Literature DB >> 34592382

Comparison of constitutional and dermatologic side effects between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 vaccines: Review of a publicly available database of vaccine side effects.

Stephanie R Cohen1, David X Gao1, Jared S Kahn1, David Rosmarin2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34592382      PMCID: PMC8482701          DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.09.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol        ISSN: 0190-9622            Impact factor:   11.527


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor: In December 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration authorized the emergency use of 2 COVID-19 vaccines. The rapid development and authorization of these vaccines raised safety concerns among the general population. In the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 messenger RNA (Pfizer/BioNTech) and Moderna messenger RNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines phase 3 clinical trials, local and systemic reactions were reported. , We sought to compare constitutional and dermatologic postimmunization side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines versus the hepatitis B virus (HBV) and seasonal influenza (Flu) vaccines on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national, self-reported surveillance database. HBV and Flu (seasonal flu recombinant and inactivated) vaccines were selected because they are 2 established nonlive vaccines that have been administered to the general population for decades. For both COVID-19 vaccines, data were obtained from their rollout in December 2020 until February 26, 2021, whereas for the HBV and Flu vaccines, data were obtained from 1990 until February 26, 2021. Only constitutional and dermatologic side effects with reported rates ≥1% for all 4 vaccines were included. Data were analyzed using the χ2 test in R-4.0.3. At the time the data from VAERS were obtained, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were approved for adults aged ≥16 and 18 years, respectively. The HBV and Flu vaccines are approved for infants since birth and for ages of ≥6 months old, respectively. In our research, reported constitutional side effects were higher for the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech when compared with the HBV and Flu vaccines. The dermatologic side effects reported for Moderna were greater than that of HBV but not Flu. However, Pfizer/BioNTech did not have a statistically significantly higher percentage of dermatologic side effects when compared with HBV or Flu. When comparing Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, the majority of constitutional and dermatologic side effects were higher for Moderna in terms of percent of cases reported (Table I ).
Table I

Comparison among Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna messenger RNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, hepatitis B virus vaccine, and seasonal influenza vaccine

Vaccines
P vaccine
M vaccine
HBV vaccine
Flu vaccine
Vaccine comparison
14,649
10,403
58,063
152,627
P-MP-HBVP-FluM-HBVM-Flu
Total number of patients reporting SENumber of reported SE (%)Number of reported SE (%)Number of reported SE (%)Number of reported SE (%)
Constitutional SE
 Headache2932 (20.02)2242 (21.55)3641 (6.27)11,594 (7.60).003<.001<.001<.001<.001
 Fatigue2188 (14.94)1537 (14.77)1124 (1.94)6305 (4.13).736<.001<.001<.001<.001
 Pyrexia2003 (13.67)1853 (17.81)9473 (16.32)19,880 (13.03)<.001<.001.027<.001<.001
 Chills1985 (13.55)1763 (16.95)1291 (2.22)9890 (6.48)<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001
 Pain1853 (12.65)1622 (15.59)3335 (5.74)18,395 (12.05)<.001<.001.035<.001<.001
 Nausea1794 (12.25)1458 (14.02)3602 (6.20)9141 (5.99)<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001
 Myalgia940 (6.42)721 (6.93)2669 (4.60)7004 (4.59).113<.001<.001<.001<.001
 Arthralgia754 (5.15)593 (5.70)2363 (4.07)4477 (2.93).059<.001<.001<.001<.001
 Malaise659 (4.50)290 (2.79)1683 (2.90)5246 (3.44)<.001<.001<.001.554<.001
 Asthenia621 (4.24)433 (4.16)2645 (4.56)6407 (4.20).789.103.828.079.881
Dermatologic SE
 Pruritus785 (5.36)678 (6.52)3651 (6.29)9197 (6.03)<.001<.001.001.388.044
 Rash779 (5.32)528 (5.08)4954 (8.53)8305 (5.44).411<.001.540<.001.115
 Urticaria571 (3.90)403 (3.87)3715 (6.40)8424 (5.52).949<.001<.001<.001<.001
 Hyperhidrosis474 (3.24)314 (3.02)1190 (2.05)3225 (2.11).350<.001<.001<.001<.001
 Erythema416 (2.84)498 (4.79)1388 (2.39)12,426 (8.14)<.001.001<.001<.001<.001
Injection Site Pain1192 (8.14)1269 (12.20)3102 (5.34)18,140 (11.89)<.001<.001<.001<.001.347
Injection site erythema323 (2.20)1104 (10.61)2175 (3.75)17,523 (11.48)<.001<.001<.001<.001.007
Injection site swelling291 (1.99)839 (8.06)1358 (2.34)12,759 (8.36)<.001.011<.001<.001.301
Injection site warmth153 (1.04)576 (5.54)802 (1.38)7831 (5.13)<.001.001<.001<.001.073

Values in bold are values that are statistically significant (P value <.05). Cutoff value for statistical significance ≤.05.

Flu, Seasonal influenza vaccine; HBV, hepatitis B virus vaccine; M, Moderna messenger RNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine; P, Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine; SE, side effect.

Comparison among Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna messenger RNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, hepatitis B virus vaccine, and seasonal influenza vaccine Values in bold are values that are statistically significant (P value <.05). Cutoff value for statistical significance ≤.05. Flu, Seasonal influenza vaccine; HBV, hepatitis B virus vaccine; M, Moderna messenger RNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine; P, Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine; SE, side effect. Of note, Moderna had a significantly higher percentage of injection site reactions (ie, pain, erythema, swelling, and warmth) compared with Pfizer/BioNTech and HBV but not Flu. For the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, injection site reactions were lower than for the other vaccines. In both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna trials, younger patients (16-55 and 18 to <65 years old, respectively) experienced more frequent and severe side effects, possibly due to their having a more robust immune system and consequently a higher degree of reactogenicity. , Overall, both COVID-19 vaccines have favorable safety profiles and proven efficacy. , It is vital for physicians to encourage appropriate vaccination of our patients. Our study may help address patients' concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. Future studies should assess whether similar results are observed in children in whom the vaccine was approved recently. Limitations to our study are the incomplete capture and reporting from the VAERS database, which is self-reported and voluntary, although VAERS has previously successfully detected safety signals for other vaccines such as intussusception for the rotavirus vaccine. Finally, the population receiving the COVID-19 vaccine may not match those getting the Flu and HBV vaccines.

Conflicts of interest

Dr Rosmarin has received honoraria as a consultant for AbbVie, Celgene, Dermavant, Dermira, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; has received research support from , Bristol Meyers Squibb, , , Incyte, Janssen, , , , , and Inc; and has served as a paid speaker for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, and Sanofi. Dr Cohen and Authors Gao and Kahn have no conflicts of interest to declare.
  2 in total

1.  Microscopic Polyangiitis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination: A Case Report.

Authors:  Daeyoung So; Kyueng-Whan Min; Woon Yong Jung; Sang-Woong Han; Mi-Yeon Yu
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 5.354

2.  Oral Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination: Analysis of VAERS Reports.

Authors:  Abanoub Riad; Ave Põld; Elham Kateeb; Sameh Attia
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-07-11
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.