Adverse events reported after administration of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines among hospital workers: a cross-sectional survey-based study in a Spanish hospital.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic in March 2020. The first vaccine became available in December, with practically no post-marketing data.Methods
An analytical cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted in a third-level hospital in Spain between March and April 2021 to describe the difference in adverse events with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines. The participants were hospital workers who completed a survey voluntarily at least 14 days after the last vaccine. The STROBE checklist was followed.Results
One thousand two hundred and forty-nine respondents completed the survey; 48% (599) received mRNA-1273 and 52% (650) BNT162b2. Fourteen thousand four hundred and two adverse reactions were recorded, 6896 local (3939 with mRNA-1273 and 2957 with BNT162b2 (6.6 vs 4.4 reactions per patient)) and 7506 systemic (4460 with mRNA-1273 and 3046 with BNT162b2 (7.4 vs 4.7 per patient)). Local reactions were more frequent after the first dose, while systemic reactions were higher after the second, for both vaccines and in a higher percentage with mRNA-1273 compared to BNT162b2 (p-value<0.05).Conclusions
Licensed mRNA vaccines were highly safe when administered under post-marketing conditions among working-age adults. The main adverse events were mild, although they occurred in most patients, especially after the mRNA-1273 vaccine.
SUBMITTER: Valera-Rubio MM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8787836 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThe BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines are the main vaccines that have been used for mass vaccination in Japan. Information on adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines in the Japanese population is limited.MethodsWe conducted an online survey on self-reported adverse reactions in individuals who had received two doses of the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine. The incidence of adverse events after each dose of vaccine was investigated. Propensity score matching was used to compare the incidence of adverse reactions after the second dose of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines.ResultsAfter the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, and the first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, 890, 853, 6401, and 3965 individuals, respectively, provided complete responses. Systemic reactions, including fever, fatigue, headache, muscle/joint pain, and nausea were significantly more common in females, individuals aged <50 years, and after the second dose. The incidence of injection site pain did not differ significantly according to the dose. The incidence of delayed injection site reactions after the first dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine was 3.9% and 0.8% among females and males, respectively, and 10.6% among females aged 40-69 years. Local and systemic reactions after the second dose, including fever, fatigue, headache, muscle/joint pain, nausea, and skin rash were more common in individuals who had received the mRNA-1273 vaccine.ConclusionsAdverse reactions were more frequently reported in females, younger individuals, and after the mRNA-1273 vaccine.
| S-EPMC8747950 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8796790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceVaccinations are paramount to halt the COVID-19 pandemic, and safety data are essential to determine the risk-benefit ratio of each COVID-19 vaccine.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between the AZD1222, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 vaccines and subsequent thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic events.Design, setting, and participantsThis self-controlled case series used individual-level data from national registries in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Participants included individuals with hospital contacts because of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, or cerebrovascular disease between January 1, 2020, and May 16, 2021.ExposuresAZD1222, BNT162b2, or mRNA-1273 vaccine.Main outcomes and measureRelative rate (RR) of hospital contacts for coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, or cerebrovascular disease in a 28-day period following vaccination compared with the control period prior to vaccination.ResultsWe found 265 339 hospital contacts, of whom 112 984 [43%] were for female patients, 246 092 [93%] were for patients born in 1971 or earlier, 116 931 [44%] were for coronary artery disease, 55 445 [21%] were for coagulation disorders, and 92 963 [35%] were for cerebrovascular disease. In the 28-day period following vaccination, there was an increased rate of coronary artery disease following mRNA-1273 vaccination (RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.25]), but not following AZD1222 vaccination (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.82-1.03]) or BNT162b2 vaccination (RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]). There was an observed increased rate of coagulation disorders following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.75-2.31]; BNT162b2: RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.07-1.19]; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.07-1.47]). There was also an observed increased rate of cerebrovascular disease following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16-1.52]; BNT162b2: RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05-1.13]; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.09-1.35]). For individual diseases within the main outcomes, 2 notably high rates were observed: 12.04 (95% CI, 5.37-26.99) for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 (95% CI, 2.96-6.20) for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 (95% CI, 0.6-2.6) and 4.9 (95% CI, 2.9-6.9) excess events per 100 000 doses, respectively, following AZD1222 vaccination.Conclusions and relevanceIn this self-controlled case series, there was an increased rate of hospital contacts because of coagulation disorders and cerebrovascular disease, especially for thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous thrombosis, following vaccination with AZD1222. Although increased rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccination were observed, these increases were less than the rates observed after AZD1222, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent. Confirmatory analysis on the 2 mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.
| S-EPMC9198750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInformation is limited regarding the effectiveness of the two-dose messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) in preventing infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and in attenuating coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) when administered in real-world conditions.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study involving 3975 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers. From December 14, 2020, to April 10, 2021, the participants completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing by providing mid-turbinate nasal swabs for qualitative and quantitative reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) analysis. The formula for calculating vaccine effectiveness was 100% × (1 - hazard ratio for SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated participants), with adjustments for the propensity to be vaccinated, study site, occupation, and local viral circulation.ResultsSARS-CoV-2 was detected in 204 participants (5%), of whom 5 were fully vaccinated (≥14 days after dose 2), 11 partially vaccinated (≥14 days after dose 1 and <14 days after dose 2), and 156 unvaccinated; the 32 participants with indeterminate vaccination status (<14 days after dose 1) were excluded. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76 to 97) with full vaccination and 81% (95% CI, 64 to 90) with partial vaccination. Among participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mean viral RNA load was 40% lower (95% CI, 16 to 57) in partially or fully vaccinated participants than in unvaccinated participants. In addition, the risk of febrile symptoms was 58% lower (relative risk, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.98) and the duration of illness was shorter, with 2.3 fewer days spent sick in bed (95% CI, 0.8 to 3.7).ConclusionsAuthorized mRNA vaccines were highly effective among working-age adults in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection when administered in real-world conditions, and the vaccines attenuated the viral RNA load, risk of febrile symptoms, and duration of illness among those who had breakthrough infection despite vaccination. (Funded by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).
| S-EPMC8262622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesHealthcare workers (HCWs) at increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were among the primary targets for vaccine campaigns. We aimed to estimate the protective efficacy of the first three COVID-19 vaccines available in Western Europe.MethodsWe merged two prospective databases that systematically recorded, in our institution: (a) HCWs positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples, and (b) HCWs who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. We excluded HCWs with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6 months prior to the study. HCWs were categorized as non-vaccinated if they received no vaccine and until the first injection +13 days, partially vaccinated from the first injection +14 days to the second injection +13 days, and fully vaccinated thereafter.ResultsOf the 8165 HCWs employed in our institution, 360 (4.4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR during the study period (4th January to 17th May 2021). Incidence was 9.1% (8.2-10.0) in non-vaccinated HCWs, 1.2% (0.7-1.9) after one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 1.4% (0.6-2.3) and 0.5% (0.1-1.0) after one and two doses of mRNA BNT162b2, 0.7% (0.1-1.9) and 0% after one and two doses of mRNA-1273 (p < 0.0001). Vaccine effectiveness (Cox model) was estimated at, respectively, 86.2% (76.5-91.0), 38.2% (6.3-59.2), and 49.2% (19.1-68.1) 14 days after the first dose for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, mRNA-1273, and mRNA-BNT162b2, and 100% (ND) and 94.6% (61.0-99.2) 14 days after the second dose for mRNA-1273 and mRNA-BNT162b2.ConclusionsIn this real-world study, the observed effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in HCWs was in line with the efficacy reported in pivotal randomized trials.
| S-EPMC8275842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Studies examining antibody responses by vaccine brand are lacking and may be informative for optimizing vaccine selection, dosage, and regimens. The purpose of this study is to assess IgG antibody responses following immunization with BNT162b2 (30 μg mRNA) and mRNA-1273 (100 μg mRNA) vaccines. A cohort of clinicians at a nonprofit organization is being assessed clinically and serologically following immunization with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. IgG responses were measured at the Remington Laboratory by an IgG assay against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-receptor binding domain. Mixed-effect linear (MEL) regression modeling was used to examine whether the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level differed by vaccine brand, dosage, or number of days since vaccination. Among 532 SARS-CoV-2 seronegative participants, 530 (99.6%) seroconverted with either vaccine. After adjustments for age and gender, MEL regression modeling revealed that the average IgG antibody level increased after the second dose compared to the first dose (P < 0.001). Overall, titers peaked at week 6 for both vaccines. Titers were significantly higher for the mRNA-1273 vaccine on days 14 to 20 (P < 0.05), 42 to 48 (P < 0.01), 70 to 76 (P < 0.05), and 77 to 83 (P < 0.05) and higher for the BNT162b2 vaccine on days 28 to 34 (P < 0.001). In two participants taking immunosuppressive drugs, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response remained negative. mRNA-1273 elicited higher IgG antibody responses than BNT162b2, possibly due to the higher S-protein delivery. Prospective clinical and serological follow-up of defined cohorts such as this may prove useful in determining antibody protection and whether differences in antibody kinetics between the vaccines have manufacturing relevance and clinical significance. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 vaccines using the mRNA platform have become one of the most powerful tools to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. mRNA vaccines enable human cells to produce and present the virus spike protein to their immune system, leading to protection from severe illness. Two mRNA vaccines have been widely implemented, mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). We found that, following the second dose, spike protein antibodies were higher with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2. This is biologically plausible, since mRNA-1273 delivers a larger amount of mRNA (100 μg mRNA) than BNT162b2 (30 μg mRNA), which is translated into spike protein. This difference may need to be urgently translated into changes in the manufacturing process and dose regimens of these vaccines.
| S-EPMC8579939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding immunogenicity and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is critical to guide rational use.MethodsWe compared the immunogenicity of mRNA-1273, BNT-162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S in healthy ambulatory adults in Massachusetts, USA. To correlate immunogenicity with effectiveness of the three vaccines, we performed an inverse-variance meta-analysis of population level effectiveness from public health reports in >40 million individuals.ResultsA single dose of either mRNA vaccine yielded comparable antibody and neutralization titers to convalescent individuals. Ad26.COV2.S yielded lower antibody concentrations and frequently undetectable neutralization titers. Bulk and cytotoxic T-cell responses were higher in mRNA1273 and BNT162b2 than Ad26.COV2.S recipients. Regardless of vaccine, <50% of vaccinees demonstrated CD8+ T-cell responses. Antibody concentrations and neutralization titers increased comparably after the first dose of either vaccine, and further in recipients of a second dose. Prior infection was associated with high antibody concentrations and neutralization even after a single dose and regardless of vaccine. Neutralization of beta, gamma and delta strains were poorer regardless of vaccine. In meta-analysis, relative to mRNA1273 the effectiveness of BNT162b2 was lower against infection and hospitalization; and Ad26COV2.S was lower against infection, hospitalization and death.ConclusionsVariation in the immunogenicity correlates with variable effectiveness of the three FDA EUA vaccines deployed in the USA.
| S-EPMC8689763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsConcern about the cardiovascular safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines among individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD) may lead to vaccine hesitancy. We sought to assess the association between two COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in individuals with established CVD.Methods and resultsWe identified individuals with a history of CVD before 23 February 2021 and a diagnosis of MACE between 23 February 2021 and 31 January 2022 in Hong Kong. MACE was defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and cardiovascular death. Electronic health records from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority were linked to vaccination records from the Department of Health. A self-controlled case-series method was used to evaluate the risk of MACE for 0-13 and 14-27 days after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) to compare the risk of MACE between each risk period and the baseline period. A total of 229 235 individuals with CVD were identified, of which 1764 were vaccinated and had a diagnosis of MACE during the observation period (BNT162b2 = 662; CoronaVac = 1102). For BNT162b2, IRRs were 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-1.02] for the first dose and 0.87 (95% CI 0.50-1.52) for the second dose during the 0-13 days risk period, 0.40 (95% CI 0.18-0.93) for the first dose and 1.13 (95% CI 0.70-1.84) for the second dose during the 14-27 days risk period. For CoronaVac, the IRRs were 0.43 (95% CI 0.24-0.75) for the first dose and, 0.73 (95% CI 0.46-1.16) for the second dose during the 0-13 days risk period, 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90) for the first dose and 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-1.29) for the second dose during the 14-27 days risk period. Consistent results were found in subgroup analyses for different sexes, age groups and different underlying cardiovascular conditions.ConclusionOur findings showed no evidence of an increased risk of MACE after vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac in patients with CVD. Future research is required to monitor the risk after the third dose of each vaccine.
| S-EPMC9278175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDefects in immunologic self-tolerance result in an increased risk for development of paraneoplastic autoimmune diseases (ADs) and immune-mediated toxicity in response to immune stimulation in individuals with thymic epithelial tumors (TETs). We conducted a survey to evaluate the tolerability of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines in patients with TETs, including individuals with preexisting AD.MethodsAfter reviewing published data on adverse events associated with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer, Inc., and BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (ModernaTX, Inc.) mRNA vaccines, we designed and administered a questionnaire to participants at the following three time points: after each dose of vaccination and 1 month after the final dose. Questions related to AD and use of immunosuppressive drugs were included. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data, and results were compared with previously described results related to the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines.ResultsFrom February 26 to June 1, 2021, we administered the survey to 54 participants (median age = 58 y, thymoma = 33, preexisting AD = 19). Common adverse events included injection site pain, fatigue, and headaches. There were no vaccination-related hospitalizations or deaths. Autoimmune flares occurred in three patients (16%) after the first dose and three patients (17%) after the second dose. Most AD flares were mild and self-limited. One patient (2%) was diagnosed with having a new AD after vaccination.ConclusionsTolerability of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in patients with TETs is comparable to the general population. Most patients with preexisting AD did not experience disease flares, and the development of new AD was rare. Patients with TETs should be encouraged to get vaccinated against COVID-19 owing to the documented benefits of vaccination and manageable risk profile.
| S-EPMC8423742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Significant intraprocedural adverse events (AE) are reported in children who receive anesthesia for procedures outside the Operating Rooms (NORA). No study, so far, has characterized AE in children who receive anesthesia in the operating rooms (ORA) and NORA when anesthesia care is provided by the same team in a consistent manner.We used the same patient-specific Quality Assurance questionnaires (QAs), to elucidate incidences of intraoperative reported AE for children receiving anesthesia in NORA and ORA locations. Through multivariate logistic regression analysis, we assessed the association between patient's AE risk and procedure's location while adjusting for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, age, and unscheduled nature of the procedure.After Institutional Review Board approval, we used returned QAs of patients under 21 years, who received anesthesia from our pediatric anesthesia faculty from May 1 2006 through September 30, 2007. We analyzed QA data on: service location, unscheduled/scheduled procedure, age, ASA status, presence, and type of AE. We excluded QAs with incomplete information on date, location, age, and ASA status.We included 8707 cases, with 3.5% incidence of reported AE. We had 1898 NORA and 6808 ORA cases with AE incidence of 2.5% and 3.7%, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that patients with higher ASA status or younger age had higher incidence of reported AE, irrespective of location or unscheduled nature of the procedure. The most common AE type, for both sites, was respiratory related (1.9%).Pediatric reported AE incidence was comparable for NORA and ORA locations. Younger age or higher ASA status are associated with increased risk of AE.
| S-EPMC2752696 | biostudies-literature