阿斯利康和辉瑞新冠肺炎疫苗在阿曼医学生中的有效性和不良反应:比较研究

IF 1 Q4 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
M. Sannathimmappa, Vinod Nambiar, R. Aravindakshan, M. Baig, A. Hassan, Maryam Al-Balushi
{"title":"阿斯利康和辉瑞新冠肺炎疫苗在阿曼医学生中的有效性和不良反应:比较研究","authors":"M. Sannathimmappa, Vinod Nambiar, R. Aravindakshan, M. Baig, A. Hassan, Maryam Al-Balushi","doi":"10.4103/bbrj.bbrj_9_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Immunization against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 became necessary to control the menace of COVID-19. However, the safety of COVID-19 vaccines must be monitored continuously. The present study aims at comparing the effectiveness and adverse effects of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines among the cohort of medical students. Methods: It was a single-cohort comparative study, and the data were collected using an online survey from participants who took at least two doses of AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines. The data included demography, breakthrough infections, and adverse effects following vaccination. Bivariate and logistic regression models were used to find associations between effectiveness and independent variables. Statistical significance was considered at P < 0.05. Results: In total, 115 students who had received Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines were included in the study. The mean age of the participants was 21.52. Female (n = 90) participants were more compared to males (n = 25). The majority of them received Pfizer vaccine (95), while AstraZeneca was received by only 20 participants. Overall effectiveness of both AstraZeneca and Pfizer was nearly 85%, while almost 100% protection was observed among those who were vaccinated after contracting the disease. Logistic regression revealed an independent effect of COVID-19 before any vaccination dose offered 66% protection against any subsequent breakthroughs (odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.095–2.08). At least one adverse effect was reported by 96 (83.5%) participants (95% CI: 75.4%–89.75%). Pain at the site of injection, fever, generalized weakness, and headache were the most common adverse effects. Fever (P < 0.001), body ache (P < 0.001), generalized weakness (P = 0.002), and joint pain (P = 0.014) were significantly more common in AstraZeneca as compared to Pfizer. Conclusion: Coronavirus vaccines were well tolerated, safe, and induced protection in most participants. Most postvaccine adverse events were mild to moderate, mainly due to induction of immune response by the body for protection. Furthermore, these mild to moderate adverse effects should not be hindrance to vaccination.","PeriodicalId":36500,"journal":{"name":"Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"101 - 105"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness and adverse effects of astrazeneca and pfizer COVID-19 vaccines among medical students in Oman: A comparative study\",\"authors\":\"M. Sannathimmappa, Vinod Nambiar, R. Aravindakshan, M. Baig, A. Hassan, Maryam Al-Balushi\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/bbrj.bbrj_9_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Immunization against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 became necessary to control the menace of COVID-19. However, the safety of COVID-19 vaccines must be monitored continuously. The present study aims at comparing the effectiveness and adverse effects of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines among the cohort of medical students. Methods: It was a single-cohort comparative study, and the data were collected using an online survey from participants who took at least two doses of AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines. The data included demography, breakthrough infections, and adverse effects following vaccination. Bivariate and logistic regression models were used to find associations between effectiveness and independent variables. Statistical significance was considered at P < 0.05. Results: In total, 115 students who had received Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines were included in the study. The mean age of the participants was 21.52. Female (n = 90) participants were more compared to males (n = 25). The majority of them received Pfizer vaccine (95), while AstraZeneca was received by only 20 participants. Overall effectiveness of both AstraZeneca and Pfizer was nearly 85%, while almost 100% protection was observed among those who were vaccinated after contracting the disease. Logistic regression revealed an independent effect of COVID-19 before any vaccination dose offered 66% protection against any subsequent breakthroughs (odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.095–2.08). At least one adverse effect was reported by 96 (83.5%) participants (95% CI: 75.4%–89.75%). Pain at the site of injection, fever, generalized weakness, and headache were the most common adverse effects. Fever (P < 0.001), body ache (P < 0.001), generalized weakness (P = 0.002), and joint pain (P = 0.014) were significantly more common in AstraZeneca as compared to Pfizer. Conclusion: Coronavirus vaccines were well tolerated, safe, and induced protection in most participants. Most postvaccine adverse events were mild to moderate, mainly due to induction of immune response by the body for protection. Furthermore, these mild to moderate adverse effects should not be hindrance to vaccination.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36500,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Journal\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"101 - 105\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/bbrj.bbrj_9_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/bbrj.bbrj_9_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:为控制新冠肺炎的威胁,有必要对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2进行免疫接种。然而,必须持续监测新冠肺炎疫苗的安全性。本研究旨在比较辉瑞和阿斯利康疫苗在医学生群体中的有效性和不良反应。方法:这是一项单队列比较研究,数据是通过在线调查收集的,参与者至少接种了两剂阿斯利康或辉瑞疫苗。数据包括人口统计学、突破性感染和疫苗接种后的不良反应。使用双变量和逻辑回归模型来寻找有效性和自变量之间的关联。统计学意义为P<0.05。结果:总共有115名接种过辉瑞或阿斯利康疫苗的学生被纳入研究。参与者的平均年龄为21.52岁。女性(n=90)参与者比男性(n=25)更多。他们中的大多数人接种了辉瑞疫苗(95),而只有20名参与者接种了阿斯利康疫苗。阿斯利康和辉瑞的总体有效性接近85%,而在感染该疾病后接种疫苗的人中观察到了近100%的保护作用。逻辑回归显示,在任何疫苗接种剂量之前,新冠肺炎的独立效应对任何后续突破提供了66%的保护(比值比0.44,95%置信区间[CI]:0.095–2.08)。96名(83.5%)参与者报告了至少一种不良反应(95%置信区间:75.4%–89.75%),头痛是最常见的不良反应。与辉瑞相比,阿斯利康的发烧(P<0.001)、身体疼痛(P<001)、全身无力(P=0.002)和关节疼痛(P=0.014)明显更常见。结论:冠状病毒疫苗在大多数参与者中具有良好的耐受性、安全性和诱导保护作用。大多数疫苗接种后的不良事件为轻度至中度,主要是由于机体为保护而诱导免疫反应。此外,这些轻度至中度不良反应不应妨碍疫苗接种。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness and adverse effects of astrazeneca and pfizer COVID-19 vaccines among medical students in Oman: A comparative study
Background: Immunization against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 became necessary to control the menace of COVID-19. However, the safety of COVID-19 vaccines must be monitored continuously. The present study aims at comparing the effectiveness and adverse effects of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines among the cohort of medical students. Methods: It was a single-cohort comparative study, and the data were collected using an online survey from participants who took at least two doses of AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines. The data included demography, breakthrough infections, and adverse effects following vaccination. Bivariate and logistic regression models were used to find associations between effectiveness and independent variables. Statistical significance was considered at P < 0.05. Results: In total, 115 students who had received Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines were included in the study. The mean age of the participants was 21.52. Female (n = 90) participants were more compared to males (n = 25). The majority of them received Pfizer vaccine (95), while AstraZeneca was received by only 20 participants. Overall effectiveness of both AstraZeneca and Pfizer was nearly 85%, while almost 100% protection was observed among those who were vaccinated after contracting the disease. Logistic regression revealed an independent effect of COVID-19 before any vaccination dose offered 66% protection against any subsequent breakthroughs (odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.095–2.08). At least one adverse effect was reported by 96 (83.5%) participants (95% CI: 75.4%–89.75%). Pain at the site of injection, fever, generalized weakness, and headache were the most common adverse effects. Fever (P < 0.001), body ache (P < 0.001), generalized weakness (P = 0.002), and joint pain (P = 0.014) were significantly more common in AstraZeneca as compared to Pfizer. Conclusion: Coronavirus vaccines were well tolerated, safe, and induced protection in most participants. Most postvaccine adverse events were mild to moderate, mainly due to induction of immune response by the body for protection. Furthermore, these mild to moderate adverse effects should not be hindrance to vaccination.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Journal
Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Journal Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biotechnology
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
42.90%
发文量
24
审稿时长
11 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