Safety Assessment of BNT162b2 Vaccine in Adolescents Aged 12-15 Years
Patel, J.; Bhavsar, B.; Parikh, S.; Ladani, N.
Show abstract
Present evidence of the safety of BNT162b2 Vaccine in adolescents of 12 to 15 years relies only on 2260 subjects involved in phase 3 study. Therefore, clinical and post-clinical safety assessment of BNT162b2 Vaccine in Age Group of 12 to 15 Years is urgently needed to make an accurate judgment for mass vaccination. A rapid systemic review was conducted to determine safety profile of BNT162b2 Vaccine in Age Group of 12 to 15 Years following the PRISMA guidelines. Published literature before August 15, 2021 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane library and MedRxiv, using the defined search words. 135 records found from 6 databases, of which 4 studies (2 studies from NEJM and 2 MMWR), total subject who received at least one dose of vaccine: 64969, were included in this systemic review per the inclusion criteria. The major events reported in clinical phase and post-authorisation observational studies are pain at injection site (local), fatigue (systemic), headache (systemic), chill (systemic), diarrhoea (systemic) and joint pain (systemic). Post-authorisation observational study (n = 62,709) reported about 50% lower major systemic events, specifically, fatigue, headache, chill, diarrhoea and join pain and about 25% lower major local event, specifically, pain at injection site, than phase 3 clinical study (n = 1,131). Our study suggest that higher adherence rate (>97 percent received second dose) in clinical phase 3 and significantly lower incident of major local and systemic events in post-authorisation observational study indicating that BNT162b2 vaccine has highly favourable safety profile.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of Biological E’s CORBEVAX™ vaccine in children and adolescents: A Prospective, Randomised, Double-blind, Placebo controlled, Phase-2/3 Study 97%
- Immunogenicity and Safety of a 14-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide conjugate vaccine (PNEUBEVAX 14TM) administered to 6-8 weeks old healthy Indian Infants: A single blind, randomized, active-controlled, Phase-III study 96%
- Efficacy and Safety of an Inactivated Whole-Virion SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine (CoronaVac) in Brazilian Healthcare Professionals: The PROFISCOV Trial 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Safety and efficacy of two immunization schedules with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in adults. A randomized non-inferiority clinical trial 97%
- Safety and immunogenicity of the BBIBP-CorV vaccine in adolescents aged 12-17 years in Thai population, prospective cohort study 97%
- Effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529): A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Immunogenicity and safety of a third dose, and immune persistence of CoronaVac vaccine in healthy adults aged 18-59 years: interim results from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial 97%
- Safety Monitoring of mRNA Vaccines Administered During the Initial 6 Months of the U.S. COVID-19 Vaccination Program: Reports to Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and v-safe 96%
- Safety and immunogenicity of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant in healthy adults: interim findings from a phase 2, randomised, dose-finding, multi-centre study 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Safety and immunogenicity of a heterologous booster with an RBD virus-like particle vaccine following two- or three-dose inactivated COVID-19 vaccine 96%
- Safety and immunogenicity of SCB-2019, an adjuvanted, recombinant SARS-CoV-2 trimeric S-protein subunit COVID-19 vaccine in healthy 12–17 year-old adolescents 96%
- Interim Analysis of a Phase I Randomized Clinical Trial on the Safety and Immunogenicity of the mRNA-1283 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Adults 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.