Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults
IntroductionIn 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials. MethodsSecondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on Brighton Collaboration adverse events of special interest. ResultsPfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI −3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39). DiscussionThe excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.
- Research Article
- 10.1016/s0039-3592(70)80018-7
- Jan 1, 1970
- Studies in Comparative Communism
The dictatorship of the Prague intellectuals
- Research Article
21
- 10.1016/j.kint.2022.07.018
- Aug 11, 2022
- Kidney International
The effectiveness and safety of mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) COVID-19 vaccines among individuals with chronic kidney diseases
- Research Article
66
- 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.014
- Jun 15, 2021
- Gastroenterology
COVID-19 Vaccination Is Safe and Effective in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Analysis of a Large Multi-institutional Research Network in the United States
- Research Article
27
- 10.1002/14651858.cd006332.pub4
- Sep 15, 2022
- The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
This update's findings for naldemedine and naloxone with oxycodone have been strengthened with two new trials, but conclusions have not changed. Moderate-certainty evidence for oral naldemedine on risk of spontaneous laxations and non-serious AEs suggests in people with cancer that naldemedine may improve bowel function over two weeks and increase the risk of AEs. There was low-certainty evidence on serious AEs. Moderate-certainty evidence for methylnaltrexone on spontaneous laxations over two weeks suggests subcutaneous methylnaltrexone may improve bowel function in people receiving palliative care, but certainty of evidence for AEs was low. More trials are needed, more evaluation of AEs, outcomes patients rate as important, and in children.
- Research Article
35
- 10.1016/s2666-7568(22)00125-8
- Jul 1, 2022
- The Lancet Healthy Longevity
Safety of an inactivated, whole-virion COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac) in people aged 60 years or older in Hong Kong: a modified self-controlled case series
- Discussion
34
- 10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00443-1
- Aug 11, 2022
- The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy
- Research Article
4
- 10.1097/mej.0000000000001005
- Jan 20, 2023
- European Journal of Emergency Medicine
The MIMO clinical trial showed that patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) treated with midazolam had fewer serious adverse events than those treated with morphine. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbidity in heart failure and affects patient's outcome. The primary endpoint of this substudy is to know if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine. The first secondary endpoint is to know if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events or death at 30 days in the midazolam arm. The second secondary objective of this substudy is to analyze whether AF modified the reduced risk of midazolam against morphine on the total number of serious adverse events per patient. We conducted a secondary analysis of the MIMO trial. Patients more than 18 years old clinically diagnosed with ACPE and with dyspnea and anxiety were randomized (1:1) at emergency department arrival to receive either intravenous midazolam or morphine. In this post hoc analysis, we calculated the relative risk (RR) of serious adverse events in patients with and without AF. Calculating the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel interaction test, we evaluated if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine. One hundred eleven patients (median = 78.9 years; IQR, 72.3-83.7; women, 52.2%) were randomized in the MIMO trial, 55 to receive midazolam and 56 to morphine. All randomized patients received the assigned drug and there were no losses to follow-up. Forty-four patients (39.6%) had AF. In the AF group, the RR for the incidence of serious adverse events in the midazolam versus morphine arm was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.14-1.3). In the group without AF, the RR was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.21-1). The presence of AF did not modify the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared with morphine ( P for interaction = 0.88). This post hoc analysis of the MIMO trial suggests that the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam group compared to morphine is similar in patients with and without AF.
- Research Article
85
- 10.1016/s2352-4642(23)00078-0
- Apr 18, 2023
- The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health
Safety and effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19 in children aged 5–11 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Research Article
28
- 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.12.069
- Jan 9, 2023
- Vaccine
Safety of co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) during July 1, 2021–June 30, 2022
- Research Article
15
- 10.1007/s40264-022-01228-6
- Oct 2, 2022
- Drug Safety
IntroductionIn Hong Kong, CoronaVac and BNT162b2 have been approved for emergency use owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Reactions towards the vaccine and the risk of post-vaccination adverse events may be different between recipients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of adverse events of special interest (AESI) and acute diabetic complications in the T2DM population after COVID-19 vaccination in Hong Kong.Research Design and MethodsSelf-controlled case-series analysis was conducted. Patients with T2DM who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac between 23 February 2021 and 31 January 2022 from electronic health records in Hong Kong were included. The incidence rates of 29 AESIs and acute diabetic complications (any of severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome) requiring hospitalization within 21 days after the first or second dose of vaccination were reported. The risks of these outcomes were evaluated using conditional Poisson regression.ResultsAmong 141,224 BNT162b2 recipients and 209,739 CoronaVac recipients with T2DM, the incidence per 100,000 doses and incidence per 100,000 person-years of individual AESIs and acute diabetic complications ranged from 0 to 24.4 and 0 to 438.6 in BNT162b2 group, and 0 to 19.5 and 0 to 351.6 in CoronaVac group. We did not observe any significantly increased risk of individual AESIs or acute diabetic complications after first or second doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccine. Subgroup analysis based on HbA1c < 7% and ≥ 7% also did not show significantly excess risk after vaccination.ConclusionsPatients with T2DM do not appear to have higher risks of AESI and acute diabetic complications after BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccination. Moreover, given the low incidence of AESIs and acute diabetic complications after vaccination, the absolute risk increment was likely minimal.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40264-022-01228-6.
- Research Article
- 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.09.003
- Sep 9, 2023
- The American journal of emergency medicine
Effects of MIdazolam versus MOrphine in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: An analysis of MIMO trial
- Research Article
307
- 10.1002/14651858.cd012763
- Aug 14, 2017
- The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Review results suggest that in comparison with neostigmine, sugammadex can more rapidly reverse rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block regardless of the depth of the block. Sugammadex 2 mg/kg is 10.22 minutes (˜ 6.6 times) faster in reversing moderate neuromuscular blockade (T2) than neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg (GRADE: moderate quality), and sugammadex 4 mg/kg is 45.78 minutes (˜ 16.8 times) faster in reversing deep neuromuscular blockade (PTC 1 to 5) than neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg (GRADE: low quality). With an NNTB of 8 to avoid an adverse event, sugammadex appears to have a better safety profile than neostigmine. Patients receiving sugammadex had 40% fewer adverse events compared with those given neostigmine. Specifically, risks of bradycardia (RR 0.16, NNTB 14; GRADE: moderate quality), PONV (RR 0.52, NNTB 16; GRADE: low quality), and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis (RR 0.40, NNTB 13; GRADE: moderate quality) were reduced. Both sugammadex and neostigmine were associated with serious adverse events in less than 1% of patients, and data showed no differences in risk of serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.54; GRADE: low quality).
- Discussion
6
- 10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00123-2
- Mar 7, 2022
- The Lancet. Infectious Diseases
COVID-19 mRNA vaccine safety during the first 6 months of roll-out in the USA
- Research Article
75
- 10.1002/14651858.cd012774.pub3
- Apr 25, 2023
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
FMT may increase the proportion of people with active UC who achieve clinical and endoscopic remission. The evidence was very uncertain about whether use of FMT in people with active UC impacted the risk of serious adverse events or improvement in quality of life. The evidence was also very uncertain about the use of FMT for maintenance of remission in people with UC, as well as induction and maintenance of remission in people with CD, and no conclusive statements could be made in this regard. Further studies are needed to address the beneficial effects and safety profile of FMT in adults and children with active UC and CD, as well as its potential to promote longer-term maintenance of remission in UC and CD.
- Research Article
14
- 10.1136/bmj-2022-070483
- Jul 13, 2022
- BMJ
ObjectiveTo assess the risk of adverse events associated with heterologous primary (two dose) and booster (three dose) vaccine schedules for covid-19 with Oxford-AstraZeneca’s ChAdOx1-S priming followed by mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech’s...