Safety of the fourth COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA (second booster) vaccine: a prospective and retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine dose (ie, fourth inoculation) is well established, but its safety has yet to be fully understood. The absence of sufficient vaccine safety information is one of the key contributors to vaccine hesitancy. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety profile of the second BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine using data from a retrospective cohort and a prospective cohort. METHODS: To evaluate the safety profile of the second booster vaccine, we analysed its short-term effects and compared them to those of the first booster by using data from, first, a retrospective cohort of 250 000 random members of the second-largest health-care organisation in Israel (Maccabi Healthcare Services) and, second, a prospective cohort (the PerMed study) of 4698 participants from all across Israel. Individuals who were aged 18 years or older who received the second BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster during the vaccination campaign, from Dec 30, 2021, to July 22, 2022, were eligible for inclusion in the retrospective cohort analysis. To be included in the PerMed study, participants needed to be 18 years or older, members of Maccabi Healthcare Services at the time of enrolment, using their own smartphone, and be able to give informed consent by themselves. Participants from the prospective cohort received smartwatches, downloaded a dedicated mobile application, and granted access to their medical records. The smartwatches continuously monitored several physiological measures, including heart rate. For analysis of the prospective cohort data, we used the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare heart rate levels observed before and after vaccination. The mobile application collected daily self-reported questionnaires on local and systemic reactions. Medical records of the retrospective cohort were accessed to examine the occurrence of 25 potential adverse events, and we evaluated the risk differences between 42 days in the periods before and after vaccination in a pairwise method using non-parametric percentile bootstrap. FINDINGS: The retrospective cohort included 94 169 participants who received the first booster and 17 814 who received the second booster. Comparing the 42 days before and after vaccination, the second booster was not associated with any of the 25 adverse events investigated, including myocardial infarction (risk difference, 2·25 events per 10 000 individuals [95% CI -3·93 to 8·98]) and Bell's Palsy (-1·68 events [-5·61 to 2·25]). None of the individuals was diagnosed with myocarditis or pericarditis following vaccination with the second booster. The prospective cohort included 1785 participants who received the first booster and 699 who received the second booster. We found no significant differences after inoculation with the first booster compared with the second booster (heart rate: day 2 [p=0·3], day 6 [p=0·89]; extent of self-reported reactions [p=0·06]). We found a significant increase in mean heart rate relative to that observed during the week before vaccination (baseline) levels during the first 3 days following the second booster (p<0·0001), peaking on day 2 (mean difference of 1·61 bpm [1·07 to 2·16] compared with baseline). Mean heart rate values returned to baseline levels by day 6 (-0·055 bpm [-0·56 to 0·45] compared with baseline). INTERPRETATION: Both our retrospective and prospective analyses support the safety of the second booster, with our findings reflecting physicians' diagnoses, patients' objective physiological measures, and patients' subjective reactions. We believe this study provides safety assurances to the global population who are eligible to receive an additional COVID-19 booster inoculation. These assurances can help increase the number of high-risk individuals who opt to receive this booster vaccine and thereby prevent severe outcomes associated with COVID-19. FUNDING: European Research Council (ERC).

Higher sensitivity monitoring of reactions to COVID-19 vaccination using smartwatches.

More than 12 billion COVID-19 vaccination shots have been administered as of August 2022, but information from active surveillance about vaccine safety is limited. Surveillance is generally based on self-reporting, making the monitoring process subjective. We study participants in Israel who received their second or third Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination. All participants wore a Garmin Vivosmart 4 smartwatch and completed a daily questionnaire via smartphone. We compare post-vaccination smartwatch heart rate data and a Garmin-computed stress measure based on heart rate variability with data from the patient questionnaires. Using a mixed effects panel regression to remove participant-level fixed and random effects, we identify considerable changes in smartwatch measures in the 72 h post-vaccination even among participants who reported no side effects in the questionnaire. Wearable devices were more sensitive than questionnaires in determining when participants returned to baseline levels. We conclude that wearable devices can detect physiological responses following vaccination that may not be captured by patient self-reporting. More broadly, the ubiquity of smartwatches provides an opportunity to gather improved data on patient health, including active surveillance of vaccine safety.

Self-Reported and Physiologic Reactions to Third BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Booster) Vaccine Dose.

Despite extensive technological advances in recent years, objective and continuous assessment of physiologic measures after vaccination is rarely performed. We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate short-term self-reported and physiologic reactions to the booster BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech, https://www.pfizer.com) vaccine dose. A total of 1,609 participants were equipped with smartwatches and completed daily questionnaires through a dedicated mobile application. The extent of systemic reactions reported after the booster dose was similar to that of the second dose and considerably greater than that of the first dose. Analyses of objective heart rate and heart rate variability measures recorded by smartwatches further supported this finding. Subjective and objective reactions after the booster dose were more apparent in younger participants and in participants who did not have underlying medical conditions. Our findings further support the safety of the booster dose from subjective and objective perspectives and underscore the need for integrating wearables in clinical trials.

Utilizing wearable sensors for continuous and highly-sensitive monitoring of reactions to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Background: Clinical trial guidelines for assessing the safety of vaccines, are primarily based on self-reported questionnaires. Despite the tremendous technological advances in recent years, objective, continuous assessment of physiological measures post-vaccination is rarely performed. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study during the mass vaccination campaign in Israel. 160 participants >18 years who were not previously found to be COVID-19 positive and who received the BNT162b2 COVID-19 (Pfizer BioNTech) vaccine were equipped with an FDA-approved chest-patch sensor and a dedicated mobile application. The chest-patch sensor continuously monitored 13 different cardiovascular, and hemodynamic vitals: heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate variability, stroke volume, cardiac output, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance and skin temperature. The mobile application collected daily self-reported questionnaires on local and systemic reactions. Results: We identify continuous and significant changes following vaccine administration in nearly all vitals. Markedly, these changes are observed even in presumably asymptomatic participants who did not report any local or systemic reaction. Changes in vitals are more apparent at night, in younger participants, and in participants following the second vaccine dose. Conclusion: the considerably higher sensitivity of wearable sensors can revolutionize clinical trials by enabling earlier identification of abnormal reactions with fewer subjects.

Differential effects of COVID-19 lockdowns on well-being: interaction between age, gender and chronotype.

The unprecedented restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic altered our daily habits and severely affected our well-being and physiology. The effect of these changes is yet to be fully understood. Here, we analysed highly detailed data on 169 participants for two to six months, before and during the second COVID-19 lockdown in Israel. We extracted 12 well-being indicators from sensory data of smartwatches and from self-reported questionnaires, filled daily using a designated mobile application. We found that, in general, lockdowns resulted in significant changes in mood, sleep duration, sport duration, social encounters, resting heart rate and number of steps. Examining subpopulations, we found that younger participants (aged 20-40 years) suffered from a greater decline in mood and number of steps than older participants (aged 60-80 years). Likewise, women suffered from a higher increase in stress and reduction in social encounters than men. Younger early chronotypes did not increase their sleep duration and exhibited the highest drop in mood. Our findings underscore that while lockdowns severely impacted our well-being and physiology in general, greater damage has been identified in certain subpopulations. Accordingly, special attention should be given to younger people, who are usually not in the focus of social support, and to women.