Objective:To access the level of knowledge,perceptions,and practice towards adverse events following immunization(AEFI)surveillance among vaccination workers in Zhejiang province,China.Methods:This was a cross-section...Objective:To access the level of knowledge,perceptions,and practice towards adverse events following immunization(AEFI)surveillance among vaccination workers in Zhejiang province,China.Methods:This was a cross-sectional survey involving 768 vaccination workers.Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires and analyzed by using SAS 9.3 software.Knowledge,perceptions,and practice on AEFI surveillance were summarized using frequency tables.The mean±SD value was used as the cut-off for defining good(values≥mean)and poor(values<mean)knowledge,perceptions or practice.Binary logistic regression analysis was used to determine sociodemographic variables associated with knowledge,perceptions,and practice towards AEFI.Results:The proportions of good knowledge,perceptions and practice on AEFI surveillance were 78.13%,57.81%and 66.15%,respectively.Having a higher education background,longer years of experience,previous training on AEFI and≥30 years of age were factors associated with good knowledge,perceptions and practice on AEFI surveillance among vaccination workers.Conclusions:Over half of the respondents had good knowledge,perceptions and practice on AEFI surveillance work.Interventions on improving the vaccination workers’knowledge,perceptions and practice on AEFI surveillance should be considered in order to develop a more effective surveillance system.展开更多
Objective:To compare the reporting pattern of hearing loss and tinnitus across different vaccines brands used in Malaysia(BNT162b2,CoronaVac,ChAdOx1,Ad5.CoV2-S and BBIBP-CorV).Methods:This retrospective study included...Objective:To compare the reporting pattern of hearing loss and tinnitus across different vaccines brands used in Malaysia(BNT162b2,CoronaVac,ChAdOx1,Ad5.CoV2-S and BBIBP-CorV).Methods:This retrospective study included all reports of hearing loss and tinnitus occurring after COVID-19 vaccination that were received in the national pharmacovigilance database,QUEST,from February 24,2021 through July 31,2022.Reports given causality consistent or indeterminate were included.Results:There were 21 cases of hearing loss,with overall reporting rate of 0.29 cases per million doses.The rate was similar across BNT162b2,CoronaVac and ChAdOx1.For tinnitus,35 cases were reported,with the overall reporting rate of 0.49 cases per million doses,and the highest rate was reported for ChAdOx1.For both events,most cases aged 30 to 49 years.No gender disparity was observed.Both events were mainly reported to have occurred after the primary doses,with a median time-to-onset of two days.There were no statistically significant differences in the reporting patterns for both events across BNT162b2,CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 by age group,gender,race,and dose number.Conclusions:Despite the low reporting rates and insufficient evidence to confirm its relationship,hearing loss and tinnitus following vaccinations should not be ignored due to its disabling potential and impact on one’s quality of life.Continual reporting is encouraged for better signal characterization in the future.展开更多
Background Various modalities of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19),based on different platforms and immunization procedures,have been successively approved for marketing worldwide.A comprehensive rev...Background Various modalities of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19),based on different platforms and immunization procedures,have been successively approved for marketing worldwide.A comprehensive review for clinical trials assessing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is urgently needed to make an accurate judgment for mass vaccination.Main text A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the safety of COVID-19 vaccine candidates in randomized controlled trials(RCTs).Data search was performed in PubMed,Embase,Cochrane library,Scopus,Web of Science,and MedRxiv.Included articles were limited to RCTs on COVID-19 vaccines.A total of 73,633 subjects from 14 articles were included to compare the risks of adverse events following immunization(AEFI)after vaccinating different COVID-19 vaccines.Pooled risk ratios(RR)of total AEFI for inactivated vaccine,viral-vectored vaccine,and mRNA vaccine were 1.34[95%confidence interval(CI)1.11–1.61,P<0.001],1.65(95%CI 1.31–2.07,P<0.001),and 2.01(95%CI 1.78–2.26,P<0.001),respectively.No significant differences on local and systemic AEFI were found between the first dose and second dose.In addition,people aged≤55 years were at significantly higher risk of AEFI than people aged≥56 years,with a pooled RR of 1.25(95%CI 1.15–1.35,P<0.001).Conclusions The safety and tolerance of current COVID-19 vaccine candidates are acceptable for mass vaccination,with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines candidates having the lowest reported AEFI.Long-term surveillance of vaccine safety is required,especially among elderly people with underlying medical conditions.展开更多
基金funded by medical and health science and technology project of Zhejiang province (Grant number:2023KY633)
文摘Objective:To access the level of knowledge,perceptions,and practice towards adverse events following immunization(AEFI)surveillance among vaccination workers in Zhejiang province,China.Methods:This was a cross-sectional survey involving 768 vaccination workers.Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires and analyzed by using SAS 9.3 software.Knowledge,perceptions,and practice on AEFI surveillance were summarized using frequency tables.The mean±SD value was used as the cut-off for defining good(values≥mean)and poor(values<mean)knowledge,perceptions or practice.Binary logistic regression analysis was used to determine sociodemographic variables associated with knowledge,perceptions,and practice towards AEFI.Results:The proportions of good knowledge,perceptions and practice on AEFI surveillance were 78.13%,57.81%and 66.15%,respectively.Having a higher education background,longer years of experience,previous training on AEFI and≥30 years of age were factors associated with good knowledge,perceptions and practice on AEFI surveillance among vaccination workers.Conclusions:Over half of the respondents had good knowledge,perceptions and practice on AEFI surveillance work.Interventions on improving the vaccination workers’knowledge,perceptions and practice on AEFI surveillance should be considered in order to develop a more effective surveillance system.
文摘Objective:To compare the reporting pattern of hearing loss and tinnitus across different vaccines brands used in Malaysia(BNT162b2,CoronaVac,ChAdOx1,Ad5.CoV2-S and BBIBP-CorV).Methods:This retrospective study included all reports of hearing loss and tinnitus occurring after COVID-19 vaccination that were received in the national pharmacovigilance database,QUEST,from February 24,2021 through July 31,2022.Reports given causality consistent or indeterminate were included.Results:There were 21 cases of hearing loss,with overall reporting rate of 0.29 cases per million doses.The rate was similar across BNT162b2,CoronaVac and ChAdOx1.For tinnitus,35 cases were reported,with the overall reporting rate of 0.49 cases per million doses,and the highest rate was reported for ChAdOx1.For both events,most cases aged 30 to 49 years.No gender disparity was observed.Both events were mainly reported to have occurred after the primary doses,with a median time-to-onset of two days.There were no statistically significant differences in the reporting patterns for both events across BNT162b2,CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 by age group,gender,race,and dose number.Conclusions:Despite the low reporting rates and insufficient evidence to confirm its relationship,hearing loss and tinnitus following vaccinations should not be ignored due to its disabling potential and impact on one’s quality of life.Continual reporting is encouraged for better signal characterization in the future.
文摘Background Various modalities of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19),based on different platforms and immunization procedures,have been successively approved for marketing worldwide.A comprehensive review for clinical trials assessing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is urgently needed to make an accurate judgment for mass vaccination.Main text A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the safety of COVID-19 vaccine candidates in randomized controlled trials(RCTs).Data search was performed in PubMed,Embase,Cochrane library,Scopus,Web of Science,and MedRxiv.Included articles were limited to RCTs on COVID-19 vaccines.A total of 73,633 subjects from 14 articles were included to compare the risks of adverse events following immunization(AEFI)after vaccinating different COVID-19 vaccines.Pooled risk ratios(RR)of total AEFI for inactivated vaccine,viral-vectored vaccine,and mRNA vaccine were 1.34[95%confidence interval(CI)1.11–1.61,P<0.001],1.65(95%CI 1.31–2.07,P<0.001),and 2.01(95%CI 1.78–2.26,P<0.001),respectively.No significant differences on local and systemic AEFI were found between the first dose and second dose.In addition,people aged≤55 years were at significantly higher risk of AEFI than people aged≥56 years,with a pooled RR of 1.25(95%CI 1.15–1.35,P<0.001).Conclusions The safety and tolerance of current COVID-19 vaccine candidates are acceptable for mass vaccination,with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines candidates having the lowest reported AEFI.Long-term surveillance of vaccine safety is required,especially among elderly people with underlying medical conditions.
