormone level compared with the ones in unvaccinated group. Moreover, some trends similar to those found during COVID-19 infection and recovery were observed in our study. Fortunately, all values are within the normal range. In addition, vaccinated participants reported few adverse reactions. No special medical intervention was required, and no serious adverse reactions happened. Our study suggests that inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination does not impair male fertility, possibly due to the low frequency of adverse effects. This information reassures young male population who got this vaccine worldwide, and helps guide future vaccination efforts.

Safety Profiles of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Using World Health Organization Global Scale Database (VigiBase): A Latent Class Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines have been developed and widely utilized to mitigate the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, it is essential to describe the adverse events (AEs) following immunization. This study aimed to identify the patterns associated with serious AE reports after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in the World Health Organization (WHO)'s global scale database (VigiBase).

METHODS

This study performed a latent class analysis (LCA) of reports of serious AEs following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination from VigiBase between December 28, 2020 , and February 28, 2022 (N = 312878). The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) System Organ Class (SOC) terms were selected for LCA. The reporting characteristics in accordance with the cluster were described. We used a multinomial logistic regression model to estimate the association between potential factors and each cluster.

RESULTS

Five clusters of AE reports were distinguished through LCA: infection AEs (cluster 1), cardiac AEs (cluster 2), respiratory/thrombotic AEs (cluster 3), systemic AEs (cluster 4), and nervous system AEs (cluster 5). Compared to cluster 4, cluster 2 had a higher proportion of males (OR 2.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.87-3.09), and cluster 1 had a longer time to onset than other AEs (≥ 14 days) (OR 16.2; 95% CI 15.5-16.9).

CONCLUSION

Using LCA, we found five clusters of serious AEs following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Each cluster was distinguished by potential factors such as age, gender, region, and time to onset. We suggest that monitoring should carefully consider the patterns of young males with cardiac AEs and elderly individuals with thrombosis after respiratory AEs. Our findings could contribute to enhancing understanding of safety profiles and establishing management strategies for serious AEs of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 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.

Safety of mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 (Pfizer-BioNtech) vaccine in children aged 5-11 years: Results from an active pharmacovigilance study in central Italy

This survey investigated on adverse events after vaccination with mRNA BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in children aged 5-11 years in central Italy through active surveillance reporting. During December 2021-January 2022, parents of children who undergone vaccination were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. 197 out of 208 contacted parents participated (94.7% response rate), of whom 166 (84.3%) had one child. Of the 229 children, the mean age was 8.9 years, 50.7% were female. 193 (84.3%) had at least one adverse event after the first dose (mean age 9.1 years; 54.4% female), and 146 (73.4%) of 199 after the second (mean age 8.9 years; 54.8% female), which was not administered to 30 children due to previous COVID-19 history. Local symptoms after the first and second dose occurred in 183 (94.8%) and 141 (96.6%) recipients (p = .435), respectively, while systemic reactions in 62 (32.1%) and 34 (23.3%) (p = .074). Mild events were reported by 81.7% and 69.8% children after the first and second dose, followed by moderate (3.9% and 10.6%) and severe (1.3% and 0.5%). After each dose, injection site reactions (79.5% and 68.8%) were the most frequent, followed by headache (13.1%) and lymphadenopathy (8.5%) after the first and second dose, respectively. The adverse events were reported to pediatricians only for 5.7% and 3.9% of children and treated for 17.6% and 15.8%. This is the first report about safety profile through active surveillance of mRNA BNT162b2 among children in Italy, revealing temporary and mild-to-moderate symptoms with no serious events after each vaccine dose.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Adverse Effects and Allergic Reactions after COVID-19 Vaccines in a Mexican Population: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study

Vaccinations have helped to control the COVID-19 pandemic; however, few studies focus on the adverse effects and allergic reactions of these vaccines and fewer have a scope in the Latin American population. The objective of this study was to assess the associations between vaccinations, sex, age, allergic reactions, and adverse effects. This was an analytical cross-sectional study conducted between 1 July and 1 October 2022. The sample consisted of 443 surveyed participants, with a total of 1272 COVID-19 vaccine doses. Seven vaccines (Pfizer BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca, CanSino, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, Sinovac, and Sputnik V) were evaluated. A total of 12.6% of those surveyed had at least one allergic reaction posterior to vaccination, and females had a greater chance of developing one (p < 0.001, OR 3.1). The most common allergic reaction was chest pain, and Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca were associated with the onset of allergic reactions (p < 0.005). A total of 54.6% of those surveyed developed adverse effects, the most common of which were myalgia, fever, cephalea, asthenia or adynamia, and arthralgia; moreover, older age was associated with the onset of adverse effects (p < 0.5). This study concludes that the BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) and ChAdOX1 nCOV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines are strongly associated with the onset of allergic reactions, with ORs of 1.6 (CI 95%, 1.18 to 2.3) and 1.87 (CI 95%, 1.35 to 2.6), respectively. In addition, females have a greater chance of developing allergic reactions associated with COVID-19 vaccinations, and there was a relation found between older age and a greater prevalence of comorbidities, adverse effects after vaccination, and COVID-19 infection after vaccination.

Psychological and Psychiatric Events Following Immunization with Five Different Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2

Background: Despite the high number of vaccines administered against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) worldwide, the information on the psychological/psychiatric adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with these newly developed vaccines remains scarce. Objective: To describe the frequency of psychological/psychiatric symptoms among recipients of five different anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and to explore the factors associated with their development reported in the nationwide Mexican registry of AEFI against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: Descriptive study of all the psychological/psychiatric symptoms, including anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia, and agitation reported to the Mexican Epidemiological Surveillance System from 21 December 2020 to 27 April 2021, among adult (≥18 years old) recipients of 7,812,845 doses of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCov-19, rAd26-rAd5, Ad5-nCoV, or CoronaVac. The factors associated with their development are determined by multivariate regression analysis. Results: There were 19,163 AEFI reports during the study period; amongst them, 191 (1%) patients had psychological/psychiatric symptoms (median age of 41 years, interquartile range of 32–54; 149 [78%] women) for an observed incidence of 2.44 cases per 100,000 administered doses (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.12–2.82), 72.8% of psychiatric AEFIs were reported among recipients of BNT162b2. The median time from vaccination to symptom onset was 35 min (interquartile range: 10–720). Overall, the most common psychological/psychiatric symptoms were anxiety in 129 (67.5%) patients, panic attacks in 30 (15.7%), insomnia in 25 (13%), and agitation in 11 (5.7%). After adjusting for the confounding factors, the odds for developing psychological/psychiatric symptoms were higher for those concurrently reporting syncope (odds ratio [OR]: 4.73, 95% CI: 1.68–13.33); palpitations (OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.65–3.70), and dizziness (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.10–2.28). Conclusion: In our population, psychological/psychiatric symptoms were extremely infrequent AEFIs. No severe psychiatric AEFIs were reported. Immunization stress-related responses might explain most of the detected cases.

The Frequency and Patterns of Post-COVID-19 Vaccination Syndrome Reveal Initially Mild and Potentially Immunocytopenic Signs in Primarily Young Saudi Women

Vaccination is the most promising approach for ending or containing the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. However, serious post-COVID-19 vaccine reactions, including immunocytopenia (ITP) syndrome, have been increasingly reported. Several factors cause increased risks including multiple doses, age-dependent heterogeneity in immune-responses, platelet cross-reactions with microbial components, and Long-COVID syndrome. Thus, in the absence of widely available specific therapeutics, vigilance is important while more studies are needed. Using a structured questionnaire sent to different regions in Saudi Arabia, we conducted a comprehensive investigation on the frequency, rates, disease patterns, and patient demographics of post-COVID-19 vaccine side effects on febrile patients after administration three major vaccines. Results indicated that the majority of respondents administered Pfizer BioNtech vaccine (81%, n = 809); followed by AstraZeneca (16%, n = 155); and Moderna (3%, n = 34). Overall 998 participants, 74% (n = 737) showed no serious symptoms; however, 26.2% (n = 261) revealed typical syndromes. In a focused group of 722 participants, the following rates were identified: shortness of breath (20%), bruises or bleeding (18%), inattention (18%), GIT symptoms (17.6%), skin irritation (8.6%), and anosmia and ageusia (8%) were the most prominent among those who showed typical symptoms. The onset time was mostly between 1–3 days in 49% (n = 128), followed by 4–7 days in 21.8% (n = 57), 8–14 days in 16.5% (n = 43), and more than a month in 12.6% (n = 33). The onsets occurred mostly after the first, second, or both doses, 9%, 10%, and 7% of participants, respectively. The frequency of symptoms was significantly higher after Moderna® vaccine (p-value = 0.00006) and it was significantly lower in participants who received Pfizer (p-value = 0.00231). We did not find significant difference in symptoms related to differences in regions. Similarly, the region, age, sex, education, and nationality had no influence on the dose and onset timings. The findings of this study have significant clinical implications in disease management strategies, preventive measures, and vaccine development. Future vertical studies would reveal more insights into the mechanisms of post-COVID-19 vaccine syndrome.

Self-Reported COVID-19 Vaccines' Side Effects among Patients Treated with Biological Therapies in Saudi Arabia: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among a mixed gender sample of patients on monoclonal antibody biologics (mAbs) in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This was a prospective questionnaire-based cross-sectional study in which adult patients (≥18 years) on mAbs who had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine from three tertiary care centers in Saudi Arabia were included. Descriptive statistics and univariate logistic regressions were conducted to present the vaccine side effects and examine the association between the reported side effects and vaccine type. Results: Four-hundred and seventeen patients, with a mean age of 39 years, consented to participate. Approximately 82% and 18% of the participants received Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines, respectively, and nearly 71% received two doses of the vaccine. Diarrhea (9.59%), fever (51.32%), headache (32.13%), hypotension (13.67%), palpitation (9.11%), and temporary loss of smell (5.28%) were the most commonly reported side effects. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe for patients treated with mAbs. Future studies should examine the rates of side effects across different COVID-19 vaccines among patients on mAbs using more robust study designs and representative samples.

More Than Three-Fourths of AstraZeneca (ChAdox1 COV-19) COVID-19 Vaccinated Individuals Develop Post Immunization Adverse Event in Northwest Ethiopia

Background

Ethiopia was using the ChAdOx1 COV-19 vaccine, and health professionals were targets of the first phase of the vaccination strategy. Evidence on the adverse events following immunization (AEFI) was barely available. The study aimed to assess the magnitude and associated factors of adverse events following ChAdOx1 COV-19 immunization among health professionals of the University of Gondar Specialized and Comprehensive Hospital, 2021.

Methods

An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted among health professionals of the University of Gondar Comprehensive and specialized referral hospital. All health professionals who took the ChAdOx1 COV-19 vaccine in the 1st phase were surveyed. A total of 314 health professionals who took the ChAdOx1 COV-19 vaccine were included. The EpiData version 4.6.0.0 and Stata 16 were used for data entry and analysis, respectively. A binary logistic regression was used to identify statistically significant factors associated with AEFI. Chi-square and multicollinearity assumptions were tested. A p-value <0.2 and 0.05 were used as cut-off values of significance in the bi- and multivariable logistic regression models, respectively. An adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% CI was reported for statistically significant variables.

Results

Among 314 study participants, 263 of them had at least one mild to severe AEFI of ChAdOx1 COV-19 with a prevalence of AEFI of 83.76% (95% CI: 79.23, 87.46). The commonest AEFI observed were injection site tenderness (n=198/263), fatigue (114/263), headache (n=107/263), and muscle pain (n=85/263). Females (AOR=2.75, 95% CI: 1.15, 6.58), and participants who felt the vaccine was unsafe (AOR=2.84, 95% CI: 1.03, 7.85) were having nearly three times more odds of AEFI immunization as compared to males and those who felt the vaccine was safe, respectively.

Conclusion

Adverse event following immunization has been a public health problem in Northwest Ethiopia. Being female and having a feeling that the vaccine is unsafe were statistically significantly associated with AEFI.