RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Self-reported real-world safety and reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines: An international vaccine-recipient survey
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.02.26.21252096
DO 10.1101/2021.02.26.21252096
A1 Mathioudakis, Alexander G.
A1 Ghrew, Murad
A1 Ustianowski, Andrew
A1 Ahmad, Shazaad
A1 Borrow, Ray
A1 Papavasileiou, Lida Pieretta
A1 Petrakis, Dimitrios
A1 Bakerly, Nawar Diar
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/08/2021.02.26.21252096.abstract
AB Background The safety of COVID-19 vaccines has been demonstrated in selected populations in recent studies, but more data in specific groups is needed to inform vaccine choice and health policy.Objectives An international, online survey was conducted to compare the safety, tolerability and reactogenicity of available COVID-19 vaccines in different recipient groups.Methods This survey was launched in February 2021, for 11 days. Recipients of a first COVID-19 vaccine dose ≥7 days prior to survey completion were eligible. The incidence and severity of vaccination side effects were assessed.Results Survey was completed by 2,002 respondents, of whom 26.6% had prior COVID-19 infection (68.8% laboratory confirmed). Prior COVID-19 infection was associated with increased risk of any side effect (risk ratio 1.08, 95% confidence intervals [1.05-1.11]), fever (2.24 [1.86-2.70]), breathlessness (2.05 [1.28-3.29]), flu-like illness (1.78 [1.51-2.10]), fatigue (1.34 [1.20-1.49]) and local reactions (1.10 [1.06-1.15]). It was also associated with increased risk of severe side effects, leading to hospital care (1.56 [1.14-2.12]).While mRNA vaccines were associated with a higher incidence of any side effect (1.06 [1.01-1.11]) compared to viral vector-based vaccines, these were generally milder (p<0.001), mostly local reactions. Importantly, mRNA vaccine-recipients reported considerably lower incidence of systemic reactions (RR<0.6) including anaphylaxis, swelling, flu-like illness, breathlessness and fatigue, and of side effects requiring hospital care (0.42 [0.31-0.58]).Conclusion For the first time, our study links prior COVID-19 illness with increased incidence of vaccination side effects and demonstrates that mRNA vaccines cause milder, less frequent systemic side effects, but more local reactions.Key messages– People with prior COVID-19 illness appear to experience significantly increased incidence and severity of side effects after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.– In this first head-to-head comparison of the safety and reactogenicity of different types of vaccines, it was demonstrated that mRNA vaccines cause milder, less frequent systemic side effects, compared to viral vector vaccines, but more local reactions.Tweetable Summary A survey of >2000 COVID-19 vaccine-recipients links prior COVID-19 illness with increased incidence of vaccination side effects; mRNA vaccines cause milder, less frequent systemic side effects, but more local reactions.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. None of the authors has any conflicts of interest in relation to this work. AGM reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. RB reports contract research on behalf of Public Health England for GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Sanofi Pasteur, outside the submitted work. NDB reports personal fees from TEVA Pharma, GSK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Chiesi Pharma, outside the submitted workFunding StatementNo funding was received for this study. AGM was supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR Manchester BRC).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics approval was not necessary for this anonymous survey. The UK Medical Research Council and the Health Research Authority (HRA, the UK medical research oversight body) has developed the following decision tool and advise researchers to use it to assess whether a study requires Ethics Review prior to submitting an application or enquiry: http://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/ethics/ After completing this decision tool, we were advised that our work did NOT require ethical approval. This outcome was approved from the National Health System Research and Innovation Office, locally (Mrs Natalie Garratt, Director at R&D). Please note that this work was publicised using personal contacts and social media which is declared clearly in the text. Due to the nature of publicising the survey, it was inevitable that we were going to get replies from acros the world; and it would not habe been possible to try and obtain a decision or exemption from all countries. For this reason we used the principles & decision tool outcome from the UK's MRC & HRA as our guide.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAccess to respondents level data is available upon request to the authors.