Impact of the medical briefing and vaccine type on adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination: A randomized clinical trial

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY
Nora S. Beller , Moritz Beller , Jürgen J. Murmann , Ryan W. Crisp
{"title":"Impact of the medical briefing and vaccine type on adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination: A randomized clinical trial","authors":"Nora S. Beller ,&nbsp;Moritz Beller ,&nbsp;Jürgen J. Murmann ,&nbsp;Ryan W. Crisp","doi":"10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Adverse events (AE) of varying severity commonly occur after vaccinations, potentially related to the nocebo effect. The randomized single-center clinical trial “LIFe Study” at the Vaccination Center Lichtenfels, Germany, investigates AE based on doctor-patient interaction and administered vaccine type following COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccinees receiving first or second doses were randomized: the control group (n=1,006) received in-depth medical briefings elaborating all possible AE; the experimental group (n=937) concise medical briefings comprising only medically relevant facts to the. Nocebo effects were quantified by self-reported AE frequency and severity; then AE across vaccine types and vaccinee demographics were compared including vaccinees receiving third (booster) doses. Questionnaires allowed rating 12 listed AE from absent, mild, moderate, to severe (valued as {0,1,2,3}, respectively), and summed to yield a score ranging from 0 to 36. Most AE were mild with no significant difference in mean AE (mAE) score between control (3.95, σ = 4.70) and experimental groups (3.96, σ = 4.75), nor in the number of participants reporting drug use for symptom relief (n<sub>control</sub> = 208, n<sub>experimental</sub> = 192; p = 0.54), or sick leave (n<sub>control</sub> = 82, n<sub>experimental</sub> = 82; p = 0.32). Higher mAE were associated with follow-up doses of Spikevax compared to Comirnaty, young age (r = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.19; -0.11], p = 9×10<sup>-12</sup>), and female gender (mAE 5.00, σ = 5.32 vs male 3.05, σ = 3.93). These findings suggest that the nocebo effect was not a significant factor in COVID-19 vaccinations and allow optimization of future vaccination strategies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23491,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine","volume":"61 ","pages":"Article 127392"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25006899","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Adverse events (AE) of varying severity commonly occur after vaccinations, potentially related to the nocebo effect. The randomized single-center clinical trial “LIFe Study” at the Vaccination Center Lichtenfels, Germany, investigates AE based on doctor-patient interaction and administered vaccine type following COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccinees receiving first or second doses were randomized: the control group (n=1,006) received in-depth medical briefings elaborating all possible AE; the experimental group (n=937) concise medical briefings comprising only medically relevant facts to the. Nocebo effects were quantified by self-reported AE frequency and severity; then AE across vaccine types and vaccinee demographics were compared including vaccinees receiving third (booster) doses. Questionnaires allowed rating 12 listed AE from absent, mild, moderate, to severe (valued as {0,1,2,3}, respectively), and summed to yield a score ranging from 0 to 36. Most AE were mild with no significant difference in mean AE (mAE) score between control (3.95, σ = 4.70) and experimental groups (3.96, σ = 4.75), nor in the number of participants reporting drug use for symptom relief (ncontrol = 208, nexperimental = 192; p = 0.54), or sick leave (ncontrol = 82, nexperimental = 82; p = 0.32). Higher mAE were associated with follow-up doses of Spikevax compared to Comirnaty, young age (r = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.19; -0.11], p = 9×10-12), and female gender (mAE 5.00, σ = 5.32 vs male 3.05, σ = 3.93). These findings suggest that the nocebo effect was not a significant factor in COVID-19 vaccinations and allow optimization of future vaccination strategies.
医学简介和疫苗类型对COVID-19疫苗接种后不良事件的影响:一项随机临床试验
不同严重程度的不良事件(AE)通常发生在接种疫苗后,可能与反安慰剂效应有关。德国Lichtenfels疫苗接种中心的随机单中心临床试验“LIFe Study”根据COVID-19疫苗接种后的医患互动和接种疫苗类型调查AE。接受第一剂或第二剂疫苗接种的人被随机分配:对照组(n=1,006)接受深入的医疗简报,详细说明所有可能的AE;实验组(n=937)简明的医学简报,仅包括与患者相关的医学事实。用自我报告的AE频率和严重程度来量化反安慰剂效应;然后比较不同疫苗类型和接种者的AE,包括接受第三次(加强)剂量的疫苗接种者。问卷允许对AE进行评分,从无,轻度,中度到严重(分别为{0,1,2,3}),并将其相加,得到0到36分的分数。大多数AE为轻度,对照组(3.95,σ = 4.70)与实验组(3.96,σ = 4.75)的AE (mAE)平均评分无显著差异,报告使用药物缓解症状的人数也无显著差异(ncontrol = 208, experimental = 192;P = 0.54)或病假(非对照= 82,实验= 82;P = 0.32)。与Comirnaty相比,较高的mAE与Spikevax的随访剂量、年轻(r = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.19;-0.11], p = 9×10-12),女性(mAE 5.00, σ = 5.32 vs男性3.05,σ = 3.93)。这些发现表明,反安慰剂效应不是COVID-19疫苗接种的重要因素,并允许优化未来的疫苗接种策略。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Vaccine
Vaccine 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
5.50%
发文量
992
审稿时长
131 days
期刊介绍: Vaccine is unique in publishing the highest quality science across all disciplines relevant to the field of vaccinology - all original article submissions across basic and clinical research, vaccine manufacturing, history, public policy, behavioral science and ethics, social sciences, safety, and many other related areas are welcomed. The submission categories as given in the Guide for Authors indicate where we receive the most papers. Papers outside these major areas are also welcome and authors are encouraged to contact us with specific questions.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信