ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: CoronaVac (Sinovac) Covid-19 vaccine has recently been approved for emergency use by the World Health Organization. However, data on its reactogenicity in real-world settings is scant. This study aimed to compare self-reported post-vaccination adverse reactions between CoronaVac and Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech). METHODS: We adopted a prospective cohort study design using online surveys from the day of first-dose vaccination with intensive follow-up through two weeks after the second dose (11 time points). The primary outcome was adverse reactions (any versus none) and secondary outcomes were the sub-categories of adverse reactions (local, systemic, and severe allergic reactions). Potential effect modification across multimorbidity status, older age, and sex was examined. RESULTS: In total, 2,098 participants who were scheduled to complete the 14th-day survey were included, with 46.2% receiving Comirnaty. Retention rate two weeks after the second dose was 81.0% for the CoronaVac group and 83.6% for the Comirnaty group. Throughout the follow-up period, 801 (82.7%) of those receiving Comirnaty and 543 (48.1%) of those receiving CoronaVac reported adverse reactions. Adjusted analysis suggested that compared with Comirnaty, CoronaVac was associated with 83%-reduced odds of any adverse reactions [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.20], 92%-reduced odds of local adverse reactions (AOR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.06-0.09), and 76%-reduced odds of systemic adverse reactions (AOR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.16-0.28). No significant effect modification was identified. CONCLUSION: This post-marketing study comparing the reactogenicity of Covid-19 vaccines suggests a lower risk of self-reported adverse reactions following vaccination with CoronaVac compared with Comirnaty.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Self ReportABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Although clinical data have shown that the BNT162b2 vaccine, which is widely used in many countries, is safe and effective as a protection against the SARS-CoV-2 infection, extant research in adverse reactions using real-world data of various sociodemographic characteristics is scant. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study to compare age differences in self-reported reactogenicity of BNT162b2 in Hong Kong. A total of 1,516 participants were intensively followed up for two weeks following both doses of BNT162b2 vaccination, during which their basic demographic, health conditions, and medication information were collected. RESULTS: Results from the generalized mixed model showed that compared with adults aged 18 to 59 years, older adults aged 60 years or above had a lower risk of adverse reactions and adolescents aged 12 to 17 years had a moderately higher risk. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study should be informative to parents considering BNT162b2 vaccination for their children in that moderately increased reactogenicity compared with adults is anticipated.