Identification of behavioural changes in reporting adverse events early during COVID-19: An ambulatory care perspective in Israel.

This study examined adverse event reporting centred on three significant dates in the months before the pandemic arrived in Israel. On these dates, broad media coverage exposed citizens and health care providers with indications about the forthcoming pandemic. The current study tracked whether parameters related to reporting adverse medical events provided early indications that a large crisis was unfolding. The method for analysing the data was based on a statistical test called Regression Discontinuity Design, which helped identify parameters related to medical reporting patterns which significantly changed. The examination indicated nurses' reports were unique in relation to others and indicated three phases: (1) upon declaration of the upcoming pandemic, there was a rise in reporting; (2) when the disease was named, there was moderation and maintenance in a steady quantity of reports, and finally, (3) when the first case arrived in Israel, a slight decrease in reporting began. Nurses' behaviours manifested as changes in reporting patterns. In this process of increase, moderation and decrease, it can be concluded that these are three stages that may characterise the beginning of a large event. The research method presented reinforces the need for forming tools by which significant events such as the COVID-19 pandemic can be identified quickly, and aid in proper planning of resources, optimise staffing and maximise utilization of the health systems.

Comparing the Use of a Mobile App and a Web-Based Notification Platform for Surveillance of Adverse Events Following Influenza Immunization: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine safety surveillance is a core component of vaccine pharmacovigilance. In Canada, active, participant-centered vaccine surveillance is available for influenza vaccines and has been used for COVID-19 vaccines. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of using a mobile app for reporting participant-centered seasonal influenza adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) compared to a web-based notification system. METHODS: Participants were randomized to influenza vaccine safety reporting via a mobile app or a web-based notification platform. All participants were invited to complete a user experience survey. RESULTS: Among the 2408 randomized participants, 1319 (54%) completed their safety survey 1 week after vaccination, with a higher completion rate among the web-based notification platform users (767/1196, 64%) than among mobile app users (552/1212, 45%; P<.001). Ease-of-use ratings were high for the web-based notification platform users (99% strongly agree or agree) and 88.8% of them strongly agreed or agreed that the system made reporting AEFIs easier. Web-based notification platform users supported the statement that a web-based notification-only approach would make it easier for public health professionals to detect vaccine safety signals (91.4%, agreed or strongly agreed). CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this study were significantly more likely to respond to a web-based safety survey rather than within a mobile app. These results suggest that mobile apps present an additional barrier for use compared to the web-based notification-only approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05794113; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT05794113.

The conundrum of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced anaphylaxis.

Novel messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines have proven to be effective tools against coronavirus disease 2019, and they have changed the course of the pandemic. However, early reports of mRNA vaccine-induced anaphylaxis resulted in public alarm, contributing toward vaccine hesitancy. Although initial reports were concerning for an unusually high rate of anaphylaxis to the mRNA vaccines, the true incidence is likely comparable with other vaccines. These reactions occurred predominantly in young to middle-aged females, and many had a history of allergies. Although initially thought to be triggered by polyethylene glycol (PEG), lack of reproducibility of these reactions with subsequent dosing and absent PEG sensitization point away from an IgE-mediated PEG allergy in most. PEG skin testing has poor posttest probability and should be reserved for evaluating non-vaccine-related PEG allergy without influencing decisions for subsequent mRNA vaccination. Immunization stress-related response can closely mimic vaccine-induced anaphylaxis and warrants consideration as a potential etiology. Current evidence suggests that many individuals who developed anaphylaxis to the first dose of an mRNA vaccine can likely receive a subsequent dose after careful evaluation. The need to understand these reactions mechanistically remains critical because the mRNA platform is rapidly finding its way into other vaccinations and therapeutics.

Pharmacovigilance regulatory actions by national pharmacovigilance centers in Arab countries following COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacovigilance (PV) activities were affected by COVID-19. Therefore, several health authorities around the world have issued guidelines and practices to ensure that PV activities are maintained and continued during the pandemic. This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the preparedness and performance of national PV systems in 14 Arab countries. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study that was conducted between July and October 2020. National PV centers in 18 Arab countries were invited to participate in this study. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize and present the results of this study. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 14 (77.8%) countries. Adverse events reporting was the main PV activity that was covered by PV guidelines and practices. National guidelines and practices covered other PV activities in 8 (57.14%) of the participating countries. Performance and practices of national PV centers vary considerably among participating countries during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the differences in preparedness and performance of different national PV centers in participating Arab countries. Improving digital infrastructure among participating countries could serve as a useful tool to minimize the impact of the pandemic on PV activities.

Vaccine confidence among those living with allergy during the COVID pandemic (ACCORD): A scoping review.

Background: Reports of allergic reactions to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, coupled with an "infodemic" of misinformation, carry the potential to undermine confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines. However, no attempts have been made to comprehensively synthesize the literature on how allergic disease and fear of allergic reactions to the vaccines contribute to hesitancy. Objectives: Our aim was to review the academic and gray literature on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and allergic reactions. Methods: We searched 4 databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Embase) using a search strategy developed by content and methodologic experts. No restrictions were applied regarding COVID-19 vaccine type, country of study, or patient age. Eligible articles were restricted to 10 languages. Results: Of the 1385 unique records retrieved from our search, 60 articles (4.3%) were included. Allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine were rare but slightly more common in individuals with a history of allergic disease. A fifth of the studies (13 of 60 [22%]) discussed vaccine hesitancy due to possibility of an allergic reaction. Additionally, the present review identified research on details of vaccine-related anaphylaxis (eg, a mean and median [excluding clinical trial data] of 12.4 and 5 cases per million doses, respectively) and allergic reactions (eg, a mean and median [excluding clinical trial data] of 489 and 528 cases per million doses, respectively). Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among individuals living with allergy and among those with no history of allergic disease may be affected by fear of an allergic reaction. Despite the low incidence of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, fear of such reactions is one of the most commonly cited concerns reported in the literature.

Delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions following the use of infliximab or adalimumab in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Recent evidence has emerged concerning delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions after infliximab or adalimumab applications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A few real-world studies compared the events, clinical features, and prognosis of infliximab- or adalimumab-related delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions in COVID-19 patients. Disproportionality analysis and Bayesian analysis were utilized to determine the suspected adverse events of delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions after infliximab or adalimumab use based on the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting Systems (FAERS) from May 2020 to December 2021. Additionally, the times to onset and fatality rates of delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions following infliximab or adalimumab were compared. In total, 475 reports of delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions were associated with infliximab or adalimumab. Females were affected almost twice more than males. Among the two therapies, infliximab had the highest association with delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions based on the highest reporting odds ratio (2.14, 95% two-sided confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-3.81), proportional reporting ratio (1.95, χ2 = 7.03), and empirical Bayesian geometric mean (1.94, 95% one-sided CI = 1.2). Infliximab-related delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions had earlier onset (0 [interquartile range (IQR): 0-0] days vs. 166.5 (IQR: 18-889.5) days, p < 0.05), while adalimumab-related delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions have higher fatality rate (0.44% vs. 0.00%). Based on the FAERS database, we profiled delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions related to infliximab or adalimumab application in patients with COVID-19 with more points of occurrences, clinical characteristics, and prognosis.

An observational, retrospective, comprehensive pharmacovigilance analysis of hydroxychloroquine-associated cardiovascular adverse events in patients with and without COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)-associated cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs) have been increasingly reported. AIM: This study aimed to present an observational, retrospective, and comprehensive pharmacovigilance analysis of CVAE associated with HCQ in patients with and without COVID-19 using the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) data from January 2020 to December 2020. METHOD: We identified 3302 adverse event reports from the FAERS database in the year 2020 and divided them into COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups, respectively. Then we analyzed whether there were differences in CVAEs between the two groups. RESULTS: We found that CVAE was higher in cases with COVID-19 compared to those without COVID-19, odds ratio (OR) of 1.26 and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of 1.02-1.54. Cases with COVID-19 treated with HCQ exhibited relatively higher proportions of torsade de points (TdP) and QT prolongation (OR 3.10, 95% CI 2.24-4.30), shock-associated TdP (OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.13-4.04), cardiac arrhythmias (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.60-2.69), cardiac arrhythmia terms (including bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias) (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.65-2.80), bradyarrhythmias (including conduction defects and disorders of sinus node function) (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.86-3.54), and conduction defects (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.86-3.54). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective observational analysis suggested that the proportion of CVAE associated with HCQ, especially TdP and QT prolongation, was higher in patients with COVID-19. Understanding the effects of COVID-19 on the cardiovascular system is essential to providing comprehensive medical care to patients receiving HCQ treatment.

Risk Factors and Incidence Rates of Self-Reported Short-Term Adverse Events of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose.

With the spread of the new SARS-CoV-2 variants, many countries have begun COVID-19 vaccine booster programs with the mix-and-match strategy. However, research on the adverse events (AE) of booster doses is still scarce. The aim of our study was to analyze the reported incidence rate (IR), and factors associated with AE, including short-term serious adverse events (SAE) and short-term non-serious adverse events (NSAE), among different vaccine products through the hospital-based Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). A total of 7432 records were collected during the three-month study period. While more than half of the responses (52.2%) reported the presence of AE after receiving a booster dose, only a few AE were considered SAE (2.4%). AE were significantly higher among women and people of younger age, and the brand of vaccines is the strongest factor associated with post-booster dose AE. The incidence of AE in mRNA1273 is higher than in BNT162b2 and MVC-COV1901 (IRR mRNA1273 vs. BNT162b2: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.11-1.34; BNT162b2 vs. MVC-COV1901: 2.77, 95% CI: 2.27-3.39). The IR of different groups were calculated to support the decision making of the booster vaccine. Although AE were not uncommon for booster vaccines, almost all AE were not serious and predictable using estimated IR. This result can be used to optimize booster vaccine decision making.

Allergic Reactions After the Administration of COVID-19 Vaccines.

Background: Data on allergic reactions after the administration of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines are limited. Our aim is to analyze reports of allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccine administration. Methods: The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database was searched for reported allergic reactions after the administration of any of the COVID-19 vaccines from December 2020 to June 2021. After data mapping, the demographic and clinical characteristics of the reported cases were analyzed. Potential factors associated with anaphylaxis were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models. Results: In total, 14,611 cases were reported. Most cases of allergic reactions comprised women (84.6%) and occurred after the first dose of the vaccine (63.6%). Patients who experienced anaphylaxis were younger (mean age 45.11 ± 5.6 vs. 47.01 ± 6.3 years, P < 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of a history of allergies, allergic rhinitis, asthma, and anaphylaxis than those who did not (P < 0.05). A history of allergies (odds ratio (OR) 1.632, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.467-1.816, P < 0.001), asthma (OR 1.908, 95%CI 1.677-2.172, P < 0.001), and anaphylaxis (OR 7.164, 95%CI 3.504-14.646, P < 0.001) were potential risk factors for anaphylaxis. Among the 8,232 patients with reported outcomes, 16 died. Conclusions: Female predominance in allergic reaction cases after the receipt of COVID-19 vaccines was observed. Previous histories of allergies, asthma, or anaphylaxis were risk factors for anaphylaxis post-vaccination. People with these risk factors should be monitored more strictly after COVID-19 vaccination.

Symptomatic Myocarditis Post COVID-19 Vaccination.

There are few major adverse events after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. However, increasing cases of myocarditis and pericarditis are being reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in young people, primarily after the second dose of messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. We present a case series of myopericarditis post mRNA (Moderna) and myocarditis post vector-based (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccines. We intend to highlight the importance of early diagnosis and treatment of vaccine-related myocarditis to reduce mortality and morbidity.

Risk of Myocarditis and Pericarditis among Young Adults following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccinations.

There have been reports of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis as rare complications following mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations among young adults. While most reported cases are mild, this potential vaccine safety signal should be closely monitored. Using data from the CDC and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), we calculated the combined reporting rate of myocarditis and pericarditis stratified by age group, sex, vaccine dose, and manufacturer, and compared these rates to the crude background incidence rates. Compared to the general population prior to the administration of the first COVID-19 vaccines in December 2020, we identified a higher-than-expected reporting rate of myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA vaccination; the risk was higher after a second vaccine dose, higher in males than in females, and decreased with age. The highest risk was seen in males 12-17 years of age with approximately 6 cases per 100,000 second doses. Our findings suggest an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in young males following a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Since these findings are based on safety signals derived from passive surveillance data, confirmatory epidemiological studies should be undertaken.

Association of Current Active Illnesses and Severe Acute Kidney Injury after COVID-19 Vaccines: A Real-World Study.

The administration of COVID-19 vaccines has become increasingly essential to curb the pandemic. However, adverse events of acute kidney injury (AKI) emerge rapidly as the COVID-19 vaccination promotes. To investigate the intervenable risk factors of AKI, we searched the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database and recorded adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccines from Dec 2020 to Jun 2021. We included 1149 AKI cases, of which 627 (54.6%) cases were reported following the Pfizer-BNT COVID-19 vaccine, and 433 (37.7%) were reported after the Moderna vaccine. A univariate analysis revealed that coexisting active illnesses (infections, uncontrolled hypertension, heart failure, etc.) have an unfavorable prognosis, with an increased risk of death (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.70-3.25, p < 0.001). The other risk factors included older age and past disease histories. An adjusted regression analysis proved that coexisting active illnesses worsen AKI prognosis after COVID-19 vaccination, with a higher mortality risk (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.48-3.25, p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, we stratified different variables, and none revealed a significant effect modification on the association between coexisting active illnesses and AKI-associated death after vaccination (p-interaction >0.05). We found that coexisting active illnesses could complicate AKI after vaccines, but the potential causal relationship needed further investigation.

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions associated with systemic ivermectin: A pharmacovigilance analysis.

Despite poor evidence, the antiparasitic ivermectin has been advocated as a potential COVID-19 therapy. This has led to a rise in calls to poison-control centers by people self-medicating with ivermectin, which is sold over the counter for veterinary uses. We aimed to investigate the association between severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) and ivermectin. Postmarketing data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), gathered between 2014 and 2021, was employed to detect disproportional signals of SCARs following systemic ivermectin therapy. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was used to quantify the strength of association, while adjusting for age, sex, and region. The search yielded 517 reports of systemic ivermectin (median age 54 years, 46.8% female), of which 25 (4.8%), 81 (15.7%), and 411 (79.5%) were classified as SCARs, nonsevere cutaneous adverse events (AEs), or noncutaneous AEs, respectively. The regional distribution differed between SCAR reports (32.0% from Africa and 12.0% from North America) compared with other AEs, which originated from North America in over half of cases. The most common SCARs were toxic epidermal necrolysis (seven cases), Stevens-Johnson syndrome (seven cases), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (four cases). Five SCAR cases (20.0%) resulted in death and 12 (48.0%) lead to hospitalization. There was a strong safety signal for any SCAR (adjusted ROR 3.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.17-5.12) and toxidermias (adjusted ROR 7.08, 95% CI 4.23-11.84). This study suggests that ivermectin is associated with SCARs on rare occasions. Dermatologists should be aware of this given the increase in ivermectin misuse.

Characteristics and Comparison of Adverse Events of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccines Reported to the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Between 14 December 2020 and 8 October 2021.

Background: This study assessed and compared the frequency and type of adverse events (AEs) of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines reported in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Methods: A retrospective analysis examined VAERS reports between 14 December 2020 and 8 October 2021 and focused on AE reports related to COVID-19 vaccines and AE outcomes [e.g., emergency room (ER) visits after being vaccinated, hospitalization, prolongation of existing hospitalization, life-threatening events, disability, birth defect, and death]. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and Breslow-Day statistics were used to compare AE reporting between COVID-19 and non-COVID vaccines and between individual COVID-19 vaccines. Results: A total of 604,157 AEs of COVID-19 vaccines were reported, including 43.51% for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 47.13% for the Moderna vaccine, and 9.12% for the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. About 12.56% of patients visited ER after being vaccinated, 5.96% reported hospitalization, and 1.52% reported life-threatening events. Among the number of death cases (n = 7,674; mean age = 73), 2,025 patients (26.39%) had hypertension and 1,237 (16.12%) patients had cancer. RORs between COVID-19 vaccines and non-COVID vaccines identified increased ROR in ER visits, hospitalization, and life-threatening events. The results of the Breslow-Day statistics indicated heterogeneities between the disproportionality of reports across the four serious AE outcomes (i.e., ER visits, hospitalization, life-threatening events, and disability) between individual COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusion: Most current VAERS reports showed that the most commonly reported AEs of COVID-19 vaccines were mild. Cases with a mortality outcome tended to occur in older adults with underneath conditions. Close ongoing surveillance in the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is critical and will inform the use of individual COVID-19 vaccines. Given the known limitations associated with the passive spontaneous reporting system, such as VAERS, our findings need to be further assessed and verified through longitudinal, large healthcare data systems.

A systematic review on mucocutaneous presentations after COVID-19 vaccination and expert recommendations about vaccination of important immune-mediated dermatologic disorders.

With dermatologic side effects being fairly prevalent following vaccination against COVID-19, and the multitude of studies aiming to report and analyze these adverse events, the need for an extensive investigation on previous studies seemed urgent, in order to provide a thorough body of information about these post-COVID-19 immunization mucocutaneous reactions. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive electronic search was performed through the international databases including Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of science, and Google scholar on July 12, 2021, and all articles regarding mucocutaneous manifestations and considerations after COVID-19 vaccine administration were retrieved using the following keywords: COVID-19 vaccine, dermatology considerations and mucocutaneous manifestations. A total of 917 records were retrieved and a final number of 180 articles were included in data extraction. Mild, moderate, severe and potentially life-threatening adverse events have been reported following immunization with COVID vaccines, through case reports, case series, observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and further recommendations and consensus position papers regarding vaccination. In this systematic review, we categorized these results in detail into five elaborate tables, making what we believe to be an extensively informative, unprecedented set of data on this topic. Based on our findings, in the viewpoint of the pros and cons of vaccination, mucocutaneous adverse events were mostly non-significant, self-limiting reactions, and for the more uncommon moderate to severe reactions, guidelines and consensus position papers could be of great importance to provide those at higher risks and those with specific worries of flare-ups or inefficient immunization, with sufficient recommendations to safely schedule their vaccine doses, or avoid vaccination if they have the discussed contra-indications.

Summary of COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Identification of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in humans toward the end of 2019 triggered a rapid, intensive effort to develop a vaccine. Among the first three COVID-19 vaccines granted emergency use authorization by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were two mRNA vaccines, never used on a large scale in humans, and one replication-incompetent human adenovirus vector vaccine. Since the beginning of the vaccination efforts in December 2020, almost 220,000 adverse events (AEs) have been reported through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a reporting platform administered jointly by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control to monitor vaccine-related AEs. We queried this database twice (04/23/21 and 05/14/21) and identified the AE reports with valid manufacturer-specific lot numbers (n = 76,336), a subset representing 33.54% of the total reported AEs. Using vaccine and demographic characteristics at the time of each query date, a model was generated to predict significant AEs, such as death. Our regression analysis revealed that the average age (IRR 1.08) and the number of doses administered in an assisted living facility (IRR 1.01) were significantly associated with the number of deaths observed in each lot, whereas the proportion of remaining vaccine shelf-life (IRR 1.30) and the vaccine manufacturer (IRR 1.09) were not. Studies such as this one are vital, as one of the best answers to vaccine hesitancy is reliable data confirming that the available COVID-19 vaccines are safe and not associated with a significantly higher risk of AEs than vaccines for other conditions.

Cov19VaxKB: A Web-based Integrative COVID-19 Vaccine Knowledge Base.

The development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted the emergence of COVID-19 vaccine data. Timely access to COVID-19 vaccine information is crucial to researchers and public. To support more comprehensive annotation, integration, and analysis of COVID-19 vaccine information, we have developed Cov19VaxKB, a knowledge-focused COVID-19 vaccine database (http://www.violinet.org/cov19vaxkb/). Cov19VaxKB features comprehensive lists of COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine formulations, clinical trials, publications, news articles, and vaccine adverse event case reports. A web-based query interface enables comparison of product information and host responses among various vaccines. The knowledge base also includes a vaccine design tool for predicting vaccine targets and a statistical analysis tool that identifies enriched adverse events for FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines based on VAERS case report data. To support data exchange, Cov19VaxKB is synchronized with Vaccine Ontology and the Vaccine Investigation and Online Information Network (VIOLIN) database. The data integration and analytical features of Cov19VaxKB can facilitate vaccine research and development while also serving as a useful reference for the public.

Vaccine hesitancy: evidence from an adverse events following immunization database, and the role of cognitive biases.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy has been a growing challenge for public health in recent decades. Among factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy, concerns regarding vaccine safety and Adverse Events (AEs) play the leading role. Moreover, cognitive biases are critical in connecting such concerns to vaccine hesitancy behaviors, but their role has not been comprehensively studied. In this study, our first objective is to address concerns regarding vaccine AEs to increase vaccine acceptance. Our second objective is to identify the potential cognitive biases connecting vaccine hesitancy concerns to vaccine-hesitant behaviors and identify the mechanism they get triggered in the vaccine decision-making process. METHODS: First, to mitigate concerns regarding AEs, we quantitatively analyzed the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 2011 to 2018 and provided evidence regarding the non-severity of the AEs that can be used as a communicable summary to increase vaccine acceptance. Second, we focused on the vaccination decision-making process. We reviewed cognitive biases and vaccine hesitancy literature to identify the most potential cognitive biases that affect vaccine hesitancy and categorized them adopting the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM). RESULTS: Our results show that the top frequent AEs are expected mild reactions like injection site erythema (4.29%), pyrexia (3.66%), and injection site swelling (3.21%). 94.5% of the reports are not serious and the average population-based serious reporting rate over the 8 years was 25.3 reports per 1 million population. We also identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect people's vaccination decision-making and nudge them toward vaccine hesitancy. We categorized these biases based on the factors that trigger them and discussed how they contribute to vaccine hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provided an evidence-based communicable summary of VAERS. As the most trusted sources of vaccine information, health practitioners can use this summary to provide evidence-based vaccine information to vaccine decision-makers (patients/parents) and mitigate concerns over vaccine safety and AEs. In addition, we identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect the vaccination decision-making process and nudge people toward vaccine hesitancy. Any plan, intervention, and message to increase vaccination uptake should be modified to decrease the effect of these potential cognitive biases.