Self-reported reactogenicity of CoronaVac (Sinovac) compared with Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech): A prospective cohort study with intensive monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: CoronaVac (Sinovac) Covid-19 vaccine has recently been approved for emergency use by the World Health Organization. However, data on its reactogenicity in real-world settings is scant. This study aimed to compare self-reported post-vaccination adverse reactions between CoronaVac and Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech). METHODS: We adopted a prospective cohort study design using online surveys from the day of first-dose vaccination with intensive follow-up through two weeks after the second dose (11 time points). The primary outcome was adverse reactions (any versus none) and secondary outcomes were the sub-categories of adverse reactions (local, systemic, and severe allergic reactions). Potential effect modification across multimorbidity status, older age, and sex was examined. RESULTS: In total, 2,098 participants who were scheduled to complete the 14th-day survey were included, with 46.2% receiving Comirnaty. Retention rate two weeks after the second dose was 81.0% for the CoronaVac group and 83.6% for the Comirnaty group. Throughout the follow-up period, 801 (82.7%) of those receiving Comirnaty and 543 (48.1%) of those receiving CoronaVac reported adverse reactions. Adjusted analysis suggested that compared with Comirnaty, CoronaVac was associated with 83%-reduced odds of any adverse reactions [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.20], 92%-reduced odds of local adverse reactions (AOR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.06-0.09), and 76%-reduced odds of systemic adverse reactions (AOR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.16-0.28). No significant effect modification was identified. CONCLUSION: This post-marketing study comparing the reactogenicity of Covid-19 vaccines suggests a lower risk of self-reported adverse reactions following vaccination with CoronaVac compared with Comirnaty.

Transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome on aircraft.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) spread rapidly around the world, largely because persons infected with the SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) traveled on aircraft to distant cities. Although many infected persons traveled on commercial aircraft, the risk, if any, of in-flight transmission is unknown. METHODS: We attempted to interview passengers and crew members at least 10 days after they had taken one of three flights that transported a patient or patients with SARS. All index patients met the criteria of the World Health Organization for a probable case of SARS, and index or secondary cases were confirmed to be positive for SARS-CoV on reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction or serologic testing. RESULTS: After one flight carrying a symptomatic person and 119 other persons, laboratory-confirmed SARS developed in 16 persons, 2 others were given diagnoses of probable SARS, and 4 were reported to have SARS but could not be interviewed. Among the 22 persons with illness, the mean time from the flight to the onset of symptoms was four days (range, two to eight), and there were no recognized exposures to patients with SARS before or after the flight. Illness in passengers was related to the physical proximity to the index patient, with illness reported in 8 of the 23 persons who were seated in the three rows in front of the index patient, as compared with 10 of the 88 persons who were seated elsewhere (relative risk, 3.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 6.9). In contrast, another flight carrying four symptomatic persons resulted in transmission to at most one other person, and no illness was documented in passengers on the flight that carried a person who had presymptomatic SARS. CONCLUSIONS: Transmission of SARS may occur on an aircraft when infected persons fly during the symptomatic phase of illness. Measures to reduce the risk of transmission are warranted.