Assessment of Adverse events following Immunization of COVID - 19 vaccination in Health Care Workers (HCWs) of Shaheed Hasan Khan Mewati Govt. Medical College Nalhar, Nuh, Haryana, India

Background: We assess the profile of adverse events following immunization of COVID - 19 vaccination of COVISHIELD in health care workers (HCWs) in Shaheed Hasan Khan Mewati Govt. Medical college Nalhar, Nuh, Haryana, India. Method(s): The Cross sectional and prospective observational study was conducted with a period of 3 months or till the desired sample size recruited in the study with follow up period of 15 days for all those subjects who were vaccinated for covid-19 in SHKM, GMC Hospital to look for AEFI with sample size more than 300. Active surveillance was done on days 3, 6 and 9 after days of vaccination for AEFI). Any AEFI noted will be managed as per the standard guidelines. Result(s): We present the results of an interim analysis of 400 patients out of total 550 participants with 244(61.00%) male and 156 (39.00%) female participants respectively. AEFIs following first dose were reported in 400 participants and 269 participants after second dose. Fever was the major AEFI with 150(37.50%) after first dose and 78(28.99%) after second dose respectively. In the study age wise AEFIs percentage of participants were also calculated. In the present study different systemic diseases percentage also calculated. Conclusion(s): The AEFIs associated with the COVISHIELD (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), the COVID-19 vaccine injected in hospital health care workers is found to be safe for use in except for a few minor reactions.Copyright © RJPT. All right reserved.

A Cross-Sectional Study to Assess mRNA-COVID-19 Vaccine Safety among Indian Children (5-17 Years) Living in Saudi Arabia.

The objective of this study is to assess the frequency and severity of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) in Indian children aged 5-17 years who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, as well as to investigate for predictors of AEFI. To examine AEFI following the first and second doses of Pfizer's vaccine, semi-structured questionnaires were distributed as Google forms at Indian schools in Saudi Arabia. The 385 responses included 48.1% male and 51.9% female children, with 136 responses of children aged 5-11 years (group A) and 249 responses from children aged 12-17 years (group B). Overall, 84.4% of children had two shots. The frequency of AEFI was reported to be higher after the first dose than after the second (OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.57-2.86). The reported AEFIs included myalgia, rhinitis, local reaction with fever, a temperature of 102 °F or higher, and mild to moderate injection site reactions. While group B frequently reported multiple AEFIs, group A typically reported just one. Local reaction with low grade fever was more frequently reported in group B after the first dose (24.1%) and second dose (15.4%), while local reaction without low grade fever was most frequently observed in group A after the first (36.8%) and second dose (30%). Only prior COVID-19 infection (OR = 2.98, 95% CI = 1.44-6.2) was associated with AEFI after the second dose in the study sample, whereas male gender (OR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.13-2.6) and prior COVID-19 infection (OR = 2.95, 95% CI = 1.38-6.3) were predictors of AEFI after the first dose. Non-serious myocarditis was reported by only one child. According to the analysis conducted, the Pfizer's mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was found to be safe in Indian children.

Investigation of Adverse Events Experienced by Healthcare Workers following Immunization with Homologous orHeterologous COVID-19 Booster Vaccinations.

OBJECTIVE: A comparative analysis was performed to investigate the potential risk factors of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) after receiving different booster vaccines. METHODS: From 18 January 2021 to 21 January 2022, the Health Care Workers (HCWs) of Guizhou Provincial Staff Hospital (Guizhou Province, China) who received a third Booster vaccine, that was either homologous (i.e., (i) a total of three doses of Vero cell vaccine or (ii) three doses of CHO cell vaccine) or (iii) heterologous with two first doses of Vero cell vaccine, being either CHO cell vaccine or adenovirus type-5 (Ad5) vectored COVID-19 vaccine, were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire form to provide information on any AEFI that may have occurred in the first 3 days after vaccination with the booster. The frequency of AEFI corresponding to the three different booster vaccines was compared, and the risk factors for predicting AEFI were determined by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 904 HCWs who completed the survey, 792 met the inclusion criteria. The rates of AEFI were 9.8% (62/635) in the homologous Vero cell booster group, 17.3% (13/75) in the homologous CHO cell booster group, and 20.7% (17/82) in the heterologous mixed vaccines booster group, and the rates were significantly different (c2 = 11.5, p = 0.004) between the three groups of vaccines. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that: (1) compared to the homologous Vero cell booster group, the risk of AEFI was about 2.1 times higher (OR = 2.095, 95% CI: 1.056-4.157, p = 0.034) in the CHO cell booster group and 2.5 times higher (OR = 2.476, 95% CI: 1.352-4.533, p = 0.003) in the mixed vaccines group; (2) the odds for women experiencing AEFI were about 2.8 times higher (OR = 2.792, 95% CI: 1.407-5.543, p = 0.003) than men; and (3) compared to the non-frontline HCWs, the risk of AEFI was about 2.6 times higher (OR = 2.648, 95% CI: 1.473-4.760, p = 0.001) in the doctors. CONCLUSION: The AEFI in all three booster groups are acceptable, and serious adverse events are rare. The risk of AEFI was higher in doctors, which may be related to the high stress during the COVID-19 epidemic. Support from government and non-governmental agencies is important for ensuring the physical and mental health of HCWs.

A scoping review of active, participant-centred, digital adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance: A Canadian immunization research network study.

BACKGROUND: Post-licensure adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance is conducted to monitor vaccine safety, such as identifying batch/brand issues and rare reactions, which consequently improves community confidence. The integration of technology has been proposed to improve AEFI surveillance, however, there is an absence of description regarding which digital solutions are successfully being used and their unique characteristics. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this scoping review were to 1) map the research landscape on digital systems used for active, participant-centred, AEFI surveillance and 2) describe their core components. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review informed by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRSIMA-ScR) guideline. OVID-Medline, Embase Classic + Embase, and Medrxiv were searched by a medical librarian from January 1, 2000 to January 28th, 2021. Two independent reviewers determined which studies met inclusion based on pre-specified eligibility criteria. Data extraction was conducted using pre-made tables with specific variables by one investigator and verified by a second. RESULTS: Twenty-seven publications met inclusion, the majority of which came from Australia (n = 15) and Canada (n = 6). The most studied active, participant-centred, digital AEFI surveillance systems were SmartVax (n = 8) (Australia), Vaxtracker (n = 7) (Australia), and Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) Network (Canada) (n = 6). The two most common methods of communicating with vaccinees reported were short-message-service (SMS) (n = 15) and e-mail (n = 14), with online questionnaires being the primary method of data collection (n = 20). CONCLUSION: Active, participant-centred, digital AEFI surveillance is an area actively being researched as depicted by the literature landscape mapped by this scoping reviewWe hypothesize that the AEFI surveillance approach herein described could become a primary method of collecting self-reported subjective symptoms and reactogenicity from vaccinees, complementing existing systems. Future evaluation of identified digital solutions is necessary to bring about improvements to current vaccine surveillance systems to meet contemporary and future public health needs.

Autopsy Findings and Causality Relationship between Death and COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review.

The current challenge worldwide is the administration of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. Considering that the COVID-19 vaccination represents the best possibility to resolve this pandemic, this systematic review aims to clarify the major aspects of fatal adverse effects related to COVID-19 vaccines, with the goal of advancing our knowledge, supporting decisions, or suggesting changes in policies at local, regional, and global levels. Moreover, this review aims to provide key recommendations to improve awareness of vaccine safety. All studies published up to 2 December 2021 were searched using the following keywords: "COVID-19 Vaccine", "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine", "COVID-19 Vaccination", "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination", and "Autopsy" or "Post-mortem". We included 17 papers published with fatal cases with post-mortem investigations. A total of 38 cases were analyzed: 22 cases were related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 administration, 10 cases to BNT162b2, 4 cases to mRNA-1273, and 2 cases to Ad26.COV2.S. Based on these data, autopsy is very useful to define the main characteristics of the so-called vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: recurrent findings were intracranial hemorrhage and diffused microthrombi located in multiple areas. Moreover, it is fundamental to provide evidence about myocarditis related to the BNT162B2 vaccine. Finally, based on the discussed data, we suggest several key recommendations to improve awareness of vaccine safety.

Mandatory immunization and vaccine injury support programs: A survey of 28 GNN countries.

BACKGROUND: Despite the proposed ethical link between mandatory immunization and Vaccine Injury Support Programs (VISPs), relatively few jurisdictions, even those with mandatory immunization, have implemented such programs. Although it may be assumed that individuals injured by a vaccine in a non-VISP country receive less support than in countries possessing such programs, the extent of the discrepancy is not clear; nor is the nature of any discrepancy. METHODS: In our 2018 survey of 28 Global NITAG (National Immunization Technical Advisory Group) Network (GNN) countries, we asked respondents about mandatory immunization and the availability of VISPs. Responses were supplemented with desktop research and review of scholarly literature for further information regarding VISP availability and details. RESULTS: Although only two of 14 (14%) surveyed jurisdictions with mandatory immunization had formal VISPs, responses from additional countries suggested the presence of less formal avenues of compensation for serious Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFIs); similarly, we found five of 15 (33%) of countries without mandatory immunization had implemented formal VISPs, but another three such countries suggested similar informal methods of compensation. CONCLUSIONS: From our data, it is evident that at least some countries with mandatory immunization may discharge their (perceived or actual) ethical obligation to provide financial assistance to vaccine-injured individuals through more informal avenues rather than structured VISPs, although the extent and impact of this practice is by its nature difficult to assess. Further, the nature of VISPs may vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and simple VISP/non-VISP classification of jurisdiction may fail to capture nuance in support for AEFI victims in many jurisdictions. Future assessments of VISPs should consider the possibility of these more informal avenues of support for vaccine injuries.

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.