Reactions following Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and related healthcare encounters among 7,077 children aged 5-11 years within an integrated healthcare system

BackgroundStudies combining data from digital surveys and electronic health records (EHR) can be used to conduct comprehensive assessments on COVID-19 vaccine safety.MethodsWe conducted an observational study using data from a digital survey and EHR of children aged 5–11 years vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine across Kaiser Permanente Southern California during November 4, 2021-February 28, 2022. Parents/guardians who enrolled their children were sent a 14-day survey on reactions. Survey results were combined with EHR, and medical encounters were described for children whose parents or guardians indicated seeking medical care for vaccine-related symptoms. This study describes self-reported reactions (local and systemic) and additional symptoms (chest pain, tachycardia, and pre-syncope).ResultsThe study recruited 7,077 participants aged 5–11 years who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Of 6,247 participants with survey responses after dose 1, 2,176 (35 %) reported at least one systemic reaction, and 1,076 (32 %) of 3,401 respondents following dose 2 reported at least one systemic reaction. Local reactions were reported less frequently following dose 2 (1,113, 33 %) than dose 1 (3,140, 50 %). The most frequently reported reactions after dose 1 were pain at the injection site (48 %), fatigue (20 %), headache (12 %), myalgia (9 %) and fever (5 %). The most frequently reported symptoms after dose 2 were also pain at the injection site (30 %), fatigue (19 %), headache (13 %), myalgia (10 %) and fever (9 %). Post-vaccination reactions occurred most frequently-one day following vaccination. Chest pain or tachycardia were reported infrequently (1 %). EHR demonstrated that parents rarely sought care for post-vaccination symptoms, and among those seeking care, the most common symptoms documented in EHR were fever and nausea, comprising <0.5 % of children. No encounters were related to myocarditis.ConclusionWhile post-vaccination reactions to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were common in children aged 5–11 years, our data showed that in most cases they were transient and did not require medical care.     

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.     

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.     

A broad assessment of covid-19 vaccine safety using tree-based data-mining in the vaccine safety datalink

BackgroundExcept for spontaneous reporting systems, vaccine safety monitoring generally involves pre-specifying health outcomes and post-vaccination risk windows of concern. Instead, we used tree-based data-mining to look more broadly for possible adverse events after Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsVaccine Safety Datalink enrollees receiving ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine in 2020–2021 were followed for 70 days after Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna and 56 days after Janssen vaccination. Incident diagnoses in inpatient or emergency department settings were analyzed for clustering within both the hierarchical ICD-10-CM code structure and the post-vaccination follow-up period. We used the self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic and TreeScan software. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate p-values; p = 0.01 was the pre-specified cut-off for statistical significance of a cluster.ResultsThere were 4.1, 2.6, and 0.4 million Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen vaccinees, respectively. Clusters after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination included: (1) unspecified adverse effects, (2) common vaccine reactions, such as fever, myalgia, and headache, (3) myocarditis/pericarditis, and (4) less specific cardiac or respiratory symptoms, all with the strongest clusters generally after Dose 2; and (5) COVID-19/viral pneumonia/sepsis/respiratory failure in the first 3 weeks after Dose 1. Moderna results were similar but without a significant myocarditis/pericarditis cluster. Further investigation suggested the fifth signal group was a manifestation of mRNA vaccine effectiveness after the first 3 weeks. Janssen vaccinees had clusters of unspecified or common vaccine reactions, gait/mobility abnormalities, and muscle weakness. The latter two were deemed to have arisen from confounding related to practices at one site.ConclusionsWe detected post-vaccination clusters of unspecified adverse effects, common vaccine reactions, and, for the mRNA vaccines, chest pain and palpitations, as well as myocarditis/pericarditis after Pfizer-BioNTech Dose 2. Unique advantages of this data mining are its untargeted nature and its inherent adjustment for the multiplicity of diagnoses and risk intervals scanned.     

Vasovagal reactions after COVID-19 vaccination in Japan

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine administration started in February 2021 in Japan. As of December 2021, approximately 75% of the population aged ≥12 years had received two doses of vaccine. We conducted a study to investigate vasovagal reactions (VVR) after COVID-19 vaccination using data on adverse events following immunization. The crude reporting rate of VVR (cases/1,000,000 doses) after vaccination was 9.6 in all age groups combined, and was more frequent in the younger age groups: 28.6 and 37.2 in individuals aged 10–19 years and 20–29 years, respectively. In individuals aged 10–29 years, the rate was similar in males and females (33.0 and 34.2, respectively, p = 0.53); but was higher after dose 1 than after dose 2 (57.4 and 8.8, respectively, p < 0.001). Based on these results, caution needs to be exercised when vaccinating adolescents and young adults, especially with dose 1 of COVID-19 vaccines.     

Influenza vaccination uptake among Canadian adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal study on Aging (CLSA)

IntroductionUnderstanding how influenza vaccine uptake changed during the 2020/2021 influenza season compared to previous pre-pandemic seasons is a key priority, as is identifying the relationship between prior influenza vaccination and COVID-19 vaccine willingness.MethodsWe analyzed data from a large, nationally representative cohort of Canadian residents aged 50 and older to assess influenza vaccination status three times between 2015 and 2020. We investigated: 1) changes in self-reported influenza vaccine uptake, 2) predictors of influenza vaccine uptake in 2020/2021, and 3) the association between influenza vaccination history and self-reported COVID-19 vaccine willingness using logistic regression models.ResultsAmong 23,385 participants analyzed for aims 1–2, influenza vaccination increased over time: 14,114 (60.4%) in 2015–2018, 15,692 (67.1%) in 2019/2020, and 19,186 (82.0%; combining those already vaccinated and those planning to get a vaccine) in 2020/2021. After controlling for socio-demographics, history of influenza vaccination was most strongly associated with influenza vaccination in 2020/2021 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 147.9 [95% CI: 120.9–180.9]); this association remained after accounting for multiple health and pandemic-related factors (aOR 140.3 [95% CI: 114.5–171.8]). To a lesser degree, those more concerned about COVID-19 were also more likely to report influenza vaccination in fall 2020, whereas those reporting a very negative impact of the pandemic were less likely to get vaccinated. Among 23,819 participants with information on COVID-19 vaccine willingness during the last quarter of 2020 (aim 3), prior influenza vaccination was most strongly associated with willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine (aOR 15.1 [95% CI: 13.5–16.8] for those who had received influenza vaccine at all previous timepoints versus none).ConclusionsOur analysis highlights the importance of previous vaccination in driving vaccination uptake and willingness. Efforts to increase vaccination coverage for influenza and COVID-19 should target individuals who do not routinely engage with immunization services regardless of demographic factors.     

Intention of nurses to accept coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination and change of intention to accept seasonal influenza vaccination during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey

BackgroundMaintaining health of healthcare workers with vaccination is a major component of pandemic preparedness and acceptance of vaccinations is essential to its success. This study aimed to examine impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on change of influenza vaccination acceptance and identify factors associated with acceptance of potential COVID-19 vaccination.MethodA cross-sectional self-administered anonymous questionnaire survey was conducted among nurses in Hong Kong, China during 26 February and 31 March 2020. Their previous acceptance of influenza vaccination and intentions to accept influenza and COVID-19 vaccination were collected. Their relationship with work-related and other factors were examined using multiple multinomial logistic regressions.ResultsResponses from 806 participants were retrieved. More nurses changed from vaccination refusal to hesitancy or acceptance than those changed from acceptance to vaccination hesitancy or refusal (15.5% vs 6.8% among all participants, P < 0.001). 40.0% participants intended to accept COVID-19 vaccination, and those in private sector (OR: 1.67, 95%CI: 1.11–2.51), with chronic conditions (OR: 1.83, 95%CI: 1.22–2.77), encountering with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients (OR: 1.63, 95%CI: 1.14–2.33), accepted influenza vaccination in 2019 (OR: 2.03, 95%CI: 1.47–2.81) had higher intentions to accept it. Reasons for refusal and hesitation for COVID-19 vaccination included “suspicion on efficacy, effectiveness and safety”, “believing it unnecessary”, and “no time to take it”.ConclusionWith a low level of COVID-19 acceptance intentions and high proportion of hesitation in both influenza and COVID-19 vaccination, evidence-based planning are needed to improve the uptake of both vaccinations in advance of their implementation. Future studies are needed to explore reasons of change of influenza vaccination acceptance, look for actual behaviour patterns of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and examine effectiveness of promotion strategies.     

Tree-based data mining for safety assessment of first COVID-19 booster doses in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

BackgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) has been performing safety surveillance for COVID-19 vaccines since their earliest authorization in the United States. Complementing its real-time surveillance for pre-specified health outcomes using pre-specified risk intervals, the VSD conducts tree-based data-mining to look for clustering of a broad range of health outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination. This study’s objective was to use this untargeted, hypothesis-generating approach to assess the safety of first booster doses of Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S) COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsVSD enrollees receiving a first booster of COVID-19 vaccine through April 2, 2022 were followed for 56 days. Incident diagnoses in inpatient or emergency department settings were analyzed for clustering within both the hierarchical ICD-10-CM code structure and the follow-up period. The self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic was used, conditioning on the total number of cases for each diagnosis. P-values were estimated by Monte Carlo simulation; p = 0.01 was pre-specified as the cut-off for statistical significance of clusters.ResultsMore than 2.4 and 1.8 million subjects received Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna boosters after an mRNA primary series, respectively. Clusters of urticaria/allergy/rash were found during Days 10–15 after the Moderna booster (p = 0.0001). Other outcomes that clustered after mRNA boosters, mostly with p = 0.0001, included unspecified adverse effects, common vaccine-associated reactions like fever and myalgia, and COVID-19. COVID-19 clusters were in Days 1–10 after booster receipt, before boosters would have become effective. There were no noteworthy clusters after boosters following primary Janssen vaccination.ConclusionsIn this untargeted data-mining study of COVID-19 booster vaccination, a cluster of delayed-onset urticaria/allergy/rash was detected after the Moderna booster, as has been reported after Moderna vaccination previously. Other clusters after mRNA boosters were of unspecified or common adverse effects and COVID-19, the latter evidently reflecting immunity to COVID-19 after 10 days.     

Protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination against long COVID syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe relationship between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and long COVID has not been firmly established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and long COVID.MethodsPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched on September 2022 without language restrictions (CRD42022360399) to identify prospective trials and observational studies comparing patients with and without vaccination before severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We also included studies reporting symptomatic changes of ongoing long COVID following vaccination among those with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Odds ratios (ORs) for each outcome were synthesized using a random-effects model. Symptomatic changes after vaccination were synthesized by a one-group meta-analysis.ResultsSix observational studies involving 536,291 unvaccinated and 84,603 vaccinated (before SARS-CoV-2 infection) patients (mean age, 41.2–66.6; female, 9.0–67.3%) and six observational studies involving 8,199 long COVID patients (mean age, 40.0 to 53.5; female, 22.2–85.9%) who received vaccination after SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Two-dose vaccination was associated with a lower risk of long COVID compared to no vaccination (OR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45–0.92) and one-dose vaccination (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43–0.83). Two-dose vaccination compared to no vaccination was associated with a lower risk of persistent fatigue (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41–0.93) and pulmonary disorder (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.47–0.52). Among those with ongoing long COVID symptoms, 54.4% (95% CI, 34.3–73.1%) did not report symptomatic changes following vaccination, while 20.3% (95% CI, 8.1–42.4%) experienced symptomatic improvement after two weeks to six months of COVID-19 vaccination.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination before SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a lower risk of long COVID, while most of those with ongoing long COVID did not experience symptomatic changes following vaccination.     

Protection of vaccination versus hybrid immunity against infection with COVID-19 Omicron variants among Health-Care Workers

Background aimThe Omicron COVID-19 variants BA.1* and BA.2* evade immune system leading to increased transmissibility and breakthrough infections. We aim to test the hypothesis that immunity achieved post COVID-19 infection combined with vaccination (hybrid immunity), is more effective against Omicron infection than vaccination alone in a health-care setting.MethodsData on regular pre-emptive PCR testing from all Health-Care Workers (HCWs) at Laiko University Hospital from 29th December 2020, date on which the national COVID-19 immunization program began in Greece, until 24th May 2022, were retrospectively collected and recorded. The infection rate was calculated after December 21st, 2021, when Omicron was the predominant circulating variant in Greece, as the total number of infections (positive PCR COVID-19 test regardless of symptoms) divided by the total person-months at risk.ResultsOf 1,305 vaccinated HCWs who were included in the analysis [median age of 47 (IQR: 36, 56) years, 66.7 % women], 13 % and 87 % had received 2 or 3 vaccine doses (full and booster vaccination), respectively. A COVID-19 infection had occurred in 135 of 1,305 of participants prior to Omicron predominance. Of those 135 HCWs with hybrid immunity only 13 (9.6 %) were re-infected. Of the 154 and 1,016 HCWs with full and booster vaccination-induced immunity, respectively, 71 (46.1 %, infection rate 13.4/100 person-months) and 448 (44.1 %, infection rate 12.2/100 person-months) were infected during the follow up period. No association between gender or age and COVID-19 infection was found and none of the participants had a severe infection or died.ConclusionsHybrid immunity confers higher protection by almost 5-fold compared to full or booster vaccination for COVID-19 infection with the Omicron variant among HCWs who are at high risk of exposure. This may inform public health policies on how to achieve optimal immunity in terms of the timing and mode of vaccination.     

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination during June–October 2021: A multi-site prospective study

IntroductionVaccine hesitancy presents a challenge to COVID-19 control efforts. To identify beliefs associated with delayed vaccine uptake, we developed and implemented a vaccine hesitancy survey for the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.MethodsIn June 2021, we assessed attitudes and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination using an online survey. Self-reported vaccination data were requested daily through October 2021. We compared responses between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents using absolute standardized mean differences (ASMD). We assessed validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis and identified latent factors associated with a subset of survey items. Cox proportional hazards models and mediation analyses assessed predictors of subsequent vaccination among those initially unvaccinated.ResultsIn June 2021, 29,522 vaccinated and 1,272 unvaccinated participants completed surveys. Among those unvaccinated in June 2021, 559 (43.9 %) became vaccinated by October 31, 2021. In June, unvaccinated participants were less likely to feel “very concerned” about getting COVID-19 than vaccinated participants (10.6 % vs. 43.3 %, ASMD 0.792). Among those initially unvaccinated, greater intent to become vaccinated was associated with getting vaccinated and shorter time to vaccination. However, even among participants who reported no intention to become vaccinated, 28.5 % reported vaccination before study end. Two latent factors predicted subsequent vaccination—being ‘more receptive’ was derived from motivation to protect one’s own or others’ health and resume usual activities; being ‘less receptive’ was derived from concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. In a Cox model, both factors were partially mediated by vaccination intention.ConclusionThis study characterizes vaccine hesitant individuals and identifies predictors of eventual COVID-19 vaccination through October 31, 2021. Even individuals with no intention to be vaccinated can shift to vaccine uptake. Our data suggest factors of perceived severity of COVID-19 disease, vaccine safety, and trust in the vaccine development process are predictive of vaccination and may be important opportunities for ongoing interventions.     

A phase III,observer-blind,randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy,safety, and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccine in healthy adults aged 18–59 years: An interim analysis in Indonesia

BackgroundThe WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11th, 2020. This serious outbreak and the precipitously increasing numbers of deaths worldwide necessitated the urgent need to develop an effective severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. The development of COVID-19 vaccines has moved quickly. In this study, we assessed the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of an inactivated (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and its lot-to-lot consistency. A total of 1620 healthy adults aged 18–59 years were randomly assigned to receive 2 injections of the trial vaccine or placebo on a day 0 and 14 schedule. This article was based on an interim report completed within 3 months following the last dose of study vaccine. The interim analysis includes safety and immunogenicity data for 540 participants in the immunogenicity subset and an efficacy analysis of the 1620 subjects. For the safety evaluation, solicited and unsolicited adverse events were collected after the first and second vaccination within 14 and 28 days, respectively. Blood samples were collected for an antibody assay before and 14 days following the second dose.ResultsMost of the adverse reactions were in the solicited category and were mild in severity. Pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom. Antibody IgG titer determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 97.48% for the seroconversion rate. Using a neutralization assay, the seroconversion rate was 87.15%. The efficacy in preventing symptomatic confirmed cases of COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after the second dose of vaccine using an incidence rate was 65.30%.ConclusionsFrom the 3-month interim analysis, the vaccine exhibited a 65.30% efficacy at preventing COVID-19 illness with favorable safety and immunogenicity profiles.     

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.     

Disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake among health care workers

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccine uptake by healthcare workers (HCWs) is critical to protect HCWs, the patients they care for, and the healthcare infrastructure. Our study aims to examine the actual COVID-19 vaccination rate among HCWs and identify risk factors associated with vaccine nonacceptance.Study Design and MethodsA retrospective analysis of COVID-19 vaccinations for HCWs at a large multi-site US academic medical center from 12/18/2020 through 05/04/2021. Comparisons between groups were performed using unpaired student t-test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. A logistic regression analysis was used to assess the associations between vaccine uptake and risk factor(s).ResultsOf the 65,270 HCWs included in our analysis, the overall vaccination rate was 78.6%. Male gender, older age, White and Asian race, and direct patient care were associated with higher vaccination rates (P <.0001). Significant differences were observed between different job categories. Physicians and advanced practice staff, and healthcare professionals were more likely to be vaccinated than nurses and support staff.ConclusionsOur data demonstrated higher initial vaccination rates among HCWs than the general population national average during the study period. We observed significant disparities among different high-risk HCWs groups, especially among different job categories, black HCWs and younger HCWs despite their high risk of contracting the infection. Interventions to address lower vaccination rate and vaccine hesitancy should be built with these disparities and differences in mind to create more targeted interventions.     

Spontaneously reported adverse events following COVID-19 basic and booster immunizations in the Netherlands

IntroductionThe rapid roll-out of novel COVID-19 vaccines made near real-time post-marketing safety surveillance essential to identify rare and long-term adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). In light of the ongoing booster vaccination campaigns, it is key to monitor changes in observed safety patterns post-vaccination. The effect of sequential COVID-19 vaccinations, as well as heterologous vaccination sequences, on the observed post-vaccination safety pattern, remains largely unknown.MethodsThe primary objective of this study was to describe the profile of spontaneously reported AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccination in the Netherlands, including the primary and booster series. Reports from consumers and healthcare professionals were collected via a COVID-19 vaccine-tailored online reporting form by the National Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb (Lareb) between 6 January 2021 and 31 August 2022. The data were used to describe the most frequently reported AEFIs per vaccination moment, the consumer experienced burden per AEFI, and differences in AEFIs reported for homologous and heterologous vaccination sequences.ResultsLareb received 227,884 spontaneous reports over a period of twenty months. Overall, a high degree of similarity in local and systemic AEFIs per vaccination moment was observed, with no apparent change in the number of reports of serious adverse events after multiple COVID-19 vaccinations. No differences in the pattern of reported AEFIs per vaccination sequence was observed.ConclusionSpontaneous reported AEFIs demonstrated a similar reporting pattern for homologous and heterologous primary and booster series of COVID-19 vaccination in the Netherlands.     

Receipt of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines in California (USA) during the 2021–2022 influenza season

BackgroundDespite lower circulation of influenza virus throughout 2020–2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, seasonal influenza vaccination has remained a primary tool to reduce influenza-associated illness and death. The relationship between the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and/or an influenza vaccine is not well understood.MethodsWe assessed predictors of receipt of 2021–2022 influenza vaccine in a secondary analysis of data from a case-control study enrolling individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 testing. We used mixed effects logistic regression to estimate factors associated with receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine. We also constructed multinomial adjusted marginal probability models of being vaccinated for COVID-19 only, seasonal influenza only, or both as compared with receipt of neither vaccination.ResultsAmong 1261 eligible participants recruited between 22 October 2021–22 June 2022, 43% (545) were vaccinated with both seasonal influenza vaccine and >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 34% (426) received >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine only, 4% (49) received seasonal influenza vaccine only, and 19% (241) received neither vaccine. Receipt of >1 COVID-19 vaccine dose was associated with seasonal influenza vaccination (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15–6.43); this association was stronger among participants receiving >1 COVID-19 booster dose (aOR = 16.50 [10.10–26.97]). Compared with participants testing negative for SARS- CoV-2 infection, participants testing positive had lower odds of receipt of 2021-2022 seasonal influenza vaccine (aOR = 0.64 [0.50–0.82]).ConclusionsRecipients of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to receive seasonal influenza vaccine during the 2021–2022 season. Factors associated with individuals’ likelihood of receiving COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines will be important to account for in future studies of vaccine effectiveness against both conditions. Participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in our sample were less likely to have received seasonal influenza vaccine, suggesting an opportunity to offer influenza vaccination before or after a COVID-19 diagnosis.     

Individual factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in between and during pandemic waves (July–December 2020)

BackgroundA year after the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the global rollout of vaccines gives us hope of ending the pandemic. Lack of vaccine confidence, however, poses a threat to vaccination campaigns. This study aims at identifying individuals’ characteristics that explain vaccine willingness in Flanders (Belgium), while also describing trends over time (July–December 2020).MethodsThe analysis included data of 10 survey waves of the Great Corona Survey, a large-scale online survey that was open to the general public and had 17,722–32,219 respondents per wave. Uni- and multivariable general additive models were fitted to associate vaccine willingness with socio-demographic and behavioral variables, while correcting for temporal and geographical variability.ResultsWe found 84.2% of the respondents willing to be vaccinated, i.e., respondents answering that they were definitely (61.2%) or probably (23.0%) willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, while 9.8% indicated maybe, 3.9% probably not and 2.2% definitely not. In Flanders, vaccine willingness was highest in July 2020 (90.0%), decreased over the summer period to 80.2% and started to increase again from late September, reaching 85.9% at the end of December 2020. Vaccine willingness was significantly associated with respondents’ characteristics: previous survey participation, age, gender, province, educational attainment, household size, financial situation, employment sector, underlying medical conditions, mental well-being, government trust, knowing someone with severe COVID-19 symptoms and compliance with restrictive measures. These variables could explain much, but not all, variation in vaccine willingness.ConclusionsBoth the timing and location of data collection influence vaccine willingness results, emphasizing that comparing data from different regions, countries and/or timepoints should be done with caution. To maximize COVID-19 vaccination coverage, vaccination campaigns should focus on (a combination of) subpopulations: aged 31–50, females, low educational attainment, large households, difficult financial situation, low mental well-being and labourers, unemployed and self-employed citizens.     

COVID-19 vaccination coverage in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – A cross-sectional study in Hungary

IntroductionCoronavirus infection is a particular risk for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), because they are much more likely to become severely ill due to oxygen supply problems. Primary prevention, including COVID-19 vaccination is of paramount importance in this disease group. The aim of our study was to assess COVID-19 vaccination coverage in COPD patients during the first vaccination campaign of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA cross-sectional observational study (CHANCE) has been conducted in COPD patients in the eastern, western and central regions of Hungary from 15th November 2021. The anthropometric, respiratory function test results and vaccination status of 1,511 randomly selected patients were recorded who were aged 35 years and older.ResultsThe median age was 67 (61–72) years, for men: 67 (62–73) and for women: 66 (60–72) years, with 47.98 % men and 52.02 % women in our sample. The prevalence of vaccination coverage for the first COVID-19 vaccine dose was 88.62 %, whereas 86.57 % of the patients received the second vaccine dose. When unvaccinated (n = 172) and double vaccinated (n = 1308) patients were compared, the difference was significant both in quality of life (CAT: 17 (12–23) vs 14 (10–19); p < 0.001) and severity of dyspnea (mMRC: 2 (2–2) vs 2 (1–2); p = 0.048). The COVID-19 infection rate between double vaccinated and unvaccinated patients was 1.61 % vs 22.67 %; p < 0.001 six months after vaccination. The difference between unvaccinated and vaccinated patients was significant (8.14 % vs 0.08 %; p < 0.001) among those with acute COVID-19 infection hospitalized. In terms of post-COVID symptoms, single or double vaccinated patients had significantly fewer outpatient hospital admissions than unvaccinated patients (7.56 vs 0 %; p < 0.001).ConclusionThe COVID-19 vaccination coverage was satisfactory in our sample. The uptake of COVID-19 vaccines by patients with COPD is of utmost importance because they are much more likely to develop severe complications.     

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.     

COVID-19 vaccine safety inquiries to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Immunization Safety Office

BackgroundFollowing the authorization and recommendations for use of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s Immunization Safety Office (ISO) responded to inquiries and questions from public health officials, healthcare providers, and the general public on COVID-19 vaccine safety.MethodsWe describe COVID-19 vaccine safety inquiries, by topic, received and addressed by ISO from December 1, 2020–August 31, 2022.ResultsOf the 1978 COVID-19 vaccine-related inquiries received, 1655 specifically involved vaccine safety topics. The most frequently asked-about topics included deaths following vaccination, myocarditis, pregnancy, and reproductive health outcomes, understanding or interpreting data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.ConclusionsInquiries about vaccine safety generally reflect issues that receive media attention. ISO will continue to monitor vaccine safety inquiries and provide accurate and timely information to healthcare providers, public health officials, and the general public.