Reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 primary immunisation and booster vaccination regimens: a comparative observational cohort study.
Adverse drug reaction
COVID-19
Medical consultation
Observational study
Reactogenicity
Survey
Vaccines
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 06 2023
20 06 2023
Historique:
received:
09
03
2023
accepted:
05
06
2023
medline:
22
6
2023
pubmed:
21
6
2023
entrez:
20
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, recommendations regarding the vaccination have been very dynamic. Although the safety and efficacy of different vaccines have been analysed, data were scarce for vaccine regimens combining different vaccines. We therefore aimed to evaluate and compare the perceived reactogenicity and need for medical consultation after the most frequently applied homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens. In an observational cohort study, reactogenicity and safety were assessed within a maximum follow-up time of 124 days using web-based surveys. Reactogenicity was assessed for different vaccination regimens 2 weeks after a vaccination (short-term survey). The following surveys, long-term and follow-up surveys, focused on the utilisation of medical services, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related. Data of 17,269 participants were analysed. The least local reactions were seen after a ChAdOx1 - ChAdOx1 regimen (32.6%, 95% CI [28.2, 37.2]) and the most after the first dose with mRNA-1273 (73.9%, 95% CI [70.5, 77.2]). Systemic reactions were least frequent in participants with a BNT162b2 booster after a homologous primary immunisation with ChAdOx1 (42.9%, 95% CI [32.1, 54.1]) and most frequent after a ChAdOx1 - mRNA-1273 (85.5%, 95% CI [82.9, 87.8]) and mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 regimen (85.1%, 95% CI [83.2, 87.0]). In the short-term survey, the most common consequences were medication intake and sick leave (after local reactions 0% to 9.9%; after systemic reactions 4.5% to 37.9%). In the long-term and follow-up surveys, between 8.2 and 30.9% of participants reported consulting a doctor and between 0% and 5.4% seeking hospital care. The regression analyses 124 days after the first and after the third dose showed that the odds for reporting medical consultation were comparable between the vaccination regimens. Our analysis revealed differences in reactogenicity between the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination regimens in Germany. The lowest reactogenicity as reported by participants was seen with BNT162b2, especially in homologous vaccination regimens. However, in all vaccination regimens reactogenicity rarely led to medical consultations. Small differences in seeking any medical consultation after 6 weeks diminished during the follow-up period. In the end, none of the vaccination regimens was associated with a higher risk for medical consultation. DRKS DRKS00025881 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025373 ). Registered on 14 October 2021. DRKS DRKS00025373 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025881 ). Registered on 21 May 2021. Registered retrospectively.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, recommendations regarding the vaccination have been very dynamic. Although the safety and efficacy of different vaccines have been analysed, data were scarce for vaccine regimens combining different vaccines. We therefore aimed to evaluate and compare the perceived reactogenicity and need for medical consultation after the most frequently applied homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens.
METHODS
In an observational cohort study, reactogenicity and safety were assessed within a maximum follow-up time of 124 days using web-based surveys. Reactogenicity was assessed for different vaccination regimens 2 weeks after a vaccination (short-term survey). The following surveys, long-term and follow-up surveys, focused on the utilisation of medical services, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related.
RESULTS
Data of 17,269 participants were analysed. The least local reactions were seen after a ChAdOx1 - ChAdOx1 regimen (32.6%, 95% CI [28.2, 37.2]) and the most after the first dose with mRNA-1273 (73.9%, 95% CI [70.5, 77.2]). Systemic reactions were least frequent in participants with a BNT162b2 booster after a homologous primary immunisation with ChAdOx1 (42.9%, 95% CI [32.1, 54.1]) and most frequent after a ChAdOx1 - mRNA-1273 (85.5%, 95% CI [82.9, 87.8]) and mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 regimen (85.1%, 95% CI [83.2, 87.0]). In the short-term survey, the most common consequences were medication intake and sick leave (after local reactions 0% to 9.9%; after systemic reactions 4.5% to 37.9%). In the long-term and follow-up surveys, between 8.2 and 30.9% of participants reported consulting a doctor and between 0% and 5.4% seeking hospital care. The regression analyses 124 days after the first and after the third dose showed that the odds for reporting medical consultation were comparable between the vaccination regimens.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis revealed differences in reactogenicity between the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination regimens in Germany. The lowest reactogenicity as reported by participants was seen with BNT162b2, especially in homologous vaccination regimens. However, in all vaccination regimens reactogenicity rarely led to medical consultations. Small differences in seeking any medical consultation after 6 weeks diminished during the follow-up period. In the end, none of the vaccination regimens was associated with a higher risk for medical consultation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
DRKS DRKS00025881 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025373 ). Registered on 14 October 2021. DRKS DRKS00025373 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025881 ). Registered on 21 May 2021. Registered retrospectively.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37340463
doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-02924-5
pii: 10.1186/s12916-023-02924-5
pmc: PMC10283194
doi:
Substances chimiques
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
BNT162 Vaccine
0
2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273
EPK39PL4R4
Banques de données
DRKS
['DRKS00025881', 'DRKS00025373']
Types de publication
Observational Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
218Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
JAMA. 2022 Jan 25;327(4):331-340
pubmed: 35076665
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2022 Oct 28;119(43):727-734
pubmed: 35972414
BMJ. 2007 Oct 20;335(7624):806-8
pubmed: 17947786
Curr Opin Immunol. 2021 Aug;71:13-20
pubmed: 33845349
Orthopade. 2012 Apr;41(4):303-10
pubmed: 22476421
Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 30;11:589884
pubmed: 33192929
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 4;384(5):403-416
pubmed: 33378609
BMJ. 2021 May 5;373:n1114
pubmed: 33952445
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
Vaccine. 2022 Feb 11;40(7):970-976
pubmed: 35067381
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022 Jul 2;8(1):134
pubmed: 35780172
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Jul;21(7):939-949
pubmed: 33930320
BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 1;12(6):e060583
pubmed: 35649591
Lancet. 2021 Jan 9;397(10269):99-111
pubmed: 33306989
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011 Oct 03;9(12):889-93
pubmed: 21963800
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 10;384(23):2187-2201
pubmed: 33882225
Lancet. 2022 Mar 5;399(10328):924-944
pubmed: 35202601
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2021 Oct;20(10):1211-1220
pubmed: 34415818
Nat Biotechnol. 1996 May;14(5):591-3
pubmed: 9630948
Lancet. 2022 Jan 1;399(10319):36-49
pubmed: 34883053
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2009 Dec;16(12):1709-19
pubmed: 19793898
Clin Immunol. 2021 Nov;232:108860
pubmed: 34571262
Lancet. 2021 May 29;397(10289):2043-2046
pubmed: 33991480
J Infect Chemother. 2022 Jan;28(1):116-119
pubmed: 34580011
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2022 Jan;12:100253
pubmed: 34729549
Nature. 2021 Jul;595(7866):161-162
pubmed: 34176923
Arthritis Rheum. 2003 Apr 15;49(2):156-63
pubmed: 12687505
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 31;383(27):2603-2615
pubmed: 33301246
Life (Basel). 2021 Mar 17;11(3):
pubmed: 33803014