RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To estimate original wild-type BNT162b2 effectiveness against symptomatic Omicron infection among children 5-11 years of age. METHODS: This prospective test-negative, case-control study was conducted in Toledo, southern Brazil, from June 2022 to July 2023. Patients were included if they were aged 5-11 years, sought care for acute respiratory symptoms in the public health system, and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. In the primary analysis, we determined the effectiveness of two doses of original wild-type BNT162b2 against symptomatic COVID-19. The reference exposure group was the unvaccinated. RESULTS: A total of 757 children were enrolled; of these, 461 (25 cases; 436 controls) were included in the primary analysis. Mean age was 7.4 years, 49.7 % were female, 34.6 % were obese, and 14.1 % had chronic pulmonary disease. Omicron accounted for 100 % of all identified SARS-CoV-2 variants with BA.5, BQ.1, and XBB.1 accounting for 35.7 %, 21.4 % and 21.4 %, respectively. The adjusted estimate of two-dose vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Omicron was 3.1 % (95 % CI, -133.7 % to 61.8 %) after a median time between the second dose and the beginning of COVID-19 symptoms of 192.5 days (interquartile range, 99 to 242 days). CONCLUSION: In this study with children 5-11 years of age, a two dose-schedule of original wild-type BNT162b2 was not associated with a significant protection against symptomatic Omicron infection after a median time between the second dose and the beginning of COVID-19 symptoms of 192 days, although the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05403307 (https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT05403307).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of adverse reactions (AR) after the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and to identify some factors associated with AR. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Data were obtained through an epidemiological survey answered online. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with early (< 2 h) and late (≥ 2 h) AR. RESULTS: A total of 2295 health care workers were included; in them, the cumulative incidence of AR was 18.2% (95% confidence interval: 16.6-19.8), where the majority were late (78.2%). The associated factors that increased the risk of early AR were being female (odds ratio [OR]: 2.23, p = 0.002) and belonging to the medical staff (OR: 1.56; p = 0.041). In late AR were being female (OR: 1.94; p < 0.0001); on the other hand, diabetes (OR: 0.46; p = 0.021), asthma (OR: 0.53; p = 0.040) and smoking (OR: 0.44, p = 0.002) were inversely associated factors. Interestingly, history of COVID-19 was not associated with either early or late AR. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of presenting some type of AR due to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in health care workers is < 20%.

OBJETIVO: Determinar la incidencia de reacciones adversas (RA) tras la primera dosis de la vacuna Pfizer-BioNTech e identificar algunos factores asociados con ellas. MÉTODO: Se realizó un estudio de cohorte retrospectiva. Los datos fueron obtenidos mediante una encuesta epidemiológica contestada en línea. Se realizaron análisis multivariados para identificar factores asociados con las RA tempranas (< 2 h) y tardías (≥ 2 h). RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 2295 trabajadores de la salud; en ellos, la incidencia acumulada de RA fue del 18.2% (intervalo de confianza del 95%: 16.6-19.8%) y la mayoría fueron tardías (78.2%). Las RA tempranas más frecuentes fueron dolor local, cefalea y mareo; en las tardías fueron dolor local, cefalea y fatiga. No se documentaron casos de anafilaxia; sin embargo, en el grupo de RA tempranas y tardías hubo un caso y tres casos, respectivamente, con síntomas sistémicos que afectaron a dos órganos diferentes. Los factores asociados que incrementaron el riesgo de RA tempranas fueron ser mujer (odds ratio [OR]: 2.23; p = 0.002) y pertenecer al personal médico (OR: 1.56; p = 0.041). En las RA tardías fue ser mujer (OR: 1.94; p < 0.0001); por su parte, la diabetes (OR: 0.46; p = 0.021), el asma (OR: 0.53; p = 0.040) y el tabaquismo (OR: 0.44; p = 0.002) fueron factores asociados inversamente. Es interesante que la historia de COVID-19 no se asoció con RA tempranas ni tardías. CONCLUSIONES: El riesgo de presentar algún tipo de RA debido a la vacuna Pfizer-BioNTech en trabajadores de la salud es < 20%.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Post-marketing data on coronavirus vaccines are limited. This study evaluated adverse reactions reported to a statewide hotline after the administration of a coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. METHODS: We collected reports between 1 December 2020 through 30 August 2021 of any individual 12 years of age and older who received an FDA EUA-approved vaccine and experienced an adverse reaction. For each case, we collected vaccine brand, demographics, adverse reaction type, severity, onset of reaction, duration, and outcome. Relative risk analyses were conducted to investigate factors associated with vaccine adverse reactions. RESULTS: 638 adverse drug reaction cases were recorded. The majority identified as female (70.8%) and the median age was 56. Implicated brands were Pfizer BNT162b2 (46.6%), Moderna mRNA-1273 (43.41%), and Janssen Ad26.COV2.S (8.78%). Although the lowest number of cases was with Janssen, this vaccine had the highest incident rate based on reactions per 100,000 doses. Adverse reactions with the highest incidence were systemic reactions (92.7%), injection-site reactions (8.5%), and local non-injection-site reactions (10.4%), with most judged as minor severity. Relative risk was higher for Moderna compared to Pfizer for injection-site non-severe (RR 2.01) and injection-site severe (RR 1.94) reactions. Janssen had a higher risk of headache, dyspnea, and vision changes compared to Pfizer, and a higher risk of headache compared to Moderna. The relative risk for fever, chills, and lymphadenopathy was higher for the second dose than the first dose for all patients. CONCLUSION: This observational study analyzing adverse drug reactions of the COVID-19 vaccine found that most complaints concerned systemic reactions. We found reaction differences among vaccine brands, between first and second doses for some effects, and selected recurrent events. Poison control centers are uniquely positioned to conduct post-marketing surveillance for the new vaccines as they are available 24/7 to the public and are healthcare providers. Further post-marketing studies are essential to provide a holistic safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The most widely used vaccines were messenger RNA (mRNA), viral vector, and inactivated virus with two-dose schedules. In Brazil, the CoronaVac (Sinovac) was the first vaccine approved for emergency use, and the third dose was administered, preferably, with the BNT162b2 vaccine. We evaluated antibody levels after 6 months of the booster dose with BNT162B2 in previous recipients of CoronaVac and whether a subsequent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection enhances the antibody response. We analyze the humoral response (spike [S] IgM for the SARS-CoV-2 and IgG for the S and nucleocapsid [N] proteins) in samples collected before the third dose and 6 months after the third dose. The presence of antibodies was measured by using Abbott Architect i2000SR. The IgM and IgG antispikes were stimulated mainly 30 days after the third dose (30d/3D), with a decline over time. The IgG anti-N was stimulated predominantly in 90d/3D and 180d/3D. The N IgG levels were 50 and 35 times higher in the positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) group in 90d/3D and 180d/3D, respectively. The S IgG titers were 1.5 times elevated in the positive PCR group, in 180d/3D. The BNT162b2 boosted the S IgG levels, decreasing after 60 days. The booster shot induced IgM and IgG antibodies against spike protein. Infection after vaccination increased antibodies against protein N.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This report shows a case of corneal transplant rejection after vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), short after receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine, in a patient who had undergone keratoplasty more than 20 years ago, with no previous episodes of rejection and no other factor that could lead to the findings on his examinations. After treatment with high doses of topic, oral, and sub-conjunctival corticoids, the patient had a favorable therapeutic response. The signs of corneal transplant rejection must be oriented to the patients and the causing factors actively searched by ophthalmologists so that treatment is rapidly initiated and sequels are avoided. This report raises the question if these events are correlated and whether the patient should receive the second dose of the vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 or not.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Despite vaccines are the main strategy to control the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, their effectiveness could not be enough for individuals with immunosuppression. In these cases, as well as in patients with moderate/severe COVID-19, passive immunization with anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins could be a therapeutic alternative. We used caprylic acid precipitation to prepare a pilot-scale batch of anti-SARS-CoV-2 intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) from plasma of donors immunized with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) anti-COVID-19 vaccine (VP-IVIg) and compared their in vitro efficacy and safety with those of a similar formulation produced from plasma of COVID-19 convalescent donors (CP-IVIg). Both formulations showed immunological, physicochemical, biochemical, and microbiological characteristics that meet the specifications of IVIg formulations. Moreover, the concentration of anti-RBD and ACE2-RBD neutralizing antibodies was higher in VP-IVIg than in CP-IVIg. In concordance, plaque reduction neutralization tests showed inhibitory concentrations of 0.03-0.09 g/L in VP-IVIg and of 0.06-0.13 in CP-IVIg. Thus, VP-IVIg has in vitro efficacy and safety profiles that justify their evaluation as therapeutic alternative for clinical cases of COVID-19. Precipitation with caprylic acid could be a simple, feasible, and affordable alternative to produce formulations of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg to be used therapeutically or prophylactically to confront the COVID-19 pandemic in middle and low-income countries.