Abstract
In the light of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC), bivalent COVID-19 vaccines combining the wild-type spike mRNA with an Omicron VOC BA.1 or BA.4-5 spike mRNA became available. This non-randomized controlled study examined adverse reactions, PRN (pro re nata) medication intake and inability to work after a fourth COVID-19 vaccination among 76 healthcare workers. As fourth dose either the original, monovalent BNT162b2mRNA (48.7%) or the bivalent BNT162b2mRNA original/Omicron BA.4-5 vaccine (51.3%) was administered. The rate of adverse reactions for the second booster dose was significantly higher among participants receiving the bivalent 84.6% (95% CI 70.3%-92.8%; 33/39) compared to the monovalent 51.4% (95% CI 35.9-66.6%; 19/37) vaccine (p=0.0028). Also, there was a trend towards an increased rate of inability to work and intake of PRN medication following bivalent vaccination. In view of preprints reporting inconclusive results in neutralizing antibody levels between the compared vaccines, our results and further studies on safety and reactogenicity of bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccines are highly important to aid clinical decision making in the choice between bivalent and monovalent vaccinations.
Competing Interest Statement
Manuel Krone receives honoraria from GSK and Pfizer outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Federal Ministry for Education and Science (BMBF) through a grant provided to the University Hospital of Wuerzburg by the Network University Medicine on COVID-19 (B-FAST, grant-No 01KX2021) as well as by the Free State of Bavaria with COVID-research funds provided to the University of Wuerzburg, Germany. Nils Petri is supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) funded scholarship UNION CVD.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol was approved by the Ethics committee of the University of Wuerzburg in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (file no. 79/21).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Additional data that underlie the results reported in this article, after de-identification (text, tables, figures, and appendices) as well as the study protocol, statistical analysis plan, and analytic code is made available to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal to achieve aims in the approved proposal on request to the corresponding author.
