Comment on "Reactogenicity Study of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine".

Q4 Medicine
Amnuay Kleebayoon, Viroj Wiwanitkit
{"title":"Comment on \"Reactogenicity Study of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine\".","authors":"Amnuay Kleebayoon,&nbsp;Viroj Wiwanitkit","doi":"10.12961/aprl.2023.26.03.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dear Editor, we would like to share ideas on the publication \"Reactogenicity Study of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19.\" Inglés Torruella et al. compare the reactogenicity of two types of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19, Commirnaty® (Pfizer) and Spikevax® (Moderna), in a healthcare population. According to Inglés Torruella et al., the greater reactogenicity and its consequences for the first and second doses of the Spikevax® vaccine compared to Comirnaty®, and for the second dose compared to the first dose of both vaccines, provides useful knowledge for planning COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in healthcare settings. A variety of factors need to be looked at in order to fully understand the results. It is impossible to draw a relationship between asymptomatic COVID-19 and the lack of symptoms without the required laboratory investigations. Without extensive laboratory testing, asymptomatic COVID-19 and the lack of clinical symptoms could be incorrectly diagnosed. A silent COVID-19 must be ruled out if neither the most recent clinical signals nor the most recent clinical markers are present. Additionally, genetic variations appear to affect how certain individuals' immune systems react to COVID-19. Before the findings can be verified, more clinical study will be needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":38326,"journal":{"name":"Archivos de prevención de riesgos laborales","volume":"26 3","pages":"215-216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-14","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.2023.26.03.04","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

Dear Editor, we would like to share ideas on the publication "Reactogenicity Study of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19." Inglés Torruella et al. compare the reactogenicity of two types of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19, Commirnaty® (Pfizer) and Spikevax® (Moderna), in a healthcare population. According to Inglés Torruella et al., the greater reactogenicity and its consequences for the first and second doses of the Spikevax® vaccine compared to Comirnaty®, and for the second dose compared to the first dose of both vaccines, provides useful knowledge for planning COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in healthcare settings. A variety of factors need to be looked at in order to fully understand the results. It is impossible to draw a relationship between asymptomatic COVID-19 and the lack of symptoms without the required laboratory investigations. Without extensive laboratory testing, asymptomatic COVID-19 and the lack of clinical symptoms could be incorrectly diagnosed. A silent COVID-19 must be ruled out if neither the most recent clinical signals nor the most recent clinical markers are present. Additionally, genetic variations appear to affect how certain individuals' immune systems react to COVID-19. Before the findings can be verified, more clinical study will be needed.

“mRNA新冠肺炎疫苗反应原性研究”述评。
尊敬的编辑,我们想分享关于“新冠肺炎mRNA疫苗的反应原性研究”出版物的想法。Inglés Torruella等人比较了两种针对新冠肺炎的mRNA疫苗Commirnaty®(辉瑞)和Spikevax®(莫德纳)在医疗保健人群中的反应原。Inglés Torruella等人表示,与Comirnaty®相比,第一剂和第二剂Spikevax®疫苗的反应原性及其后果更大,与第一剂这两种疫苗相比,第二剂更大,这为医疗环境中规划新冠肺炎疫苗接种活动提供了有用的知识。为了充分了解结果,需要考虑各种因素。如果没有必要的实验室调查,就不可能得出无症状新冠肺炎与无症状之间的关系。如果没有广泛的实验室检测,无症状的新冠肺炎和缺乏临床症状可能会被错误诊断。如果既没有最新的临床信号也没有最新临床标志物,则必须排除无症状的新冠肺炎。此外,基因变异似乎会影响某些人的免疫系统对新冠肺炎的反应。在验证这些发现之前,还需要更多的临床研究。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信