[Reactogenicity Study of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19].

Joan Inglés Torruella, Rosa Maria Gil Soto, Esther Sabaté Aguila, Mercé García Grau, Nina Pons Boronat, Adelaida Rubio Civit, Miriam Bandera Baez, Gustavo Moreno Martin
{"title":"[Reactogenicity Study of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19].","authors":"Joan Inglés Torruella, Rosa Maria Gil Soto, Esther Sabaté Aguila, Mercé García Grau, Nina Pons Boronat, Adelaida Rubio Civit, Miriam Bandera Baez, Gustavo Moreno Martin","doi":"10.12961/aprl.2022.26.02.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the reactogenicity between the types of mRNA Commirnaty® (Pfizer) and Spikevax® (Moderna) vaccines against COVID-19 in a healthcare population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross sectional study of short-term adverse effects and their consequences (sick leave, limitations of daily life, etc.) after the administration of the first and second doses of both vaccines in professionals and students of a health institution. A questionnaire on symptoms and their consequences was administered seven days after each vaccination dose. The prevalence and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated. Differences between vaccines were quantified using the odds ratio (OR) and its 95%CI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The questionnaire was completed by 1924 and 1170 healthcare providers (response rates 62.2% and 39.1%) after the first and second doses, respectively, of the Commirnaty® vaccine, and 410 (56.0%) and 107 (15.0%) of Spikevax®. After the first dose of Comirnaty®, 67.4% presented some adverse effect, and 76.1% for Spikevax® (OR 1.5 95%CI 1.2-1.9). In general, women and young people showed greater reactogenicity and differences between vaccinSpain. Consequences of adverse effects were more frequent for Spikevax®. The reactogenicity was higher after the second than the first dose, for both vaccines (Comirnaty®: 67.4% vs. 75.6%; Spikevax®: 76.1% vs. 87.9%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The greater reactogenicity and its consequences, for the first and second dose of the Spikevax® vaccine compared to Comirnaty®, and of the second dose compared to the first dose of both vaccines, provides useful knowledge for planning vaccination against COVID-19 campaigns in healthcare settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":38326,"journal":{"name":"Archivos de prevención de riesgos laborales","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos de prevención de riesgos laborales","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12961/aprl.2022.26.02.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the reactogenicity between the types of mRNA Commirnaty® (Pfizer) and Spikevax® (Moderna) vaccines against COVID-19 in a healthcare population.

Methods: Cross sectional study of short-term adverse effects and their consequences (sick leave, limitations of daily life, etc.) after the administration of the first and second doses of both vaccines in professionals and students of a health institution. A questionnaire on symptoms and their consequences was administered seven days after each vaccination dose. The prevalence and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated. Differences between vaccines were quantified using the odds ratio (OR) and its 95%CI.

Results: The questionnaire was completed by 1924 and 1170 healthcare providers (response rates 62.2% and 39.1%) after the first and second doses, respectively, of the Commirnaty® vaccine, and 410 (56.0%) and 107 (15.0%) of Spikevax®. After the first dose of Comirnaty®, 67.4% presented some adverse effect, and 76.1% for Spikevax® (OR 1.5 95%CI 1.2-1.9). In general, women and young people showed greater reactogenicity and differences between vaccinSpain. Consequences of adverse effects were more frequent for Spikevax®. The reactogenicity was higher after the second than the first dose, for both vaccines (Comirnaty®: 67.4% vs. 75.6%; Spikevax®: 76.1% vs. 87.9%.

Conclusions: The greater reactogenicity and its consequences, for the first and second dose of the Spikevax® vaccine compared to Comirnaty®, and of the second dose compared to the first dose of both vaccines, provides useful knowledge for planning vaccination against COVID-19 campaigns in healthcare settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[新冠肺炎mRNA疫苗的反应原性研究]。
目的:比较医疗保健人群中针对新冠肺炎的mRNA Commirnaty®(辉瑞)和Spikevax®(莫德纳)疫苗类型之间的反应原性。方法:对卫生机构的专业人员和学生接种第一剂和第二剂疫苗后的短期不良反应及其后果(病假、日常生活限制等)进行横断面研究。每次接种疫苗7天后,对症状及其后果进行问卷调查。计算患病率和95%置信区间(95%CI)。使用比值比(OR)及其95%置信区间对疫苗之间的差异进行量化。结果:1924名和1170名医疗保健提供者(应答率分别为62.2%和39.1%)在第一剂和第二剂Commirnaty®疫苗以及410名(56.0%)和107名(15.0%)Spikevax®疫苗接种后完成了问卷调查。第一剂Comirnaty®后,67.4%的人出现了一些不良反应,Spikevax®的不良反应率为76.1%(OR 1.5 95%CI 1.2-1.9)。总的来说,女性和年轻人表现出更大的反应原性,西班牙疫苗之间存在差异。Spikevax®的不良反应后果更为常见。第二次给药后的反应原性高于第一次给药,两种疫苗(Comirnaty®:67.4%对75.6%;Spikevax®:76.1%对87.9%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Enfermedad pulmonar intersticial difusa de posible origen laboral atendida en el Servicio Navarro de Salud. Navarra, España, 2017-2022 Enfermedad pulmonar intersticial difusa de posible origen laboral atendida en el Servicio Navarro de Salud. Navarra, España, 2017-2022 Producción científica en Scopus sobre salud financiera: periodo 2011-2022 Exposición a sílice de mineros en altitud. Dosis inhalada, método de evaluación en condición de hipobaria El sello de calidad FECYT, un reconocimiento y un estímulo para Archivos
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1