Adverse Reactions after BNT162b2 Messenger RNA Vaccination for Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Healthcare Workers Compared with Influenza Vaccination.

This study aimed to compare adverse reactions following BNT162b2 and influenza vaccinations in healthcare workers. This study included healthcare workers who received the BNT162b2 vaccine and/or inactivated influenza vaccine, quadrivalent (IIV4), on 18-29 October 2021 at a tertiary hospital in Korea. IIV4 was administered and BNT162b2 was subsequently administered one week later. The participants responded to a mobile questionnaire regarding adverse events. The overall adverse reaction rates were 90.6% in the BNT162b2 + IIV4 group, 90.4% in the BNT162b2 alone group, and 44.1% in the IIV4 alone group (p < 0.001). Fever occurred in 19.5%, 26.9%, and 3.3% of participants in the BNT162b2 + IIV4, BNT162b2 alone, and IIV4 alone groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The most common local and systemic adverse reactions were injection site pain (65.0%) and fatigue (58.6%), respectively. Injection-site pain was experienced by 88.7%, 88.5%, and 37.5% of the BNT162b2 + IIV4, BNT162b2 alone, and IIV4 alone groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Fatigue was experienced by 74.8%, 78.8%, and 38.6% of the BNT162b2 + IIV4, BNT162b2 alone, and IIV4 alone groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Adverse reactions occurred at a significantly higher frequency after BNT162b2 than after IIV4. The frequency of adverse reactions one week after vaccination with IIV4 and BNT162b2 was not different from that after vaccination with BNT162b2 alone. Therefore, coadministration of influenza vaccine with BNT162b2 can be expected to be safe.

Safety and Effectiveness of an In-Hospital Screening Station for Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Response to the Massive Community Outbreak.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of operating an in-hospital coronavirus disease 2019 screening station on an outpatient basis and to identify the effectiveness and necessity of such a screening station. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 1345 individuals who were tested for COVID-19 using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at an in-hospital screening station on an outpatient basis. The subjects were healthcare workers (HCWs) with suspected COVID-19 symptoms or exposure to patients with confirmed COVID-19, caregivers at the hospital for complete enumeration, and patients who were scheduled to be admitted to a nonrestricted area in the hospital or to visit for outpatient treatment, but had suspected COVID-19 symptoms. The subjects were divided and compared as follows: HCW versus non-HCW groups and RT-PCR positive versus negative groups. RESULTS: A total of 140 had symptoms, 291 wanted to be tested, and 664 were asymptomatic but were screened. Seven subjects had positive results for COVID-19. Compared with the non-HCWs, the HCWs were younger and had a lower rate of underlying medical conditions. In addition, there were more women, individuals with exposure to confirmed cases, and individuals with symptoms or those who just wanted to be tested. The frequency of all symptoms was high among the HCWs. The results of the logistic regression analysis showed that the HCWs were significantly associated with the presence of symptoms, having an odds ratio of 23.317 (confidence interval, 15.142-35.907L; P < 0.001). The positive group had a high rate of exposure to patients with confirmed COVID-19 and had more subjects with symptoms or those who wanted to be tested. CONCLUSION: In-hospital screening stations are a relatively safe way to protect and support HCWs and to reduce and manage the spread of infection within the hospital effectively during an outbreak in the community.