Dataset Information

Analysis of immunization time, amplitude, and adverse events of seven different vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 across four different countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Scarce information exists in relation to the comparison of seroconversion and adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Our aim was to correlate the magnitude of the antibody response to vaccination with previous clinical conditions and AEFI.

Methods

A multicentric comparative study where SARS-CoV-2 spike 1-2 IgG antibodies IgG titers were measured at baseline, 21-28 days after the first and second dose (when applicable) of the following vaccines: BNT162b2 mRNA, mRNA-1273, Gam-COVID-Vac, Coronavac, ChAdOx1-S, Ad5-nCoV and Ad26.COV2. Mixed model and Poisson generalized linear models were performed.

Results

We recruited 1867 individuals [52 (SD 16.8) years old, 52% men]. All vaccines enhanced anti-S1 and anti-S2 IgG antibodies over time (p<0.01). The highest increase after the first and second dose was observed in mRNA-1273 (p<0.001). There was an effect of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection; and an interaction of age with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, Gam-COVID-Vac and ChAdOx1-S (p<0.01). There was a negative correlation of Severe or Systemic AEFI (AEs) of naïve SARS-CoV-2 subjects with age and sex (p<0.001); a positive interaction between the delta of antibodies with Gam-COVID-Vac (p=0.002). Coronavac, Gam-COVID-Vac and ChAdOx1-S had less AEs compared to BNT162b (p<0.01). mRNA-1273 had the highest number of AEFIs. The delta of the antibodies showed an association with AEFIs in previously infected individuals (p<0.001).

Conclusions

The magnitude of seroconversion is predicted by age, vaccine type and SARS-CoV-2 exposure. AEs are correlated with age, sex, and vaccine type. The delta of the antibody response only correlates with AEs in patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

Registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05228912.

SUBMITTER: Romero-Ibarguengoitia ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9367469 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analysis of immunization time, amplitude, and adverse events of seven different vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 across four different countries.

Romero-Ibarguengoitia Maria Elena ME González-Cantú Arnulfo A Pozzi Chiara C Levi Riccardo R Mollura Maximiliano M Sarti Riccardo R Sanz-Sánchez Miguel Ángel MÁ Rivera-Salinas Diego D Hernández-Ruíz Yodira Guadalupe YG Armendariz-Vázquez Ana Gabriela AG Del Rio-Parra Gerardo Francisco GF Barco-Flores Irene Antonieta IA González-Facio Rosalinda R Azzolini Elena E Barbieri Riccardo R de Azevedo Dias Alessandro Rodrigo AR Henriques Guimarães Júnior Milton M Bastos-Borges Alessandra A Acciardi Cecilia C Paez-Bo Graciela G Teixeira Mauro Martins MM Rescigno Maria M

Frontiers in immunology 20220728

<h4>Background</h4>Scarce information exists in relation to the comparison of seroconversion and adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Our aim was to correlate the magnitude of the antibody response to vaccination with previous clinical conditions and AEFI.<h4>Methods</h4>A multicentric comparative study where SARS-CoV-2 spike 1-2 IgG antibodies IgG titers were measured at baseline, 21-28 days after the first and second dose (when applicable) of the fol ...[more]

PMID: 35967368

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe rapid rollout of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for a large proportion of the population necessitates a strong emphasis on safety. Complementary to the existing spontaneous reporting system, The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb conducted patient-reported cohort event monitoring (CEM).ObjectiveThe primary aim was to investigate differences in the frequencies of any and commonly reported, 'well-known', systemic adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) with four COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer's Comirnaty®, Moderna's Spikevax®, AstraZeneca's Vaxzevria® and the Janssen vaccine). As a secondary aim, we analyzed the frequencies of well-known systemic adverse events after the first and, if applicable, second COVID-19 vaccinations, taking into account age, sex and prior COVID-19 infection.MethodsPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the Netherlands starting in February 2021 were analyzed using a prospective cohort design.ResultsData of 27,554 participants who received one vaccination and 20,682 participants who received complete immunization were analyzed. The percentage of patients reporting any AEFI was high and ranged from approximately 53% for the Pfizer vaccine to approximately 94% for the Moderna vaccine. The frequency of serious AEFIs was low, with the highest frequency found for the AstraZeneca vaccine (0.228%). AEFIs were most often experienced by participants receiving the first dose of the AstraZeneca and Janssen vaccines and the second dose of the Moderna vaccine; the Pfizer vaccine was associated with the lowest rate of AEFIs. Participants with a COVID-19 history before vaccination experienced commonly reported systemic AEFIs more frequently after the first vaccination than after the second vaccination. Women and young people experienced more AEFIs than men and older people, respectively.ConclusionsThe analysis of a large cohort provides important information about the rates of AEFIs across age groups, among brands of vaccines and between those with and without prior COVID-19 infection. Participants reported a high number of AEFIs in general, but the frequency of serious AEFIs was low.

Project description:IntroductionCOVID-19 vaccines were rapidly authorised, thus requiring intense post-marketing re-evaluation of their benefit-risk profile. A multi-national European collaboration was established with the aim to prospectively monitor safety of the COVID-19 vaccines through web-based survey of vaccinees.MethodsA prospective cohort event monitoring study was conducted with primary consented data collection in seven European countries. Through the web applications, participants received and completed baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires on self-reported adverse reactions for at least 6 months following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, Italy) and baseline and up to ten follow-up questionnaires for one year in Germany and Croatia. Rates of adverse reactions have been described by type (solicited, non-solicited; serious/non-serious; and adverse events of special interest) and stratified by vaccine brand. We calculated the frequency of adverse reaction after dose 1 and prior to dose 2 among all vaccinees who completed at least one follow-up questionnaire.ResultsOverall, 117,791 participants were included and completed the first questionnaire in addition to the baseline: 88,196 (74.9%) from Germany, 27,588 (23.4%) from Netherlands, 984 (0.8%) from France, 570 (0.5%) from Italy, 326 (0.3%) from Croatia, 89 (0.1%) from the UK and 38 (0.03%) from Belgium. There were 89,377 (75.9%) respondents who had received AstraZeneca vaccines, 14,658 (12.4%) BioNTech/Pfizer, 11,266 (9.6%) Moderna and 2490 (2.1%) Janssen vaccines as a first dose. Median age category was 40-49 years for all vaccines except for Pfizer where median age was 70-79 years. Most vaccinees were female with a female-to-male ratio of 1.34, 1.96 and 2.50 for AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen, respectively. BioNtech/Pfizer had slightly more men with a ratio of 0.82. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported solicited systemic adverse reactions and injection-site pain was the most common solicited local reaction. The rates of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were 0.1-0.2% across all vaccine brands.ConclusionThis large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients showed, for all the studied vaccines, a high frequency of systemic reactions, related to the immunogenic response, and local reactions at the injection site, while serious reactions or AESIs were uncommon, consistent with those reported on product labels. This study demonstrated the feasibility of setting up and conducting cohort event monitoring across multiple European countries to collect safety data on novel vaccines that are rolled out at scale in populations which may not have been included in pivotal trials.

Project description:ObjectiveTo analyze rates of reported severe adverse events after immunization (sAEFI) attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the United States (US) using safety surveillance data.MethodsObservational study of sAEFI reported to the vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS) between December 13, 2020, to December 13, 2021, and attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programs across all US states and territories. All sAEFI in conjunction with mRNA (BNT-162b2 or mRNA-1273) or adenovector (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccines were included. The 28-day crude cumulative rates for reported emergency department (ED) visits and sAEFI viz. hospitalizations, life-threatening events and deaths following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were calculated. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of reported sAEFI were compared between mRNA and adenovector vaccines using generalized Poisson regression models.ResultsDuring the study period, 485 million SARS-CoV-2 vaccines doses were administered nationwide, and 88,626 sAEFI reported in VAERS. The 28-day crude cumulative reporting rates per 100,000 doses were 14.97 (95% confidence interval, 14.86-18.38) for ED visits, 5.32 (5.26-5.39) for hospitalizations, 1.72 (1.68-1.76) for life-threatening events, and 1.08 (1.05-1.11) for deaths. Females had two-fold rates for any reported AEFI compared to males, but lower adjusted IRRs for sAEFI. Cumulative rates per dose for reported sAEFI attributed to adenovector vaccine were 2-3-fold higher, and adjusted IRRs 1.5-fold higher than mRNA vaccines.ConclusionsOverall cumulative rates for reported sAEFI following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the US over 1 year were very low; single-dose adenovector vaccine had 1.5-fold higher adjusted rates for reported sAEFI, which may however equate with multiple-doses mRNA vaccine regimens. These data indicate absence of high risks of sAEFI following SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and support safety equipoise between mRNA and adenovector vaccines. Public health messaging of these data is critical to overcome heuristic biases. Furthermore, these data may support ongoing adenovector vaccine use, especially in low- and middle-income countries due to affordability, logistical and cold chain challenges.

Project description:Many countries recommend combined tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis immunization (Tdap) during pregnancy to stimulate transplacental transmission of pertussis antibodies to newborns. The immune system can be altered during pregnancy, potentially resulting in differing immunization risks in pregnant women. The safety of widespread Tdap immunization during pregnancy needs to be established. Our objective was to assess whether prenatal Tdap immunization was associated with adverse birth outcomes, and to evaluate the effect of timing of Tdap administration on these outcomes. We identified pregnancies at delivery in a large insurance claims database (2010-2014). Tdap immunization was categorized as optimal prenatal (27+weeks), early prenatal (<27weeks), postpartum (≤7days post-delivery), or none. Medical claims were searched to identify maternal adverse immunization reactions (e.g. anaphylaxis, fever, Guillian-Barre syndrome [GBS]), adverse birth outcomes (e.g. preeclampsia/eclampsia, premature rupture or membranes, chorioamnionitis) and newborn outcomes (e.g. respiratory distress, pulmonary hypertension, neonatal jaundice). Women with optimal or early prenatal Tdap were compared to those not immunized in pregnancy, using propensity score-weighted log-binomial regression and Cox proportional hazards models to estimate risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR). We identified 1,079,034 deliveries and 677,075 linked newborns; 11.5% were immunized optimally and 2.3% immunized early. There were 1 case of post-immunization anaphylaxis, and 12 cases of maternal encephalopathy (all post- delivery); there were no cases of GBS. Optimally-timed immunization was associated with small increased relative risks of: chorioamnionitis [RR=1.11, (95% CI: 1.07-1.15), overall risk=2.8%], and postpartum hemorrhage [RR=1.23 (95% DI: 1.18-1.28), overall risk=2.4%]; however, these relative increases corresponded to low absolute risk increases. Tdap was not associated with increased risk of any adverse newborn outcome. Overall, prenatal Tdap immunization was not associated with newborn adverse events, but potential associations with chorioamnionitis consistent with one previous study and postpartum hemorrhage require further investigation.

Project description:BackgroundWith over 80% of children worldwide vaccinated, concerns about vaccine safety continues to be a public health issue. Ghana's Adverse Events Following Immunization surveillance started in 1978 with the objective to promptly detect and manage AEFI cases either real or perceived. Periodic evaluation of the surveillance system is critical for optimal performance; hence we evaluated the system to assess its attributes, usefulness and system's performance in meeting its objectives.MethodsA case of AEFI was defined as any untoward medical event occurring within 28 days after vaccination and may not necessarily have causal relationship with the vaccine use. We reviewed surveillance data and procedures for the period 2014 to 2018 and interviewed key stakeholders. Adapting the CDC's Updated Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems, we assessed the system's attributes and usefulness. We performed summary descriptive statistics on quantitative data and directed content analysis on information gathered from interviews.ResultsIn all, 2,282 AEFI cases including 476 (21%) serious cases (life threatening events) were reported for the period. The highest case detection rates of 61.45 AEFIs per 100,000 surviving infants was recorded in 2018. Reporting forms were modified to accommodate new indicators without any disruption in the function of the system. At the national level, completeness of 100 randomly sampled reporting forms (100%) and was higher than the region (27%) but timeliness (50%) was lower than the region (83%). All (16/16) Community Health Nurses interviewed indicated "fear of being victimized" as the reason for underreporting, nonetheless, the system was useful as it made them cautious when vaccinating children to prevent reactions. Data on AEFI surveillance was also useful in guiding training needs and provision of vaccination logistics.ConclusionThe AEFI surveillance system is useful at all levels but partially meeting its objective due to underreporting. We recommend training and supportive supervision to improve timeliness of reporting, data completeness and acceptability.

Project description:The analysis of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) is important in a balanced epidemiological evaluation of vaccines and in the issues related to vaccine injury compensation programs. The majority of adverse reactions to vaccines occur as excessive or biased inflammatory and immune responses. These unwanted phenomena, occasionally severe, are associated with many different endogenous and exogenous factors, which often interact in complex ways. The confirmation or denial of the causal link between an AEFI and vaccination is determined pursuant to WHO guidelines, which propose a four-step analysis and algorithmic diagramming. The evaluation process from the onset considers all possible "other causes" that might explain the AEFI and thus exclude the role of the vaccine. Subsequently, even if there was biological plausibility and temporal compatibility for a causal association between the vaccine and the AEFI, the guidelines ask to look for any possible evidence that the vaccine could not have caused that event. Such an algorithmic method presents several concerns that are discussed here, in the light of the multifactorial nature of the inflammatory and immune pathologies induced by vaccines, including emerging knowledge of genetic susceptibility to adverse effects. It is proposed that the causality assessment could exclude a consistent association of the adverse event with the vaccine only when the presumed "other cause" is independent of an interaction with the vaccine. Furthermore, the scientific literature should be viewed not as an exclusion criterion but as a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence for or against the role of the vaccine in causing an adverse reaction. Given these inadequacies in the evaluation of multifactorial diseases, the WHO guidelines need to be reevaluated and revised. These issues are discussed in relation to the laws that, in some countries, regulate the mandatory vaccinations and the compensation for those who have suffered serious adverse effects.

Dataset Information

Analysis of immunization time, amplitude, and adverse events of seven different vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 across four different countries.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Registration number

Publications

Analysis of immunization time, amplitude, and adverse events of seven different vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 across four different countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets