Neonatal and maternal outcomes of mRNA versus Non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of non-mRNA versus mRNA COVID-19 vaccines on pregnant women and their newborns in a systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central in May 2023. Study selection: The search strategy yielded 4451 results, 16 studies were fully reviewed. We selected case-control studies analysing non-mRNA versus mRNA vaccines. Data collection and analysis: we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Standardised mean differences were pooled using random-effect models. Data synthesis: We identified 8 prospective and retrospective studies with a total of 32,153 patients. Non-mRNA vaccines were associated with a higher incidence of fever (OR 2.67; 95% CI 2.08-3.43; p<0.001), and a lower incidence of fetal or neonatal death (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08-0.33; p<0.001). In subgroup analyses, the Jansen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) was found to have a higher rate of premature labor/delivery (OR 4.48; 95% CI 1.45-13.83; p=0.009) and missed/spontaneous abortion (OR 1.90; 95% CI 1.09-3.30; p=0.02), as compared with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) vaccine. Conclusion: non-mRNA vaccines are associated with a lower incidence of fetal or neonatal death among pregnant women who receive a Covid19 vaccine, although at an increased rate of pyrexia compared with mRNA vaccines. Other studies are required for better assessment. PROSPERO: CRD42023421814.

Anti-PF4 positivity and platelet activation after Ad26.COV2·S vaccination in Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: The Ad26.COV2·S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine, has been rarely associated with vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT). We investigated the prevalence of anti-PF4 antibody positivity, thrombocytopenia, D-dimer elevation, plasmatic thromboinflammatory markers, and platelet functional assays following Ad26.COV2·S vaccination in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. METHODS: From July to September 2021, participants were assessed prior, 1, and 3 weeks post-vaccination. Platelet count and D-dimer were measured at each visit and anti-PF4 at week 3. A positive anti-PF4 prompted retrospective testing of the sample from week 0. Individuals with new thrombocytopenia or elevated D-dimer, positive anti-PF4, and 38 matched controls without laboratory abnormalities were evaluated for plasmatic p-selectin, tissue factor, and functional platelet activation assays. RESULTS: 630 individuals were included; 306 (48.57%) females, median age 28 years. Forty-two (6.67%) presented ≥1 laboratory abnormality in week 1 or 3. Five (0.79%) had thrombocytopenia, 31 (4.91%) elevated D-dimer, and 9 (1.57%) had positive anti-PF4 at week 3. Individuals with laboratory abnormalities and controls showed a slight increase in plasmatic p-selectin and tissue factor. Ten individuals with laboratory abnormalities yielded increased surface expression of p-selectin, and their ability to activate platelets in a FcγRIIa dependent manner was further evaluated. Two were partially inhibited by high concentrations of heparin and blockage of FcγRII with IV.3 antibody. Plasma obtained before vaccination produced similar results, suggesting a lack of association with vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with Ad26.COV2·S vaccine led to a very low frequency of low-titer positive anti-PF4 antibodies, elevation of D-dimer, and mild thrombocytopenia, with no associated clinically relevant increase in thromboinflammatory markers and platelet activation.

Ear abnormalities in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), Coronavirus-19 infectious disease (COVID) and long-COVID syndrome (PCS), sick-building syndrome (SBS), post-orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (PoTS), and autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA): A systematic review.

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), silicone breast implants (SBI), Coronavirus-19 infectious disease (COVID), COVID-19 vaccination (post-COVIDvac-syndrome), Long-COVID syndrome (PCS), sick-building syndrome (SBS), post-orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (PoTS), and autoimmune/ inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) are a cluster of poorly understood medical conditions that have in common a group of ill-defined symptoms and dysautonomic features. Most of the clinical findings of this group of diseases are unspecific, such as fatigue, diffuse pain, cognitive impairment, paresthesia, tachycardia, anxiety, and depression. Hearing disturbances and vertigo have also been described in this context, the underlying pathophysiologic process for these conditions might rely on autonomic autoimmune dysbalance. The authors procced a literature review regarding to hearing and labyrinthic disturbances in CSF, FM, SBI, COVID, post-COVIDvac-syndrome, PCS, SBS, POTS, and ASIA. The PRISMA guidelines were followed, and the literature reviewed encompassed papers from January 1990 to January 2024. After the initial evaluation of the articles found in the search through Pubmed, Scielo and Embase, a total of 172 articles were read and included in this review. The prevalence of hearing loss, dizziness, vertigo and tinnitus was described and correlated with the diseases investigated in this study. There are great variability in the frequencies of symptoms found, but cochlear complaints are the most frequent in most studies. Vestibular symptoms are less reported. The main pathophysiological mechanisms are discussed. Direct effects of the virus in the inner ear or nervous pathways, impaired vascular perfusion, cross-reaction or autoimmune immunoreactivity, oxidative stress, DNA methylation, epigenetic modifications and gene activation were implicated in the generation of the investigated symptoms. In clinical practice, all patients with these autoimmune conditions who have any audiological complaint an ENT consultation followed by an audiometry are needed.

Comparison of Adverse Events and Antibody Responses Among Different COVID-19 Vaccination Schedules.

Global investment in developing COVID-19 vaccines has been substantial, but vaccine hesitancy has emerged due to misinformation. Concerns about adverse events, vaccine shortages, dosing confusion, mixing vaccines, and access issues contribute to hesitancy. Initially, the WHO recommended homologous vaccination (same vaccine for both doses), but evolving factors led to consideration of heterologous vaccination (different vaccines). The study compared reactogenicity and antibody response for both viral protein spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) in 205 participants who received three vaccination regimens: same vaccine for all doses (Pfizer), two initial doses of the same vaccine (CoronaVac or AstraZeneca), and a Pfizer booster. ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 vaccines were the most reactogenic vaccines, while CoronaVac vaccine was the least. ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 achieved 100% of S-IgG seropositivity with one dose, while CoronaVac required two doses, emphasizing the importance of the second dose in achieving complete immunization across the population with different vaccine regimes. Pfizer recipients showed the highest S-IgG antibody titers, followed by AstraZeneca recipients, both after the first and second doses. A third vaccine dose was essential to boost the S-IgG antibodies and equalize the antibody levels among the different vaccine schedules. CoronaVac induced N-IgG antibodies, while in the Pfizer and AstraZeneca groups, they were induced by a natural infection, reinforcing the role of N protein as a biomarker of infection.

Safety of CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: data from the Brazilian multicentric study safer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs) have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination to mitigate the infection severity risks. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, especially those under immunosuppression or with associated comorbidities. However, few studies have assessed the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with RA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with RA. METHODS: This data are from the study "Safety and Efficacy on COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Diseases," a Brazilian multicentric prospective phase IV study to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine in IMRDs in Brazil. Adverse events (AEs) in patients with RA of all centers were assessed after two doses of ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) or CoronaVac (Sinovac/Butantan). Stratification of postvaccination AEs was performed using a diary, filled out daily and returned at the end of 28 days for each dose. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients with RA were include, 90% female. CoronaVac was used in 109 patients and ChAdOx1 in 79. Only mild AEs were observed, mainly after the first dose. The most common AEs after the first dose were pain at the injection (46,7%), headache (39,4%), arthralgia (39,4%), myalgia (30,5%) and fatigue (26,6%), and ChAdOx1 had a higher frequency of pain at the injection (66% vs 32 %, p < 0.001) arthralgia (62% vs 22%, p < 0.001) and myalgia (45% vs 20%, p < 0.001) compared to CoronaVac. The more common AEs after the second dose were pain at the injection (37%), arthralgia (31%), myalgia (23%), headache (21%) and fatigue (18%). Arthralgia (41,4% vs 25%, p = 0.02) and pain at injection (51,4% vs 27%, p = 0.001) were more common with ChAdOx1. No serious AEs were related. With Regard to RA activity level, no significant difference was observed between the three time periods for both COVID-19 vaccines. CONCLUSION: In the comparison between the two immunizers in patients with RA, local reactions and musculoskeletal symptoms were more frequent with ChAdOx1 than with CoronaVac, especially after the first dose. In summary, the AE occurred mainly after the first dose, and were mild, like previous data from others immunizing agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Vaccination did not worsen the degree of disease activity.

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of CoronaVac® in children and adolescents aged 6 months to 17 years: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial.

Safe and effective vaccines against COVID-19 for children and adolescents are needed. This international multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trial assessed the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of CoronaVac® in children and adolescents (NCT04992260). The study was carried out in Chile, South Africa, Malaysia, and the Philippines. The enrollment ran from September 10, 2021 to March 25, 2022. For efficacy assessment, the median follow-up duration from 14 days after the second dose was 169 days. A total of 11,349 subjects were enrolled. Two 3-µg injections of CoronaVac® or placebo were given 28 days apart. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of the CoronaVac®. The secondary endpoints were the immunogenicity and safety. The vaccine efficacy was 21.02% (95% CI: 1.65, 36.67). The level of neutralizing antibody in the vaccine group was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (GMT: 390.80 vs. 62.20, P <0.0001). Most adverse reactions were mild or moderate. All the severe adverse events were determined to be unrelated to the investigational products. In conclusion, in the Omicron-dominate period, a two-dose schedule of 3 µg CoronaVac® was found to be safe and immunogenic, and showed potential against symptomatic COVID-19 in healthy children and adolescents.

Atypical hemolytic-uremic syndrome after COVID-19 vaccine: A case report.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants and the global COVID-19 pandemic spurred urgent vaccine development. While common vaccine side effects are well-documented, rare adverse events necessitate post-marketing surveillance. Recent research linked messenger RNA vaccines to thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), a group of syndromes characterized by microvascular hemolytic anemia and thrombocytopenia. This report describes a new-onset atypical hemolytic-uremic syndrome (aHUS) occurring after COVID-19 vaccination and complements recent literature. CASE PRESENTATION: A previously healthy 25-year-old woman developed malaise, nausea, edema, and renal dysfunction 60 days postvaccination. Laboratory findings confirmed TMA diagnosis. Genetic testing for complement system mutations was negative. Kidney biopsy supported the diagnosis, and the patient required hemodialysis. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the rare occurrence of aHUS following COVID-19 vaccination, with unique characteristics compared to previous reports. Despite the critical role of vaccination in pandemic control, emerging adverse events, such as vaccine-related TMA, must be recognized and investigated. Additional clinical trials are imperative to comprehend the clinical features and pathophysiological mechanisms underlying TMA associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

Safety and Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines During Pregnancy: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant persons are susceptible to significant complications following COVID-19, even death. However, worldwide COVID-19 vaccination coverage during pregnancy remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines administered to pregnant persons and shared this evidence via an interactive online website. METHODS: We followed Cochrane methods to conduct this living systematic review. We included studies assessing the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons. We conducted searches every other week for studies until October 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status, in ten databases, guidelines, preprint servers, and COVID-19 websites. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched to identify additional relevant studies. Pairs of review authors independently selected eligible studies using the web-based software COVIDENCE. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by pairs of authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of adjusted relative effects for relevant confounders of comparative studies and proportional meta-analyses to summarize frequencies from one-sample studies using R statistical software. We present the GRADE certainty of evidence from comparative studies. Findings are available on an interactive living systematic review webpage, including an updated evidence map and real-time meta-analyses customizable by subgroups and filters. RESULTS: We included 177 studies involving 638,791 participants from 41 countries. Among the 11 types of COVID-19 vaccines identified, the most frequently used platforms were mRNA (154 studies), viral vector (51), and inactivated virus vaccines (17). Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination may result in minimal to no important differences compared to no vaccination in all assessed maternal and infant safety outcomes from 26 fewer to 17 more events per 1000 pregnant persons, and 13 fewer to 9 more events per 1000 neonates, respectively. We found statistically significant reductions in emergency cesarean deliveries (9%) with mRNA vaccines, and in stillbirth (75-83%) with mRNA/viral vector vaccines. Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination during pregnancy with mRNA vaccines may reduce severe cases or hospitalizations in pregnant persons with COVID-19 (72%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 42-86), symptomatic COVID-19 (78%; 95% CI 21-94), and virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (82%; 95% CI 39-95). Reductions were lower with other vaccine types and during Omicron variant dominance than Alpha and Delta dominance. Infants also presented with fewer severe cases or hospitalizations due to COVID-19 and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (64%; 95% CI 37-80 and 66%; 95% CI 37-81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found a large body of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. While the certainty of evidence is not high, it stands as the most reliable option available, given the current absence of pregnant individuals in clinical trials. Results are shared in near real time in an accessible and interactive format for scientists, decision makers, clinicians, and the general public. This living systematic review highlights the relevance of continuous vaccine safety and effectiveness monitoring, particularly in at-risk populations for COVID-19 impact such as pregnant persons, during the introduction of new vaccines. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021281290.

Anti-COVID-19 Vaccination Alters the Menstrual Cycle and Dose Accumulation Enhances the Effect.

Background and Objectives: New investigations have detected an enhanced probability for women to develop menstrual cycle alterations after anti-COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, given that the protective immunity provided by anti-COVID-19 vaccination appears to wane quickly, booster vaccination has been recommended. Nonetheless, whether adverse events arise from such repeated immunization has not been studied. Materials and Methods: We studied the incidence of menstrual cycle alterations, the quantity of menstrual cycle alterations per subject, and of altered menstrual cycles in nonpregnant women of fertile age after anti-COVID-19 vaccination in a cohort of vaccinated female subjects by the means of a standardized questionary that was applied via telephone calls each month. Subjects that received up to four doses were studied for 6 months after each dose. We calculated the odds ratio for enhanced incidence, as well as quadratic functions for the tendencies. A sensitivity analysis excluding subjects taking hormonal birth control and those with polycystic ovary syndrome was performed. Results: Anti-COVID-19 vaccination enhanced the probability to develop menstrual cycle alterations (OR 1.52, CI at 95% 1.2-1.8, p < 0.0001) and, interestingly, such a tendency was enhanced when subjects received more doses (R2 = 0.91). Furthermore, the same trends repeated for the quantity of alterations per subject, and of altered cycles. Such an effect was further demonstrated to be independent upon the vaccine brand being applied, the birth control status, and the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome. Conclusions: Vaccination is the most cost-effective measure for primary prevention and is considered to be safe. Nonetheless, in this article, we show data that suggest that repeated vaccination of adult female subjects may lead to an enhanced incidence of menstrual cycle-related adverse events, quantity of alterations per subject, and altered cycles. We therefore think that the development of new vaccine formulations that produce longer-lasting immunity is of paramount importance to reduce the potential for dose accumulation-dependent enhanced risk.

[Immunogenicity and adverse events of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in health workers]. / Inmunogenicidad y efectos adversos de vacuna SARS-CoV-2 en trabajadores de salud.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the adverse effects and immune response associated with IgG anti S1 SAEA-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers at Señor del Milagro Hospital in Salta city, after receiving two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was carried out from March 2021 to April 2022. Demographic, clinical data, adverse events supposedly attributed to vaccination (AEFIs) were collected and two samples were taken to measure serum antibody levels. RESULTS: 408 volunteers participated, 401 (98%) were vaccinated with Sputnik-V. The average age was 45.5 years with a predominance of the female sex (71%). AEFIs were reported in 188 (46.1%) and 121 (29.7%) after the first and second doses respectively (p<0.001). These events were mostly mild and transient, more frequent after the first dose. The first antibody test was positive in 99% with a mean titer of 9.7 (SD 3.7). The second dosage was positive in 88% with a mean titer of 6.4 (SD 4.4). Participants with a history of infection and previous positive testing showed significantly higher antibody titers (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The AEFIs reported were mostly mild and transient. Mass vaccination and administration of the recommended dose are essential to achieve effective herd immunity. The majority of vaccinated healthcare workers developed antibodies and those who had the disease prior to vaccination had significant antibody titers.

Introducción: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar los efectos adversos y la respuesta inmune de anticuerpos IgG anti S1 SAEA-CoV-2 en el personal de Salud del Hospital del Milagro de la ciudad de Salta, posterior a recibir dos dosis de vacuna COVID-19. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio prospectivo de cohorte desde marzo de 2021 hasta abril 2022. Se recopilaron datos demográficos, clínicos, eventos adversos supuestamente atribuidos a la vacunación (ESAVI) y se tomaron dos muestras de sangre para medir los niveles de anticuerpos. Resultados: Participaron 408 voluntarios, 401 (98%) fueron vacunados con Sputnik- V. La edad promedio fue de 45.5 años con predominio del sexo femenino (71%). Los ESAVI fueron reportados en 188 (46.1%) y 121 (29.7%) luego de la primera y segunda dosis respectivamente (p<0.001). Estos eventos fueron mayormente de carácter leve y transitorios, más frecuentes luego de la primera dosis. El primer dosaje de anticuerpos fue positivo en 99% con una media de títulos de 9.7 (SD 3.7). El segundo dosaje fue positivo en 88% con una media de títulos de 6.4 (SD 4.4). Los participantes con antecedentes de infección y dosajes previos positivos mostraron títulos significativamente más altos de anticuerpos (p<0.001). Conclusión: Los ESAVI reportados fueron mayoritariamente leves y transitorios. La vacunación masiva y la administración de la dosis recomendada son esenciales para lograr una inmunidad colectiva efectiva. La mayoría de los trabajadores de la salud vacunados desarrollaron anticuerpos y aquellos que cursaron la enfermedad previa a la vacunación presentaron títulos significativos más elevados de anticuerpos.

Incidence and management of the main serious adverse events reported after COVID-19 vaccination.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2n first appeared in Wuhan, China in 2019. Soon after, it was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The health crisis imposed by a new virus and its rapid spread worldwide prompted the fast development of vaccines. For the first time in human history, two vaccines based on recombinant genetic material technology were approved for human use. These mRNA vaccines were applied in massive immunization programs around the world, followed by other vaccines based on more traditional approaches. Even though all vaccines were tested in clinical trials prior to their general administration, serious adverse events, usually of very low incidence, were mostly identified after application of millions of doses. Establishing a direct correlation (the cause-effect paradigm) between vaccination and the appearance of adverse effects has proven challenging. This review focuses on the main adverse effects observed after vaccination, including anaphylaxis, myocarditis, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and transverse myelitis reported in the context of COVID-19 vaccination. We highlight the symptoms, laboratory tests required for an adequate diagnosis, and briefly outline the recommended treatments for these adverse effects. The aim of this work is to increase awareness among healthcare personnel about the serious adverse events that may arise post-vaccination. Regardless of the ongoing discussion about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination, these adverse effects must be identified promptly and treated effectively to reduce the risk of complications.

Immunogenicity and safety of beta variant COVID-19 vaccine AZD2816 and AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) as primary-series vaccination for previously unvaccinated adults in Brazil, South Africa, Poland, and the UK: a randomised, partly double-blinded, phase 2/3 non-inferiority immunobridging study.

BACKGROUND: AZD2816 is a variant-adapted COVID-19 vaccine that expresses the full-length SARS-CoV-2 beta variant spike protein but is otherwise similar to AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of AZD1222 or AZD2816 (or both) primary-series vaccination in a cohort of adult participants who were previously unvaccinated. METHODS: In this phase 2/3, randomised, multinational, active-controlled, non-inferiority, immunobridging study, adult participants previously unvaccinated for COVID-19 were enrolled at 16 study sites in Brazil, South Africa, Poland, and the UK. Participants were stratified by age, sex, and comorbidity and randomly assigned 5:5:5:2 to receive a primary series of AZD1222 (AZD1222 group), AZD2816 (AZD2816 [4-week] group), or AZD1222-AZD2816 (AZD1222-AZD2816 group) at 4-week dosing intervals, or AZD2816 at a 12-week interval (AZD2816 [12-week] group) and evaluated for safety and immunogenicity through 180 days after dose 2. Primary outcomes were safety (rates of solicited adverse events occurring during 7 days and unsolicited adverse events occurring during 28 days after each dose) and immunogenicity (non-inferiority of pseudovirus neutralising antibody geometric mean titre [GMT], GMT ratio margin of 0·67, and seroresponse rate, rate difference margin of -10%, recorded 28 days after dose 2 with AZD2816 [4-week interval] against beta vs AZD1222 against ancestral SARS-CoV-2) in participants who were seronegative at baseline. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04973449, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between July 7 and Nov 12, 2021, 1449 participants were assigned to the AZD1222 group (n=413), the AZD2816 (4-week) group (n=415), the AZD1222-AZD2816 group (n=412), and the AZD2816 (12-week) group (n=209). Ten (2·6%) of 378 participants who were seronegative at baseline in the AZD1222 group, nine (2·4%) of 379 in the AZD2816 (4-week) group, eight (2·1%) of 380 in the AZD1222-AZD2816 group, and 11 (5·8%) of 191 in the AZD2816 (12-week) group had vaccine-related unsolicited adverse events. Serious adverse events were recorded in one (0·3%) participant in the AZD1222 group, one (0·3%) in the AZD2816 (4-week) group, two (0·5%) in the AZD1222-AZD2816 group, and none in the AZD2816 (12-week) group. Co-primary immunogenicity endpoints were met: neutralising antibody GMT (ratio 1·19 [95% CI 1·08-1·32]; lower bound greater than 0·67) and seroresponse rate (difference 1·7% [-3·1 to 6·5]; lower bound greater than -10%) at 28 days after dose 2 were non-inferior in the AZD2816 (4-week) group against beta versus in the AZD1222 group against ancestral SARS-CoV-2. Seroresponse rates were highest with AZD2816 against beta (12-week interval 94·3% [95% CI 89·4-97·3]; 4-week interval 85·7% [81·5-89·2]) and with AZD1222 (84·6% [80·3-88·2]) against ancestral SARS-CoV-2. INTERPRETATION: Primary series of AZD1222 and AZD2816 were well tolerated, with no emergent safety concerns. Both vaccines elicited robust immunogenicity against beta and ancestral SARS-CoV-2 with greater responses demonstrated when testing against SARS-CoV-2 strains that matched those targeted by the respective vaccine. These findings demonstrate the continued importance of ancestral COVID-19 vaccines in protecting against severe COVID-19 and highlight the feasibility of using the ChAdOx1 platform to develop COVID-19 vaccines against future SARS-CoV-2 variants. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Cardiopulmonary Events After Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigates the association of COVID-19 vaccination with incidence of cardiopulmonary events among patients who had experienced acute coronary syndromes.

How has research on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination been evaluated: a scope review with emphasis on CoronaVac.

Introduction: The control of the COVID-19 epidemic has been focused on the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. All developed vaccines have reported safety and efficacy results in preventing infection and its consequences, although the quality of evidence varies depending on the vaccine considered. Different methodological designs have been used for their evaluation, which can influence our understanding of the effects of these interventions. CoronaVac is an inactivated vaccine, and it has been assessed in various studies, including clinical trials and observational studies. Given these differences, our objective was to explore the published information to answer the question: how has the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of CoronaVac been evaluated in different studies? This is to identify potential gaps and challenges to be addressed in understanding its effect. Methods: A scoping review was carried out following the methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute, which included studies carried out in humans as of 2020, corresponding to systematic reviews, clinical trials, analytical or descriptive observational studies, in which the effectiveness and/or safety of vaccines for COVID19 were evaluated or described. There were no age restrictions for the study participants. Results: The efficacy/effectiveness and safety of this vaccine was assessed through 113 studies. Nineteen corresponded to experimental studies, 7 of Phase II, 5 of Phase IV, and 4 were clinical trials with random assignment. Although some clinical trials with random assignment have been carried out, these have limitations in terms of feasibility, follow-up times, and with this, the possibility of evaluating safety outcomes that occur with low frequencies. Not all studies have used homogeneous methods of analysis. Both the prevention of infection, and the prevention of outcomes such as hospitalization or death, have been valued through similar outcomes, but some through multivariate analysis of dependencies, and others through analysis that try to infer causally through different control methods of confounding. Conclusion: Published information on the evaluation of the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of the CoronaVac is abundant. However, there are differences in terms of vaccine application schedules, population definition, outcomes evaluated, follow-up times, and safety assessment, as well as non-standardization in the reporting of results, which may hinder the generalizability of the findings. It is important to generate meetings and consensus strategies for the methods and reporting of this type of studies, which will allow to reduce the heterogeneity in their presentation and a better understanding of the effect of these vaccines.

Self-reported side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among health professions students in India.

Studies focusing on the safety and common side effects of vaccines play a crucial role in enhancing public acceptance of vaccination. Research is scarce regarding the usage of COVID-19 vaccines and the side effects experienced by health professions students in India and other countries. This study aimed to document self-reported side effects associated with COVID-19 vaccination among medical and dental students of six medical and dental colleges and teaching hospitals in four states (Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and West Bengal) of India. A cross-sectional survey using purposive sampling of medical and dental students was conducted from 26 April to 26 May 2021. Data was collected using a Google Forms questionnaire capturing information regarding receiving COVID-19 vaccines, side effects and symptoms, onset and duration of symptoms, use of treatment to alleviate symptoms, awareness of haematologic risks associated with vaccination, and side effects from previous (non-COVID-19) vaccinations. The majority (94.5%) of participants received both doses of the Covishield/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Among participants (n = 492), 45.3% (n = 223) reported one or more side effects. The most frequently reported side effects were soreness of the injected arm (80.3%), tiredness (78.5%), fever (71.3%), headache (64.1%), and hypersomnia (58.7%). The two most common severe symptoms were fever (14.8%) and headache (13%). Most side effects appeared on the day of vaccination: soreness of the injection site (57%), fever (43.1%), and tiredness (42.6%). Most reported symptoms persisted for one to three days-soreness of the injection site (53%), fever (47.1%), and headache (42.6%). Logistic regression showed that women were almost 85% less likely to report side effects. The study's findings corroborate the safety of the Covishield/AstraZeneca vaccine's first dose, evidenced by the relatively minor and transient nature of the side effects. However, the study underscores the necessity for ongoing research to assess the long-term impacts of COVID-19 vaccines, especially in the context of booster doses, thereby contributing to the global understanding of vaccine safety and efficacy.

Side effects of COVID-19 vaccines in paediatric patients: a review systematic and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The paediatric population represents a quarter of the world's population, and like adult patients, they have also suffered immeasurably from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Immunisation is an effective strategy for reducing the number of COVID-19 cases. With the advancements in vaccination for younger age groups, parents or guardians have raised doubts and questions about adverse effects and the number of doses required. Therefore, systematic reviews focusing on this population are needed to consolidate evidence that can help in decision-making and clinical practice. This protocol aims to assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in paediatric patients and evaluate the correlation between the number of vaccine doses and side effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search the PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus and Cochrane databases for randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials that list the adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine and assess its correlation with the number of doses, without any language restrictions. Two reviewers will select the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data and asses for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The Review Software Manager (RevMan V.5.4.1) will be used to synthesise the data. We will use the Working Group's Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations to grade the strength of the evidence of the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data are collected. This systematic review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023390077.