Reactogenicity to the mRNA-1273 Booster According to Previous mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination.

The objective of this study was to assess the local and systemic adverse reactions after the administration of a COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster between December 2021 and February 2022 by comparing the type of mRNA vaccine used as primary series (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2) and homologous versus heterologous booster in health care workers (HCW). A cross-sectional study was performed in HCW at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. A total of 17% of booster recipients responded to the questionnaire. The frequency of reactogenicity after the mRNA-1273 booster (88.5%) was similar to the mRNA-1273 primary doses (85.8%), and higher than the BNT162b2 primary doses (71.1%). The reactogenicity was similar after receiving a heterologous booster compared to a homologous booster (88.0% vs. 90.2%, p = 0.3), and no statistically significant differences were identified in any local or systemic reactions. A higher frequency of medical leave was identified in the homologous booster dose group vs. the heterologous booster dose group (AOR 1.45; 95% CI: 1.00-2.07; p = 0.045). Our findings could be helpful in improving vaccine confidence toward heterologous combinations in the general population and in health care workers.

Safety of Drugs Used during the First Wave of COVID-19: A Hospital-Registry-Based Study.

The emergency of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to the off-label use of drugs without data on their toxicity profiles in patients with COVID-19, or on their concomitant use. Patients included in the COVID-19 Patient Registry of a tertiary hospital during the first wave were analyzed to evaluate the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) with the selected treatments. Twenty-one percent of patients (197 out of 933) had at least one ADR, with a total of 240 ADRs. Patients with ADRs were more commonly treated with multiple drugs for COVID-19 infection than patients without ADRs (p < 0.001). They were younger (median 62 years vs. 70.1 years; p < 0.001) and took less medication regularly (69.5% vs. 75.7%; p = 0.031). The most frequent ADRs were gastrointestinal (67.1%), hepatobiliary (10.8%), and cardiac disorders (3.3%). Drugs more frequently involved included lopinavir/ritonavir (82.2%), hydroxychloroquine (72.1%), and azithromycin (66.5%). Although most ADRs recovered without sequelae, fatal cases were described, even though the role of the disease could not be completely ruled out. In similar situations, efforts should be made to use the drugs in the context of clinical trials, and to limit off-label use to those drugs with a better benefit/risk profile in specific situations and for patients at high risk of poor disease prognosis.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 booster in ChAdOx1-S-primed participants (CombiVacS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: To date, no immunological data on COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedules in humans have been reported. We assessed the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) administered as second dose in participants primed with ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria, AstraZeneca, Oxford, UK). METHODS: We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised, controlled trial on adults aged 18-60 years, vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S 8-12 weeks before screening, and no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 (0·3 mL) via a single intramuscular injection (intervention group) or continue observation (control group). The primary outcome was 14-day immunogenicity, measured by immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike protein and receptor binding domain (RBD). Antibody functionality was assessed using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay, and cellular immune response using an interferon-γ immunoassay. The safety outcome was 7-day reactogenicity, measured as solicited local and systemic adverse events. The primary analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 and who had at least one efficacy evaluation after baseline. The safety analysis included all participants who received BNT162b2. This study is registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739), and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 individuals were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=450) or control group (n=226) at five university hospitals in Spain (mean age 44 years [SD 9]; 382 [57%] women and 294 [43%] men). 663 (98%) participants (n=441 intervention, n=222 control) completed the study up to day 14. In the intervention group, geometric mean titres of RBD antibodies increased from 71·46 BAU/mL (95% CI 59·84-85·33) at baseline to 7756·68 BAU/mL (7371·53-8161·96) at day 14 (p<0·0001). IgG against trimeric spike protein increased from 98·40 BAU/mL (95% CI 85·69-112·99) to 3684·87 BAU/mL (3429·87-3958·83). The interventional:control ratio was 77·69 (95% CI 59·57-101·32) for RBD protein and 36·41 (29·31-45·23) for trimeric spike protein IgG. Reactions were mild (n=1210 [68%]) or moderate (n=530 [30%]), with injection site pain (n=395 [88%]), induration (n=159 [35%]), headache (n=199 [44%]), and myalgia (n=194 [43%]) the most commonly reported adverse events. No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: BNT162b2 given as a second dose in individuals prime vaccinated with ChAdOx1-S induced a robust immune response, with an acceptable and manageable reactogenicity profile. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Immunogenic dynamics and SARS-CoV-2 variant neutralisation of the heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 vaccination: Secondary analysis of the randomised CombiVacS study.

Background: The CombiVacS study was designed to assess immunogenicity and reactogenicity of the heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 combination, and 14-day results showed a strong immune response. The present secondary analysis addresses the evolution of humoral and cellular response up to day 180. Methods: Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 adults primed with ChAdOx1-S were enrolled in five hospitals in Spain, and randomised to receive BNT162b2 as second dose (interventional group [IG]) or no vaccine (control group [CG]). Individuals from CG received BNT162b2 as second dose and also on day 28, as planned based on favourable results on day 14. Humoral immunogenicity, measured by immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD), antibody functionality using pseudovirus neutralisation assays for the reference (G614), Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants, as well as cellular immune response using interferon-γ and IL-2 immunoassays were assessed at day 28 after BNT162b2 in both groups, at day 90 (planned only in the interventional group) and at day 180 (laboratory data cut-off on Nov 19, 2021). This study was registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739). Findings: In this secondary analysis, 664 individuals (441 from IG and 223 from CG) were included. At day 28 post vaccine, geometric mean titres (GMT) of RBD antibodies were 5616·91 BAU/mL (95% CI 5296·49-5956·71) in the IG and 7298·22 BAU/mL (6739·41-7903·37) in the CG (p < 0·0001). RBD antibodies titres decreased at day 180 (1142·0 BAU/mL [1048·69-1243·62] and 1836·4 BAU/mL [1621·62-2079·62] in the IG and CG, respectively; p < 0·0001). Neutralising antibodies also waned from day 28 to day 180 in both the IG (1429·01 [1220·37-1673·33] and 198·72 [161·54-244·47], respectively) and the CG (1503·28 [1210·71-1866·54] and 295·57 [209·84-416·33], respectively). The lowest variant-specific response was observed against Omicron-and Beta variants, with low proportion of individuals exhibiting specific neutralising antibody titres (NT50) >1:100 at day 180 (19% and 22%, respectively). Interpretation: Titres of RBD antibodies decay over time, similar to homologous regimes. Our findings suggested that delaying administration of the second dose did not have a detrimental effect after vaccination and may have improved the response obtained. Lower neutralisation was observed against Omicron and Beta variants at day 180. Funding: Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII).

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in healthcare professionals with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: Prospective, non-randomized trial Eficacia y seguridad de hidroxicloroquina en profesionales sanitarios con infección leve por SARS-CoV-2: Estudio prospectivo y no aleatorio

Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) compared with no treatment in healthcare workers with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods Prospective, non-randomized study. All health professionals with confirmed COVID-19 between April 7 and May 6, 2020, non-requiring initial hospitalization were asked to participate. Patients who accepted treatment were given HCQ for five days (loading dose of 400 mg q12 h the first day followed by200 mg q12 h). Control group included patients with contraindications for HCQ or who rejected treatment. Study outcomes were negative conversion and viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, symptoms duration and disease progression. Result Overall, 142 patients were enrolled: 87 in treatment group and 55 in control group. The median age was 37 years and 75% were female, with few comorbidities. There were no significant differences in time to negative conversion of PCR between both groups. The only significant difference in the probability of negative conversion of PCR was observed at day 21 (18.7%, 95%CI 2.0–35.4). The decrease of SARS-CoV-2 viral load during follow-up was similar in both groups. A non significant reduction in duration of some symptoms in HCQ group was observed. Two patients with HCQ and 4 without treatment developed pneumonia. No patients required admission to the Intensive Care Unit or died. About 50% of patients presented mild side effects of HCQ, mainly diarrhea. Conclusions Our study failed to show a substantial benefit of HCQ in viral dynamics and in resolution of clinical symptoms in health care workers with mild COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in healthcare professionals with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: Prospective, non-randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) compared with no treatment in healthcare workers with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Prospective, non-randomized study. All health professionals with confirmed COVID-19 between April 7 and May 6, 2020, non-requiring initial hospitalization were asked to participate. Patients who accepted treatment were given HCQ for five days (loading dose of 400mg q12h the first day followed by200mg q12h). Control group included patients with contraindications for HCQ or who rejected treatment. Study outcomes were negative conversion and viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, symptoms duration and disease progression. RESULT: Overall, 142 patients were enrolled: 87 in treatment group and 55 in control group. The median age was 37 years and 75% were female, with few comorbidities. There were no significant differences in time to negative conversion of PCR between both groups. The only significant difference in the probability of negative conversion of PCR was observed at day 21 (18.7%, 95%CI 2.0-35.4). The decrease of SARS-CoV-2 viral load during follow-up was similar in both groups. A non significant reduction in duration of some symptoms in HCQ group was observed. Two patients with HCQ and 4 without treatment developed pneumonia. No patients required admission to the Intensive Care Unit or died. About 50% of patients presented mild side effects of HCQ, mainly diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Our study failed to show a substantial benefit of HCQ in viral dynamics and in resolution of clinical symptoms in health care workers with mild COVID-19.

Local and Systemic Adverse Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Comparing Two Vaccine Types and Occurrence of Previous COVID-19 Infection.

The aim of this study was to assess adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, comparing the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines and the presence and seriousness of a previous COVID-19 infection. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of vaccinated healthcare workers at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona (Spain). Thirty-eight percent of vaccine recipients responded to the questionnaire. We compared the prevalence of adverse reactions by vaccine type and history of COVID-19 infections. A total of 2373 respondents had received the BNT162b2 vaccine, and 506 the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The prevalence of at least one adverse reaction with doses 1 and 2 was 41% and 70%, respectively, in the BNT162b2 group, and 60% and 92% in the mRNA-1273 group (p < 0.001). The BNT162b2 group reported less prevalence of all adverse reactions. Need for medical leave was significantly more frequent among the mRNA-1273 group (12% versus 4.6% p < 0.001). Interestingly, respondents with a history of allergies or chronic illnesses did not report more adverse reactions. The frequency of adverse reactions with dose 2 was 96% (95% CI 88-100%) for those with a history of COVID-19 related hospitalization, and 86% (95% CI 83-89%) for those with mild or moderate symptomatic COVID-19, significantly higher than for participants with no history of COVID-19 infections (67%, 95% CI 65-69%). Our results could help inform vaccine recipients of the probability of their having adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in healthcare professionals with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: Prospective, non-randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) compared with no treatment in healthcare workers with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Prospective, non-randomized study. All health professionals with confirmed COVID-19 between April 7 and May 6, 2020, non-requiring initial hospitalization were asked to participate. Patients who accepted treatment were given HCQ for five days (loading dose of 400mg q12h the first day followed by200mg q12h). Control group included patients with contraindications for HCQ or who rejected treatment. Study outcomes were negative conversion and viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, symptoms duration and disease progression. RESULT: Overall, 142 patients were enrolled: 87 in treatment group and 55 in control group. The median age was 37 years and 75% were female, with few comorbidities. There were no significant differences in time to negative conversion of PCR between both groups. The only significant difference in the probability of negative conversion of PCR was observed at day 21 (18.7%, 95%CI 2.0-35.4). The decrease of SARS-CoV-2 viral load during follow-up was similar in both groups. A non significant reduction in duration of some symptoms in HCQ group was observed. Two patients with HCQ and 4 without treatment developed pneumonia. No patients required admission to the Intensive Care Unit or died. About 50% of patients presented mild side effects of HCQ, mainly diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Our study failed to show a substantial benefit of HCQ in viral dynamics and in resolution of clinical symptoms in health care workers with mild COVID-19.