Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38907947›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2024

What is the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Immunocompromised Patients? Results from the European "Covid Vaccine Monitor" Active Surveillance Study.

Chiara Bellitto, Nicoletta Luxi, Francesco Ciccimarra, Luca L'Abbate, Monika Raethke, Florence van Hunsel, Thomas Lieber, Erik Mulder, Fabio Riefolo, Felipe Villalobos and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Chiara Bellitto *Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Nicoletta Luxi *Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Francesco CiccimarraDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Luca L'AbbateDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Monika RaethkeNetherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, University of Utrecht, 's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Florence van HunselNetherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, University of Utrecht, 's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Thomas LieberNetherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, University of Utrecht, 's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Erik MulderNetherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, University of Utrecht, 's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Fabio RiefoloTeamit Institute, Partnerships, Barcelona Health Hub, Barcelona, Spain.
Felipe VillalobosFundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l'Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain.
Nicolas H ThurinBordeaux PharmacoEpi, INSERM CIC-P 1401, Univ. Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Francisco B MarquesLaboratory of Social Pharmacy and Public Health, School of Pharmacy, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Kathryn MortonDrug Safety Research Unit, Southampton, UK.
Fergal O'ShaughnessySchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Simona SonderlichováFaculty of Medicine, SLOVACRIN, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Košice, Slovakia.
Andreea FarcasPharmacovigilance Research Center, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Giele-Eshuis JannekeDepartment of Data Science and Biostatistics, Julius Global Health, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Miriam C SturkenboomDepartment of Data Science and Biostatistics, Julius Global Health, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gianluca TrifiròDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. gianluca.trifiro@univr.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1147-7296

Funding

European Medicines Agency S01 - FWC EMA/2018/23/PE
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients has not been comprehensively evaluated.

aimTo measure the frequency of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the first/second/booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised subject versus matched cohort. As a secondary objective, the time course, evaluated as time to onset (TTO) and time to recovery (TTR), of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs was explored.

methodsA prospective cohort study, based on electronic questionnaires filled by vaccinees from 11 European countries in the period February 2021 to February 2023 was conducted. All immunocompromised vaccinees who provided informed consent and registered to the project's web-app within 48 h after first/booster vaccine dose administration of any EMA-authorised COVID-19 vaccine were recruited. Participants filled baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires (FU-Qs) over 6 months from vaccination, collecting information on suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs. As a control group, non-immunocompromised vaccinees from the same source population were 1:4 matched by sex, age, vaccine dose, and brand. A descriptive analysis of demographic/clinical characteristics of vaccinees was conducted. Heatmaps of the frequency of solicited ADRs, stratified by gender and vaccine brand, were generated. Median TTO/TTR of reported ADRs were visualised using violin/box-plots.

resultsA total of 773 immunocompromised vaccines were included in the analyses. Most participants were females (F/M ratio: 2.1 and 1.6) with a median age of 56 (43-74) and 51 (41-60) years, at the first vaccination cycle and booster dose, respectively. Injection-site pain and fatigue were the most frequently reported ADRs in immunocompromised vaccinees with higher frequency than matched control, especially after the first dose (41.2% vs 37.8% and 38.2% vs 32.9%, respectively). For both cohorts, all solicited ADRs were more frequently reported in females than males, and in those who had received a first dose of the Vaxzevria vaccine. Dizziness was the most frequently reported unsolicited ADR after the first dose in both groups (immunocompromised subjects: 2.5% and matched controls: 2.1%). At the booster dose, lymphadenopathy (3.9%) and lymphadenitis (1.8%) were the most reported unsolicited ADRs for immunocompromised subjects and matched controls, respectively. A very low number of subjects reported adverse event of special interest (AESI) (2 immunocompromised, 3 matched controls) and serious ADRs (5 immunocompromised, 5 matched controls). A statistically significant difference among study cohorts was observed for median TTO after the booster dose, and for median TTR after the first vaccination cycle and booster dose (p < 0.001).

conclusionThe overall safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised people was favourable, with minor differences as compared to non-immunocompromised vaccinees. Participants mostly experienced mild ADRs, mainly reported after the first dose of Vaxzevria and Jcovden vaccines. Serious ADRs and AESI were rare.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesImmunocompromised HostAdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAgedCohort StudiesEuropeFemaleHumansImmunization, SecondaryMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID38907947
PMCPMC11399172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.