Assess Vaccine Safety Research Articles

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnancy, A Nested Case-Control Study in Births From April 2021 to March 2022, England.

Assessment of COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy using population-based data. Matched case-control study nested in a retrospective cohort. April 2021-March 2022, England. All pregnant individuals aged between 18 and 50 years with valid health records. Individuals identified from the national Maternity Services Data Set (MSDS) had their records linked to hospital admission, national COVID-19 vaccine and COVID-19 testing databases. Matching included participant's age and estimated week of conception. We compared outcomes across multiple COVID-19 vaccine exposures using conditional multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for demographic and health characteristics. Adverse pregnancy, maternal and neonatal outcomes. 514 013 individuals were included. We found lower odds of giving birth to a baby who was low birthweight (aOR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.93), preterm (aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.85-0.92) or who had an Apgar score < 7 at 5 min of age (aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98) for individuals who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. The odds of admission to intensive care unit during pregnancy were lower in those vaccinated (aOR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.95). There was no association between vaccination in pregnancy and stillbirth, neonatal death, perinatal death and maternal venous thromboembolism in pregnancy. COVID-19 vaccines are safe to use in pregnancy. Our findings generated important information to communicate to pregnant individuals and health professionals to support COVID-19 maternal vaccination programmes.

Cohort event monitoring of safety of COVID-19 vaccines: the Italian experience of the “ilmiovaccinoCOVID19 collaborating group”

Introduction: In 2021, the European Medicines Agency supported the “Covid Vaccine Monitor (CVM),” an active surveillance project spanning 13 European countries aimed at monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in general and special populations (i.e., pregnant/breastfeeding women, children/adolescents, immunocompromised people, and people with a history of allergies or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection). Italy participated in this project as a large multidisciplinary network called the “ilmiovaccinoCOVID19 collaborating group.”Methods: The study aimed to describe the experience of the Italian network “ilmiovaccinoCOVID19 collaborating group” in the CVM context from June 2021 to February 2023. Comprising about 30 partners, the network aimed to facilitate vaccinee recruitment. Participants completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires within 48 h from vaccination over a 6-month period. Analyses focused on those who completed both the baseline and the first follow-up questionnaire (Q1), exploring temporal trends, vaccination campaign correlation, and loss to follow-up. Characteristics of recruited vaccinees and vaccinee-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were compared with passive surveillance data in Italy.Results: From June 2021 to November 2022, 22,384,663 first doses and 38,207,452 booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in Italy. Simultaneously, the study enrolled 1,229 and 2,707 participants for the first and booster doses, respectively. Of these, 829 and 1,879 vaccinees, respectively, completed both baseline and at least Q1 and were included in the analyses, with a significant proportion of them (57.8%/34.3%) belonging to special cohorts. Most vaccinees included in the analyses were women. Comirnaty® (69%) and Spikevax® (29%) were the most frequently administered vaccines. ADR rates following Comirnaty® and Spikevax® were higher after the second dose, particularly following Spikevax®. Serious ADRs were infrequent. Differences were observed in ADR characteristics between CVM and Italian passive surveillance.Conclusion: This study confirmed the favorable safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines, with findings consistent with pivotal clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, although different proportions of serious ADRs compared to spontaneous reporting were observed. Continuous evaluation through cohort event monitoring studies provides real-time insights crucial for regulatory responses. Strengthening infrastructure and implementing early monitoring strategies are essential to enhance vaccine safety assessment and prepare for future pandemics.

Uptake, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in individuals at clinical risk due to immunosuppressive drug therapy or transplantation procedures: a population-based cohort study in England

BackgroundImmunocompromised individuals are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in this population. The lack of comprehensive real-world data on vaccine uptake, effectiveness and safety in these individuals presents a critical knowledge gap, highlighting the urgency to better understand and address the unique challenges faced by immunocompromised individuals in the context of COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsWe analysed data from 12,274,946 people in the UK aged > 12 years from 01/12/2020 to 11/04/2022. Of these, 583,541 (4.8%) were immunocompromised due to immunosuppressive drugs, organ transplants, dialysis or chemotherapy. We undertook a cohort analysis to determine COVID-19 vaccine uptake, nested case–control analyses adjusted for comorbidities and sociodemographic characteristics to determine effectiveness of vaccination against COVID-19 hospitalisation, ICU admission and death, and a self-controlled case series assessing vaccine safety for pre-specified adverse events of interest.ResultsOverall, 93.7% of immunocompromised individuals received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, with 80.4% having received three or more doses. Uptake reduced with increasing deprivation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95%CI 0.77–0.79] in the most deprived quintile compared to the least deprived quintile for the first dose). Estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation 2–6 weeks after the second and third doses compared to unvaccinated was 78% (95%CI 72–83) and 91% (95%CI 88–93) in the immunocompromised population, versus 85% (95%CI 83–86) and 86% (95%CI 85–89), respectively, for the general population. Results showed COVID-19 vaccines were protective against intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death in both populations, with effectiveness of over 92% against COVID-19-related death and up to 95% in reducing ICU admissions for both populations following the third dose. COVID-19 vaccines were generally safe for immunocompromised individuals, though specific doses of ChAdOx1, mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 raised risks of specific cardiovascular/neurological conditions.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccine uptake is high in immunocompromised individuals on immunosuppressive drug therapy or who have undergone transplantation procedures, with documented disparities by deprivation. Findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccines are protective against severe COVID-19 outcomes in this vulnerable population, and show a similar safety profile in immunocompromised individuals and the general population, despite some increased risk of adverse events. These results underscore the importance of ongoing vaccination prioritisation for this clinically at-risk population to maximise protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Primary exposure to Zika virus is linked with increased risk of symptomatic dengue virus infection with serotypes 2, 3, and 4, but not 1.

Infection with any of the four dengue virus serotypes (DENV1-4) can protect against or enhance subsequent dengue depending on preexisting antibodies and infecting serotype. Additionally, primary infection with the related flavivirus Zika virus (ZIKV) is associated with increased risk of DENV2 disease. Here, we measured how prior DENV and ZIKV immunity influenced risk of disease caused by DENV1-4 in a pediatric Nicaraguan cohort. Of 3412 participants in 2022, 10.6% experienced dengue cases caused by DENV1 (n = 139), DENV4 (n = 133), DENV3 (n = 54), DENV2 (n = 9), or an undetermined serotype (n = 39). Longitudinal clinical and serological data were used to define infection histories, and generalized linear and additive models adjusted for age, sex, time since last infection, and year, and repeat measurements were used to predict disease risk. Compared with flavivirus-naïve participants, primary ZIKV infection was associated with increased risk of disease caused by DENV4 (relative risk = 2.62, 95% confidence interval: 1.48 to 4.63) and DENV3 (2.90, 1.34 to 6.27), but not DENV1 infection. Primary DENV infection or DENV followed by ZIKV infection was also associated with increased risk of DENV4 disease. We reanalyzed 19 years of cohort data and demonstrated that prior flavivirus immunity and antibody titer had distinct associations with disease risk depending on incoming serotype. We thus find that prior ZIKV infection, like prior DENV infection, is associated with increased risk of disease with certain DENV serotypes. Cross-reactivity among flaviviruses should be considered when assessing vaccine safety and efficacy.

Importance of Examining Incidentality in Vaccine Safety Assessment

The author believes that the principles of statistical methods for vaccine safety can be divided into three categories: comparison of adverse event incidence rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, analysis of incidentality in the vaccinated group, and a combination of both. The first category includes the cohort study; the second, the self-controlled risk interval design (SCRI); and the third, the self-controlled case series method. A single p-value alone should not determine a scientific conclusion, and analysis should be performed using multiple statistical methods with different principles. The author believes that using both the cohort study and the SCRI for analysis is the best method to assess vaccine safety. When the cohort study may not detect a significant difference owing to a low incidence rate of an adverse event in the vaccinated group or a high one in the unvaccinated group, the SCRI may detect it. Because vaccines must have a higher level of safety than the pharmaceuticals used for treatment, vaccine safety is advisable to be assessed using methods that can detect a significant difference even for any value of the incidence rate of an adverse event. The author believes that the analyses of COVID-19 vaccine safety have areas for improvement because the proportion of papers that used the cohort study and the SCRI was negligible.

How has research on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination been evaluated: a scope review with emphasis on CoronaVac.

The control of the COVID-19 epidemic has been focused on the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. All developed vaccines have reported safety and efficacy results in preventing infection and its consequences, although the quality of evidence varies depending on the vaccine considered. Different methodological designs have been used for their evaluation, which can influence our understanding of the effects of these interventions. CoronaVac is an inactivated vaccine, and it has been assessed in various studies, including clinical trials and observational studies. Given these differences, our objective was to explore the published information to answer the question: how has the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of CoronaVac been evaluated in different studies? This is to identify potential gaps and challenges to be addressed in understanding its effect. A scoping review was carried out following the methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute, which included studies carried out in humans as of 2020, corresponding to systematic reviews, clinical trials, analytical or descriptive observational studies, in which the effectiveness and/or safety of vaccines for COVID19 were evaluated or described. There were no age restrictions for the study participants. The efficacy/effectiveness and safety of this vaccine was assessed through 113 studies. Nineteen corresponded to experimental studies, 7 of Phase II, 5 of Phase IV, and 4 were clinical trials with random assignment. Although some clinical trials with random assignment have been carried out, these have limitations in terms of feasibility, follow-up times, and with this, the possibility of evaluating safety outcomes that occur with low frequencies. Not all studies have used homogeneous methods of analysis. Both the prevention of infection, and the prevention of outcomes such as hospitalization or death, have been valued through similar outcomes, but some through multivariate analysis of dependencies, and others through analysis that try to infer causally through different control methods of confounding. Published information on the evaluation of the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of the CoronaVac is abundant. However, there are differences in terms of vaccine application schedules, population definition, outcomes evaluated, follow-up times, and safety assessment, as well as non-standardization in the reporting of results, which may hinder the generalizability of the findings. It is important to generate meetings and consensus strategies for the methods and reporting of this type of studies, which will allow to reduce the heterogeneity in their presentation and a better understanding of the effect of these vaccines.

Pregnancy Outcomes among Pregnant Persons after COVID-19 Vaccination: Assessing Vaccine Safety in Retrospective Cohort Analysis of U.S. National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C).

COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing severe illness, including among pregnant persons. The vaccines appear to be safe in pregnancy, supporting a continuously favorable overall risk/benefit profile, though supportive data for the U.S. over different periods of variant predominance are lacking. We sought to analyze the association of adverse pregnancy outcomes with COVID-19 vaccinations in the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants' dominant periods (constituting 50% or more of each pregnancy) for pregnant persons in a large, nationally sampled electronic health record repository in the U.S. Our overall analysis included 311,057 pregnant persons from December 2020 to October 2023 at a time when there were approximately 3.6 million births per year. We compared rates of preterm births and stillbirths among pregnant persons who were vaccinated before or during pregnancy to persons vaccinated after pregnancy or those who were not vaccinated. We performed a multivariable Poisson regression with generalized estimated equations to address data site heterogeneity for preterm births and unadjusted exact models for stillbirths, stratified by the dominant variant period. We found lower rates of preterm birth in the majority of modeled periods (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] range: 0.42 to 0.85; p-value range: <0.001 to 0.06) and lower rates of stillbirth (IRR range: 0.53 to 1.82; p-value range: <0.001 to 0.976) in most periods among those who were vaccinated before or during pregnancy compared to those who were vaccinated after pregnancy or not vaccinated. We largely found no adverse associations between COVID-19 vaccination and preterm birth or stillbirth; these findings reinforce the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and bolster confidence for pregnant persons, providers, and policymakers in the importance of COVID-19 vaccination for this group despite the end of the public health emergency.

Estimation and reduction of bias in self-controlled case series with non-rare event dependent outcomes and heterogeneous populations.

The self-controlled case series (SCCS) is a commonly adopted study design in the assessment of vaccine and drug safety. Recurrent event data collected from SCCS studies are typically analyzed using the conditional Poisson model which assumes event times are independent within-cases. This assumption is violated in the presence of event dependence, where the occurrence of an event influences the probability and timing of subsequent events. When event dependence is suspected in an SCCS study, the standard recommendation is to include only the first event from each case in the analysis. However, first event analysis can still yield biased estimates of the exposure relative incidence if the outcome event is not rare. We first demonstrate that the bias in first event analysis can be even higher than previously assumed when subpopulations with different baseline incidence rates are present and describe an improved method for estimating this bias. Subsequently, we propose a novel partitioned analysis method and demonstrate how it can reduce this bias. We provide a recommendation to guide the number of partitions to use with the partitioned analysis, illustrate this recommendation with an example SCCS study of the association between beta-blockers and acute myocardial infarction, and compare the partitioned analysis against other SCCS analysis methods by simulation.

COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals

BackgroundThe Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project, established in 2021 under the multinational Global Vaccine Data Network™ (GVDN®), facilitates comprehensive assessment of vaccine safety. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of adverse events of special interest (AESI) following COVID-19 vaccination from 10 sites across eight countries. MethodsUsing a common protocol, this observational cohort study compared observed with expected rates of 13 selected AESI across neurological, haematological, and cardiac outcomes. Expected rates were obtained by participating sites using pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data stratified by age and sex. Observed rates were reported from the same healthcare datasets since COVID-19 vaccination program rollout. AESI occurring up to 42 days following vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) and adenovirus-vector (ChAdOx1) vaccines were included in the primary analysis. Risks were assessed using observed versus expected (OE) ratios with 95 % confidence intervals. Prioritised potential safety signals were those with lower bound of the 95 % confidence interval (LBCI) greater than 1.5. ResultsParticipants included 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals. In total, 183,559,462 doses of BNT162b2, 36,178,442 doses of mRNA-1273, and 23,093,399 doses of ChAdOx1 were administered across participating sites in the study period. Risk periods following homologous vaccination schedules contributed 23,168,335 person-years of follow-up. OE ratios with LBCI > 1.5 were observed for Guillain-Barré syndrome (2.49, 95 % CI: 2.15, 2.87) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (3.23, 95 % CI: 2.51, 4.09) following the first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis showed an OE ratio of 3.78 (95 % CI: 1.52, 7.78) following the first dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine. The OE ratios for myocarditis and pericarditis following BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 were significantly increased with LBCIs > 1.5. ConclusionThis multi-country analysis confirmed pre-established safety signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Other potential safety signals that require further investigation were identified.

BAYESIAN LEARNING OF COVID-19 VACCINE SAFETY WHILE INCORPORATING ADVERSE EVENTS ONTOLOGY.

While vaccines are crucial to end the COVID-19 pandemic, public confidence in vaccine safety has always been vulnerable. Many statistical methods have been applied to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) database to study the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. However, none of these methods considered the adverse event (AE) ontology. AEs are naturally related; for example, events of retching, dysphagia, and reflux are all related to an abnormal digestive system. Explicitly bringing AE relationships into the model can aid in the detection of true AE signals amid the noise while reducing false positives. We propose a Bayesian graph-assisted signal selection (BGrass) model to simultaneously estimate all AEs while incorporating the network of dependence between AEs. Under a fully Bayesian inference framework, we also propose a negative control approach to mitigate the reporting bias and an enrichment approach to detecting AE groups of concern. For posterior computation we construct an equivalent model representation and develop an efficient Gibbs sampler. We evaluate the performance of BGrass via extensive simulations. To study the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, we apply BGrass to analyze approximately one million VAERS reports (01/01/2016-12/24/2021) involving more than 800 AEs. In particular, we found that blood clots (including deep vein thrombosis, thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism) are more likely to be reported after COVID-19 vaccination, compared to influenza vaccines. They are also reported more often for Johnson & Johnson-Janssen vaccine, compared to mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. A user-friendly R package BGrass that implements the proposed methods to assess vaccine safety is included in the Supplementary Material and is publicly available at https://github.com/BangyaoZhao/BGrass.

Data resource profile: COVid VAXines effects on the aged (COVVAXAGE).

To improve the assessment of COVID-19 vaccine use, safety, and effectiveness in older adults and persons with complex multimorbidity, the COVid VAXines Effects on the Aged (COVVAXAGE) database was established by linking CVS Health and Walgreens pharmacy customers to Medicare claims. We deterministically linked CVS Health and Walgreens customers who had a pharmacy dispensation/encounter paid for by Medicare to Medicare enrollment and claims records. Linked data include U.S. Medicare claims, Medicare enrollment files, and community pharmacy records. The data currently span 01/01/2016 to 08/31/2022. "Research-ready" files were created, with weekly indicators for vaccinations, censoring, death, enrollment, demographics, and comorbidities. Data are updated quarterly. As of November 2022, records for 27,086,723 CVS Health and 23,510,025 Walgreens unique customer IDs were identified for potential linkage. Approximately 91% of customers were matched to a Medicare beneficiary ID (95% for those aged 65 years or older). In the final linked cohort, there were 38,250,873 unique beneficiaries representing ~60% of the Medicare population. Among those alive and enrolled in Medicare as of January 1, 2020 (n = 33,721,568; average age = 73 years, 74% White, 51% Medicare Fee-for-Service, and 11% dual-eligible for Medicaid), the average follow-up time was 130 weeks. The cohort contains 16,021,055 beneficiaries with evidence a first COVID-19 vaccine dose. Data are stored on the secure Medicare & Medicaid Resource Information Center Health & Aging Data Enclave. Investigators with funded or in-progress funding applications to the National Institute on Aging who are interested in learning more about the database should contact Dr Vincent Mor [Vincent_mor@brown.edu] and Dr Kaleen Hayes [kaley_hayes@brown.edu]. A data dictionary can be provided under reasonable request. The COVVAXAGE cohort is a large and diverse cohort that can be used for the ongoing evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine use and other research questions relevant to the Medicare population.

Adverse reactions to cosmetic implants after COVID-19 vaccination: A literature review.

As the world's population of people vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine increases, adverse reactions are increasingly being reported. There have been progressive reports of the effects of COVID-19 vaccination on cosmetic fillers or prostheses, but they have not been reviewed based on their clinical morphologic patterns. This article reviewed the progress of research on adverse reactions to cosmetic implants after COVID-19 vaccination. We researched the English-language literature up to October 15, 2022, using predefined keywords to identify relevant studies about adverse reactions to cosmetic implants after the COVID-19 vaccination, collecting patient characteristics, implant type, the time interval between vaccination and implantation or injection, time of onset, symptoms, treatments, and outcomes. Among the adverse reactions to implants associated with COVID-19 vaccination, we distinguished between (1) injectable fillers and (2) surgical prosthetic implants. The most common adverse reactions were at the site of hyaluronic acid injection and breast prosthesis after Pfizer vaccination, mainly DIRs, and mainly manifested as edema, rash, fever, and capsular contracture. This paper also reported the possible causes, treatments of DIRs, and limitations of current studies. In this article, we attempted to investigate and discuss all the adverse reactions of cosmetic implants related to COVID-19 vaccination in the current literature, to unmask these reactions and make a more accurate assessment of vaccine safety.

Proceedings of the Online Conference "Vaccines and Vaccination during and Post COVID Pandemics" (7-9 December 2022).

The COVID-19 pandemic put focus on various aspects of vaccine research and development. These include mass vaccination strategies, vaccination compliance and hesitancy, acceptance of novel vaccine approaches, preclinical and animal models used to assess vaccine safety and efficacy, and many other related issues. These issues were addressed by the international online conference "Vaccines and Vaccination During and Post COVID Pandemics" (VAC&VAC 2022) held on the platform of Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia. Conference was supported by the International Society for Vaccines, the National Cancer Institute "Fondazione Pascale" (Naples, Italy), and the scientific journal VACCINES (mdpi). VAC&VAC 2022 attracted nearly 150 participants from 14 countries. This report summarizes conference presentations and their discussion. Sessions covered the topics of (1) COVID-19 vaccine development, evaluation, and attitude towards these vaccines, (2) HPV and cancer vaccines, (3) progress and challenges of HIV vaccine development, (4) new and re-emerging infectious threats, and (5) novel vaccine vehicles, adjuvants, and carriers. Each session was introduced by a plenary lecture from renowned experts from leading research institutions worldwide. The conference also included sessions on research funding and grant writing and an early career researcher contest in which the winners received monetary awards and a chance to publish their results free of charge in the special issue of VACCINES covering the meeting.

Safety of COVID-19 booster dose: is the juice worth the squeeze?

Safety of COVID-19 booster dose: is the juice worth the squeeze?

Medical Examiner Surveillance of the COVID-19 Pandemic in King County, Washington, USA.

The King County Medical Examiner's Office in Seattle, Wash, initiated a surveillance project with a dedicated team and database tracking the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and deaths occurring within 28 days of COVID-19 vaccination. From January 2020 through July 2022, the results of 13,801 nasal/nasopharyngeal swabs from 7606 decedents tested for the virus were assembled in the surveillance database. Generally, 2 samples were collected and tested separately by 2 different laboratories. Positive rates increased from 5.7% in 2020 to 14.3% in 2022. Of 744 decedents positive for the virus, autopsies were performed on 418 (56%); of these, 106 (25%) died of COVID-19 as either the primary or a contributing cause. Comparison of autopsy findings of those dying of COVID-19 with those positive for the virus but dying of other causes demonstrated increased risk for those with preexisting conditions. Of 1035 deaths reported within 28 days of vaccination, the rates of thrombotic complications and myocarditis were no higher than in other decedents. This study provides evidence of the value to public health surveillance of an adequately resourced medical examiner office in tracking viral spread in the community, understanding disease mortality, and assessing vaccine safety.

Assessing vaccine safety during a pandemic: Recent experience and lessons learned for the future

During the roll out of vaccines during a pandemic, questions regarding vaccine safety often arise. This was surely true during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Different tools and capabilities exist during the pre-authorization phase and post introduction each with its strengths and limitations. Here we review the various tools and their strengths and limitations and discuss what functioned well in high income settings and the limitations that unequal vaccine safety pharmacovigilance capacity imposed upon middle and low income countries.

Interim safety and immunogenicity results from an NDV-based COVID-19 vaccine phase I trial in Mexico

There is still a need for safe, efficient, and low-cost coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines that can stop transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Here we evaluated a vaccine candidate based on a live recombinant Newcastle disease virus (NDV) that expresses a stable version of the spike protein in infected cells as well as on the surface of the viral particle (AVX/COVID-12-HEXAPRO, also known as NDV-HXP-S). This vaccine candidate can be grown in embryonated eggs at a low cost, similar to influenza virus vaccines, and it can also be administered intranasally, potentially to induce mucosal immunity. We evaluated this vaccine candidate in prime-boost regimens via intramuscular, intranasal, or intranasal followed by intramuscular routes in an open-label non-randomized non-placebo-controlled phase I clinical trial in Mexico in 91 volunteers. The primary objective of the trial was to assess vaccine safety, and the secondary objective was to determine the immunogenicity of the different vaccine regimens. In the interim analysis reported here, the vaccine was found to be safe, and the higher doses tested were found to be immunogenic when given intramuscularly or intranasally followed by intramuscular administration, providing the basis for further clinical development of the vaccine candidate. The study is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04871737.

Challenges in Assessing COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Signals-The Case of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine and Corneal Graft Rejection.

The rapid and large-scale roll-out of new COVID-19 vaccines has led to unprecedented challenges in assessing vaccine safety. In 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) processed about 1.7 million safety reports related to COVID-19 vaccines in the EudraVigilance (EV) database and identified more than 900 potential signals. Beyond the large amount of information to be processed, the evaluation of safety signals has faced several difficulties and limitations, both in the assessment of case reports and in the investigation of databases. The evaluation of a signal of corneal graft rejection (CGR) with Vaxzevria® was no exception to this. In this commentary, we present the challenges encountered in making regulatory decisions in the context of evolving evidence and knowledge. The pandemic crisis emphasised the importance of quick and proactive communication to address the many questions and, above all, to ensure the transparency of safety data.

Development of a COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety assessment system in Japan: The VENUS study.

There are currently no COVID-19 vaccine assessment systems in Japan that allow for the active surveillance of both vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. Herein, we describe the development of Japan's first COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety assessment system with active surveillance capabilities. The Vaccine Effectiveness, Networking, and Universal Safety (VENUS) Study was developed as a multi-source database that links four data types at the individual resident level: Basic Resident Register (base population information), Vaccination Record System (vaccination-related information), Health Center Real-time Information-sharing System on COVID-19 (HER-SYS; information on COVID-19 occurrence), and health care claims data (information on diagnoses, hospitalizations, diagnostic tests, and treatments). These data were obtained from four municipalities. Individual residents were linked across the data types using five matching algorithms based on names, birth dates, and sex; the data were anonymized after linkage. To ascertain the viability of the VENUS Study's database for COVID-19 vaccine assessments, we examined the trends in COVID-19 vaccinations, COVID-19 cases, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test numbers. We also evaluated the linkage rates across the data types. Our multi-source database was able to monitor COVID-19 vaccinations, COVID-19 cases, and PCR test numbers throughout the pandemic. Using the five algorithms, the data linkage rates between the COVID-19 occurrence information in the HER-SYS and the Basic Resident Register ranged from 85·4% to 91·7%. If used judiciously with an understanding of each data source's characteristics, the VENUS Study can provide a viable data platform that facilitates active surveillance and comparative analyses for population-based research on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety in Japan.

What impact does the attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination have on physicians as vaccine providers? A cross sectional study from the German outpatient sector.

COVID-19 vaccination is recognized as a key component in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Physicians' attitudes toward vaccination are known to play a defining role in the management and dissemination of medical advice to patients. In Germany, outpatient practitioners are predominantly responsible for the dissemination of vaccines. Using a cross-sectional online survey, 932 outpatient general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians in Germany were asked in fall, 2021, about their attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination and - among others - their communication in vaccine discussions, their assessment of vaccine safety, and reporting of suspected adverse events. Physicians were divided into two groups along their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, multivariate linear regression models were constructed to assess differences in communication strategies. 92% of physicians had a positive or very positive attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination. Own vaccination status, practice-based vaccination delivery, and estimated vaccination coverage among patients were significantly associated with the attitude toward vaccination. Confidence in vaccine safety was significantly lower among physicians with negative attitudes. There were no differences between the two groups in self-assessment of the ability to detect suspected adverse events, but there were differences in the observing and reporting of adverse events. For the linear regression models, we found that a more negative attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination was significantly associated with increased acceptance of patient refusal of COVID-19 vaccination and empathic behavior for patient concerns. In contrast, willingness to engage in a detailed persuasion consultation was significantly lower. Pediatricians showed significantly higher empathy for patient-side concerns compared to general practitioners, whereas gynecologists showed less empathy than general practitioners. The physician's attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination influences the physician's practices as a vaccine provider. However, when providing medical advice and healthcare, the physician should focus on the actual needs of the patient.