Cargando…

Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study

BACKGROUND: In the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple vaccines were developed. Little was known about reactogenicity and safety in comparison to established vaccines, e.g. influenza, pneumococcus, or herpes zoster. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare self-reported side effects in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Werner, Felix, Zeschick, Nikoletta, Kühlein, Thomas, Steininger, Philipp, Überla, Klaus, Kaiser, Isabelle, Sebastião, Maria, Hueber, Susann, Warkentin, Lisette
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10510262/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37726711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03064-6
_version_ 1785107930493747200
author Werner, Felix
Zeschick, Nikoletta
Kühlein, Thomas
Steininger, Philipp
Überla, Klaus
Kaiser, Isabelle
Sebastião, Maria
Hueber, Susann
Warkentin, Lisette
author_facet Werner, Felix
Zeschick, Nikoletta
Kühlein, Thomas
Steininger, Philipp
Überla, Klaus
Kaiser, Isabelle
Sebastião, Maria
Hueber, Susann
Warkentin, Lisette
author_sort Werner, Felix
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple vaccines were developed. Little was known about reactogenicity and safety in comparison to established vaccines, e.g. influenza, pneumococcus, or herpes zoster. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare self-reported side effects in persons vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with the incidence of side effects in persons receiving one of the established vaccines. METHODS: A longitudinal observational study was conducted over a total of 124 days using web-based surveys. Persons receiving either a vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 or one of the established vaccines (comparator group) were included. In the first questionnaire (short-term survey), 2 weeks after vaccination, mainly local and systemic complaints were evaluated. The long-term survey (42 days after vaccination) and follow-up survey (124 weeks after vaccination) focused on medical consultations for any reason. Multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the vaccine type (SARS-CoV-2 vs. comparator) and demographic factors. RESULTS: In total, data from 16,636 participants were included. Self-reported reactogenicity was lowest in the comparator group (53.2%) and highest in the ChAdOx1 group (85.3%). Local reactions were reported most frequently after mRNA-1273 (73.9%) and systemic reactions mainly after vector-based vaccines (79.8%). Almost all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines showed increased odds of reporting local or systemic reactions. Approximately equal proportions of participants reported medical consultations. None in the comparator group suspected a link to vaccination, while this was true for just over one in 10 in the mRNA-1273 group. The multivariate analysis showed that people with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were not more likely to report medical consultations; patients who had received a regimen with at least one ChAdOx1 were even less likely to report medical consultations. Younger age, female gender and higher comorbidity were mostly associated with higher odds of medical consultations. CONCLUSION: The rate of adverse reactions after established vaccinations was roughly comparable to previous studies. Two weeks after vaccination, participants in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination group reported more local and systemic local reactions than participants in the comparator group. In the further course, however, there were no higher odds of medical consultations in either of the two groups. Thus, altogether, we assume comparable safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS-ID DRKS00025881 and DRKS-ID DRKS00025373. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-023-03064-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10510262
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105102622023-09-21 Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study Werner, Felix Zeschick, Nikoletta Kühlein, Thomas Steininger, Philipp Überla, Klaus Kaiser, Isabelle Sebastião, Maria Hueber, Susann Warkentin, Lisette BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: In the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple vaccines were developed. Little was known about reactogenicity and safety in comparison to established vaccines, e.g. influenza, pneumococcus, or herpes zoster. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare self-reported side effects in persons vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with the incidence of side effects in persons receiving one of the established vaccines. METHODS: A longitudinal observational study was conducted over a total of 124 days using web-based surveys. Persons receiving either a vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 or one of the established vaccines (comparator group) were included. In the first questionnaire (short-term survey), 2 weeks after vaccination, mainly local and systemic complaints were evaluated. The long-term survey (42 days after vaccination) and follow-up survey (124 weeks after vaccination) focused on medical consultations for any reason. Multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the vaccine type (SARS-CoV-2 vs. comparator) and demographic factors. RESULTS: In total, data from 16,636 participants were included. Self-reported reactogenicity was lowest in the comparator group (53.2%) and highest in the ChAdOx1 group (85.3%). Local reactions were reported most frequently after mRNA-1273 (73.9%) and systemic reactions mainly after vector-based vaccines (79.8%). Almost all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines showed increased odds of reporting local or systemic reactions. Approximately equal proportions of participants reported medical consultations. None in the comparator group suspected a link to vaccination, while this was true for just over one in 10 in the mRNA-1273 group. The multivariate analysis showed that people with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were not more likely to report medical consultations; patients who had received a regimen with at least one ChAdOx1 were even less likely to report medical consultations. Younger age, female gender and higher comorbidity were mostly associated with higher odds of medical consultations. CONCLUSION: The rate of adverse reactions after established vaccinations was roughly comparable to previous studies. Two weeks after vaccination, participants in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination group reported more local and systemic local reactions than participants in the comparator group. In the further course, however, there were no higher odds of medical consultations in either of the two groups. Thus, altogether, we assume comparable safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS-ID DRKS00025881 and DRKS-ID DRKS00025373. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-023-03064-6. BioMed Central 2023-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC10510262/ /pubmed/37726711 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03064-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Werner, Felix
Zeschick, Nikoletta
Kühlein, Thomas
Steininger, Philipp
Überla, Klaus
Kaiser, Isabelle
Sebastião, Maria
Hueber, Susann
Warkentin, Lisette
Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study
title Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study
title_full Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study
title_fullStr Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study
title_short Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study
title_sort patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of covid-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10510262/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37726711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03064-6
work_keys_str_mv AT wernerfelix patientreportedreactogenicityandsafetyofcovid19vaccinationsvscomparatorvaccinationsacomparativeobservationalcohortstudy
AT zeschicknikoletta patientreportedreactogenicityandsafetyofcovid19vaccinationsvscomparatorvaccinationsacomparativeobservationalcohortstudy
AT kuhleinthomas patientreportedreactogenicityandsafetyofcovid19vaccinationsvscomparatorvaccinationsacomparativeobservationalcohortstudy
AT steiningerphilipp patientreportedreactogenicityandsafetyofcovid19vaccinationsvscomparatorvaccinationsacomparativeobservationalcohortstudy
AT uberlaklaus patientreportedreactogenicityandsafetyofcovid19vaccinationsvscomparatorvaccinationsacomparativeobservationalcohortstudy
AT kaiserisabelle patientreportedreactogenicityandsafetyofcovid19vaccinationsvscomparatorvaccinationsacomparativeobservationalcohortstudy
AT sebastiaomaria patientreportedreactogenicityandsafetyofcovid19vaccinationsvscomparatorvaccinationsacomparativeobservationalcohortstudy
AT huebersusann patientreportedreactogenicityandsafetyofcovid19vaccinationsvscomparatorvaccinationsacomparativeobservationalcohortstudy
AT warkentinlisette patientreportedreactogenicityandsafetyofcovid19vaccinationsvscomparatorvaccinationsacomparativeobservationalcohortstudy