What is the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Immunocompromised Patients? Results from the European "Covid Vaccine Monitor" Active Surveillance Study.

BACKGROUND: The safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients has not been comprehensively evaluated. AIM: To measure the frequency of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the first/second/booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised subject versus matched cohort. As a secondary objective, the time course, evaluated as time to onset (TTO) and time to recovery (TTR), of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs was explored. METHODS: A prospective cohort study, based on electronic questionnaires filled by vaccinees from 11 European countries in the period February 2021 to February 2023 was conducted. All immunocompromised vaccinees who provided informed consent and registered to the project's web-app within 48 h after first/booster vaccine dose administration of any EMA-authorised COVID-19 vaccine were recruited. Participants filled baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires (FU-Qs) over 6 months from vaccination, collecting information on suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs. As a control group, non-immunocompromised vaccinees from the same source population were 1:4 matched by sex, age, vaccine dose, and brand. A descriptive analysis of demographic/clinical characteristics of vaccinees was conducted. Heatmaps of the frequency of solicited ADRs, stratified by gender and vaccine brand, were generated. Median TTO/TTR of reported ADRs were visualised using violin/box-plots. RESULTS: A total of 773 immunocompromised vaccines were included in the analyses. Most participants were females (F/M ratio: 2.1 and 1.6) with a median age of 56 (43-74) and 51 (41-60) years, at the first vaccination cycle and booster dose, respectively. Injection-site pain and fatigue were the most frequently reported ADRs in immunocompromised vaccinees with higher frequency than matched control, especially after the first dose (41.2% vs 37.8% and 38.2% vs 32.9%, respectively). For both cohorts, all solicited ADRs were more frequently reported in females than males, and in those who had received a first dose of the Vaxzevria vaccine. Dizziness was the most frequently reported unsolicited ADR after the first dose in both groups (immunocompromised subjects: 2.5% and matched controls: 2.1%). At the booster dose, lymphadenopathy (3.9%) and lymphadenitis (1.8%) were the most reported unsolicited ADRs for immunocompromised subjects and matched controls, respectively. A very low number of subjects reported adverse event of special interest (AESI) (2 immunocompromised, 3 matched controls) and serious ADRs (5 immunocompromised, 5 matched controls). A statistically significant difference among study cohorts was observed for median TTO after the booster dose, and for median TTR after the first vaccination cycle and booster dose (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The overall safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised people was favourable, with minor differences as compared to non-immunocompromised vaccinees. Participants mostly experienced mild ADRs, mainly reported after the first dose of Vaxzevria and Jcovden vaccines. Serious ADRs and AESI were rare.

Characterization of the human basilar artery contractile response to 5-HT and triptans.

To study the contractile responses of the human basilar artery to 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT), sumatriptan, zolmitriptan and naratriptan, and to characterize the 5-HT receptor subtypes involved on those responses, human basilar artery rings were prepared for isometric contraction, protein isolation and Western blotting analysis. Concentration-response (CR) curves were made for all agonists in the absence or in the presence of selective antagonists at 5-HT1B (cyanopindolol), 5-HT1D (BRL 15,572) and 5-HT2 (ketanserin) receptors. We also used anti-5-HT1B and 5-HT1D receptor antibodies to search for the expression of protein of these receptor subtypes. From the CR curves, the relative intrinsic activity and potency of these agonists were determined. The ranking order for the intrinsic activity was 5-HT > or = sumatriptan > zolmitriptan > or = naratriptan, whereas that for the potency was zolmitriptan > or = 5-HT > or = sumatriptan > naratriptan. Our results also show that the human basilar artery seems to have a mixed population of 5-HT1B/1D receptors mediating the contractile response to triptans, which is also suggested by the expression of both receptor subtypes. There is also a population of 5-HT2 receptors for which the antimigraine drugs used have no apparent affinity. From this study, one can conclude that the second generation triptans have lower contractile capacity than sumatriptan, suggesting that they have a better cerebrovascular safety profile.

Can decisional algorithms replace global introspection in the individual causality assessment of spontaneously reported ADRs?

AIM: The usefulness of algorithms for assessing the causality of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has yet to be established and, since the validation of causality algorithms depends upon their sensitivity and specificity, our study was carried out to evaluate these measures. METHOD: In this study, an expert panel assessed causality of adverse reports by using the WHO global introspection (GI) method. The same reports were independently assessed using 15 published algorithms. The causality assessment level 'possible' was considered the lower limit for a report to be considered to be drug related. For a given algorithm, sensitivity was determined by the proportion of reports simultaneously classified as drug related by the algorithm and the GI method. Specificity was measured as the proportion of reports simultaneously considered non-drug related. The analysis was performed for the total sample and within serious or unexpected events. RESULTS: Five hundred adverse reports were studied. Algorithms presented high rates of sensitivity (average of 93%, positive predictive value of 89%) and low rates of specificity (average of 7%, negative predictive value of 31%). CONCLUSION: Decisional algorithms are sensitive methods for the detection of ADRs, but they present poor specificity. A reference method was not identified. Algorithms do not replace GI and are not definite alternatives in the individual causality assessment of suspected ADRs.

The Role of Disproportionality Analysis of Pharmacovigilance Databases in Safety Regulatory Actions: a Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Disproportionality analysis (DA) of adverse drug reactions spontaneous reporting (SR) databases is used to identify signals of disproportionate reporting (SDR). The objective of this study was to identify the generation of SDR in the published literature and whether it led to regulatory action. METHODS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in a 10-year period, from 2005 to 2014, was conducted, to identify studies designed to detect drug safety signals through the use of disproportionality measures applied to spontaneous reporting databases of adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: Seventy three studies were included. The number of publications has been rising over the study time period. Forty nine studies focus on drug-event combinations. Large international and smaller national or regional databases were identified. The disproportionality measures applied included frequentist and Bayesian methods and some studies used more than one method. SDRs were identified in more than ninety percent of the studies. Ten studies were found to be confirmatory of previous regulatory decision. CONCLUSION: It was not found any safety signal issued by drug regulatory agencies exclusively generated by DA. More research devoted to this issue is needed, since the value of these methods on drug safety signaling and their impact on drug regulation actions remains to be established.