Acute Myocardial Injury Following COVID-19 Vaccination: A Case Report and Review of Current Evidence from Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System Database.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Deb A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8255555 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan-Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Acute Myocardial Injury Following COVID-19 Vaccination: A Case Report and Review of Current Evidence from Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System Database.
Deb Anasua A Abdelmalek John J Iwuji Kenneth K Nugent Kenneth K
Journal of primary care & community health 20210101
COVID-19 vaccination related adverse events is an evolving field. Here we present a case of acute myocardial injury that developed as a result of an acute immune response following the second dose of COVID-19 vaccination (Moderna) in a 67-year-old man who presented in acute congestive heart failure. His clinical course improved over 3 days. Review of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention websites identified 37 vaccine recipients who ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundVaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is underway globally to prevent the infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We aimed to investigate the adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) for COVID-19 among healthcare workers (HCWs).MethodsThis was a retrospective study of the AEFIs associated with the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine at the Kosin University Gospel Hospital from March 3 to March 22, 2021. We investigated the systemic and local adverse events during the 7 days following the vaccination using the Mobile Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (MVAERS) developed by our hospital.ResultsA total of 1,503 HCWs were vaccinated, and the data of 994 HCWs were reported in the MVAERS. The most commonly reported AEFIs were tenderness at the injection site (94.5%), fatigue (92.9%), pain at the injection site (88.0%), and malaise (83.8%). The severity of most AEFIs was mild-to-moderate, and the severity and number of AEFIs were less in the older age group. There were no serious events requiring hospitalization, and most AEFIs improved within a few days.ConclusionThe AEFIs associated with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine were tolerable, and the use of the MVAERS was helpful in monitoring the AEFIs. The use of MVAERS will help in sharing accurate and ample information about vaccination against COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8093606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive reporting system, used for monitoring the safety of all US licensed vaccines. In March 2008, ACAM2000(®) replaced Dryvax(®) as the only licensed smallpox vaccine and is administered to all persons entering military service and certain civilian researchers. In 2011, routine data mining of VAERS identified a vaccine safety concern resulting in acute ischemic cardiac events (ICE) following ACAM2000(®).During March 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013, we reviewed all serious reports received following ACAM2000(®)and classified them by diagnostic category. We identified possible ICE cases by searching the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Affairs (MedDRA(®)) terms for "myocardial ischaemia," "acute myocardial infarction," "myocardial infarction," and "ischaemia," and applied standardized surveillance case definitions.VAERS received 1149 reports following ACAM2000(®) administration; 169 (14.7%) were serious (resulting in permanent disability, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, life-threatening illness or death), including one death. The two most frequent diagnostic categories for serious reports were cardiovascular and other infectious conditions. The MedDRA(®) search found 31 reports of possible ICE after receipt of ACAM2000(®) vaccine. Of a total 30 possible ICE cases with demographic information, all but one was male; the age range was 20-45 years (median 32) and median interval to onset of symptoms was 12 days. On clinical review there were 16 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis and 15 ICE cases.Our review of the data mining signal did not substantiate the concerns about ICE after ACAM2000(®). Our study also suggests that with current pre-vaccination screening, cardiac morbidity in generally healthy vaccinated populations remains uncommon.
| S-EPMC5946322 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeTo assess the risk of vaccine-associated uveitis (VAU) after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination and evaluate uveitis onset interval and clinical presentations in the patients.DesignA retrospective study from December 11, 2020, to May 9, 2022, using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.ParticipantsPatients diagnosed with VAU after administration of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech, Pfizer Inc/BioNTech SE), mRNA-1273 (Moderna, Moderna Therapeutics Inc), and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) vaccine worldwide.MethodsA descriptive analysis of the demographics, clinical history, and presentation was performed. We evaluated the correlation among the 3 vaccines and continuous and categorical variables. A post hoc analysis was performed between uveitis onset interval after vaccination and age, dose, and vaccine type. Finally, a 30-day risk analysis for VAU onset postvaccination was performed.Main outcome measuresThe estimated global crude reporting rate, observed to expected ratio of VAU in the United States, associated ocular and systemic presentations, and onset duration.ResultsA total of 1094 cases of VAU were reported from 40 countries with an estimated crude reporting rate (per million doses) of 0.57, 0.44, and 0.35 for BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S, respectively. The observed to expected ratio of VAU was comparable for BNT162b2 (0.023), mRNA-1273 (0.025), and Ad26.COV2.S (0.027). Most cases of VAU were reported in patients who received BNT162b2 (n = 853, 77.97%). The mean age of patients with VAU was 46.24 ± 16.93 years, and 68.65% (n = 751) were women. Most cases were reported after the first dose (n = 452, 41.32%) and within the first week (n = 591, 54.02%) of the vaccination. The onset interval for VAU was significantly longer in patients who received mRNA-1273 (21.22 ± 42.74 days) compared with BNT162b2 (11.42 ± 23.16 days) and rAd26.COV2.S (12.69 ± 16.02 days) vaccines (P < 0.0001). The post hoc analysis revealed a significantly shorter interval of onset for the BNT162b2 compared with the mRNA 1273 vaccine (P < 0.0001). The 30-day risk analysis showed a significant difference among the 3 vaccines (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe low crude reporting rate and observed to expected ratio suggest a low safety concern for VAU. This study provides insights into a possible temporal association between reported VAU events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines; however, further investigations are required to delineate the associated immunological mechanisms.
| S-EPMC9428109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Timely adverse event following immunisation (AEFI) signal event detection is essential to minimise further vaccinees receiving unsafe vaccines. We explored the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) ability to detect two known signal events with influenza vaccines with the aim of providing a model for prospective routine signal detection and improving vaccine safety surveillance in Australia. METHODS:Passive AEFI surveillance reports from 2008-2017 relating to influenza vaccines were accessed from the Australian SAEFVIC (Victoria) database. Proportional reporting ratios were calculated for two vaccine-event categories; fever and allergic AEFI. Signal detection sensitivity for two known signal events were determined using weekly data; cumulative data by individual year and; cumulative for all previous years. Signal event thresholds of PRR ≥2 and Chi-square ≥4 were applied. RESULTS:PRR provided sensitive signal detection when calculated cumulatively by individual year or by all previous years. Known signal events were detected 15 and 11 days earlier than traditional methods used at the time of the actual events. CONCLUSION:Utilising a single jurisdiction's data, PRR improved vaccine pharmacovigilance and showed the potential to detect important safety signals much earlier than previously. It has potential to maximise immunisation safety in Australia. This study progresses the necessary work to establish national cohesion for passive surveillance signal detection and strengthen routine Australian vaccine pharmacovigilance.
| S-EPMC6824574 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccines are important public health tools and formed part of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Five COVID-19 vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization in Ghana and deployed during the pandemic. Early phase trials of the vaccines were mostly not conducted in Africans. This study examines safety data during their deployment under real-life conditions in Ghana. This study analysed secondary data on COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse events following immunization (AEFI) reported to the Ghana Food and Drugs Authority (GFDA) between March 2021 and June 2022 using STATA. AEFIs were coded with their Preferred Terms using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, version 24.0. Statistical tests examined associations between demographic characteristics, vaccine types, seriousness, and AEFI outcomes. Binary logistic regression model assessed factors associated with serious AEFIs, while the GFDA's Joint COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Review Committee provided causality assessments of serious AEFIs. Overall cumulative incidence of AEFIs was about 25 per 100,000 persons vaccinated. Across the five vaccines, majority of the AEFIs reported were not serious (98.7%) with higher incidences in those below 50 years (74.0%) and females (51.2%). The most common AEFIs recorded were headache (52.9%), pains (44.4%), pyrexia (35.1%), chills (16.7%) and injection site pain (15.6%). Relative to those 50 years and above, the odds of serious AEFI were 60% less among those aged <30 years (aOR = 0.40, CI: [0.19, 0.86], p = 0.019). However, a causality assessment of the 57 serious AEFIs indicated only 8 (14%) were vaccine product-related. There was a low incidence of AEFIs following deployment of the vaccines in Ghana with a much lower incidence of serious AEFIs. Informing the public about the safety of the vaccines and potential side effects may increase trust and acceptance, decreasing hesitancy in current and future vaccination programmes.
| S-EPMC11432875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited data exist on the safety of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine in adults. We reviewed reports of adverse events (AEs) to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to assess safety in this previously understudied group.MethodsVAERS is the national spontaneous vaccine safety surveillance system coadministered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration. We searched the VAERS database for US reports of adults aged ≥19 years who received the MMR vaccine from 1 January 2003 to 31 July 2013. We clinically reviewed reports and available medical records for serious AEs, pregnancy reports, and reports for selected prespecified outcomes.ResultsDuring this period, VAERS received 3175 US reports after MMR vaccine in adults. Of these, 168 (5%) were classified as serious, including 7 reports of death. Females accounted for 77% of reports. The most common signs and symptoms for all reports were pyrexia (19%), rash (17%), pain (13%), and arthralgia (13%). We did not detect any new safety findings in empirical Bayesian data mining. We identified 131 reports of MMR vaccine administered to a pregnant woman; the majority of these vaccinations were in the first trimester and in 83 (62%), no AE was reported.ConclusionsIn our review of VAERS data, we did not detect any new or unexpected safety concerns for MMR vaccination in adults. We identified reports of pregnant women exposed to MMR, which is a group in whom the vaccine is contraindicated, suggesting the need for continued provider education on vaccine recommendations and screening.
| S-EPMC4447805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTaxanes are an essential class of antineoplastic agents used to treat various cancers and are a fundamental cause of hypersensitivity reactions. In addition, other adverse events, such as bone marrow toxicity and peripheral neuropathy, can lead to chemotherapy discontinuation. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of taxanes in the real world.MethodsTaxane-associated adverse events were identified by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Preferred Terms and analyzed and compared by mining the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System pharmacovigilance database from January 2004 to December 2019. Reported adverse events, such as hypersensitivity reaction, bone marrow toxicity, and peripheral neuropathy, were analyzed with the following signal detection algorithms: reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and logistic regression methods. Adverse outcome events and death outcome rates were compared between different taxane groups using Pearson's χ2 test, whereas significance was determined at P < 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsA total of 966 reports of hypersensitivity reactions, 1109 reports of bone marrow toxicity, and 1374 reports of peripheral neuropathy were analyzed. Compared with paclitaxel and docetaxel, bone marrow toxicity following the use of nab-paclitaxel had the highest ROR of 6.45 (95% two-sided CI, 6.05-6.88), PRR of 5.66, (χ2 = 4342.98), information component of 2.50 (95% one-sided CI = 2.34), and empirical Bayes geometric mean of 5.64 (95% one-sided CI = 5.34). Peripheral neuropathy following the use of nab-paclitaxel showed a higher ROR of 12.78 (95% two-sided CI, 11.55-14.14), PRR of 12.16 (χ2 = 4060.88), information component of 3.59 (95% one-sided CI = 3.25), and empirical Bayes geometric mean of 12.07 (95% one-sided CI = 11.09).ConclusionsThe results showed that bone marrow toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the major adverse events induced by taxanes. Nab-paclitaxel exhibited the highest potential for taxane-associated adverse events. Further research in the future is warranted to explain taxane-associated adverse effects in real-world circumstances.
| S-EPMC8213312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:What is known and objectiveEvidence on whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination could cause hearing-related adverse events is still conflicting. This study aims to access the association between COVID-19 vaccine and hearing disorder.MethodsThe Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was queried between January 2020 to November 2021. The disproportionality pattern for hearing impairment of COVID-19 vaccine was accessed by calculating the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and proportional reporting ratio (PRR). A further subgroup analysis based on the type of COVID-19 vaccine and the doses administered was performed. In addition, the disproportionalities for hearing dysfunction between COVID-19 and influenza vaccines were compared.Results and discussionA total of 14,956 reports of hearing-related adverse events were identified with COVID-19 vaccination and 151 with influenza vaccine during the analytic period in VAERS. The incidence of hearing disorder following COVID-19 vaccination was 6.66 per 100,000. The results of disproportionality analysis revealed that the adverse events of hearing impairment, after administration of COVID-19 vaccine, was significantly highly reported (ROR 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20-2.56; PRR: 2.35, χ2 537.58), for both mRNA (ROR 2.37, 95% CI 2.20-2.55; PRR 2.34, χ2 529.75) and virus vector vaccines (ROR 2.50, 95% CI 2.28-2.73; PRR 2.56, χ2 418.57). While the disproportional level for hearing dysfunction was quite lower in influenza vaccine (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.30-0.42; PRR 0.36, χ2 172.24).What is new and conclusionThis study identified increased risk for hearing disorder following administration of both mRNA and virus vector COVID-19 vaccines compared to influenza vaccination in real-world settings.
| S-EPMC9539140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy has been a growing challenge for public health in recent decades. Among factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy, concerns regarding vaccine safety and Adverse Events (AEs) play the leading role. Moreover, cognitive biases are critical in connecting such concerns to vaccine hesitancy behaviors, but their role has not been comprehensively studied. In this study, our first objective is to address concerns regarding vaccine AEs to increase vaccine acceptance. Our second objective is to identify the potential cognitive biases connecting vaccine hesitancy concerns to vaccine-hesitant behaviors and identify the mechanism they get triggered in the vaccine decision-making process.MethodsFirst, to mitigate concerns regarding AEs, we quantitatively analyzed the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 2011 to 2018 and provided evidence regarding the non-severity of the AEs that can be used as a communicable summary to increase vaccine acceptance. Second, we focused on the vaccination decision-making process. We reviewed cognitive biases and vaccine hesitancy literature to identify the most potential cognitive biases that affect vaccine hesitancy and categorized them adopting the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM).ResultsOur results show that the top frequent AEs are expected mild reactions like injection site erythema (4.29%), pyrexia (3.66%), and injection site swelling (3.21%). 94.5% of the reports are not serious and the average population-based serious reporting rate over the 8 years was 25.3 reports per 1 million population. We also identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect people's vaccination decision-making and nudge them toward vaccine hesitancy. We categorized these biases based on the factors that trigger them and discussed how they contribute to vaccine hesitancy.ConclusionsThis paper provided an evidence-based communicable summary of VAERS. As the most trusted sources of vaccine information, health practitioners can use this summary to provide evidence-based vaccine information to vaccine decision-makers (patients/parents) and mitigate concerns over vaccine safety and AEs. In addition, we identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect the vaccination decision-making process and nudge people toward vaccine hesitancy. Any plan, intervention, and message to increase vaccination uptake should be modified to decrease the effect of these potential cognitive biases.
| S-EPMC8444164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As a national public health surveillance resource, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a key component in ensuring the safety of vaccines. Numerous methods have been used to conduct safety studies with the VAERS database. These efforts focus on the downstream statistical analysis of the vaccine and adverse event associations. In this paper, we primarily focus on processing the raw data in VAERS before the analysis step, which is also an important part of the signal detection process. Due to the semi-annual update in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) coding system, adverse event terms that describe the same symptom might change in VAERS; therefore, we identify these terms and combine them to increase the signal detection power. We also consider the uncertainty of the vaccine and adverse event pairs that arise from reports with multiple vaccines. Finally, we discuss four commonly used statistics in assessing the vaccine and adverse event associations, and propose to use the statistics that are robust to the reporting bias in VAERS and adjust for potential confounders of the vaccine and adverse event association to increase signal detection accuracy.
| S-EPMC8054210 | biostudies-literature