2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Tolerance for three commonly administered COVID-19 vaccines by healthcare professionals

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Most healthcare institutions require employees to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and many also require at least one booster.

          Objective

          We determine the impact of vaccine type, demographics, and health conditions on COVID-19 vaccine side effects in healthcare professionals.

          Design

          A COVID-19 immunity study was performed at the 2021 American Association for Clinical Chemistry Annual Scientific meeting. As part of this study, a REDCap survey with cascading questions was administered from September 9, 2021 to October 20, 2021. General questions included participant demographics, past and present health conditions, smoking, exercise, and medications. COVID-19 specific questions asked about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine status and type, vaccine-associated side effects after each dose including any boosters, previous infection with COVID-19, diagnostic testing performed, and type and severity symptoms of COVID-19.

          Results

          There were 975 participants (47.1% male, median age of 50 years) who completed the survey. Pfizer was the most commonly administered vaccine (56.4%) followed by Moderna (32.0%) and Johnson & Johnson (7.1%). There were no significant differences in vaccine type received by age, health conditions, smoking, exercise, or type or number of prescription medications. Side effects were reported more frequently after second dose (e.g., Moderna or Pfizer) (54.1%) or single/only dose of Johnson & Johnson (47.8%). Males were significantly more likely to report no side effects ( p < 0.001), while females were significantly more likely to report injection site reactions ( p < 0.001), fatigue ( p < 0.001), headache ( p < 0.001), muscle pain ( p < 0.001), chills ( p = 0.001), fever ( p = 0.007), and nausea ( p < 0.001). There was a significant upward trend in participants reporting no side effects with increasing age ( p < 0.001). There were no significant trends in side effects among different races, ethnicities, health conditions, medications, smoking status or exercise. In multivariate logistic regressions analyses, the second dose of Moderna was associated with a significantly higher risk of side effects than both the second dose of Pfizer and the single dose of Johnson & Johnson.

          Conclusions and relevance

          Younger people, females, and those receiving the second dose of Moderna had more COVID-19 vaccine side effects that per self-report led to moderate to severe limitations. As reported in other studies, the increase in side effects from Moderna may be explained by higher viral mRNA concentrations but be associated with additional protective immunity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: a prospective observational study

          Background The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy in phase 3 trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines in a UK community setting. Methods In this prospective observational study, we examined the proportion and probability of self-reported systemic and local side-effects within 8 days of vaccination in individuals using the COVID Symptom Study app who received one or two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine or one dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. We also compared infection rates in a subset of vaccinated individuals subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2 with PCR or lateral flow tests with infection rates in unvaccinated controls. All analyses were adjusted by age (≤55 years vs >55 years), sex, health-care worker status (binary variable), obesity (BMI <30 kg/m 2 vs ≥30 kg/m 2 ), and comorbidities (binary variable, with or without comorbidities). Findings Between Dec 8, and March 10, 2021, 627 383 individuals reported being vaccinated with 655 590 doses: 282 103 received one dose of BNT162b2, of whom 28 207 received a second dose, and 345 280 received one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were reported by 13·5% (38 155 of 282 103) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 22·0% (6216 of 28 207) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 33·7% (116 473 of 345 280) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Local side-effects were reported by 71·9% (150 023 of 208 767) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 68·5% (9025 of 13 179) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 58·7% (104 282 of 177 655) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were more common (1·6 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 2·9 times after the first dose of BNT162b2) among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those without known past infection. Local effects were similarly higher in individuals previously infected than in those without known past infection (1·4 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 1·2 times after the first dose of BNT162b2). 3106 of 103 622 vaccinated individuals and 50 340 of 464 356 unvaccinated controls tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Significant reductions in infection risk were seen starting at 12 days after the first dose, reaching 60% (95% CI 49–68) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 69% (66–72) for BNT162b2 at 21–44 days and 72% (63–79) for BNT162b2 after 45–59 days. Interpretation Systemic and local side-effects after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination occur at frequencies lower than reported in phase 3 trials. Both vaccines decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 days. Funding ZOE Global, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation, American Gastroenterological Association.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study

            Background The first COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial setting was administered on Dec 8, 2020. To ensure global vaccine equity, vaccine targets were set by the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) Facility and WHO. However, due to vaccine shortfalls, these targets were not achieved by the end of 2021. We aimed to quantify the global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination programmes. Methods A mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission and vaccination was separately fit to reported COVID-19 mortality and all-cause excess mortality in 185 countries and territories. The impact of COVID-19 vaccination programmes was determined by estimating the additional lives lost if no vaccines had been distributed. We also estimated the additional deaths that would have been averted had the vaccination coverage targets of 20% set by COVAX and 40% set by WHO been achieved by the end of 2021. Findings Based on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that vaccinations prevented 14·4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13·7–15·9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021. This estimate rose to 19·8 million (95% Crl 19·1–20·4) deaths from COVID-19 averted when we used excess deaths as an estimate of the true extent of the pandemic, representing a global reduction of 63% in total deaths (19·8 million of 31·4 million) during the first year of COVID-19 vaccination. In COVAX Advance Market Commitment countries, we estimated that 41% of excess mortality (7·4 million [95% Crl 6·8–7·7] of 17·9 million deaths) was averted. In low-income countries, we estimated that an additional 45% (95% CrI 42–49) of deaths could have been averted had the 20% vaccination coverage target set by COVAX been met by each country, and that an additional 111% (105–118) of deaths could have been averted had the 40% target set by WHO been met by each country by the end of 2021. Interpretation COVID-19 vaccination has substantially altered the course of the pandemic, saving tens of millions of lives globally. However, inadequate access to vaccines in low-income countries has limited the impact in these settings, reinforcing the need for global vaccine equity and coverage. Funding Schmidt Science Fellowship in partnership with the Rhodes Trust; WHO; UK Medical Research Council; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; National Institute for Health Research; and Community Jameel.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              mRNA-lipid nanoparticle COVID-19 vaccines: structure and stability

              A drawback of the current mRNA-lipid nanoparticle (LNP) COVID-19 vaccines is that they have to be stored at (ultra)low temperatures. Understanding the root cause of the instability of these vaccines may help to rationally improve mRNA-LNP product stability and thereby ease the temperature conditions for storage. In this review we discuss proposed structures of mRNA-LNPs, factors that impact mRNA-LNP stability and strategies to optimize mRNA-LNP product stability. Analysis of mRNA-LNP structures reveals that mRNA, the ionizable cationic lipid and water are present in the LNP core. The neutral helper lipids are mainly positioned in the outer, encapsulating, wall. mRNA hydrolysis is the determining factor for mRNA-LNP instability. It is currently unknown whether water in the LNP core can interact with the mRNA and to what extent the degradation prone sites of mRNA are protected through a coat of ionizable cationic lipids. To improve the stability of mRNA-LNP vaccines, optimization of the mRNA nucleotide composition should be prioritized. Secondly, a better understanding of the milieu the mRNA is exposed to in the core of LNPs may help to rationalize adjustments to the LNP structure to preserve mRNA integrity. Moreover, drying techniques, such as lyophilization, are promising options still to be explored.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                27 September 2022
                2022
                27 September 2022
                : 10
                : 975781
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital , Boston, MA, United States
                [2] 2Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA, United States
                [3] 3Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Weill Cornell Medicine , New York, NY, United States
                [4] 4Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN, United States
                [5] 5Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester , Rochester, NY, United States
                [6] 6Department of Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center , Houston, TX, United States
                [7] 7Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, San Francisco , San Francisco, CA, United States
                [8] 8Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Hennepin Healthcare/Hennepin County Medical Center , Minneapolis, MN, United States
                [9] 9Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute , Minneapolis, MN, United States
                [10] 10American Association for Clinical Chemistry , Washington, DC, United States
                [11] 11Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt School of Medicine , Nashville, TN, United States
                [12] 12Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University , Atlanta, GA, United States
                [13] 13Department of Pathology, University of Maryland , Baltimore, MD, United States
                [14] 14University of Maryland School of Medicine , Baltimore, MD, United States
                [15] 15Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center , Rochester, NY, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Fuqiang Cui, Peking University, China

                Reviewed by: Faiz Ullah Khan, Xi'an Jiaotong University, China; Oana Sandulescu, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Romania

                *Correspondence: Stacy E. F. Melanson semelanson@ 123456bwh.harvard.edu
                Robert Christenson rchristenson@ 123456umm.edu

                This article was submitted to Infectious Diseases – Surveillance, Prevention and Treatment, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work and share senior authorship

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2022.975781
                9553122
                36238255
                b79c8253-0807-4fa0-8951-4c945cbc8047
                Copyright © 2022 Melanson, Zhao, Kumanovics, Love, Meng, Wu, Apple, Ondracek, Schulz, Wiencek, Koch, Christenson and Zhang.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 22 June 2022
                : 08 September 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 39, Pages: 12, Words: 7918
                Categories
                Public Health
                Original Research

                covid-19,sars-cov-2,vaccine,moderna,pfizer,johnson and johnson,side effects

                Comments

                Comment on this article