PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Omar M. Albalawi
AU  - Maha I. Alomran
AU  - Ghada M. Alsagri
AU  - Turki A. Althunian
AU  - Thamir M. Alshammari
TI  - Analyzing the U.S. Post-marketing safety surveillance of COVID-19 vaccines
AID  - 10.1101/2021.07.10.21260304
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.07.10.21260304
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/12/2021.07.10.21260304.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/12/2021.07.10.21260304.full
AB  - Background Since December 2020, three COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized in the United States (U.S.) and were proceeded by large immunization programs. The aim of this study was to characterize the U.S. post-marketing safety (PMS) profiles of these vaccines with an in-depth analysis of mortality data.Methods This was a retrospective database analysis study. Details of the U.S. PMS reports (15 December 2020 to 19 March 2021) of the three vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen Ad26.COV2.S) were retrieved from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). A descriptive analysis was conducted to characterize the reported adverse events (AEs). A comparative (Pfizer-BioNTech vs. Moderna) analysis of mortality was conducted. The mean count ratio of death between the two vaccines was estimated using a negative binomial regression model adjusting for the measured confounders.Results A total of 44,451 AE reports were retrieved (corresponding to 0.05% of the U.S. population who received at least one dose). The most commonly reported AEs were injection site reactions (30.4% of the reports), pain (reported in 26.7% of the reports), and headache (18.6% of the reports). Serious AEs were reported in only 14.6% of the reports with 4,108 hospitalizations. The total number of deaths was 1,919 with a mean count ratio of Moderna (n=997) vs. Pfizer-BioNTech (n=899) of 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.33).Conclusions The vast majority of PMS AEs in the U.S. were non-serious, and the number of serious AEs is very low given the total number of vaccinated U.S. population.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding was allocated for this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was conducted retrospectively from de-identified data obtained for pharmacovigilance and clinical purposes (publicly available). Thus, no ethical approval was needed.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData used in this study are available and accessible through VAERS public domain (). https://vaers.hhs.gov/