Reactogenicity Of Vaccines Research Articles

Time to redefine a primary vaccination series?

Time to redefine a primary vaccination series?

Assessment of Symptoms Succeeding COVID-19 Vaccination in Health Care Workers of Rawalpindi Medical University, Pakistan

Background: We aimed to evaluate the duration and severity of symptoms experienced by Health care workers (HCWs) after receiving first dose of COVID-19 vaccine and to compare these symptoms with respect to age, gender, previous infection with COVID-19 and history of allergies. Methods: Data for this cross-sectional analytical study was collected using simple random sampling by filling a proforma after detailed in person interview of the selected HCWs of Rawalpindi Medical University between May 2021 to September 2021. However, those HCWs who had co-morbidities were excluded from the study. Results: A total of 350 participants were interviewed and data was analyzed by SPSS 25. Out of 350 participants 205 (58.6%) experienced symptom after receiving the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Most common symptom was local pain at injection site (58%). Other symptoms include fatigue(41.5%) ,myalgia(33.2%) ,low grade fever (28.8%), headache(26.8%) ,high grade fever(6.3%),joint pain(7.8%), Giddiness(5.4%), sore throat(5.9%),nausea (4.9%), diarrhea(2%) ,constipation(1.5%), insomnia(1%), allergic rash(1.5%).Women were likely to experience more symptoms as well as earlier onset of symptoms. Older age was related to late appearance and longer duration of symptoms. People who have earlier been infected with COVID-19 were likely to experience more severe symptoms. Those having previous history of any allergies were more likely to experience post-vaccination symptoms. All these results were statistically significant with p value less than 0.05. Conclusion: Two-thirds of healthcare professionals who completed the survey reported mild and short- lived symptoms. These symptoms are the local and systemic manifestations of immunogenicity and reactogenicity of vaccines. No serious adverse event was reported hence further supporting the evidence for safety of these vaccines.

Safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy

Safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy: a Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) network cohort study

BackgroundPregnant individuals have been receiving COVID-19 vaccines following pre-authorisation clinical trials in non-pregnant people. This study aimed to determine the frequency and nature of significant health events among pregnant females after COVID-19 vaccination, compared with unvaccinated pregnant controls and vaccinated non-pregnant individuals.MethodsWe did an observational cohort study, set in seven Canadian provinces and territories including Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Yukon, and Prince Edward Island. Eligibility criteria for vaccinated individuals were a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine within the previous 7 days; an active email address and telephone number; ability to communicate in English or French; and residence in the aforementioned provinces or territories. Study participants were pregnant and non-pregnant females aged 15–49 years. Individuals were able to participate as controls if they were unvaccinated and fulfilled the other criteria. Data were collected primarily by self-reported survey after both vaccine doses, with telephone follow-up for those reporting any medically attended event. Participants reported significant health events (new or worsening of a health event sufficient to cause work or school absenteeism, medical consultation, or prevent daily activities) occurring within 7 days of vaccination or within the past 7 days for unvaccinated individuals. We employed multivariable logistic regression to examine significant health events associated with mRNA vaccines, adjusting for age group, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and trimester, as appropriate.FindingsAs of Nov 4, 2021, 191 360 women aged 15–49 years with known pregnancy status had completed the first vaccine dose survey and 94 937 had completed the second dose survey. 180 388 received one dose and 94 262 received a second dose of an mRNA vaccine, with 5597 pregnant participants receiving dose one and 3108 receiving dose two, and 174 765 non-pregnant participants receiving dose one and 91 131 receiving dose two. Of 6179 included unvaccinated control participants, 339 were pregnant and 5840 were not pregnant. Overall, 226 (4·0%) of 5597 vaccinated pregnant females reported a significant health event after dose one of an mRNA vaccine, and 227 (7·3%) of 3108 after dose two, compared with 11 (3·2%) of 339 pregnant unvaccinated females. Pregnant vaccinated females had an increased odds of a significant health event within 7 days of the vaccine after dose two of mRNA-1273 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4·4 [95% CI 2·4–8·3]) compared with pregnant unvaccinated controls within the past 7 days, but not after dose one of mRNA-1273 or any dose of BNT162b2. Pregnant vaccinated females had decreased odds of a significant health event compared with non-pregnant vaccinated females after both dose one (aOR 0·63 [95% CI 0·55–0·72]) and dose two (aOR 0·62 [0·54–0·71]) of any mRNA vaccination. There were no significant differences in any analyses when restricted to events which led to medical attention.InterpretationCOVID-19 mRNA vaccines have a good safety profile in pregnancy. These data can be used to appropriately inform pregnant people regarding reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, and should be considered alongside effectiveness and immunogenicity data to make appropriate recommendations about best use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy.FundingCanadian Institutes of Health Research, Public Health Agency of Canada.

Hesitancy and reactogenicity to mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines-Early experience with vaccine rollout in a multi-site healthcare system.

BackgroundHesitancy and incomplete vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains an obstacle to achieving herd immunity. Because of fear of vaccine reactions, patients with medical and allergic co-morbidities express heightened hesitancy. Limited information is available to guide these patients. We sought to identify factors associated with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines hesitancy and reactogenicity.MethodsWe surveyed employees of a multi-site health system in central Pennsylvania who were offered the COVID-19 vaccine (N = 18,740) inquiring about their experience with the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccines. The survey was administered online using the REDCap platform. We used multivariable regression analysis to determine whether a particular factor(s) (e.g., demographics, selected co-morbid allergic and medical conditions, vaccine brand, and prior COVID-19) were associated with vaccine reactogenicity including the occurrence and severity of local and systemic reactions. We also explored factors and reasons associated with vaccine hesitancy.ResultsOf the 5709 who completed the survey (response rate, 30.4%), 369 (6.5%) did not receive the vaccine. Black race and allergy to other vaccines were associated with vaccine hesitancy. Reaction intensity following the first vaccine dose and allergic co-morbidities were associated with incomplete vaccination. Older individuals (>60 years) experienced less reactogenicity. Females had higher odds of local and systemic reactions and reported more severe reactions. Asians reported more severe reactions. As compared to Pfizer-BioNTech, the Moderna vaccine was associated with higher odds of vaccine reactions of higher severity. Prior COVID-19 resulted in more severe reactions following the first dose, but less severe reactions following the second dose.ConclusionsTargeted campaigns to enhance vaccination acceptance should focus on Black individuals, females, and those with allergic co-morbidities. Prior COVID-19 caused more severe reactions after the first but not the second vaccine dose. Moderna vaccine caused more vaccine reactions. Lessons learned from the early rollout of COVID-19 vaccine may serve to inform future novel vaccine experiences.

SARS-CoV2 mRNA Vaccine-Specific B-, T- and Humoral Responses in Adolescents After Kidney Transplantation.

Protection of adult kidney transplant recipients against SARS-CoV2 was shown to be strongly impaired owing to low reactogenicity of available vaccines. So far, data on vaccination outcomes in adolescents are scarce due to later vaccination approval for this age group. We therefore comprehensively analyzed vaccination-specific humoral-, T- and B-cell responses in kidney transplanted adolescents aged 12–18 years in comparison to healthy controls 6 weeks after standard two-dose BNT162b2 (“Comirnaty”; Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. Importantly, 90% (18/20) of transplanted adolescents showed IgG seroconversion with 75% (15/20) developing neutralizing titers. Still, both features were significantly diminished in magnitude compared to controls. Correspondingly, spike-specific B cells were quantitatively reduced and enriched for non-isotype-class-switched IgD+27+ memory cells in patients. Whereas spike specific CD4+ T cell frequencies were similar in both groups, cytokine production and memory differentiation were significantly impaired in transplant recipients. Although our data identify limitations in all arms of vaccine-specific immunity, the majority of our adolescent patients showed robust humoral responses despite antimetabolite-based treatment being associated with poor vaccination outcomes in adults.

Sputnik-V reactogenicity and immunogenicity in the blood and mucosa: a prospective cohort study

Sputnik-V (Gam-COVID-Vac) is a heterologous, recombinant adenoviral (rAdv) vector-based, COVID-19 vaccine now used in > 70 countries. Yet there is a shortage of data on this vaccine's performance in diverse populations. Here, we performed a prospective cohort study to assess the reactogenicity and immunologic outcomes of Sputnik-V vaccination in Kazakhstan. COVID-19-free participants (n = 82 at baseline) were followed at day 21 after Sputnik-V dose 1 (rAd5) and dose 2 (rAd26). Self-reported local and systemic adverse events were captured using questionnaires. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected to perform SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic and immunologic assays. We observed that most of the reported adverse events were mild-to-moderate injection site or systemic reactions, no severe or potentially life-threatening conditions were reported, and dose 1 appeared to be more reactogenic than dose 2. The seroconversion rate was 97% post-dose 1, remaining the same post-dose 2. The proportion of participants with detectable virus neutralization was 83% post-dose 1, increasing to 98% post-dose 2, with the largest relative increase observed in participants without prior COVID-19 exposure. Dose 1 boosted nasal S-IgG and S-IgA, while the boosting effect of dose 2 on mucosal S-IgG, but not S-IgA, was only observed in subjects without prior COVID-19. Systemically, vaccination reduced serum levels of growth regulated oncogene (GRO), which correlated with an elevation in blood platelet count. Overall, Sputnik-V dose 1 elicited both blood and mucosal SARS-CoV-2 immunity, while the immune boosting effect of dose 2 was minimal. Thus, adjustments to the current vaccine dosing regimen are necessary to optimize immunization efficacy and cost-effectiveness. While Sputnik-V reactogenicity is similar to that of other COVID-19 vaccines, the induced alterations to the GRO/platelet axis warrant investigation of the vaccine’s effects on systemic immunology.

Correlation between Adverse Events and Antibody Titers among Healthcare Workers Vaccinated with BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine.

Objectives: The BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has been found to be highly effective in preventing COVID-19 but is associated with increased reactogenicity. We aimed to examine the correlation between immunogenicity and reactogenicity of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Methods: Subjects without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection that participated in active surveillance after being vaccinated with the BNT162b2 vaccine were included. Study participants reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) through questionnaires administered by text message after receiving each dose of the vaccine. A reactogenicity score was developed based on the type and duration of ADRs. In addition, anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) levels and neutralization assays were performed 7–21 and 7–38 days after the first and second vaccine doses, respectively. Associations between ADRs and antibody levels were assessed by Spearman correlations. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with ADRs. Results: A total of 831 health care workers were included. The mean age was 46.5 years (SD = 11.8) and 75.5% were females. 83.4% and 83.3% had at least one local ADR after the first and second doses, respectively. 33% and 83.2% had at least one systemic ADR after the first and second doses, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis found a significant correlation between ADR score and anti-RBD-IgG titers (r = 0.366; p < 0.0001) after adjustment for age, gender, and days after the second vaccination. High anti-RBD-IgG levels, being younger than 55 and being female, were all correlated with increased rates of ADRs. Conclusion: BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reactogenicity appears to be correlated with higher post-vaccination antibody levels and is independently associated with younger age and female gender.

Comparing reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT Objectives A number of vaccines have now been developed against COVID-19. Differences in reactogenicity and safety profiles according to the vaccine technologies employed are becoming apparent from clinical trials. Methods Five databases (Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine COVID-19 vaccine tracker) were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials between 1 January 2020 and 12 January 2022 according to predetermined criteria with no language limitations. Results Forty-two datasets were identified, with 20 vaccines using four different technologies (viral vector, inactivated, mRNA and protein sub-unit). Adults and adolescents over 12 years were included. Control groups used saline placebos, adjuvants, and comparator vaccines. The most consistently reported solicited adverse events were fever, fatigue, headache, pain at injection site, redness, and swelling. Both doses of mRNA vaccines, the second dose of protein subunit and the first dose of adenovirus vectored vaccines were the most reactogenic, while the inactivated vaccines were the least reactogenic. Conclusions The different COVID-19 vaccines currently available appear to have distinct reactogenicity profiles, dependent on the vaccine technology employed. Awareness of these differences may allow targeted recommendations for specific populations. Greater standardization of methods for adverse event reporting will aid future research in this field.

Reactogenicity of Simultaneous COVID-19 mRNA Booster and Influenza Vaccination in the US

COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines are essential in preventing respiratory infections and their potentially severe complications. Simultaneous administration of vaccines is efficient and may improve coverage with each vaccine. However, the safety of simultaneous administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines has not been well described. To evaluate adverse events and health impacts associated with simultaneously administered COVID-19 mRNA booster and seasonal influenza vaccines in the US population. In this retrospective cohort study, self-reported vaccine data were collected on days 0 to 7 after vaccination from September 22, 2021, through May 1, 2022, through v-safe, a voluntary smartphone-based monitoring system established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Participants were persons who voluntarily registered in v-safe following COVID-19 vaccination. Receipt of simultaneously administered COVID-19 mRNA booster and seasonal influenza vaccines or COVID-19 mRNA booster alone. Local injection site and systemic reactions (eg, fatigue, headache, and myalgia) and health impacts reported by v-safe respondents in the week following COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were estimated for simultaneous administration compared with booster dose alone, controlling for sex, age, and week of vaccination. Of a total of 981 099 persons aged 12 years or older registered with v-safe, simultaneous administration of COVID-19 mRNA booster and seasonal influenza vaccines was reported by 92 023 (9.4%) v-safe respondents; of these respondents, 54 926 (59.7%) were female, 36 234 (39.4%) were male, and sex was unknown for 863 (0.9%). In the week following vaccination, any systemic reactions were reported by 36 144 (58.9%) of 61 390 respondents who simultaneously received Pfizer-BioNTech booster and influenza vaccines and 21 027 (68.6%) of 30633 respondents who simultaneously received Moderna booster and influenza vaccines. Respondents who simultaneously received influenza and Pfizer-BioNTech booster vaccines (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.10) or influenza and Moderna booster vaccines (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.08-1.14) were slightly more likely to report any systemic reaction in the week following simultaneous vaccination than respondents who received only a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine booster. In this study, compared with administration of COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines alone, simultaneous administration of COVID-19 mRNA booster and seasonal influenza vaccines was associated with significant increases in reports of systemic reactions during days 0 to 7 following vaccination. These results may help better characterize the outcomes associated with simultaneously administered COVID-19 booster and influenza vaccines in the US population.

COVID-19 and Cancer: Special Considerations for Patients Receiving Immunotherapy and Immunosuppressive Cancer Therapies.

Patients with cancer generally have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from COVID-19, with higher age, male sex, poor performance status, cancer type, and uncontrolled malignant disease as the main risk factors. However, the influence of specific cancer therapies varies and raises concerns during the pandemic. In patients undergoing cancer immunotherapy or other immunosuppressive cancer treatments, we summarize the evidence on outcomes from COVID-19; address the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination; and review COVID-19 antiviral therapeutics for the patient with cancer. Despite higher mortality for patients with cancer, treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors does not seem to increase mortality risk based on observational evidence. Inhibitory therapies directed toward B-cell lineages, including monoclonal antibodies against CD20 and CAR T-cell therapies, are associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19; however, the data are sparse. Regarding vaccination in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors, clinical efficacy comparable to that in the general population can be expected. In patients undergoing B-cell-depleting therapy, immunogenicity and clinical efficacy are curtailed, but vaccination is not futile, which is thought to be due to the cellular response. Vaccine reactogenicity and toxicity in all groups of patients with cancer are comparable to that of the general population. Preexposure prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies directed against the viral spike may provide passive immunity for those not likely to mount an adequate vaccine response. If infected, prompt treatment with monoclonal antibodies or oral small molecule antivirals is beneficial, though with oral antiviral therapies, care must be taken to avoid drug interactions in patients with cancer.

An exploratory analysis of the response to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in males and females.

SummaryBackgroundThere are known differences in vaccine reactogenicity and immunogenicity by sex. Females have been shown to report greater reactogenicity and generate higher humoral and cellular immune responses than males following vaccination with several different vaccines. Whether this is also the case for COVID-19 vaccines is currently unknown, as COVID-19 vaccine study data disaggregated by sex are not routinely reported. Therefore, we have assessed the influence of sex on reactogenicity, immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19.MethodsVaccine efficacy was assessed in 15169 volunteers enrolled into single-blind randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Brazil and the UK, with the primary endpoint defined as nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants were electronically randomised to receive two standard doses of vaccine or the control product. Logistic regression models were fitted to explore the effect of age and sex on reactogenicity, and linear models fitted to log-transformed values for immunogenicity data. Reactogenicity data were taken from self-reported diaries of 788 trial participants. Pseudovirus neutralisation assay data were available from 748 participants and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG assay data from 1543 participants.Findings7619 participants received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 7550 received the control. Vaccine efficacy in participants after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (4243 females and 3376 males) was 66.1% (95% CI 55.9-73.9%) in males and 59.9% (95% CI 49.8-67.9%) in females; with no evidence of a difference in efficacy between the sexes (vaccine by sex interaction term P=0.3359). A small, statistically significant difference in anti-spike IgG was observed (adjusted GMR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04-1.26), with higher titres in females than males, but there were no statistically significant differences in other immunological endpoints. Whilst the majority of individuals reported at least one systemic reaction following a first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, females were twice as likely as males to report any systemic reaction after a first dose (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.37-2.77). Measured fever of 38°C or above was reported in 5% of females and 1% of males following first doses. Headache and fatigue were the most commonly reported reactions in both sexes.InterpretationOur results show that there is no evidence of difference in efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in males and females. Greater reactogenicity in females was not associated with any difference in vaccine efficacy.FundingStudies were registered with ISRCTN 90906759 (COV002) and ISRCTN 89951424 (COV003) and follow-up is ongoing. Funding was received from the UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, the Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Brazil, and AstraZeneca.

An Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Reactogenicity: Variation by Type, Dose, and History, Severity, and Recency of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BackgroundThere is limited information on the functional consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine side effects. To support patient counseling and public health messaging, we describe the risk and correlates of COVID-19 vaccine side effects sufficient to prevent work or usual activities and/or lead to medical care (“severe” side effects).MethodsThe EPICC study is a longitudinal cohort study of Military Healthcare System beneficiaries including active duty service members, dependents, and retirees. We studied 2789 adults who were vaccinated between December 2020 and December 2021.ResultsSevere side effects were most common with the Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson and Johnson) vaccine, followed by mRNA-1273 (Moderna) then BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). Severe side effects were more common after the second than first dose (11% vs 4%; P < .001). First (but not second) dose side effects were more common in those with vs without prior severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection (9% vs 2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.84; 95% CI, 3.8–9.1), particularly if the prior illness was severe or critical (13% vs 2%; aOR, 10.57; 95% CI, 5.5–20.1) or resulted in inpatient care (17% vs 2%; aOR, 19.3; 95% CI, 5.1–72.5). Side effects were more common in women than men but not otherwise related to demographic factors.ConclusionsVaccine side effects sufficient to prevent usual activities were more common after the second than first dose and varied by vaccine type. First dose side effects were more likely in those with a history of COVID-19—particularly if that prior illness was severe or associated with inpatient care. These findings may assist clinicians and patients by providing a real-world evaluation of the likelihood of experiencing impactful postvaccine symptoms.

Evaluation of Recombinant Live-Attenuated Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccines RSV/ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L and RSV/276 in RSV-Seronegative Children.

This United States-based study compared 2 candidate vaccines: RSV/ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L, attenuated by NS2 gene-deletion and temperature-sensitivity mutation in the polymerase gene; and RSV/276, attenuated by M2-2 deletion. RSV-seronegative children aged 6-24 months received RSV/ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L (106 plaque-forming units [PFU]), RSV/276 (105 PFU), or placebo intranasally. Participants were monitored for vaccine shedding, reactogenicity, and RSV serum antibodies, and followed over the subsequent RSV season. Enrollment occurred September 2017 to October 2019. During 28 days postinoculation, upper respiratory illness and/or fever occurred in 64% of RSV/ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L, 84% of RSV/276, and 58% of placebo recipients. Symptoms were generally mild. Cough was more common in RSV/276 recipients than RSV/ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L (48% vs 12%; P = .012) or placebo recipients (17%; P = .084). There were no lower respiratory illness or serious adverse events. Eighty-eight and 96% of RSV/ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L and RSV/276 recipients were infected with vaccine (shed vaccine and/or had ≥4-fold rises in RSV antibodies). Serum RSV-neutralizing titers and anti-RSV F IgG titers increased ≥4-fold in 60% and 92% of RSV/ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L and RSV/276 vaccinees, respectively. Exposure to community RSV during the subsequent winter was associated with strong anamnestic RSV-antibody responses. Both vaccines had excellent infectivity and were well tolerated. RSV/276 induced an excess of mild cough. Both vaccines were immunogenic and primed for strong anamnestic responses. NCT03227029 and NCT03422237.

Vaccines Associated Cardiac Adverse Events, Including SARS-Cov-2 Myocarditis, Elevated Histamine Etiology Hypothesis

Background: Rare cardiac adverse events are reported post vaccinations. For the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Spike vaccines, higher numbers of these cardiac adverse events are being reported with myocarditis disproportionately occurring in younger males. The etiology of these cardiac adverse events associated with vaccines including SARS-CoV-2 is unknown. The etiology of the higher frequency of these cardiac adverse events temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Spike vaccines is also unknown. Aim: Data mine vaccine associated cardiac adverse events to gain insights into COVID-19 mRNA associated myocarditis and pericarditis adverse events. Methods: All adverse events, with a focus on cardiac adverse events, were summarized from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for all vaccines from 1990 to April 1, 2022. Results: Analogous patterns of cardiac adverse events were observed for multiple unrelated vaccines with occurrences proportional to vaccine reactogenicity level defined all adverse events. This article proposes the hypothesis that innate immune responses to vaccines cause elevated histamine levels post vaccination; the histamine level reached may exceed the vaccinees’ histamine tolerance level for several days, with the histamine level likely correlating with the vaccine reactogenicity level. Further, it is proposed that the elevated histamine level is causative for the reported cardiac adverse events. For myocarditis and pericarditis reported adverse events, the elevated histamine levels may induce cardiac capillary pericyte vasoconstrictions followed by localized ischemia and anoxia; this is followed by the release of troponin from myocyte cells affected by anoxia. This hypothesis is supported by the temporal onset timing of adverse events reported following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Spike vaccinations in VAERS. Conclusion: Onset of cardiac adverse events immediately following vaccinations for multiple unrelated vaccines may implicate elevated histamine levels from immune responses as causative for these adverse events. Relevance for patients. An etiology model for cardiac adverse events temporally associated with vaccination is proposed. If validated, this model identifies possible candidate treatments for evaluation with the potential to reduce the severity and frequencies of these cardiac adverse events for vaccinees.

MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Reactogenicity among Healthcare Workers: Results from an Active Survey in a Pediatric Hospital from Bucharest, January-February 2021.

In Romania, health and social workers were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination. We aimed to describe the vaccine adverse events identified through an active survey (using an electronic questionnaire) conducted among the staff of a pediatric hospital from Bucharest, vaccinated with the mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Data on the frequency and duration of adverse events were collected and analyzed using Microsoft Excel, Epi Info, and MedCalc. The questionnaire was sent to 426 persons. The participation rate was 81.2% after 1st dose and 63.8% after the 2nd dose. Overall, 81.9% were women, median age 42 (IQR 32–50 years). A total of 48 respondents (14.8%) reported no adverse event after the 1st dose and 35 (14.1) after the 2nd dose. No anaphylaxis was reported. The most frequent adverse event was pain at injection site, being reported by 261 responders (80.3%) after 1st dose and 187 (75.1%) after 2nd dose. Fatigue and headache were reported significantly less frequently in our study compared with data provided by the vaccine manufacturer. The current study has shown higher local reactogenicity after the first dose of the vaccine and higher systemic reactogenicity after the second dose. This real-world knowledge of the reactogenicity and safety profile may increase the vaccine’s acceptance rate among healthcare workers.

Paving the Way Towards Precision Vaccinology: The Paradigm of Myocarditis After Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination.

Systems vaccinology approaches have introduced novel tools for the evaluation of the safety profile of novel vaccine antigens by developing biomarkers of vaccine reactogenicity associated with potential adverse events. The use of such approaches may prove extremely advantageous in the context of a global pandemic where accelerated approval of new vaccine formulations for all ages is essential for the containment of the epidemic. The spread of SARS-COV-2 has had devastating effects on global health, but the emergency-authorization of mRNA vaccines significantly reduced SARS-COV-2-associated morbidity and mortality. Despite their favourable safety profile in adult populations, recent reports have raised concerns about an association of the mRNA-based vaccines with acute myocarditis predominantly among male adolescents and young adults following the second vaccine dose.Here, we review data on myocarditis epidemiology following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination and describe potential mechanisms involved, that may explain the sex- and age-related differences, focusing on mRNA immune reactivity. The case of vaccine-associated myocarditis highlights the need to incorporate precision vaccinology approaches for the development of safe and effective vaccines for everyone.

Acceptance, efficacy, and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in older patients with cancer

PurposeThe COVID-19 vaccination campaign began in December 2020, in France, and primarily targeted the oldest people. Our study aimed to determine the level of acceptance of vaccination in a population of older patients with cancer. MethodsFrom January 2021, we offered vaccination with the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine to all patients 70 years and older referred to our geriatric oncology center in Marseille University Hospital (AP-HM) for geriatric assessment before initiation of an oncological treatment. Objectives were to evaluate acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccination and to assess vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and efficacy two months after the first dose. ResultsBetween January 18, 2021 and May 7, 2021, 150 older patients with cancer were offered vaccination after a geriatric assessment. The majority were men (61.3%), with a mean age of 81 years. The two most frequent primary tumors were digestive (29.4%) and thoracic (18%). The vaccine acceptance rate was 82.6% and the complete vaccination rate (2 doses) reached 75.3%. Among the vaccinated patients, 15.9% reported mild side effects after the first dose and 23.4% after the second dose, mostly arm pain and fatigue. COVID-19 cases were observed in 5.1% of vaccinated patients compared with 16.7% in unvaccinated patients. Of the 22 vaccinated patients who agreed to have their serum tested, 15 had antibodies against the spike protein at day 21 after the first dose. ConclusionOur study showed a high acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccination, with good tolerance in this frail population. These results highlight the benefits of organizing vaccination campaigns at the very beginning of oncological management in older patients.Clinical trial registration: This study was registered May 23, 2019 in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03960593).

What a second booster dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines tells us

What a second booster dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines tells us

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

SummaryBackgroundSome high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.MethodsThe COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 μg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 μg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.FindingsBetween Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).InterpretationFourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose.FundingUK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.