Potential effects of vaccinations on the prevention of COVID-19: rationale, clinical evidence, risks, and public health considerations

IntroductionCoronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), has quickly spread around the world. Areas coveredThis review will discuss the available immunologic and clinical evidence to support the benefit of the influenza, pneumococcal, and tuberculosis vaccines in the context of COVID-19 as well as to provide an overview on the COVID-19-specific vaccines that are in the development pipeline. In addition, implications for vaccination strategies from a public health perspective will be discussed. Expert opinionSome vaccines are being considered for their potentially beneficial role in preventing or improving the prognosis of COVID-19: influenza, pneumococcal and tuberculosis vaccines. These vaccines may have either direct effect on COVID-19 via different types of immune responses or indirect effects by reducing the burden of viral and bacterial respiratory diseases on individual patients and national healthcare system and by facilitating differential diagnoses with other viral/bacterial respiratory disease. On the other hand, a large number of candidate vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are currently in the pipeline and undergoing phase I, II, and III clinical studies. As SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are expected to be marketed through accelerated regulatory pathways, vaccinovigilance as well as planning of a successful vaccination campaign will play a major role in protecting public health

Cohort Event Monitoring of Adverse Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines in Seven European Countries: Pooled Results on First Dose

Introduction: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly authorised, thus requiring intense post-marketing re-evaluation of their benefit-risk profile. A multi-national European collaboration was established with the aim to prospectively monitor safety of the COVID-19 vaccines through web-based survey of vaccinees. Methods: A prospective cohort event monitoring study was conducted with primary consented data collection in seven European countries. Through the web applications, participants received and completed baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires on self-reported adverse reactions for at least 6 months following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, Italy) and baseline and up to ten follow-up questionnaires for one year in Germany and Croatia. Rates of adverse reactions have been described by type (solicited, non-solicited; serious/non-serious; and adverse events of special interest) and stratified by vaccine brand. We calculated the frequency of adverse reaction after dose 1 and prior to dose 2 among all vaccinees who completed at least one follow-up questionnaire. Results: Overall, 117,791 participants were included and completed the first questionnaire in addition to the baseline: 88,196 (74.9%) from Germany, 27,588 (23.4%) from Netherlands, 984 (0.8%) from France, 570 (0.5%) from Italy, 326 (0.3%) from Croatia, 89 (0.1%) from the UK and 38 (0.03%) from Belgium. There were 89,377 (75.9%) respondents who had received AstraZeneca vaccines, 14,658 (12.4%) BioNTech/Pfizer, 11,266 (9.6%) Moderna and 2490 (2.1%) Janssen vaccines as a first dose. Median age category was 40–49 years for all vaccines except for Pfizer where median age was 70–79 years. Most vaccinees were female with a female-to-male ratio of 1.34, 1.96 and 2.50 for AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen, respectively. BioNtech/Pfizer had slightly more men with a ratio of 0.82. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported solicited systemic adverse reactions and injection-site pain was the most common solicited local reaction. The rates of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were 0.1–0.2% across all vaccine brands. Conclusion: This large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients showed, for all the studied vaccines, a high frequency of systemic reactions, related to the immunogenic response, and local reactions at the injection site, while serious reactions or AESIs were uncommon, consistent with those reported on product labels. This study demonstrated the feasibility of setting up and conducting cohort event monitoring across multiple European countries to collect safety data on novel vaccines that are rolled out at scale in populations which may not have been included in pivotal trials

Frequency and timing of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines; A multi-country cohort event monitoring study

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, EMA set-up a large-scale cohort event monitoring (CEM) system to estimate incidence rates of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of different COVID-19 vaccines across the participating countries. This study aims to give an up to date and in-depth analysis of the frequency of patient-reported ADRs after the 1st, 2nd, and booster vaccination, to identify potential predictors in developing ADRs and to describe time-to-onset (TTO) and time-to-recovery (TTR) of ADRs. Methods: A CEM study was rolled out in a period ranging from February 2021 to February 2023 across multiple European countries; The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Analysis consisted of a descriptive analyses of frequencies of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs for 1st, 2nd and booster vaccination, analysis of potential predictors in developing ADRs with a generalized linear mixed-effects model, analysis of TTO and TTR of ADRs and a sensitivity analysis for loss to follow-up (L2FU). Results: A total of 29,837 participants completed at least the baseline and the first follow-up questionnaire for 1st and 2nd vaccination and 7,250 participants for the booster. The percentage of participants who reported at least one ADR is 74.32% (95%CI 73.82–74.81). Solicited ADRs, including injection site reactions, are very common across vaccination moments. Potential predictors for these reactions are the brand of vaccine used, the patient's age, sex and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination (0.24%, 95%CI 0.19––0.31) and booster (0.26%, 95%CI 0.15, 0.41). The TTO was 14 h (median) for dose 1 and slightly longer for dose 2 and booster dose. TTR is generally also within a few days. The effect of L2FU on estimations of frequency is limited. Conclusion: Despite some limitations due to study design and study-roll out, CEM studies can allow prompt and almost real-time observations of the safety of medications directly from a patient-centered perspective, which can play a crucial role for regulatory bodies during an emergency setting such as the COVID-19 pandemic

Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines in Persons with Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A European Multi-Country Study

In all pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines, the history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was mentioned as one of the main exclusion criteria. In the absence of clinical trials, observational studies are the primary source for evidence generation. This study aims to describe the patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following the first COVID-19 vaccination cycle, as well as the administration of booster doses of different vaccine brands, in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to prior infection-free matched cohorts of vaccinees. A web-based prospective study was conducted collecting vaccinee-reported outcomes through electronic questionnaires from eleven European countries in the period February 2021-February 2023. A baseline questionnaire and up to six follow-up questionnaires collected data on the vaccinee's characteristics, as well as solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Overall, 3886 and 902 vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and having received the first dose or a booster dose, respectively, were included in the analysis. After the first dose or booster dose, vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a higher frequency than those matched without prior infection (3470 [89.6%] vs. 2916 [75.3%], and 614 [68.2%] vs. 546 [60.6%], respectively). On the contrary side, after the second dose, vaccinees with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a lower frequency, compared to matched controls (1443 [85.0%] vs. 1543 [90.9%]). The median time to onset and the median time to recovery were similar across all doses and cohorts. The frequency of adverse reactions was higher in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received Vaxzevria as the first dose and Spikevax as the second and booster doses. The frequency of serious ADRs was low for all doses and cohorts. Data from this large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccinees could be used to inform people as to the likelihood of adverse effects based on their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, age, sex, and the type of vaccine administered. In line with pivotal trials, the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines was also confirmed in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection

Frequency and timing of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines; A multi-country cohort event monitoring study

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, EMA set-up a large-scale cohort event monitoring (CEM) system to estimate incidence rates of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of different COVID-19 vaccines across the participating countries. This study aims to give an up to date and in-depth analysis of the frequency of patient-reported ADRs after the 1st, 2nd, and booster vaccination, to identify potential predictors in developing ADRs and to describe time-to-onset (TTO) and time-to-recovery (TTR) of ADRs. METHODS: A CEM study was rolled out in a period ranging from February 2021 to February 2023 across multiple European countries; The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Analysis consisted of a descriptive analyses of frequencies of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs for 1st, 2nd and booster vaccination, analysis of potential predictors in developing ADRs with a generalized linear mixed-effects model, analysis of TTO and TTR of ADRs and a sensitivity analysis for loss to follow-up (L2FU). RESULTS: A total of 29,837 participants completed at least the baseline and the first follow-up questionnaire for 1st and 2nd vaccination and 7,250 participants for the booster. The percentage of participants who reported at least one ADR is 74.32% (95%CI 73.82-74.81). Solicited ADRs, including injection site reactions, are very common across vaccination moments. Potential predictors for these reactions are the brand of vaccine used, the patient's age, sex and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination (0.24%, 95%CI 0.19--0.31) and booster (0.26%, 95%CI 0.15, 0.41). The TTO was 14 h (median) for dose 1 and slightly longer for dose 2 and booster dose. TTR is generally also within a few days. The effect of L2FU on estimations of frequency is limited. CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations due to study design and study-roll out, CEM studies can allow prompt and almost real-time observations of the safety of medications directly from a patient-centered perspective, which can play a crucial role for regulatory bodies during an emergency setting such as the COVID-19 pandemic

Anaphylaxis due to antiallergic and antiasthmatic biologics

Purpose of review: To provide a better understanding of the risk of anaphylaxis due to antiallergic and antiasthmatic biologics through an analysis of data reported in literature and in clinical trials, and by conducting a retrospective descriptive analysis of individual case safety reports on VigiBase, the WHO International Pharmacovigilance database. Recent findings: Analysis of the data, as described, demonstrated safety of the antiallergic and antiasthmatic biologics with a low incidence of anaphylaxis. Summary: Biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of many diseases, such as atopic dermatitis, nasal polyps, spontaneous chronic urticarial and severe asthma with a precise immunological action, in the sphere of precision medicine.Albeit these drugs are generally well tolerated, generating real-world evidence is crucial to re-evaluate clinically relevant adverse events, such as anaphylaxis, allowing to confirm their safety profile in particular in special populations such as paediatric patients

Kidney Disease in Diabetic Patients: From Pathophysiology to Pharmacological Aspects with a Focus on Therapeutic Inertia

Diabetes mellitus represents a growing concern, both for public economy and global health. In fact, it can lead to insidious macrovascular and microvascular complications, impacting negatively on patients' quality of life. Diabetic patients often present diabetic kidney disease (DKD), a burdensome complication that can be silent for years. The average time of onset of kidney impairment in diabetic patients is about 7-10 years. The clinical impact of DKD is dangerous not only for the risk of progression to end-stage renal disease and therefore to renal replacement therapies, but also because of the associated increase in cardiovascular events. An early recognition of risk factors for DKD progression can be decisive in decreasing morbidity and mortality. DKD presents patient-related, clinician-related, and system-related issues. All these problems are translated into therapeutic inertia, which is defined as the failure to initiate or intensify therapy on time according to evidence-based clinical guidelines. Therapeutic inertia can be resolved by a multidisciplinary pool of healthcare experts. The timing of intensification of treatment, the transition to the best therapy, and dietetic strategies must be provided by a multidisciplinary team, driving the patients to the glycemic target and delaying or overcoming DKD-related complications. A timely nephrological evaluation can also guarantee adequate information to choose the right renal replacement therapy at the right time in case of renal impairment progression

Anti-hypertensive drugs deprescribing: an updated systematic review of clinical trials

Polypharmacy is defined as the prescription of at least 5 different medicines for therapeutic or prophylactic effect and is a serious issue among elderly patients, who are frequently affected by multi-morbidity. Deprescribing is one of the proposed approaches to reduce the number of administered drugs, by eliminating those that are inappropriately prescribed. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an updated and systematic assessment of the benefit-risk profile of deprescribing of anti-hypertensive drugs, which are among the most commonly used drugs

Exploring the Use of Monoclonal Antibodies and Antiviral Therapies for Early Treatment of COVID-19 Outpatients in a Real-World Setting: A Nationwide Study from England and Italy

Background: Real-world data on early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outpatients with newly approved therapies are sparse. Aim: To explore the pattern of use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs)/antiviral therapies approved for early COVID-19 treatment in non-hospitalized patients from England and Italy from December 2021 to October 2022. Methods: Public national dashboards on weekly mAb/antiviral use and/or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnoses from the Italian Medicines Agency, the Italian National Institute of Health, National Health Service in England and the UK Government were explored. Prevalence of antiviral use in outpatients during the entire study period and every two weeks was calculated, as a whole and by class and compounds. An interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis was carried out to assess the impact of predominant SARS-CoV-2 variants over time on the prevalence of use of mAbs/antivirals in England and Italy. Results: Overall, 77,469 and 195,604 doses of mAbs/antivirals were respectively administered to a total of 10,630,903 (7.3 per 1000) and 18,168,365 (10.8 per 1000) patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in England and Italy. Prevalence of use every two weeks increased from 0.07% to 3.1% in England and 0.9% to 2.3% in Italy during the study period. Regarding individual compounds, sotrovimab (prevalence of use, 1.6%) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (1.6%) in England, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (1.7%) and molnupiravir (0.5%) in Italy, reported the highest prevalence during a 2-week period. In the ITS analysis, the transition from Delta to Omicron variant predominance was associated with a significant increase in the use of sotrovimab, molnupiravir, remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in both England and Italy, with a reduction of other marketed mAbs. The extent of the increase was higher in England than in Italy for all these drugs except for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Conclusions: In this dual nationwide study, the prevalence of use of mAbs/antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 for early outpatients' treatment increased slowly up to 2.0-3.0% of all patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in both England and Italy from December 2021 to October 2022. The trend of individual drug use varied in relation to predominant SARS-CoV-2 variants with some differences across countries. In line with scientific societies' guidelines, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was the most frequently prescribed antiviral in both countries in the most recent period

Is PEGylation of Drugs Associated with Hypersensitivity Reactions? An Analysis of the Italian National Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting System

Background and objective: Evidence highlights the allergenic potential of PEGylated drugs because of the production of anti-polyethylene glycol immunoglobulins. We investigated the risk of hypersensitivity reactions of PEGylated drugs using the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting system database. Methods: We selected adverse drug reaction reports attributed to medicinal products containing PEGylated active substances and/or PEGylated liposomes from the Italian Spontaneous Reporting System in the period between its inception and March 2021. As comparators, we extracted adverse drug reaction reports of medicinal products containing the same non-PEGylated active substances and/or non-PEGylated liposomes (or compounds belonging to the same mechanistic class). A descriptive analysis of reports of hypersensitivity reactions was performed. Reporting rates and time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions were also calculated in the period between January 2009 and March 2021. As a measure of disproportionality, we calculated the reporting odds ratio. Results: Overall, 3865 adverse drug reaction reports were related to PEGylated medicinal products and 11,961 to their non-PEGylated comparators. Around two-thirds of patients were female and reports mostly concerned patients aged between 46 and 64 years. The frequency of hypersensitivity reactions reporting was higher among PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (11.7% vs 9.4%, p < 0.0001). The hypersensitivity reaction reporting rates were higher for PEGylated medicinal products versus non-PEGylated medicinal products, with reporting rate ratios that ranged from 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.8-2.5) for pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim to 20.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-143.5) for peginterferon alpha-2a versus interferon alpha-2a. The median time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions was 10 days (interquartile range: 0-61) for PEGylated medicinal products, and 36 days (interquartile range: 3-216) for non-PEGylated comparators. Statistically significant reporting odds ratios were observed when comparing the reporting of hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (reporting odds ratio: 1.3; 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.4). However, when using all other drugs as comparators, the disproportionality analysis showed no association with hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated nor non-PEGylated medicinal products, thus suggesting that many other triggers of drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions play a major role. Conclusions: The findings of this analysis of the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction database suggest a potential involvement for PEGylation in triggering drug-related hypersensitivity reactions, especially clinically relevant reactions. However, when comparing both PEGylated and non-PEGylated drugs under study to all other drugs no disproportionate reporting of hypersensitivity reactions was observed, probably due to a masking effect owing to the presence in the same database of other medicinal products increasing the threshold required to highlight a safety signal when the entire database is used as a reference