Dataset Information

Description of Frequencies of Reported Adverse Events Following Immunization Among Four Different COVID-19 Vaccine Brands.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The rapid rollout of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for a large proportion of the population necessitates a strong emphasis on safety. Complementary to the existing spontaneous reporting system, The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb conducted patient-reported cohort event monitoring (CEM).

Objective

The primary aim was to investigate differences in the frequencies of any and commonly reported, 'well-known', systemic adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) with four COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer's Comirnaty^®, Moderna's Spikevax^®, AstraZeneca's Vaxzevria^® and the Janssen vaccine). As a secondary aim, we analyzed the frequencies of well-known systemic adverse events after the first and, if applicable, second COVID-19 vaccinations, taking into account age, sex and prior COVID-19 infection.

Methods

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the Netherlands starting in February 2021 were analyzed using a prospective cohort design.

Results

Data of 27,554 participants who received one vaccination and 20,682 participants who received complete immunization were analyzed. The percentage of patients reporting any AEFI was high and ranged from approximately 53% for the Pfizer vaccine to approximately 94% for the Moderna vaccine. The frequency of serious AEFIs was low, with the highest frequency found for the AstraZeneca vaccine (0.228%). AEFIs were most often experienced by participants receiving the first dose of the AstraZeneca and Janssen vaccines and the second dose of the Moderna vaccine; the Pfizer vaccine was associated with the lowest rate of AEFIs. Participants with a COVID-19 history before vaccination experienced commonly reported systemic AEFIs more frequently after the first vaccination than after the second vaccination. Women and young people experienced more AEFIs than men and older people, respectively.

Conclusions

The analysis of a large cohort provides important information about the rates of AEFIs across age groups, among brands of vaccines and between those with and without prior COVID-19 infection. Participants reported a high number of AEFIs in general, but the frequency of serious AEFIs was low.

SUBMITTER: Kant A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8936041 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.