ABSTRACT
Objective The information on neurologic or psychiatric adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines is limited. Our objective was to examine the odds of neurological and psychiatric adverse reactions to BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines.
Methods We analyzed all Adverse Vaccine Reaction reports to the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency between December 9, 2020 and June 30, 2021 that mentioned the BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 vaccines. We compared the rates of adverse neurological and psychiatric reactions with ChAdOx1 to those with BNT162b2. P-values were obtained by a Bonferroni-adjusted Z-test for proportions.
Results As of June 30, 2021, 53.2 M doses of ChAdOx1 and 46.1 M doses of BNT162b2 had been administered. We extracted information from 300,518 distinct reports. The number of individual adverse neurologic or psychiatric reaction reports were less than 200/M doses administered, except headache which was reported in 1,550 and 395 cases/M doses of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2, respectively. Compared to BNT162b2, cerebral hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, headaches and migraines, Guillain-Barre syndrome and paresthesias, tremor and freezing, delirium, hallucinations, nervousness, poor sleep quality, and postural dizziness were more frequently reported with ChAdOx1. Reactions more frequently reported with BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1 were Bell’s palsy, facial paralysis, dysgeusia, anxiety, and presyncope or syncope.
Conclusion Significant differences in the neurologic and psychiatric adverse event profiles of the ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 vaccines may exist, emphasizing the need for additional research. The beneficial and protective effects of the COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh the low potential risk of neurologic and psychiatric reactions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
None
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a pharmacovigilance dataset, thus approval from an IRB is not needed.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Footnotes
nikolai.petrovsky{at}flinders.edu.au
aalam015{at}uottawa.ca
jcrispo{at}nosm.ca
dmattison{at}risksciences.com
molly1063{at}gmail.com
franciscocapani{at}hotmail.com
dkrewski{at}uottawa.ca
Data Availability
The data from this study can be accessed at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency website
