Acute Myocardial Injury Following COVID-19 Vaccination: A Case Report and Review of Current Evidence from Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System Database.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Deb A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8255555 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundVaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is underway globally to prevent the infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We aimed to investigate the adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) for COVID-19 among healthcare workers (HCWs).MethodsThis was a retrospective study of the AEFIs associated with the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine at the Kosin University Gospel Hospital from March 3 to March 22, 2021. We investigated the systemic and local adverse events during the 7 days following the vaccination using the Mobile Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (MVAERS) developed by our hospital.ResultsA total of 1,503 HCWs were vaccinated, and the data of 994 HCWs were reported in the MVAERS. The most commonly reported AEFIs were tenderness at the injection site (94.5%), fatigue (92.9%), pain at the injection site (88.0%), and malaise (83.8%). The severity of most AEFIs was mild-to-moderate, and the severity and number of AEFIs were less in the older age group. There were no serious events requiring hospitalization, and most AEFIs improved within a few days.ConclusionThe AEFIs associated with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine were tolerable, and the use of the MVAERS was helpful in monitoring the AEFIs. The use of MVAERS will help in sharing accurate and ample information about vaccination against COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8093606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive reporting system, used for monitoring the safety of all US licensed vaccines. In March 2008, ACAM2000(®) replaced Dryvax(®) as the only licensed smallpox vaccine and is administered to all persons entering military service and certain civilian researchers. In 2011, routine data mining of VAERS identified a vaccine safety concern resulting in acute ischemic cardiac events (ICE) following ACAM2000(®).During March 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013, we reviewed all serious reports received following ACAM2000(®)and classified them by diagnostic category. We identified possible ICE cases by searching the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Affairs (MedDRA(®)) terms for "myocardial ischaemia," "acute myocardial infarction," "myocardial infarction," and "ischaemia," and applied standardized surveillance case definitions.VAERS received 1149 reports following ACAM2000(®) administration; 169 (14.7%) were serious (resulting in permanent disability, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, life-threatening illness or death), including one death. The two most frequent diagnostic categories for serious reports were cardiovascular and other infectious conditions. The MedDRA(®) search found 31 reports of possible ICE after receipt of ACAM2000(®) vaccine. Of a total 30 possible ICE cases with demographic information, all but one was male; the age range was 20-45 years (median 32) and median interval to onset of symptoms was 12 days. On clinical review there were 16 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis and 15 ICE cases.Our review of the data mining signal did not substantiate the concerns about ICE after ACAM2000(®). Our study also suggests that with current pre-vaccination screening, cardiac morbidity in generally healthy vaccinated populations remains uncommon.
| S-EPMC5946322 | biostudies-other
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Timely adverse event following immunisation (AEFI) signal event detection is essential to minimise further vaccinees receiving unsafe vaccines. We explored the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) ability to detect two known signal events with influenza vaccines with the aim of providing a model for prospective routine signal detection and improving vaccine safety surveillance in Australia. METHODS:Passive AEFI surveillance reports from 2008-2017 relating to influenza vaccines were accessed from the Australian SAEFVIC (Victoria) database. Proportional reporting ratios were calculated for two vaccine-event categories; fever and allergic AEFI. Signal detection sensitivity for two known signal events were determined using weekly data; cumulative data by individual year and; cumulative for all previous years. Signal event thresholds of PRR ≥2 and Chi-square ≥4 were applied. RESULTS:PRR provided sensitive signal detection when calculated cumulatively by individual year or by all previous years. Known signal events were detected 15 and 11 days earlier than traditional methods used at the time of the actual events. CONCLUSION:Utilising a single jurisdiction's data, PRR improved vaccine pharmacovigilance and showed the potential to detect important safety signals much earlier than previously. It has potential to maximise immunisation safety in Australia. This study progresses the necessary work to establish national cohesion for passive surveillance signal detection and strengthen routine Australian vaccine pharmacovigilance.
| S-EPMC6824574 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited data exist on the safety of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine in adults. We reviewed reports of adverse events (AEs) to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to assess safety in this previously understudied group.MethodsVAERS is the national spontaneous vaccine safety surveillance system coadministered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration. We searched the VAERS database for US reports of adults aged ≥19 years who received the MMR vaccine from 1 January 2003 to 31 July 2013. We clinically reviewed reports and available medical records for serious AEs, pregnancy reports, and reports for selected prespecified outcomes.ResultsDuring this period, VAERS received 3175 US reports after MMR vaccine in adults. Of these, 168 (5%) were classified as serious, including 7 reports of death. Females accounted for 77% of reports. The most common signs and symptoms for all reports were pyrexia (19%), rash (17%), pain (13%), and arthralgia (13%). We did not detect any new safety findings in empirical Bayesian data mining. We identified 131 reports of MMR vaccine administered to a pregnant woman; the majority of these vaccinations were in the first trimester and in 83 (62%), no AE was reported.ConclusionsIn our review of VAERS data, we did not detect any new or unexpected safety concerns for MMR vaccination in adults. We identified reports of pregnant women exposed to MMR, which is a group in whom the vaccine is contraindicated, suggesting the need for continued provider education on vaccine recommendations and screening.
| S-EPMC4447805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTaxanes are an essential class of antineoplastic agents used to treat various cancers and are a fundamental cause of hypersensitivity reactions. In addition, other adverse events, such as bone marrow toxicity and peripheral neuropathy, can lead to chemotherapy discontinuation. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of taxanes in the real world.MethodsTaxane-associated adverse events were identified by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Preferred Terms and analyzed and compared by mining the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System pharmacovigilance database from January 2004 to December 2019. Reported adverse events, such as hypersensitivity reaction, bone marrow toxicity, and peripheral neuropathy, were analyzed with the following signal detection algorithms: reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and logistic regression methods. Adverse outcome events and death outcome rates were compared between different taxane groups using Pearson's χ2 test, whereas significance was determined at P < 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsA total of 966 reports of hypersensitivity reactions, 1109 reports of bone marrow toxicity, and 1374 reports of peripheral neuropathy were analyzed. Compared with paclitaxel and docetaxel, bone marrow toxicity following the use of nab-paclitaxel had the highest ROR of 6.45 (95% two-sided CI, 6.05-6.88), PRR of 5.66, (χ2 = 4342.98), information component of 2.50 (95% one-sided CI = 2.34), and empirical Bayes geometric mean of 5.64 (95% one-sided CI = 5.34). Peripheral neuropathy following the use of nab-paclitaxel showed a higher ROR of 12.78 (95% two-sided CI, 11.55-14.14), PRR of 12.16 (χ2 = 4060.88), information component of 3.59 (95% one-sided CI = 3.25), and empirical Bayes geometric mean of 12.07 (95% one-sided CI = 11.09).ConclusionsThe results showed that bone marrow toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the major adverse events induced by taxanes. Nab-paclitaxel exhibited the highest potential for taxane-associated adverse events. Further research in the future is warranted to explain taxane-associated adverse effects in real-world circumstances.
| S-EPMC8213312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:What is known and objectiveEvidence on whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination could cause hearing-related adverse events is still conflicting. This study aims to access the association between COVID-19 vaccine and hearing disorder.MethodsThe Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was queried between January 2020 to November 2021. The disproportionality pattern for hearing impairment of COVID-19 vaccine was accessed by calculating the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and proportional reporting ratio (PRR). A further subgroup analysis based on the type of COVID-19 vaccine and the doses administered was performed. In addition, the disproportionalities for hearing dysfunction between COVID-19 and influenza vaccines were compared.Results and discussionA total of 14,956 reports of hearing-related adverse events were identified with COVID-19 vaccination and 151 with influenza vaccine during the analytic period in VAERS. The incidence of hearing disorder following COVID-19 vaccination was 6.66 per 100,000. The results of disproportionality analysis revealed that the adverse events of hearing impairment, after administration of COVID-19 vaccine, was significantly highly reported (ROR 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20-2.56; PRR: 2.35, χ2 537.58), for both mRNA (ROR 2.37, 95% CI 2.20-2.55; PRR 2.34, χ2 529.75) and virus vector vaccines (ROR 2.50, 95% CI 2.28-2.73; PRR 2.56, χ2 418.57). While the disproportional level for hearing dysfunction was quite lower in influenza vaccine (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.30-0.42; PRR 0.36, χ2 172.24).What is new and conclusionThis study identified increased risk for hearing disorder following administration of both mRNA and virus vector COVID-19 vaccines compared to influenza vaccination in real-world settings.
| S-EPMC9539140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy has been a growing challenge for public health in recent decades. Among factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy, concerns regarding vaccine safety and Adverse Events (AEs) play the leading role. Moreover, cognitive biases are critical in connecting such concerns to vaccine hesitancy behaviors, but their role has not been comprehensively studied. In this study, our first objective is to address concerns regarding vaccine AEs to increase vaccine acceptance. Our second objective is to identify the potential cognitive biases connecting vaccine hesitancy concerns to vaccine-hesitant behaviors and identify the mechanism they get triggered in the vaccine decision-making process.MethodsFirst, to mitigate concerns regarding AEs, we quantitatively analyzed the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 2011 to 2018 and provided evidence regarding the non-severity of the AEs that can be used as a communicable summary to increase vaccine acceptance. Second, we focused on the vaccination decision-making process. We reviewed cognitive biases and vaccine hesitancy literature to identify the most potential cognitive biases that affect vaccine hesitancy and categorized them adopting the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM).ResultsOur results show that the top frequent AEs are expected mild reactions like injection site erythema (4.29%), pyrexia (3.66%), and injection site swelling (3.21%). 94.5% of the reports are not serious and the average population-based serious reporting rate over the 8 years was 25.3 reports per 1 million population. We also identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect people's vaccination decision-making and nudge them toward vaccine hesitancy. We categorized these biases based on the factors that trigger them and discussed how they contribute to vaccine hesitancy.ConclusionsThis paper provided an evidence-based communicable summary of VAERS. As the most trusted sources of vaccine information, health practitioners can use this summary to provide evidence-based vaccine information to vaccine decision-makers (patients/parents) and mitigate concerns over vaccine safety and AEs. In addition, we identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect the vaccination decision-making process and nudge people toward vaccine hesitancy. Any plan, intervention, and message to increase vaccination uptake should be modified to decrease the effect of these potential cognitive biases.
| S-EPMC8444164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As a national public health surveillance resource, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a key component in ensuring the safety of vaccines. Numerous methods have been used to conduct safety studies with the VAERS database. These efforts focus on the downstream statistical analysis of the vaccine and adverse event associations. In this paper, we primarily focus on processing the raw data in VAERS before the analysis step, which is also an important part of the signal detection process. Due to the semi-annual update in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) coding system, adverse event terms that describe the same symptom might change in VAERS; therefore, we identify these terms and combine them to increase the signal detection power. We also consider the uncertainty of the vaccine and adverse event pairs that arise from reports with multiple vaccines. Finally, we discuss four commonly used statistics in assessing the vaccine and adverse event associations, and propose to use the statistics that are robust to the reporting bias in VAERS and adjust for potential confounders of the vaccine and adverse event association to increase signal detection accuracy.
| S-EPMC8054210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The innate immune response shapes the development of adaptive immunity following infections and vaccination. However, it can also induce symptoms such as fever and myalgia, leading to the possibility that the molecular basis of immunogenicity and reactogenicity of vaccination are inseparably linked. To test this possibility, we used the yellow fever live-attenuated vaccine (YFLAV) as a model to study the molecular correlates of reactogenicity or adverse events (AEs). We analyzed the outcome of 68 adults who completed a YFLAV clinical trial, of which 43 (63.2%) reported systemic AEs. Through whole-genome profiling of blood collected before and after YFLAV dosing, we observed that activation of innate immune genes at day 1, but not day 3 after vaccination, was directly correlated with AEs. These findings contrast with the gene expression profile at day 3 that we and others have previously shown to be correlated with immunogenicity. We conclude that although the innate immune response is a double-edged sword, its expression that induces AEs is temporally distinct from that which engenders robust immunity. The use of genomic profiling thus provides molecular insights into the biology of AEs that potentially forms a basis for the development of safer vaccines.
| S-EPMC5841882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOral adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 vaccination have been sporadically reported during the previous months, warranting further investigation for their prevalence and suspected relationship with vaccine-elicited immune response.MethodsA retrospective analysis using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data was conducted to evaluate AEs within the oral cavity (mucosa, tongue, lips, palate, dentition, salivary glands) and AEs involving taste and other sensations. Oral AEs reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccination (test group) and seasonal influenza vaccination (control group) were extracted and cross-tabulated to assess their relative prevalence.ResultsAmong the 128 solicited (suspected) oral AEs, oral paresthesia (0.872%) was most reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccines, followed by the swelling of lips (0.844%), ageusia (0.722%), oral hypoesthesia (0.648%), swollen tongue (0.628%), and dysgeusia (0.617%). The reported prevalence of oral AEs was higher in the COVID-19 vaccine group than in the seasonal influenza group. The distribution pattern of the most reported oral AEs was similar for both COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines. Female sex, older age (>39 years old), primer doses, and mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines exhibited a higher reported prevalence of oral AEs.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this study, COVID-19 vaccines were found to be associated with rare oral AEs that are predominantly similar to those emerging following seasonal influenza vaccines. The most commonly reported oral AEs were oral paraesthesia (mouth-tingling), lip swelling, and ageusia, representing various pathophysiologic pathways that remain unclear. Taste-related AEs should be acknowledged in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public should be adequately informed about a potential taste dysfunction after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Dentists and dental teams need to be aware of the prevalence, severity, and prognosis of oral AEs to inform their patients and increase public confidence in vaccines.
| S-EPMC9309565 | biostudies-literature