Adverse events following immunisation of COVID-19 vaccine among health care workers in the first phase of vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: The new COVID-19 vaccine was met with worldwide overwhelming uncertainties pertaining to its safety profile, effectiveness, and potential adverse reactions when it was first introduced. This led to vaccine refusal and delay in vaccine uptake in many countries including Malaysia. The objective of this study was to determine the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) to the COVID-19 vaccine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted among healthcare workers who received the COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of immunisation from eight public primary clinics in Johor Bahru district. Data were collected between May and September 2021 using a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 240 healthcare workers participated and all of them received the Pfizer Messenger RNA vaccine. Our study found that a large majority of vaccine recipients (87.5%, n=210) experienced AEFI to COVID-19 vaccine for either the first, second, or both doses. More than 80% of them experienced more than one type of AEFI. The most common AEFI reported during the first and second dose was localised symptom such as pain at injection site (60-68%), pain on the injected arm (52-61%), and swelling at injection site (32-33%). Common systemic symptoms were fever (22- 57%), myalgia (20-45%), and dizziness (24-26%). Although a large majority experienced AEFI, these reactions were mostly of mild to moderate severity (47.3-73.6%). The mean duration of AEFI onset was within 30 minutes to about 1 day (0.33-22.5 hours) of injection and lasted between 30 minutes and 2.5 days. There was no association between demographic characteristic of participants and severity of AEFI to COVID-19 vaccine. Mean duration of fever was significantly (p=0.005) longer after the second dose (34.2 hours) of vaccine compared to first (20.6 hours) CONCLUSION: This study shows that a large majority of COVID-19 vaccine recipients experienced AEFI; however, these reactions were mostly of mild to moderate severity and lasted between 30 minutes and 2.5 days. A large majority experienced more than one type of AEFI. The most common AEFI was localised reactions consisting of pain and swelling at the injection site and pain on the injected arm. The most common systemic reactions were fever, myalgia, and dizziness. Duration of fever was significantly longer after the second dose.

Fever following Covid-19 vaccination in subjects with Brugada syndrome: Incidence and management.

BACKGROUND: Fever is a potential side effect of the Covid-19 vaccination. Patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS) have an increased risk of life-threatening arrhythmias when experiencing fever. Prompt treatment with antipyretic drugs is suggested in these patients. AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the incidence and management of fever within 48 h from Covid-19 vaccination among BrS patients. METHODS: One hundred sixty-three consecutive patients were enrolled in a prospective registry involving five European hospitals with a dedicated inherited disease ambulatory. RESULTS: The mean age was 50 ± 14 years and 121 (75%) patients were male. Prevalence of Brugada electrocardiogram (ECG) pattern type-1, -2, and -3 was 32%, 44%, and 24%, respectively. Twenty-eight (17%) patients had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Fever occurred in 32 (19%) BrS patients after 16 ± 10 h from vaccination, with a peak of body temperature of 37.9° ± 0.5°. Patients with fever were younger (39 ± 13 vs. 48 ± 13 years, p = .04). No additional differences in terms of sex and cardiovascular risk factors were found between patients with fever and not. Twenty-seven (84%) out of 32 patients experienced mild fever and five (16%) moderate fever. Pharmacological treatment with antipyretic drugs was required in 18 (56%) out of 32 patients and was associated with the resolution of symptoms. No patient required hospital admission and no arrhythmic episode was recorded in patients with ICD within 48 h after vaccination. No induced type 1 BrS ECG pattern and new ECG features were found among patients with moderate fever. CONCLUSION: Fever is a common side effect in BrS patients after the Covid-19 vaccination. Careful evaluation of body temperature and prompt treatment with antipyretic drugs may be needed.

Analysis of older adults visiting the emergency department with fever as a suspected Covid-19 vaccine-related adverse reaction: A retrospective multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: After COVID-19 vaccination was initiated, the number of patients visiting the emergency department (ED) with vaccine-related adverse reactions increased. We investigated the clinical features of older adults (aged 65 years and older) visiting the ED with self-reported COVID-19 postvaccination fever. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study at three EDs between March 2021 and September 2021. Patients who reported adverse reactions, fever (≥37.5 °C) and/or febrile sensation or rigors following COVID-19 vaccination were included. The demographic and clinical data of these patients were collected by reviewing their medical records. RESULTS: A total of 562 patients were selected, and 396 (70.5%) were female. The older adult group included 155 (27.6%) patients, and the median age was 75 (69-79 years). The older adults less frequently had a fever (≥37.5 °C) upon ED presentation (75.5% vs. 85.7%, respectively), used more emergency medical services (43.9% vs. 18.7%, respectively), and visited an ED more frequently during early hours (00:00-06:00) (31% vs. 20.1%, respectively) compared to the younger adults (p = 0.004, p < 0.001 and p = 0.036). Fewer older adults visited an ED within 2 days of fever onset (73.5% vs. 84%) (p = 0.012), and more older adults were admitted for medical conditions other than vaccine-related adverse reactions (32.9% vs. 4.2%) (p < 0.001). Older adults received more thorough testing (laboratory and imaging tests). Among the older adults, the admission rate was associated with age (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Older adults presenting with fever as an adverse reaction following COVID-19 vaccination less frequently had a fever upon visiting the ED, required more ED testing, and had higher admission rates for non-vaccination-related medical conditions.

Reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous prime-boost immunization with COVID-19 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the present work was to assess the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens in clinical trials and observational studies. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, MedRxiv, BioRxiv databases were searched in September 29, 2021. The PRISMA instruction for systemic review was followed. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. The quality of studies was evaluated using the New Castle-Ottawa and Cochrane risk of instrument. The characteristics and study outcome (e.g., adverse events, immune response, and variant of concern) were extracted. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in the final data synthesis with 5 clinical trials and 14 observational studies. Heterologous vaccine administration showed a trend toward more frequent systemic reactions. However, the total reactogenicity was tolerable and manageable. Importantly, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination regimens provided higher immunogenic effect either vector/ mRNA-based vaccine or vector/ inactivated vaccine in both humoral and cellular immune response. Notably, the heterologous regimens induced the potential protection against the variant of concern, even to the Delta variant. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings provided evidence about the higher induction of robust immunogenicity and tolerated reactogenicity of heterologous vaccination regimens (vector-based/mRNA vaccine or vector-based/inactivated vaccine). Also, this study supports the application of heterologous regimens against COVID-19 which may provide more opportunities to speed up the global vaccination campaign and maximize the capacity to control the pandemic.

Emergency Department Utilization by In-hospital Healthcare Workers after COVID-19 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: This is an observational study to analyze an emergency department (ED) utilization pattern of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinated in-hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We included 4,703 HCWs who were administered the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine between March 4 and April 2, 2021, in a tertiary hospital in Korea where fast-track and post-vaccination cohort zone (PVCZ) were introduced in ED. We analyzed data of participants' age, sex, occupation, date and type of vaccination, and their clinical information using SPSS v25.0. RESULTS: The sample comprised HCWs, who received either the ChAdOx1 (n = 4,458) or the BNT162B2 (n = 245) vaccines; most participants were female (73.5%), and 81.1% were under 50 years old. Further, 153 (3.3%) visited the ED and reported experiencing fever (66.9%) and myalgia (56.1%). Additionally, 91 (59.5%) of them were in their 20s, and 106 (67.5%) were assigned to the PVCZ. Lastly, 107 (68.2%) of the patients received parenteral management. No patient required hospitalization. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, vaccinated HCWs who visited the ED with adverse events had a high incidence of fever and a low likelihood of developing serious illnesses. As the COVID-19 vaccination program for Korean citizens continues to expand, strategies to minimize unnecessary ED overcrowding should be put into effect.

COVID-19 vaccines: concerns beyond protective efficacy and safety.

INTRODUCTION: Several vaccine candidates have been developed using different platforms, including nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), viral vectors (replicating and non-replicating), virus-like particles, peptide-based, recombinant proteins, live attenuated, and inactivated virus modalities. Although many of these vaccines are undergoing pre-clinical trials, several large clinical trials investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have produced promising findings. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we provide a status update on COVID-19 vaccines currently undergoing clinical trials and discuss issues of concern beyond vaccine efficacy and safety, including dosing regimens, the mixed vaccine strategy, prior severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection, antibody levels, cellular immunity and protection, variants of concern, COVID-19 vaccine distribution, vaccination willingness, herd immunity, immunity passports, and vaccine indications. EXPERT OPINION: Four vaccines have obtained emergency use authorization, 87 are at the clinical development stage, and 186 are in pre-clinical development. While the knowledge and development of COVID-19 vaccines is rapidly expanding, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines must outweigh the potential risks of adverse events. To combat the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians should consistently update COVID-19-associated information, and healthcare authorities and manufacturers should work together to provide adequate and appropriate vaccinations for the prevention of COVID-19. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: What is the context?Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a global pandemic: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. The development and implementation of the COVID-19 vaccine could be an important measure to control the COVID-19 pandemic.What is new?Several phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Several COVID-19 vaccines have obtained emergency use authorization and been implemented in many countries. Although concerns regarding unusual blood clots and low platelet counts have been raised, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the potential risks of adverse events.What is the impact?Except for children, the COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for all people, including those pregnant or immunocompromised. Healthcare authorities should advise people receiving the vaccine that they must seek medical attention if they have associated thromboembolism and thrombocytopenia symptoms. More studies are necessary to determine the appropriate vaccine dose and regimen strategy, as well as the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against variants of concerns. A global effort must be made to achieve widespread vaccination and herd immunity.

A case of COVID-19 diagnosed with favipiravir-induced drug fever based on a positive drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test.

As of October 2020, there is still no specific drug to treat COVID-19 as it rages worldwide. Favipiravir, indicated for the treatment of new and re-emerging influenza infections, has been suggested to be effective against SARS-CoV-2, although this is not yet fully validated. We administered favipiravir to a 64-year-old female patient with COVID-19. Her symptoms resolved quickly after the start of treatment, with reduction of SARS-CoV-2 viral load, but she developed a fever again on day 12. Since the fever was relieved by discontinuation of favipiravir, and based on positive results with a drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test, we diagnosed her with favipiravir-induced drug fever. A decrease in the serum concentration of favipiravir was observed along with resolution of the fever. The present case suggests that drug fever should be considered in the differential diagnosis of relapsing fever episodes in COVID-19 patients receiving favipiravir.

Drug Fever Due to Favipiravir Administration for the Treatment of a COVID-19 Patient.

A 55-year-old Japanese man was hospitalized with the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). On the 14th day after the start of favipiravir administration, the patient developed a fever with a temperature of 38.1°C. His pulse rate also became elevated to 128 bpm, so relative bradycardia was not suspected. Since he was in good overall health and no concomitant symptoms and signs were apparent, we considered it to be drug fever due to favipiravir. After the completion of favipiravir treatment, the patient's temperature normalized within 24 hours. We herein report this case of drug fever caused by favipiravir.

[Informations on psychotropics and their adaptations for patients suffering from mental disorders in France during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic]. / Informations relatives aux psychotropes et à leurs adaptations éventuelles pour les patients souffrant de troubles psychiques en France pendant l'épidémie à SARS-CoV-2.

The 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic (SARS-CoV-2; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) has dramatic consequences on populations in terms of morbidity and mortality and in social terms, the general confinement of almost half of the world's population being a situation unprecedented in history, which is difficult today to measure the impact at the individual and collective levels. More specifically, it affects people with various risk factors, which are more frequent in patients suffering from psychiatric disorders. Psychiatrists need to know: (i) how to identify, the risks associated with the prescription of psychotropic drugs and which can prove to be counterproductive in their association with COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), (ii) how to assess in terms of benefit/risk ratio, the implication of any hasty and brutal modification on psychotropic drugs that can induce confusion for a differential diagnosis with the evolution of COVID-19. We carried out a review of the literature aimed at assessing the specific benefit/risk ratio of psychotropic treatments in patients suffering from COVID-19. Clinically, symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 (fever, cough, dyspnea, digestive signs) can be caused by various psychotropic drugs and require vigilance to avoid false negatives and false positives. In infected patients, psychotropic drugs should be used with caution, especially in the elderly, considering the pulmonary risk. Lithium and Clozapine, which are the reference drugs in bipolar disorder and resistant schizophrenia, warrant specific attention. For these two treatments the possibility of a reduction in the dosage - in case of minimal infectious signs and in a situation, which does not allow rapid control - should ideally be considered taking into account the clinical response (even biological; plasma concentrations) observed in the face of previous dose reductions. Tobacco is well identified for its effects as an inducer of CYP1A2 enzyme. In a COVID+ patient, the consequences of an abrupt cessation of smoking, particularly related with the appearance of respiratory symptoms (cough, dyspnea), must therefore be anticipated for patients receiving psychotropics metabolized by CYP1A2. Plasma concentrations of these drugs are expected to decrease and can be related to an increase risk of relapse. The symptomatic treatments used in COVID-19 have frequent interactions with the most used psychotropics. If there is no curative treatment for infection to SARS-CoV-2, the interactions of the various molecules currently tested with several classes of psychotropic drugs (antidepressants, antipsychotics) are important to consider because of the risk of changes in cardiac conduction. Specific knowledge on COVID-19 remains poor today, but we must recommend rigor in this context in the use of psychotropic drugs, to avoid adding, in patients suffering from psychiatric disorders, potentially vulnerable in the epidemic context, an iatrogenic risk or loss of efficiency.

A Favipiravir-induced Fever in a Patient with COVID-19.

We herein report the first case of a fever induced by favipiravir, a potential coronavirus disease 2019 therapeutic drug. An 82-year-old man diagnosed with bilateral pneumonia was transferred to our hospital following a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction test. He was treated with compassionate use of favipiravir. Both his oxygen demand and fever gradually improved after admission; however, his fever relapsed, and the C-reactive protein (CRP) levels increased on day 7. We diagnosed his fever as being favipiravir-induced. The fever resolved a few days after favipiravir discontinuation, demonstrating the accuracy of the diagnosis. This case revealed that favipiravir can induce a fever.