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.

Influenza Virus Infection and Transplantation.

Influenza infection poses significant risk for solid organ transplant recipients who often experience more severe infection with increased rates of complications, including those relating to the allograft. Although symptoms of influenza experienced by transplant recipients are similar to that of the general population, fever is not a ubiquitous symptom and lymphopenia is common. Annual inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended for all transplant recipients. Newer strategies such as using a higher dose vaccine or multiple doses in the same season appear to provide greater immunogenicity. Neuraminidase inhibitors are the mainstay of treatment and chemoprophylaxis although resistance may occur in the transplant setting. Influenza therapeutics are advancing, including the recent licensure of baloxavir; however, many remain to be evaluated in transplant recipients and are not yet in routine clinical use. Further population-based studies spanning multiple influenza seasons are needed to enhance our understanding of influenza epidemiology in solid organ transplant recipients. Specific assessment of newer influenza therapeutics in transplant recipients and refinement of prevention strategies are vital to reducing morbidity and mortality.

Efficacy of the Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine Compared With the High-Dose for Older People.

Reported cases of influenza are increasing among those 65 years of age and older. Older people may be less likely to get sick from influenza, but they are at an increased risk for influenza complications, hospitalizations, and deaths. Influenza infections and complications have become even more of a concern for this population recently because of the impact of COVID-19. Evidence exists of waning immunity in older people because of immunosenescence. Enhanced vaccines were manufactured to help boost the immune response more than what is seen with standard influenza vaccines in older people. There are currently two enhanced vaccines specifically approved for persons 65 years of age and older: the adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV) and the high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (HD-QIV). Based on current data, enhanced vaccines may be of more benefit for those 65 years of age and older. This is reflected in the most recent recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for people 65 years of age and older, which advise to not delay vaccination and receive either a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine. There is currently no preference given over any enhanced vaccine in this age group. Influenza vaccinations have been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization from influenza complications, such as cardiovascular complications like strokes and myocardial infarction, in those 65 years of age and older, specifically those with co-existing cardiovascular disease. Immunizations are the primary prevention strategy, and we should ensure proper vaccine administration to provide maximal efficacy and reduce the chances of influenza complications.

Reduced immunogenicity of BNT162b2 booster vaccination in combination with a tetravalent influenza vaccination: results of a prospective cohort study in 838 health workers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the immunogenicity and safety of BNT162b2 booster vaccination with and without a tetravalent influenza vaccine. METHODS: A prospective, open-label cohort study on immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination with or without a tetravalent influenza vaccine was performed. Eight hundred thirty-eight health care workers were included in the following study arms: BNT162b2 booster-only, influenza-vaccine-only or combination of both. Levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain, and haemagglutinin inhibition tested for four different influenza strains (A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2), B/Victoria, B/Yamagata) were measured at the time of vaccination and 4 weeks later. RESULTS: After 4 weeks, median (interquartile range) levels of antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the viral spike (S) protein and relative change from baseline were high in individuals who received BNTb162b2 booster vaccination only (absolute: 16 600 [10 980-24 360] vs. 12 630 [8198-18 750] BAU/mL [p < 0.0001]; relative increase: 49% [23.6-95.3] vs. 40% [21.9-80.6] [p 0.048]; booster-only n = 521 vs. combination-arm n = 229 respectively). Results were confirmed after matching for sex, age, body mass index, baseline antibody levels and vaccine compound received for primary immunization (absolute: 13 930 [10 610-22 760] vs. 12 520 [8710-17 940]; [p 0.031]; relative increase: 55.7% [27.8-98.5] vs. 42.2% [22.9-74.5]; p 0.045). Adverse events were almost identical in the booster-only and the combination-arm, but numerically low in the influenza arm (525/536 [97.9%] vs. 235/240 [97.9%] vs. 26/33 [78.8 %]). DISCUSSION: Although no safety concerns occurred, our study provides evidence on reduced immunogenicity of a BNT162b2 booster vaccination in combination with a tetravalent influenza vaccine. Further studies investigating new influenza variants as well as potential differences vaccine effectiveness are needed.

Adverse events following first and second dose COVID-19 vaccination in England, October 2020 to September 2021: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

BackgroundPost-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines.AimTo estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands.MethodsWe used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021.ResultsWithin 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3-7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28-1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.78).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety.

Post-vaccination headache reporting: Trends according to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics and associated disability of headache as an adverse event following vaccination. BACKGROUND: According to clinical trials and post-licensure surveillance, headache is a common symptom of vaccines, yet systematic investigations of post-licensure reports of this adverse event are lacking. METHODS: This was a retrospective database analysis study. We searched the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database completed from July 1990 to June 2020 (a 30-year period prior to the start of COVID-19 pandemic) to identify reports of headache. We evaluated epidemiological features, including event characteristics, patient demographics, and vaccine type. RESULTS: In those aged 3 years or older, headache was the fifth most reported adverse symptom, present in 8.1% (43,218/536,120) of all reports. Of headache reports, 96.3% (41,635/43,218) included the code "headache" not further specified. Migraine was coded in 1973 cases, although almost one-third (12,467/41,808; 29.8%) of headache reports without a migraine code mention nausea or vomiting. The onset of symptoms was within 1 day of vaccination in over two-thirds of cases. The majority of reports were classified as not serious; about one-third involved emergency room or office visits. Of the 43,218 total headache reports, only a minority involved hospitalizations (2624; 6.1%) or permanent disability (1091; 2.5%), females accounted for 68.9% (29,771) and males for 29.5% (12,725), patients aged 6 to 59 years represented 67.3% (29,112), and over one-third of cases were reported after herpes zoster (8665; 20.1%) and influenza (6748; 15.6%) vaccinations. CONCLUSION: In a national surveillance system, headache was a commonly reported post-vaccination adverse event; a small subset of reports was considered serious. The development of standardized vaccine-related case definitions could be useful for better evaluating headache as an adverse event during vaccine development, and may reduce vaccine hesitancy especially in headache-prone individuals.

Safety of co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) during July 1, 2021-June 30, 2022.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines may be co-administered with other recommended vaccines, including seasonal influenza vaccines. However, few studies have evaluated the safety of co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines. OBJECTIVE: To describe reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines. METHODS: We searched the VAERS database for reports of adverse events (AEs) following co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines and following a first booster dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine alone, during July 1, 2021-June 30, 2022. We assessed the characteristics of these reports and described the most frequently reported MedDRA preferred terms (PTs). Clinicians reviewed available medical records for serious reports and reports of adverse events of special interest (AESI) and categorized the main diagnosis by system organ class. RESULTS: From July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, VAERS received 2,449 reports of adverse events following co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines. Median age of vaccinees was 48 years (IQR: 31, 66); 387 (15.8%) were classified as serious. Most reports (1,713; 69.3%) described co-administration of a first booster dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with seasonal influenza vaccine. The most common AEs among non-serious reports were injection site reactions (193; 14.5%), headache (181; 13.6%), and pain (171; 12.8%). The most common AEs among reports classified as serious were dyspnea (38; 14.9%), COVID-19 infection (32; 12.6%), and chest pain (27; 10.6%). DISCUSSION: This review of reports to VAERS following co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines did not reveal any unusual or unexpected patterns of AEs. Increased reporting of certain events (e.g., COVID-19 disease) was expected. CDC will continue to monitor the safety of co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines, including co-administration involving bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccines that have been recommended for people ages ≥ 6 months in the United States.

The Incidence of Myocarditis Following an Influenza Vaccination: A Population-Based Observational Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recently, studies have pointed to a link between coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations and myocarditis. Myocarditis following an influenza vaccine has been sporadically reported. However, it is not known whether this adverse event occurs among elderly individuals who have received influenza vaccines. We used a population-based database and a self-controlled case-series design to estimate the incidence of myocarditis following an influenza vaccination. METHODS: Data were extracted from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. The study population consisted of elderly people aged ≥ 65 years who had de novo myocarditis, which required hospitalization, within 6 months after receiving an influenza vaccination between 2003 and 2017. The first 1-7, 1-14, and 1-42 days after vaccination were defined as risk intervals, and the other periods were defined as control intervals. Poisson regression was used to calculate the incidence rate ratio for myocarditis between the risk and control periods. RESULTS: Within 180 days following a vaccination, 191 people were hospitalized for myocarditis among 19,678,904 people. In comparison with control intervals, the incidence rate ratios of an admission for myocarditis for days 1-7, 1-14, and 1-42 were 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.36-1.81), 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.39-1.32), and 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.50-1.05), respectively. Subgroup analyses by sex, age, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, and comorbidities did not yield significant differences in the incidence rate ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the post-vaccination time and underlying baseline characteristics, the incidence risk of myocarditis is not significantly increased in the elderly following an influenza vaccination.

Influenza and COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns and Uptake Among Patients Cared for in a Safety-Net Health System.

OBJECTIVES: To examine Influenza and COVID-19 vaccine concerns and uptake among adult patients in a Southern safety-net health system. METHODS: Trained research assistants conducted a structured telephone interview from April to October 2021. Of 118 participants, mean age was 57.7 years, 63.6% were female, 55.1% were Black, 42.4% white, and 54.2% reported rural residence. RESULTS: Among participants, 44.9% had received the influenza vaccine during the 2020 to 2021 season, and 66.1% had received the COVID-19 vaccine. Participants who received the influenza vaccine were more likely to report getting a COVID-19 vaccine compared to those who reported not getting a flu vaccine (81.1% vs 53.8%, P = .002). Black adults were significantly less likely than white adults (29.2% vs 46.0%, P = .048) and bordering on significance, males less likely than females (27.9% vs 41.3%, P = .054) to have reported receiving both vaccines. Of note, 25.4% of participants did not get either vaccine. The most common reasons for not getting the influenza vaccine were not being concerned about getting the flu (13.8%) and belief the vaccine gave them the flu (12.3%). The primary reasons for not getting a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about vaccine safety (22.5%), concern about side effects (20.0%), and belief they were not going to get sick (20.0%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings could help direct regional vaccine messaging and clinical communication to improve vaccine uptake among underserved populations.

Facial nerve palsy following the administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: analysis of a self-reporting database.

OBJECTIVES: Facial nerve palsy (or Bell's palsy) has occasionally been reported following the administration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273). Our study investigated such cases using a large self-reporting database from the USA (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]). METHODS: A disproportionality analysis, adjusted for age and sex, was conducted for VAERS reports from individuals who were vaccinated at the age of 18 years or over, between January 2010 and April 2021. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that the adverse events following immunization (AEFI) of facial nerve palsy, after administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, was significantly highly reported, both for BNT162b2 (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.65-2.06) and mRNA-1273 (ROR 1.54; 95% CI 1.39-1.70). These levels were comparable to that following influenza vaccination reported before the COVID-19 pandemic (ROR 2.04; 95% CI 1.76-2.36). CONCLUSIONS: Our pharmacovigilance study results suggest that the incidence of facial nerve palsy as a non-serious AEFI may be lower than, or equivalent to, that for influenza vaccines. This information might be of value in the context of promoting worldwide vaccination, but needs to be validated in future observational studies.

Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines: an exploratory substudy of a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety and immunogenicity profile of COVID-19 vaccines when administered concomitantly with seasonal influenza vaccines have not yet been reported. We therefore aimed to report the results of a substudy within a phase 3 UK trial, by evaluating the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 when co-administered with licensed seasonal influenza vaccines. METHODS: We did a planned exploratory substudy as part of the randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) by co-administrating the influenza vaccine at four study hospitals in the UK. Approximately, the first 400 participants meeting the main study entry criteria-with no contraindications to influenza vaccination-were invited to join the substudy. Participants of the main study were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two intramuscular injections of either NVX-CoV2373 (5 µg) or placebo (normal saline) 21 days apart; participants enrolled into the substudy were co-vaccinated with a single (0·5 mL) intramuscular, age-appropriate (quadrivalent influenza cell-based vaccine [Flucelvax Quadrivalent; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those aged 18-64 years and adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine [Fluad; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those ≥65 years), licensed, influenza vaccine on the opposite deltoid to that of the first study vaccine dose or placebo. The influenza vaccine was administered in an open-label manner and at the same time as the first study injection. Reactogenicity was evaluated via an electronic diary for 7 days after vaccination in addition to monitoring for unsolicited adverse events, medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was assessed with influenza haemagglutination inhibition and SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein IgG assays. Vaccine efficacy against PCR-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 was assessed in participants who were seronegative at baseline, received both doses of study vaccine or placebo, had no major protocol deviations affecting the primary endpoint, and had no confirmed cases of symptomatic COVID-19 from the first dose until 6 days after the second dose (per-protocol efficacy population). Immunogenicity was assessed in participants who received scheduled two doses of study vaccine, had a baseline sample and at least one post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol violations before unmasking (per-protocol immunogenicity population). Reactogenicity was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo and had data collected for reactogenicity events. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo. Comparisons were made between participants of the substudy and the main study (who were not co-vaccinated for influenza). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04583995. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2020, and Nov 28, 2020, a total of 15 187 participants were randomised into the main phase 3 trial, of whom 15 139 received treatment (7569 received dose one of NVX-CoV2373 and 7570 received dose one of placebo). 431 participants were co-vaccinated with a seasonal influenza vaccine in the substudy (217 received NVX-CoV2373 plus the influenza vaccine and 214 received placebo plus the influenza vaccine). In general, the substudy participants were younger, more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than those in the main study. Reactogenicity events were more common in the co-administration group than in the NVX-CoV2373 alone group: tenderness (113 [64·9%] of 174 vs 592 [53·3%] of 1111) or pain (69 [39·7%] vs 325 [29·3%]) at injection site, fatigue (48 [27·7%] vs 215 [19·4%]), and muscle pain (49 [28·3%] vs 237 [21·4%]). Incidences of unsolicited adverse events, treatment-related medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events were low and balanced between the co-administration group and the NVX-CoV2373 alone group. No episodes of anaphylaxis or deaths were reported within the substudy. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response although a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. NVX-CoV2373 vaccine efficacy in the substudy (ie, participants aged 18 to <65 years) was 87·5% (95% CI -0·2 to 98·4) and in the main study was 89·8% (95% CI 79·7-95·5). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this substudy is the first to show the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy profile of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines. Our results suggest concomitant vaccination might be a viable immunisation strategy. FUNDING: Novavax.

Hearing disorder following COVID-19 vaccination: A pharmacovigilance analysis using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Evidence on whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination could cause hearing-related adverse events is still conflicting. This study aims to access the association between COVID-19 vaccine and hearing disorder. METHODS: The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was queried between January 2020 to November 2021. The disproportionality pattern for hearing impairment of COVID-19 vaccine was accessed by calculating the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and proportional reporting ratio (PRR). A further subgroup analysis based on the type of COVID-19 vaccine and the doses administered was performed. In addition, the disproportionalities for hearing dysfunction between COVID-19 and influenza vaccines were compared. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 14,956 reports of hearing-related adverse events were identified with COVID-19 vaccination and 151 with influenza vaccine during the analytic period in VAERS. The incidence of hearing disorder following COVID-19 vaccination was 6.66 per 100,000. The results of disproportionality analysis revealed that the adverse events of hearing impairment, after administration of COVID-19 vaccine, was significantly highly reported (ROR 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20-2.56; PRR: 2.35, χ2 537.58), for both mRNA (ROR 2.37, 95% CI 2.20-2.55; PRR 2.34, χ2 529.75) and virus vector vaccines (ROR 2.50, 95% CI 2.28-2.73; PRR 2.56, χ2 418.57). While the disproportional level for hearing dysfunction was quite lower in influenza vaccine (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.30-0.42; PRR 0.36, χ2 172.24). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study identified increased risk for hearing disorder following administration of both mRNA and virus vector COVID-19 vaccines compared to influenza vaccination in real-world settings.

Associations of Guillain-Barré syndrome with coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination: Disproportionality analysis using the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database.

Vaccinations against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 which causes COVID-19 have been administered worldwide. We aimed to investigate associations of COVID-19 vaccination with the occurrence of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). We explored potential safety signals regarding the development of GBS using disproportionality analyses to compare COVID-19 vaccination with all adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports and influenza vaccines reported to VigiBase. As of October 15, 2021, a total of 2163 cases (0.13%) of GBS and its variants (including 46 cases of Miller-Fisher syndrome and 13 cases of Bickerstaff's encephalitis) were identified in entire ADR database after vaccination with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK) or the two messenger RNA-based COVID-19 (BNT162b2; Pfizer and BioNTech) or mRNA-1273; Moderna) vaccines. The median time to onset of GBS after vaccination was around 2 weeks. The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and two messenger RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated a higher risk for GBS against entire database (information component [IC]025  = 1.73 reporting odds ratio [ROR]025  = 3.51; IC025  = 1.07, ROR025  = 2.22, respectively). When compared with influenza vaccines, neither the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 nor mRNA-based vaccines were found to be associated with greater risks of GBS (IC025  = -1.84, ROR025  = 0.11; IC025  = -1.86, ROR025  = 0.06, respectively). Although potential safety signals associated with GBS COVID-19 vaccines have been identified, the risk of GBS from COVID-19 vaccines were low and did not surpass those of influenza vaccines; however, because of the heterogeneity of the sources of information in the WHO pharmacovigilance database, further epidemiological studies are warranted to confirm these observations.

Oral Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination: Analysis of VAERS Reports.

Background: Oral adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 vaccination have been sporadically reported during the previous months, warranting further investigation for their prevalence and suspected relationship with vaccine-elicited immune response. Methods: A retrospective analysis using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data was conducted to evaluate AEs within the oral cavity (mucosa, tongue, lips, palate, dentition, salivary glands) and AEs involving taste and other sensations. Oral AEs reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccination (test group) and seasonal influenza vaccination (control group) were extracted and cross-tabulated to assess their relative prevalence. Results: Among the 128 solicited (suspected) oral AEs, oral paresthesia (0.872%) was most reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccines, followed by the swelling of lips (0.844%), ageusia (0.722%), oral hypoesthesia (0.648%), swollen tongue (0.628%), and dysgeusia (0.617%). The reported prevalence of oral AEs was higher in the COVID-19 vaccine group than in the seasonal influenza group. The distribution pattern of the most reported oral AEs was similar for both COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines. Female sex, older age (>39 years old), primer doses, and mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines exhibited a higher reported prevalence of oral AEs. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, COVID-19 vaccines were found to be associated with rare oral AEs that are predominantly similar to those emerging following seasonal influenza vaccines. The most commonly reported oral AEs were oral paraesthesia (mouth-tingling), lip swelling, and ageusia, representing various pathophysiologic pathways that remain unclear. Taste-related AEs should be acknowledged in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public should be adequately informed about a potential taste dysfunction after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Dentists and dental teams need to be aware of the prevalence, severity, and prognosis of oral AEs to inform their patients and increase public confidence in vaccines.

Immunogenicity and safety of a SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac) co-administered with an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine: A randomized, open-label, controlled study in healthy adults aged 18 to 59 years in China.

BACKGROUND: Studies are needed for evidence of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine co-administered with influenza vaccine. METHODS: A randomized, open-label, controlled study was conducted in Zhejiang Province, China. Eligible healthy adults aged 18-59 years underwent randomization at a ratio of 1:1:2 to receive inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4) either concomitantly with the first (C1 subgroup) or the second (C2 subgroup) dose of CoronaVac, or 14 days after the first dose of CoronaVac (S group). The primary purpose of the study was to prove the non-inferiority in seroconversion rate of antibody against SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Overall, 480 participants were enrolled, with 120, 120, and 240 randomly assigned to the C1, C2, and S groups, respectively. As lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference for the seroconversion rate of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was over -10%, the immune response for CoronaVac in the C group (93.1% [89.0, 96.0]) was non-inferior to that in the S group (95.2% [91.5, 97.6]) in the per-protocol set. A lower GMT of antibody against SARS-CoV-2 was observed in the C group as compared to the S group (27.5 vs. 38.1, P = 0.0001). Decrease of immune response to CoronaVac was mainly observed in participants received IIV4 concomitantly with their second dose of CoronaVac (C2 subgroup), with a seroconversion rate of 89.7% (95CI: 82.6%-94.5%) and a GMT of 23.3. The occurrences of vaccine related adverse reactions were no more than 20% and comparable among different groups. Most of the adverse reactions were mild and moderate. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine and seasonal influenza vaccine, especially the administration regimen that the seasonal influenza vaccine co-administered with the first dose of the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine, would be feasible.

Surveillance of adverse events following immunisation in Australia annual report, 2020.

This report summarises Australian spontaneous surveillance data for adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) for 2020, reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and describes reporting trends over the 21-year period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2020. There were 3,827 AEFI records for vaccines administered in 2020, an annual AEFI reporting rate of 14.9 per 100,000 population. There was a slight (3.8%) decrease in the overall AEFI reporting rate in 2020 compared with 2019 (15.5 per 100,000 population). This decrease in the AEFI reporting rate in 2020 is potentially due to the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and was mainly from a decline in reported adverse events related to HPV, dTpa, and seasonal influenza vaccines. AEFI reporting rates for most individual vaccines in 2020 were similar to 2019. The most commonly reported adverse events were injection site reaction (37.1%); pyrexia (18.1%); rash (15.8%); vomiting (7.6%); pain (7.4%); headache (5.7%); and urticaria (5.1%). There were six deaths reported to the TGA. In one of the reports, the timing and clinical findings were consistent with a causal association with vaccination. In the remaining five reports, no clear causal relationship with vaccination was found.

Reactogenicity of Simultaneous COVID-19 mRNA Booster and Influenza Vaccination in the US.

Importance: COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines are essential in preventing respiratory infections and their potentially severe complications. Simultaneous administration of vaccines is efficient and may improve coverage with each vaccine. However, the safety of simultaneous administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines has not been well described. Objective: To evaluate adverse events and health impacts associated with simultaneously administered COVID-19 mRNA booster and seasonal influenza vaccines in the US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, self-reported vaccine data were collected on days 0 to 7 after vaccination from September 22, 2021, through May 1, 2022, through v-safe, a voluntary smartphone-based monitoring system established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Participants were persons who voluntarily registered in v-safe following COVID-19 vaccination. Exposure: Receipt of simultaneously administered COVID-19 mRNA booster and seasonal influenza vaccines or COVID-19 mRNA booster alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Local injection site and systemic reactions (eg, fatigue, headache, and myalgia) and health impacts reported by v-safe respondents in the week following COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were estimated for simultaneous administration compared with booster dose alone, controlling for sex, age, and week of vaccination. Results: Of a total of 981 099 persons aged 12 years or older registered with v-safe, simultaneous administration of COVID-19 mRNA booster and seasonal influenza vaccines was reported by 92 023 (9.4%) v-safe respondents; of these respondents, 54 926 (59.7%) were female, 36 234 (39.4%) were male, and sex was unknown for 863 (0.9%). In the week following vaccination, any systemic reactions were reported by 36 144 (58.9%) of 61 390 respondents who simultaneously received Pfizer-BioNTech booster and influenza vaccines and 21 027 (68.6%) of 30633 respondents who simultaneously received Moderna booster and influenza vaccines. Respondents who simultaneously received influenza and Pfizer-BioNTech booster vaccines (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.10) or influenza and Moderna booster vaccines (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.08-1.14) were slightly more likely to report any systemic reaction in the week following simultaneous vaccination than respondents who received only a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine booster. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, compared with administration of COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines alone, simultaneous administration of COVID-19 mRNA booster and seasonal influenza vaccines was associated with significant increases in reports of systemic reactions during days 0 to 7 following vaccination. These results may help better characterize the outcomes associated with simultaneously administered COVID-19 booster and influenza vaccines in the US population.