key: cord-0973060-j868a79y authors: Vigezzi, Giacomo Pietro; Lume, Alessandra; Minerva, Massimo; Nizzero, Paola; Biancardi, Anna; Gianfredi, Vincenza; Odone, Anna; Signorelli, Carlo; Moro, Matteo title: Safety surveillance after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination: results from a cross-sectional survey among staff of a large Italian teaching hospital date: 2021-10-01 journal: Acta Biomed DOI: 10.23750/abm.v92is6.12217 sha: c5121074f8dfad8e2274820085984420bb1448cf doc_id: 973060 cord_uid: j868a79y BACKGROUND AND AIM: Comirnaty® was the first COVID-19 vaccine available for the vaccination campaign of healthcare workers in Italy. With the aim of assessing vaccine safety, we conducted a cross-sectional survey administrating a voluntary-based questionnaire on adverse events following immunisation (AEFIs) in San Raffaele Hospital, Milano, Italy. METHODS: From 4(th) January 2021 to 27(th) April 2021, we collected 2,659 questionnaires (response rate: 24,5%). We analyzed data, reporting AEFIs by gender, age, self-reported severity, type, time of insurgence and duration, and estimating relative-risk ratios (RRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The most reported symptoms were injection site pain, fatigue, headache, myalgia, chills, fever, and arthralgia. Severe systemic reactions were more frequent after receiving the second dose (RRR 6.25, 95% CI 4.57-8.55), in women (RRR 3.33, 95% CI 2.30-4.82), and less frequent in individuals aged 60 or more (RRR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.49). In addition, we noted a wide range of adverse events of special interest (AESIs). CONCLUSIONS: Consistently with clinical trials and pharmacovigilance surveillance, AEFIs were frequent, but severe ones were uncommon, supporting the massive implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and providing valuable data for a risk profiling of vaccinees. (www.actabiomedica.it) The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis with devastating health, societal and economic impacts (1) (2) (3) (4) . Therefore, the development and rapid global deployment of safe and effective vaccines against COVID-19 are crucial for overcoming this major public health issue (5, 6) . On 21 st December 2020, following the European Medicines Agency (EMA) evaluation, the European Commission authorised the first COVID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty®, produced by Pfizer-BioNTech (7, 8) . Three other vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 were licensed for use in the European Union in the following months (9) . In order to monitor post-marketing vaccine safety, healthcare professionals were required to report to National Pharmacovigilance Network (RNF in Italy) occurring adverse events following immunisation (AEFIs) (10). The current study aims to describe and evaluate the AEFIs with Pfizer BioNTech vaccine among hospital staff of a large Italian referral teaching hospital. A secondary outcome is the identification of novel sideeffects or adverse events of special interest (AESIs) that may not have been reported previously in the clinical trials. San Raffaele Hospital (OSR) is a 2-site tertiary care referral hospital in Milan, Italy, with more than 1,300 beds, hosting a university. OSR Infection Control Committee, with the School of Public Health, during the early phases of the COVID-19 vaccination program, developed a questionnaire to monitor local, systemic, allergic and other reactions after Comirnaty® administration, adopting a cross-sectional study design. The eligible study population comprised the entire hospital staff (about 7,000 persons), including healthcare professionals, administrative staff, researchers, university employees and training students. The study period started 4 th January 2021, few days after the kick-off of hospital staff immunisation in Italy. We ended the study on 27 th April 2021, collecting surveys submitted by healthcare workers and other staff vaccinated until 20 th April 2021. The 11-item questionnaire was set up using Sur-veyMonkey® and online administered to all OSR staff through the company email (the complete questionnaire is available as Supplementary Table S1 ). The responders could report if they had or not had any AEFI, and in case possibly detailing the time of insurgence, the duration and the grade of severity of local, systemic, allergic and other symptoms. The intensity of symptoms was self-reported as mild, moderate or severe. We also collected data on sex, age and profession. Answers were collected on a voluntary and anonymous basis; hence it was not considered necessary to seek ethical approval. We analysed data by gender, age group, AEFI severity and type (local and systemic), time of insurgence and duration, also conducting sub-analysis for those who answered the questionnaire after both doses of vaccine. Percentage comparisons were performed using the χ 2 test for categorical variables and the z test for proportion. In order to evaluate the risk profile of the vaccinees, we estimated relative-risk ratios (RRR) of vaccination and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AEFIs using multinomial logistic regression models, adjusted for sex, age, profession and vaccine dose. Data were statistically analysed using Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and Stata software version 16.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). Overall, 2,105 persons answered the 2,659 questionnaires: 554 gave feedback after the first and second doses. As reported in Table 1 , 1,939 responders were female (72.9% of the total) and 722 males (27.1%); 1,790 responders aged between 18 and 49 years (67.3%), and 800 were more than 50 years old (30.1%). The median vaccinees' age was 42 years old (range 19-76 years). Of all responders, 1,402 defined themselves as healthcare workers (52.7%) and 1,257 as non-healthcare workers (47.3%). Concerning gender, after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, we observed a difference between women and men (in favour of women) reporting AEFIs, after first and second dose, and for both doses. About age groups' comparisons, after the first dose, AEFIs were more common among younger responders than no AEFI, and the opposite occurred among older responders. Responders reported similar findings after the second dose of vaccine and for the full sample (see Table 2 ). Results from logistic regression models are reported in Table 3 . Female gender was associated with a 65% increase in the probability of reporting at least one non-severe systemic AEFI (RRR 1.65, 95% CI 1.37-1.99, p<0.01) and a 233% greater likelihood of reporting at least one severe systemic AEFI (RRR 3.33, Next to the full sample, we separately analysed the subgroup of 554 responders who submitted questionnaires after both the first and second doses in order to exploit the predictable likelihood of using the same severity scale to describe an AEFI by the same person. Results are reported in Supplementary Table S2 . We observed an increase in the rate of AEFIs reported after the second dose. In detail, systemic AEFIs (severe and non-severe) reported after the first dose were 239 (43.1%) and 422 (76.2%) after the second. All percentage differences observed were significant. As summarised in Table 4 and Supplementary Table S3 , injection site pain was the most reported AEFI (n = 1,922, 72.3%). In addition, 1,640 responders (93.0% of 1,764) experienced injection site pain in the first 24 hours following the vaccination, and 837 of the 1,720 (48.7%) responders referred that it was resolved within 24 hours. Systemic AEFIs were frequently reported: among them, fatigue (47.7%), headache (31.3%), myalgia (28.2%), chills (24.2%), fever (23.9%), and arthralgia (21.4%) were the most frequent. We noticed a significant difference in systemic symptoms' rate between the first and second dose: they were more commonly reported after the second dose, as suggested by the increase in the mean of reported AEFIs (from 2.08 after the first dose to 3.44 after the second one) and by the significant proportion difference observed for fever, fatigue, chills, headache, nausea, diarrhoea, myalgia, arthralgia, swollen lymph nodes and dizziness. Regarding fatigue, among the 1,268 responders who denounced it after vaccination, only 8.6% self-reported it as severe. Of the 1,058 responders reporting the time of insurgence, 77.1% complained of fatigue within the first 24 hours following the vaccination. Among 1,029 responders, who indicated fatigue duration, 52.2% reported a complete resolution within 24 hours. Likewise, among 633 responders who complained of fever after vaccination, only 10.6% self-reported it as severe. Among 529 responders reporting the time of insurgence, 75.2% had a fever within the first 24 hours following the vaccination. Among 507 responders who reported fever duration, 69.2% reported a complete resolution within 24 hours. Responders reported few cases of allergic AEFIs, and no cases of anaphylaxis were signalled in the questionnaire. Followed by widespread itch, urticaria was the most common allergic symptom experienced by 11 responders after the first dose and 27 after the second one. We collected 190 questionnaires that described "other" AEFIs or AESIs, 87 after the first dose and 103 after the second. These symptoms ranged from cardiovascular ones (hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, palpitations, thoracic pain) and nervous system's events (herpes simplex reactivation, dysgeusia, trigeminal neuralgia, photophobia, tinnitus, sleep disturbances, monolateral hearing loss, vocal cords paralysis) to systemic manifestations (itchiness, sweating). First of all, in the current study, our findings showed significant differences in the rate of AEFIs experienced by gender, with more women's symptoms, after both doses. Hence, after immunisation with the COVID-19 vaccine, women seemed to experience and report more AEFIs than men (11, 12) , supporting the importance of sex-dependent differences in vaccineinduced immunity and explicitly addressing the role of sex as a modulator of humoral immunity (13) . Our findings are consistent with the commonly observed sexbased differences in immune function and responses to vaccination: women typically develop higher antibody responses, stronger innate and cellular immunity, and report more adverse immunisation effects than males (14) (15) (16) . This observed difference should be considered in clinical vaccine studies to identify ways to reduce AEFIs in females, increase immune responses in males, and address potential risks and hesitancy in vaccination campaign implementation. Nevertheless, even though we can assume that those who experienced symptoms were more likely to report adverse events and, consequently, more represented among responders, our sample was not representative of the sex distribution of the study population involved. Secondly, younger vaccinees seemed to suffer more AEFIs than the older ones, maybe due to higher vaccine-induced immunological activation. This result coincides with the observations reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA (12) . Concerning age, our responders' sample is representative of the study population, supporting the fact that the lower rate of reported AEFIs is due to the impaired vaccine responses in older individuals for inflammaging and immunosenescence (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) . Thus, these results are hopefully not related to the vaccine efficacy in older people. In this context, key information on vaccines' safety and efficacy in the elderly need to be acquired retrospectively through usual pharmacovigilance surveillance systems and epidemiological studies. However, no design could substitute for the information that could have been collected in more inclusive randomised controlled trials (22) . Thirdly, we can state that the second dose was less well tolerated than the first one and produced a higher number of AEFIs per vaccinee. Moreover, our results confirmed that AEFIs in both sexes were more common after the second dose, consistently with the previous findings from clinical trials and national safety surveillance systems (12, 23) . After the second dose, we observed a significantly higher number of systemic AEFIs (fever, fatigue, headache and myalgia, among others) in total and selfreported severe ones. Local symptoms did not have significant variations between the two doses. Allergic symptoms were not often reported and did not vary between the two doses of the vaccine: no cases of anaphylaxis have been reported in the sample, as observed in other populations (24) . These observations are unanimous with those of safety reported in the major clinical trials of Comirnaty® (the rate of systemic symptoms was higher after the second dose) and the first published reports of the national surveillance systems after the start of the immunisation campaign (11, 12, 23, (25) (26) (27) : reported symptoms were as common as expected, and post-vaccine symptoms (both systemic and local) often dissolved in 1-2 days from the injection. The non-significant association observed between professional category (healthcare workers vs non-healthcare workers) and adverse events supports the biological explanations of the previously discussed findings. Finally, unusual symptoms signalled and collected as "others" have not been yet reported in clinical trials (11) , such as hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, palpitations, thoracic pain, herpes simplex reactivation, dysgeusia, trigeminal neuralgia, photophobia, tinnitus, sleep disturbances, monolateral hearing loss, vocal cords paralysis, itchiness and sweating. Our findings highlighted no significant safety issues after Comirnaty® vaccination and endorsed the value of an analytic self-reported infrastructure to support near real-time monitoring of adverse events and safety during rapid vaccine deployment. Within the study's strengths, our data are grounded on a very large number of observations, particularly compared to the total eligible population (28): our final sample size of more than 2,500 submitted questionnaires covered nearly a fourth of the administered doses (29) , and this is quite a unique feature among available evidence on the topic. Moreover, we modelled our questionnaire on the data reported in published clinical trials on the same vaccine. Still, we collected information on a broader range of possible symptoms to explore less frequent manifestations. Furthermore, we could rely upon a study population of healthcare professionals and other hospital or university staff and, therefore, on a significant experience and knowledge in identifying and evaluating symptoms. It is worthwhile looking at the possible limitations of our study. The study's cross-sectional design and lack of available data on non-responders are the main limitations. Our study employed a voluntarybased electronic questionnaire to collect data instead of a face-to-face questionnaire, resulting in possible bias during the questionnaire's completion. The selfreported nature of suspected side effects in individuals represents another potential limitation, as reporting a medical issue after vaccination does not necessarily imply causality but might have been caused by other health-related problems. Finally, respondents selfreported the symptoms as mild, moderate or severe, without formalised criteria on the severity. This observational study allows us to evaluate only short-term side-effects, and long-term surveillance is required to investigate possible future consequences. In line with other studies, our results suggested that pain at the injection site was the most common AEFI with the first authorised COVID-19 vaccine. Short-term AEFIs are moderate in frequency, mild in severity and short-lived. AEFIs were more commonly reported after the second dose of vaccine, in women and among younger responders. Some other AEFIs not yet described in the clinical trials were denounced by our responders. Even if some aspects of vaccine-induced immune responses need to be further explored, our data support the safe implementation of COVID-19 mass vaccination on the field (30) . They could be used to predict to vaccinees the likelihood of side-effects on the basis of their age and sex and allow the risk profiling for each individual in order to build trust and address concerns of vaccine-hesitant people, with the aim of promoting vaccination adherence (31) . COVID-19 in Italy: impact of containment measures and prevalence estimates of infection in the general population Covid-19 pandemic impact on mental health of vulnerable populations COVID-19 deaths in Lombardy, Italy: data in context COVID-19 mortality rate in nine high-income metropolitan regions The COVID-19 vaccines rush: participatory community engagement matters more than ever Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals EMA recommends first COVID-19 vaccine for authorisation in the EU 2021 COVID-19 vaccines: authorised 2021 National Pharmacovigilance Network Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine First Month of COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Monitoring -United States Sex differences in vaccine-induced humoral immunity Sex-based differences in immune function and responses to vaccination The influence of sex and gender on immunity, infection and vaccination Sex and Gender Differences in the Outcomes of Vaccination over the Life Course Aging of the immune system: Focus on inflammation and vaccination The immune system and aging: a review Influence of immune aging on vaccine responses Vaccination in the elderly: The challenge of immune changes with aging Immunosenescence: A systems-level overview of immune cell biology and strategies for improving vaccine responses Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older people Fifth AIFA report on surveillance of COVID-19 vaccines 2021 Adverse events following mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among U.S. nursing home residents The Incidence and Severity of Post-Vaccination Reactions after Vaccination against COVID-19. Vaccines (Basel) Reports of Anaphylaxis After Receipt of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in the US Safety monitoring in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: a prospective observational study Survey data of COVID-19 vaccine side effects among hospital staff in a national referral hospital in Indonesia Challenges and Opportunities of Mass Vaccination Centers in COVID-19 Times: A Rapid Review of Literature Fear of Adverse Effects and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Recommendations of the Treatment Expectation Expert Group Italy Phone: 0226431 E-mail: gvigezzi@hotmail For their contribution to the successful staff Supplementary Table S2 . Reported adverse events following immunization (AEFI) by severity and type (systemic or local) in the subsample of 554 responders who answered the questionnaire both after the first and the second dose of vaccine.