A current examine posted to the medRxiv* preprint server examined antagonistic reactions after administration of a bivalent BNT162b2 coronavirus illness 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine booster.
Vaccination is important in opposition to extreme acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), however rising mutant variants of the virus impair the effectiveness of vaccines based mostly on the unique/wildtype SARS-CoV-2. Consequently, bivalent vaccines with spike messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) of wildtype and Omicron BA.1 or BA.4/5 variant have been developed.
Reports counsel that the bivalent mRNA-1273.214 vaccine based mostly on the Wuhan-Hu-1 and Omicron BA.1 spike mRNA has a barely greater price of antagonistic reactions. Moreover, no proof of antagonistic reactions after bivalent COVID-19 vaccination is on the market as a consequence of approval with out further scientific research.
Study: Bivalent BNT162b2mRNA unique/Omicron BA.4-5 booster vaccination: antagonistic reactions and incapacity to work in comparison with the monovalent COVID-19 booster. Image Credit: Akash Sain / Shutterstock
The examine and findings
In the current examine, researchers in Germany and the United Kingdom evaluated antagonistic reactions, professional re nata (PRN) remedy consumption, and the power to work after the second booster vaccination (fourth dose) amongst healthcare employees (HCWs). All contributors had been beforehand administered European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved main COVID-19 immunization, adopted by subsequent mRNA vaccine-based booster dose.
The second booster vaccine was both the monovalent BNT162b2 vaccine or the bivalent BNT162b2 vaccine with spike mRNA of wildtype and Omicron BA.4/5 variant. Participants who acquired a special vaccine because the second booster dose and people who acquired a concurrent influenza vaccination had been excluded from the examine.
Post-vaccination antagonistic reactions, PRN remedy and incapacity to work following the second COVID-19 booster administration, separated by vaccine. A) price of antagonistic reactions by subcategory, B) price of PRN remedy, C) work capacity restrictions. Monovalent: BNT162b2mRNA (n=37), bivalent: BNT162b2mRNA unique/Omicron BA.4-5 (n=39). **: p<0.01, *: p<0.05.
Data on antagonistic reactions, sociodemographic elements, PRN remedy, and the power to work had been obtained by a questionary utilizing Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) instrument. In addition, the null speculation was examined utilizing the Mann-Whitney U and Fisher’s precise checks. Seventy-six HCWs acquired the second COVID-19 booster from August 13, 2021, to October 14, 2022.
Thirty-seven HCWs acquired the monovalent BNT162b2 vaccine, and 39 acquired the bivalent vaccine (wildtype/Omicron BA.4/5). Most HCWs (80%) had been feminine; the median age of feminine and male HCWs was 47 and 51, respectively. The price of antagonistic reactions following the second booster administration was considerably greater amongst HCWs immunized with the bivalent vaccine (84%) than these receiving the monovalent vaccine (51%).
Specifically, the charges of headache, physique aches, tiredness, fever, chills, and native reactions had been considerably greater in HCWs receiving the bivalent vaccine. Bivalent vaccine-administered HCWs reported a extra frequent PRN remedy use and had elevated charges of workability restrictions than monovalent vaccine-administered restrictions.
Conclusions
The researchers noticed that HCWs receiving the bivalent BNT162b2 wildtype/Omicron BA.4/5 vaccine because the second booster shot confirmed the next prevalence of antagonistic reactions than monovalent vaccine-boosted HCWs. Notably, the interval between the primary and second booster administration was 193 days for monovalent vaccine recipients and 322 days for bivalent vaccine recipients.
Furthermore, HCWs reported elevated PRN remedy consumption and incapacity to work following bivalent booster dose administration. The examine’s limitations embrace its retrospective questionnaire-based design and the shortage of blinding and randomization. Overall, these findings might assist inform scientific choices concerning monovalent and bivalent vaccination.
*Important discover
medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific studies that aren’t peer-reviewed and, due to this fact, shouldn’t be considered conclusive, information scientific apply/health-related conduct, or handled as established info.