Real-world comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines among immunocompromised adults identified in administrative claims data in the United States

IntroductionHead-to-head studies comparing COVID-19 mRNA vaccine effectiveness in immunocompromised individuals, who are vulnerable to severe disease are lacking, as large sample sizes are required to make meaningful inferences.MethodsThis observational comparative effectiveness study was conducted in closed administrative claims data from the US HealthVerity database (December 11, 2020-January 10, 2022, before omicron). A 2-dose mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 regimen was assessed for preventing medically-attended breakthrough COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalizations among immunocompromised adults. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to balance baseline characteristics between vaccine groups. Incidence rates from patient-level data and hazard ratios (HRs) using weighted Cox proportional hazards models were calculated.ResultsOverall, 57,898 and 66,981 individuals received a 2-dose regimen of mRNA-1273 or BNT161b2, respectively. Among the weighted population, mean age was 51 years, 53 % were female, and baseline immunodeficiencies included prior blood transplant (8%–9%), prior organ transplant (7%), active cancer (12%–13%), primary immunodeficiency (5–6%), HIV (20%–21%), and immunosuppressive therapy use (60%–61%). Rates per 1,000 person-years (PYs; 95% confidence intervals [CI]s) of breakthrough medically-attended COVID-19 were 25.82 (23.83–27.97) with mRNA-1273 and 30.98 (28.93, 33.18) with BNT162b2 (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75–0.93). When requiring evidence of an antigen or polymerase chain reaction test before COVID-19 diagnosis, the HR for medically-attended COVID-19 was 0.78 (0.67–0.92). Breakthrough COVID-19 hospitalization rates per 1,000 PYs (95% CI) were 3.66 (2.96–4.51) for mRNA-1273 and 4.68 (3.91–5.59) for BNT162b2 (HR, 0.78; 0.59–1.03). Utilizing open and closed claims for outcome capture only, or both cohort entry/outcome capture, produced HRs (95% CIs) for COVID-19 hospitalization of 0.72 (0.57–0.92) and 0.66 (0.58–0.76), respectively.ConclusionsAmong immunocompromised adults, a 2-dose mRNA-1273 regimen was more effective in preventing medically-attended COVID-19 in any setting (inpatient and outpatient) than 2-dose BNT162b2. Results were similar for COVID-19 hospitalization, although statistical power was limited when using closed claims only.Study registrationNCT05366322.     

Effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in an urgent care setting

BackgroundIt is critical to monitor changes in vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 outcomes for various vaccine products in different population subgroups.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study in patients ≥12 years who underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 virus from April 14 through October 25, 2021, at urgent care centers in the New York metropolitan area. Patients self-reported vaccination status at the time of testing. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) by comparing odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated (n = 474,805), partially vaccinated (n = 87,834), and unvaccinated (n = 369,333) patients, adjusted for demographic factors and calendar time.ResultsVE against symptomatic infection after 2 doses of mRNA vaccine was 96% (95% Confidence Interval: 95%, 97%) in the pre-delta period and reduced to 79% (95% CI: 77%, 81%) in the delta period. In the delta period, VE for 12–15-year-olds (85%; [95% CI: 81%, 88%]) was higher compared to older age groups (<65% for all other age groups). VE estimates did not differ by sex and race/ethnicity. VE against symptomatic infection was the highest for individuals with a prior infection followed by full vaccination. VE against symptomatic infection after the 2-dose mRNA-1273 vaccine (82% [95% CI: 80%, 84%]) was higher compared to the BNT162b2 vaccine (76% [95% CI: 74%, 78%]) in the delta period. VE after 1-dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was the lowest compared to other vaccines (19% [95% CI: 15%, 23%]) in the delta period.ConclusionsVE against infection after two doses of the mRNA vaccines was high initially, but significantly reduced against the delta variant for both FDA-approved vaccines.     

Efficacy and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in participants with a history of cancer: subgroup analysis of a global phase 3 randomized clinical trial

IntroductionIndividuals with an underlying malignancy have high risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes. In clinical trials, COVID-19 vaccines were safe and efficacious against infection, hospitalization, and death, but most trials excluded participants with cancer. We report results from participants with a history of past or active neoplasm (malignant or benign/unknown) and up to 6 months’ follow-up post-dose 2 from the placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial of the 2-dose BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.Patients and methodsBetween July 2020–January 2021, 46,429 participants aged ≥ 12 years were randomized at 152 sites in 6 countries. Healthy participants with pre-existing stable neoplasm could participate; those receiving immunosuppressive therapy were excluded. Data are reported for participants, aged ≥ 16 years for safety and ≥ 12 years for efficacy, who had any history of neoplasm at baseline (data cut-off: March 13, 2021). Adverse-event (AE) data are controlled for follow-up time before unblinding and reported as incidence rates (IRs) per 100 person-years follow-up.ResultsAt baseline, 3813 participants had a history of neoplasm; most common malignancies were breast (n = 460), prostate (n = 362), and melanoma (n = 223). Four BNT162b2 and 71 placebo recipients developed COVID-19 from 7 days post-dose 2; vaccine efficacy was 94.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 98.5) after up to 6 months’ follow-up post-dose 2. This compares favorably with vaccine efficacy of 91.1% in the overall trial population after the same follow-up. AEs were reported at IRs of 95.4 (BNT162b2) and 48.3 (placebo) per 100 person-years. Most common AEs were reactogenicity events (injection-site pain, fatigue, pyrexia). Three BNT162b2 and 1 placebo recipients withdrew because of vaccine-related AEs. No vaccine-related deaths were reported.ConclusionIn participants with past or active neoplasms, BNT162b2 vaccine has a similar efficacy and safety profile as in the overall trial population. These results can inform BNT162b2 use during the COVID-19 pandemic and future trials in participants with cancer.Clinical trial number: NCT04368728.     

Relative effectiveness of a 2nd booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine up to four months post administration in individuals aged 80 years or more in Italy: A retrospective matched cohort study

Several countries started a 2nd booster COVID-19 vaccination campaign targeting the elderly population, but evidence around its effectiveness is still scarce. This study aims to estimate the relative effectiveness of a 2nd booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in the population aged ≥ 80 years in Italy, during predominant circulation of the Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 subvariants.We linked routine data from the national vaccination registry and the COVID-19 surveillance system. On each day between 11 April and 6 August 2022, we matched 1:1, according to several demographic and clinical characteristics, individuals who received the 2nd booster vaccine dose with individuals who received the 1st booster vaccine dose at least 120 days earlier. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to compare the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 (hospitalisation or death) between the two groups, calculating the relative vaccine effectiveness (RVE) as (1 – risk ratio)X100.Based on the analysis of 831,555 matched pairs, we found that a 2nd booster dose of mRNA vaccine, 14–118 days post administration, was moderately effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to a 1st booster dose administered at least 120 days earlier [14.3 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 2.2–20.2]. RVE decreased from 28.5 % (95 % CI: 24.7–32.1) in the time-interval 14–28 days to 7.6 % (95 % CI: ?14.1 to 18.3) in the time-interval 56–118 days. However, RVE against severe COVID-19 was higher (34.0 %, 95 % CI: 23.4–42.7), decreasing from 43.2 % (95 % CI: 30.6–54.9) to 27.2 % (95 % CI: 8.3–42.9) over the same time span.Although RVE against SARS-CoV-2 infection was much reduced 2–4 months after a 2nd booster dose, RVE against severe COVID-19 was about 30 %, even during prevalent circulation of the Omicron BA.5 subvariant. The cost-benefit of a 3rd booster dose for the elderly people who received the 2nd booster dose at least four months earlier should be carefully evaluated.     

Incidence of myopericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination: A meta-analysis with focus on adolescents aged 12–17 years

BackgroundThe incidence of myopericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents aged 12–17 years remains unknown. Therefore, we conducted a study to pool the incidence of myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination in this age group.MethodsWe did a meta-analysis by searching 4 electronic databases until February 6, 2023. The following main keywords were used: “COVID-19”, “vaccines”, “myocarditis”, “pericarditis”, and “myopericarditis”. Observational studies reporting on adolescents aged 12–17 years who had myopericarditis in temporal relation to receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were included. The pooled incidence of myopericarditis and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a single-group meta-analysis.ResultsFifteen studies were included. The pooled incidences of myopericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents aged 12–17 years were 43.5 (95 % CI, 30.8–61.6) cases per million vaccine doses for both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 (39 628 242 doses; 14 studies), and 41.8 (29.4–59.4) cases for BNT162b2 alone (38 756 553 doses; 13 studies). Myopericarditis was more common among males (66.0 [40.5–107.7] cases) than females (10.1 [6.0–17.0] cases) and among those receiving the second dose (60.4 [37.6–96.9] cases) than those receiving the first dose (16.6 [8.7–31.9] cases). The incidences of myopericarditis did not differ significantly when grouped by age, type of myopericarditis, country, and World Health Organization region. None of the incidences of myopericarditis pooled in the current study were higher than those after smallpox vaccinations and non-COVID-19 vaccinations, and all of them were significantly lower than those in adolescents aged 12–17 years after COVID-19 infection.ConclusionsThe incidences of myopericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents aged 12–17 years were very rare; they were not higher than other important reference incidences. These findings provide an important context for health policy makers and parents with vaccination hesitancy to weight the risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents aged 12–17 years.     

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines at preventing emergency department or urgent care encounters and hospitalizations among immunocompromised adults: An observational study of real-world data across 10 US states from August-December 2021

BackgroundImmunocompromised (IC) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and are less protected by 1–2 COVID-19 vaccine doses than are immunocompetent (non-IC) persons. We compared vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended COVID-19 of 2–3 mRNA and 1–2 viral-vector vaccine doses between IC and non-IC adults.MethodsUsing a test-negative design among eight VISION Network sites, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) events and hospitalizations from 26 August-25 December 2021 was estimated separately among IC and non-IC adults and among specific IC condition subgroups. Vaccination status was defined using number and timing of doses. VE for each status (versus unvaccinated) was adjusted for age, geography, time, prior positive test result, and local SARS-CoV-2 circulation.ResultsWe analyzed 8,848 ED/UC events and 18,843 hospitalizations among IC patients and 200,071 ED/UC events and 70,882 hospitalizations among non-IC patients. Among IC patients, 3-dose mRNA VE against ED/UC (73% [95% CI: 64–80]) and hospitalization (81% [95% CI: 76–86]) was lower than that among non-IC patients (ED/UC: 94% [95% CI: 93–94]; hospitalization: 96% [95% CI: 95–97]). Similar patterns were observed for viral-vector vaccines. Transplant recipients had lower VE than other IC subgroups.ConclusionsDuring B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, IC adults received moderate protection against COVID-19–associated medical events from three mRNA doses, or one viral-vector dose plus a second dose of any product. However, protection was lower in IC versus non-IC patients, especially among transplant recipients, underscoring the need for additional protection among IC adults.     

BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 against symptomatic Omicron infection following a mass vaccination campaign in southern Brazil: A prospective test-negative design study

BackgroundEvidence regarding effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against Omicron in Latin America is limited. We estimated BNT162b2 effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 in Brazil when Omicron was predominant.MethodsThis prospective test-negative, case-control study was conducted in Toledo, Brazil, following a mass COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162b2. Patients were included if they were aged ≥12 years, sought care for acute respiratory symptoms in the public health system between November 3, 2021 and June 20, 2022, and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR. In the primary analysis, we determined the effectiveness of two doses of BNT162b2 against symptomatic COVID-19.ResultsA total of 4,574 were enrolled; of these, 1,758 patients (586 cases and 1,172 controls) were included in the primary analysis. Mean age was 27.7 years, 53.8 % were women, and 90.1 % had a Charlson comorbidity index of zero. Omicron accounted for >97 % of all identified SARS-CoV-2 variants, with BA.1 and BA.2 accounting for 84.3 % and 12.6 %, respectively. Overall adjusted estimate of two-dose vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 was 46.7 % (95 %CI, 19.9 %–64.6 %) after a median time between the second dose and the beginning of COVID-19 symptoms of 94 days (IQR, 60–139 days). Effectiveness waned from 77.7 % at 7–29 days after receipt of a second dose to <30 % (non-significant) after ≥120 days.ConclusionIn a relatively young and healthy Brazilian population, two doses of BNT162b2 provided protection against symptomatic Omicron infection. However, this protection waned significantly over time, underscoring the need for boosting with variant-adapted vaccines in this population prior to waves of disease activity.Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05052307 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05052307).     

Robust antibody response after a third BNT162b2 vaccine compared to the second among immunocompromised and healthy individuals,a prospective longitudinal cohort study

PurposeAs protection from COVID-19 following two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine showed a time dependent waning, a third (booster) dose was administrated. This study aims to compare the antibody response following the third dose versus the second and to evaluate post-booster seroconversion.MethodsA prospective observational study conducted in Maccabi Healthcare Services. Serial SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG tests, 1,2,3 and 6 months following the second vaccine dose and one month following the third were obtained. Neutralizing antibody levels were measured in a subset of participants. Per individual SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG titer ratios were calculated one month after the booster administration compared to titers one month following the second dose and prior to booster.ResultsAmong 110 participants, 56 (51%) were women. Mean age was 61.7 ± 1.9 years and 66 (60%) were immunocompromised. One month after third dose, IgG titers were induced 7.83 (95 %CI 5.25–11.67) folds and 2.40 (95 %CI 1.90–3.03) folds compared to one month after the second, in the immunocompromised and immunocompetent groups, respectively. Of the 17 immunocompromised participants who were seronegative after the second dose, 4 (24%) became seropositive following the third. Comparing the titers prior to the third dose, an increase of 50.7 (95 %CI 32.5–79.1) fold in the immunocompromised group and 25.7 (95 %CI 19.1–34.7) fold in and immunocompetent group, was observed.ConclusionA third BNT162b2 vaccine elicited robust humoral response, superior to the response observed following the second, among immunocompetent and immunocompromised individuals.     

Antibody titers among healthcare workers for coronavirus disease 2019 at 6 months after BNT162b2 vaccination

BackgroundAntibody levels decrease substantially at 6 months after the BNT162b2 vaccine. The factors influencing titer of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) among healthcare workers for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear.MethodsWe conducted a 6-month longitudinal prospective study in Japanese healthcare workers in a tertiary care hospital for COVID-19. Participants in the study were tested for the presence of anti-spike protein (SP) IgG antibodies before and at 1 and 6 months after the last vaccination dose.ResultsAmong 1076 healthcare workers, 794 received the vaccine, and 469 entered the study. Five were infected with SARS-CoV-2 (none among COVID-19 section workers) by the end of the study and 451 participants were finally analyzed (mean age, 42.5 years; 27.3 % male; 18.8 % COVID-19 section workers). Median SP IgG index values were 0.0, 44.4, and 5.5 before and at 1 and 6 months after the last dose, respectively. Regression analysis revealed a negative correlation of SP IgG antibody levels with age (P < 0.0001), and higher levels in COVID-19 section workers (P = 0.0185) and in females (P = 0.0201).ConclusionIn healthcare workers at a COVID-19 hospital, IgG antibody titer was substantially lower at 6 months after receipt of the last dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine compared with that 1 month after the last dose, but was better preserved among younger participants, COVID-19 section workers and females.     

Randomized trial to evaluate the safety,tolerability, and immunogenicity of a booster (third dose) of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine coadministered with 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in adults ≥65 years old

BackgroundOlder adults are at increased risk of adverse outcomes from pneumococcal disease and COVID-19. Vaccination is an established strategy for preventing both illnesses. This study evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of coadministration of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20) and a booster (third dose) of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine.MethodsThis phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicentre study included 570 participants aged ≥65 years randomized 1:1:1 to PCV20 and BNT162b2 coadministered, or PCV20 or BNT162b2 only (administered with saline for blinding). Primary safety endpoints included local reactions, systemic events, adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs). Secondary objectives were immunogenicity of PCV20 and BNT162b2 when administered together or separately.ResultsCoadministration of PCV20 and BNT162b2 was well tolerated. Local reactions and systemic events were generally mild-moderate; injection-site pain and fatigue were the most frequent local and systemic events, respectively. AE and SAE rates were low and similar across groups. No AEs led to discontinuation; no SAEs were considered vaccination-related. Robust immune responses were observed, with opsonophagocytic activity geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs; from baseline to 1 month) of 2.5–24.5 and 2.3–30.6 across PCV20 serotypes in Coadministration and PCV20-only groups, respectively. GMFRs for full-length S-binding IgG of 35.5 and 39.0, and for neutralizing titres against SARS-CoV-2-wild type virus of 58.8 and 65.4, were observed in the Coadministration and BNT162b2-only groups, respectively.ConclusionsSafety and immunogenicity of coadministered PCV20 and BNT162b2 were similar to those of PCV20 or BNT162b2 administered alone, suggesting that the 2 vaccines may be coadministered.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04887948.     

Humoral response to different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in orthotopic liver transplant recipients

BackgroundThe safety and efficacy data of the different types of available vaccines is still needed. The goal of the present analysis was to evaluate the humoral response to the COVID-19 vaccines in orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) recipients.MethodsParticipants were included from February to September 2021. No prioritized vaccination roll call applied for OLT patients. Controls were otherwise healthy people. Blood samples were drawn after 15 days of the complete vaccine doses. The samples were analyzed according to the manufacturer's instructions using the Liaison XL platform from DiaSorin (DiaSorin S.p.A., Italy), and SARS-COV-2 IgG II Quant (Abbott Diagnostics, IL, USA).ResultsA total of 187 participants (133 OLT, 54 controls, median age: 60 years, 58.8% women) were included for the analysis; 74.3% had at least one comorbidity. The serologic response in OLT patients was lower than in controls (median 549 AU/mL vs. 3450 AU/mL, respectively; p = 0.001). A positive humoral response was found in 133 OLT individuals: 89.2% with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), 60% ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca), 76.9% with CoronaVac (Sinovac, Life Sciences, China), 55.6% Ad5-nCov (Cansino, Biologics), 68.2% Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V) and 100% with mRNA-1273. In controls the serological response was 100%, except for Cansino (75%). In a multivariable model, personal history of COVID-19 and BNT162b2 inoculation were associated with the serologic response, while the use of prednisone (vs. other immunosuppressants) reduced this response.ConclusionThe serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines in OLT patients is lower than in healthy controls. The BNT162b2 vaccine was associated with a higher serologic response.     

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among people living with HIV in a low-resource setting: A multi-center study of prevalence,correlates and reasons

BackgroundHesitancy to COVID-19 vaccine may worsen the burden of COVID-19 among people living with HIV (PLHIV), who are at a higher risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization and death, compared to HIV non-infected individuals. Therefore, we evaluate the predictors and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among unvaccinated PLHIV in six antiretroviral therapy (ART) clinics across northern Nigeria.MethodologyIn this cross-sectional study, conducted between October 2021 and February 2022 in six hospitals across two geopolitical regions of Nigeria, we utilized interviewer-administered questionnaires to assess COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among a convenience sample of 790 eligible adult PLHIV. Hesitancy was defined as answering ‘no' or ‘maybe’ to a question asking participants their willingness to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among PLHIV.ResultsOf the total 660 unvaccinated participants included in the analysis (61.82% female, mean age [SD] of 39.76 [10.75]), 381 (57.72%) were hesitant to COVID-19 vaccine. Being 50 years and older (aOR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.21–0.89), being unemployed (aOR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.34–0.95), experiencing the adverse effects of ART (aOR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15–0.86), and perception of being at high risk of contracting COVID-19 (aOR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.13–0.37) were associated with significantly lower odds of hesitancy. Conversely, being female (aOR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.02–2.61) and attending ART clinics at state administrative capital cities (IIDH Kano [aOR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.10–5.25], MMSH Kano [aOR: 5.59; 95% CI: 1.97–10.66], YSSH Damaturu [aOR: 9.88; 95% CI: 4.02–24.29] vs. GH Gashua) were associated with significantly higher odds of hesitancy. The most common reasons for hesitancy include fear of potential adverse effects, skepticism about vaccine efficacy, the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine, and the perceived lack of effort to develop a cure or vaccine for HIV/AIDS.ConclusionInterventions aimed at combating misperceptions and misinformation regarding the COVID-19 vaccination program may reduce the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among unvaccinated PLHIV.     

Acute reactions after a homologous primary COVID-19 vaccination series: Analysis of Taiwan V-Watch data

IntroductionThe ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (ChAd), mRNA-1273 (m1273), MVC-COV1901 (MVC), and BNT162b2 (BNT) COVID-19 vaccines received authorization for emergency use in Taiwan beginning in February 2021. We investigated acute reactions to homologous primary COVID-19 vaccination series in adults aged ≥ 18 years.MethodsIn this prospective observational study based on smartphone data (Taiwan V-Watch), we calculated the frequencies of self-reported local and systemic acute reactions within 7 days of a COVID-19 vaccination, and the health effects up to 3 weeks after each dose. Those who reported adverse reactions after both doses were assessed by the McNemar test.ResultsDuring 22 March 2021–13 December 2021, 77,468 adults were enrolled; 59.0 % were female and 77.8 % were aged 18–49 years. For both doses of all four vaccines, the local and systemic reactions were minor in severity and highest on days 1 and 2 after vaccination, and declined markedly until day 7. For 65,367 participants who provided data after the first and second doses, systemic reactions were more frequent after dose 2 of the BNT and m1273 vaccines (McNemar tests: both p < 0.001), while local reactions were more frequent after dose 2 of the m1273 and MVC vaccines (both p < 0.001), compared with dose 1 of the homologous vaccine. Among the participants aged 18–49 years, the percentage who missed work on the day after vaccination was slightly higher among women (9.3 %) than among men (7.0 %).ConclusionsAcute reactogenicity and impact of work absenteeism for the four COVID vaccines in the V-Watch survey were mild and of short duration.     

Myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination

BackgroundClinical trials of the BNT162b2 vaccine, revealed efficacy and safety. We report six cases of myocarditis, which occurred shortly after BNT162b2 vaccination.MethodsPatients were identified upon presentation to the emergency department with symptoms of chest pain/discomfort. In all study patients, we excluded past and current COVID-19. Routine clinical and laboratory investigations for common etiologies of myocarditis were performed. Laboratory tests also included troponin and C-reactive protein levels. The diagnosis of myocarditis was established after cardiac MRI.FindingsFive patients presented after the second and one after the first dose of the vaccine. All patients were males with a median age of 23 years. Myocarditis was diagnosed in all patients, there was no evidence of COVID-19 infection. Laboratory assays excluded concomitant infection; autoimmune disorder was considered unlikely. All patients responded to the BNT162b2 vaccine. The clinical course was mild in all six patients.InterpretationOur report of myocarditis after BNT162b2 vaccination may be possibly considered as an adverse reaction following immunization. We believe our information should be interpreted with caution and further surveillance is warranted.     

Effectiveness of four doses of pertussis vaccine during infancy diminished in elementary school age: A test-negative case-control study in Japan

ObjectiveThe Japanese national immunization program recommends that children receive 4 doses of acellular pertussis vaccine between 3 months and 2 years of age. Nevertheless, the number of pertussis cases is increasing in elementary school children aged 6–12 years. Therefore, a test-negative case-control study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine program.MethodsSubjects included children aged ≥3 months who visited a collaborating hospital due to pertussis-specific cough between October 2017 and November 2019. All subjects underwent diagnostic tests for pertussis, and those diagnosed as positive were regarded as cases. Subjects diagnosed as pertussis-negative were classified as controls. Vaccination history was collected using a questionnaire administered to parents with reference to immunization records. Logistic regression models were employed to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval for laboratory-confirmed pertussis.ResultsOf 187 recruited subjects (120 cases and 67 controls), questionnaire responses were obtained for 145 subjects (95 cases and 50 controls). Compared with unvaccinated subjects, the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 4 doses was 70% among all subjects and reached to 90% with marginal significance among subjects under 6 years of age. However, among school-aged subjects, the VE was not suggestive of protection against pertussis (VE: 8%). For vaccinees given 4 doses, the OR for developing pertussis increased significantly with longer duration since the fourth dose (compared with <4.5 years, OR of 6.0–8.2 years = 5.74; OR of ≥8.3 years = 3.88; P for trend by duration < 0.01).ConclusionEffectiveness of administering 4 doses of pertussis vaccine during infancy decreases with time passed since the fourth dose. This regimen does not protect school-aged children against pertussis.     

Impact of prior vaccination with CovishieldTM and Covaxin® on mortality among symptomatic COVID-19 patients during the second wave of the pandemic in South India during April and May 2021: a cohort study

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccines were authorised for emergency use to mitigate the impact of the pandemic. This study evaluated the effect of prior vaccination with either Oxford Astra Zeneca’s Covishield? or Bharath Biotech’s Covaxin® on mortality among symptomatic COVID-19 patients during the second wave of the pandemic in India.MethodologyIn this cohort study comprising of RT-PCR confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 patients presenting during April and May 2021, the effect of prior vaccination on mortality (primary outcome), need for hospitalization, oxygen therapy, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission were assessed and expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the cohort (n = 4183) was 46.3 (15.5) years; 17.9% (748/4183) had received at least one dose of Covishield? and 4.8% (201/4183) had received Covaxin®. Mortality was 0.2% (95% CI: 0.2% – 0.7%), 3.5% (1.9–5.2%), 6.2% (0.3–12%) and 12.9% (11.8–14.1%) among fully vaccinated (>2 weeks after two doses), partially vaccinated (>2 weeks after one dose or <2 weeks after two doses), indeterminate (<2 weeks after one dose) and unvaccinated patients respectively. The difference in mortality among unvaccinated vs. fully vaccinated was 12.7% (95% CI: 11.4–13.9%), unvaccinated vs. partially vaccinated was 9.4% (7.4–11.4%) and unvaccinated vs. indeterminate vaccinated was 6.8% (0.8–12.7%). On adjusted analysis, as compared to unvaccinated patients, at least one dose of vaccine reduced the need for hospitalization (RR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.35–0.47), oxygen (0.33; 0.27–0.40), NIV (0.23; 0.17–0.32), ICU admission (0.18; 0.12–0.27) and mortality (0.18; 0.11–0.29).ConclusionAmong symptomatic COVID-19 patients, prior vaccination with Covishield ? or Covaxin® impacted the severity of illness and reduced mortality during a period of widespread delta variant circulation. Full vaccination conferred greater protection than partial vaccination.     

Prayer frequency and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among older adults in Europe

AimDifferences in levels of vaccine uptake have emerged across Europe, and this may partly be explained by religious beliefs. Our aim is to study the association between religiosity, measured by prayer frequency, and vaccine hesitancy, and to examine how this association varies across European countries and regions.MethodsThis study was based on 42,583 adults aged 50 years and above from 27 European countries in the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), waves 1–8, and the 2nd SHARE COVID-19 Survey. Logistic regression models were used to investigate the associations.ResultsParticipants were more likely to be vaccine-hesitant when praying ‘weekly or less’ (odds ratio (OR) 1.32 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.23–1.42) or daily (OR 1.78 95 % CI 1.65–1.92). Praying ‘weekly or less’ was associated with increased vaccine hesitancy in Southern Europe (OR 1.48 95 % CI 1.17–1.87) and Central and Eastern (OR 1.35 95 % CI 1.24–1.47) Europe, while daily praying was associated with vaccine hesitancy in Western (OR 1.77 95 % CI 1.51–2.08), Southern (OR 1.30 95 % CI 1.03–1.64), Central and Eastern (OR 1.89 95 % CI 1.73–2.06) and Northern (OR 2.75 95 % CI 1.54–4.89) Europe.ConclusionsThese findings provide support for an association between daily prayer frequency and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, with a consistent pattern across European regions.     

A post-marketing safety assessment of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination for serious adverse outcomes using administrative claims data linked with vaccination registry in a city of Japan

IntroductionThe safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines are incompletely evaluated in Japan.ObjectivesTo examine the risk of serious adverse effects after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) in cohort studies and self-controlled case series (SCCS).MethodsUsing an administrative claims database linked with the COVID-19 vaccination registry in a city in Japan between September 2020 and September 2021, we identified health insurance enrolees aged ≥ 18 years. We evaluated the risk of acute myocardial infarction, appendicitis, Bell’s palsy, convulsions/seizures, disseminated intravascular coagulation, immune thrombocytopenia, pulmonary embolism, haemorrhagic or ischemic stroke, venous thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality, 21 days following any COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, compared with non-vaccination periods. For the cohort studies, we estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) by Poisson regression and rate differences (IRDs) by weighted least-squares regression, adjusting for sex, age, and Charlson comorbidity index. We applied a modified SCCS design to appropriately treat outcome-dependent exposures. For the modified SCCS, we estimated within-subject IRRs by weighted conditional Poisson regression. Subgroup analyses stratified by sex and age were also conducted.ResultsWe identified 184,491 enrolees [male: 87,218; mean (standard deviation) age: 64.2 (19.5) years] with 136,667 first and 127,322 s dose vaccinations. The risks of any outcomes did not increase in any analyses, except for the fact that the modified SCCS indicated an increased risk of pulmonary embolism after the first dose in women (within-subject IRR [95%CI]: 3.97 [1.18–13.32]).ConclusionThe findings suggested that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine was generally safe, whilst a signal of pulmonary embolism following the first dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine was observed.     

Anaphylaxis rates following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents: Analysis of data reported to EudraVigilance

AimThe present study aimed to estimate the anaphylaxis rates following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents in Europe.MethodsWe retrieved data on 371 anaphylaxis cases following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in children ≤ 17 years old notified to EudraVigilance as of October 8, 2022. Overall, 27,120,512 doses of BNT162b2 vaccine and 1,400,300 doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine have been delivered to children during the study period.ResultsThe overall mean anaphylaxis rate was 12.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 11.49–14.12] per 10⁶ mRNA vaccine doses [12.14 (95% CI: 6.37–17.91) per 10⁶ doses for mRNA-1273 and 12.84 (95% CI: 11.49–14.19) per 10⁶ doses for BNT162b2]. Children 12–17 years old accounted for 317 anaphylaxis cases, followed by 48 cases in children 3–11 years old, and 6 cases in children 0–2 years old. Children 10–17 years old had a mean anaphylaxis rate of 13.52 (95% CI: 12.03–15.00) cases per 10⁶ mRNA vaccine doses and children 5–9 years old had a mean anaphylaxis rate of 9.51 (95% CI: 6.82–12.20) cases per 10⁶ mRNA vaccine doses. There were two fatalities, both in the 12–17 years age group. The fatal anaphylaxis rate was 0.07 cases per 10⁶ mRNA vaccine doses.ConclusionsAnaphylaxis is a rare adverse event after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in children. Continuous surveillance of serious adverse events is needed to guide vaccination policies as we move towards SARS-CoV-2 endemicity. Larger real-world studies on COVID-19 vaccination in children, using clinical case confirmation, are imperative.     

Immunogenicity and safety of a SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac) co-administered with an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine: A randomized,open-label,controlled study in healthy adults aged 18 to 59 years in China

BackgroundStudies are needed for evidence of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine co-administered with influenza vaccine.MethodsA randomized, open-label, controlled study was conducted in Zhejiang Province, China. Eligible healthy adults aged 18–59 years underwent randomization at a ratio of 1:1:2 to receive inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4) either concomitantly with the first (C1 subgroup) or the second (C2 subgroup) dose of CoronaVac, or 14 days after the first dose of CoronaVac (S group). The primary purpose of the study was to prove the non-inferiority in seroconversion rate of antibody against SARS-CoV-2.ResultsOverall, 480 participants were enrolled, with 120, 120, and 240 randomly assigned to the C1, C2, and S groups, respectively. As lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference for the seroconversion rate of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was over ?10%, the immune response for CoronaVac in the C group (93.1% [89.0, 96.0]) was non-inferior to that in the S group (95.2% [91.5, 97.6]) in the per-protocol set. A lower GMT of antibody against SARS-CoV-2 was observed in the C group as compared to the S group (27.5 vs. 38.1, P = 0.0001). Decrease of immune response to CoronaVac was mainly observed in participants received IIV4 concomitantly with their second dose of CoronaVac (C2 subgroup), with a seroconversion rate of 89.7% (95CI: 82.6%-94.5%) and a GMT of 23.3. The occurrences of vaccine related adverse reactions were no more than 20% and comparable among different groups. Most of the adverse reactions were mild and moderate.ConclusionCo-administration of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine and seasonal influenza vaccine, especially the administration regimen that the seasonal influenza vaccine co-administered with the first dose of the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine, would be feasible.