Back

COVID-19 vaccination, from first dose to booster: New insights into the frequency of most common systemic adverse events and possible booster nocebo effects based on a systematic review

Behrens, C.; Samii-Moghadam, M.; Gasperazzo, T.; Gross, A. M.; Mitchell, J.; Lampe, J. B.

2021-12-15 infectious diseases
10.1101/2021.12.15.21267847 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundBased on placebo data, it has been recently demonstrated that the frequencies of most common adverse events (AEs) of COVID-19 vaccination are overestimated due to negative expectation bias of vaccine recipients (nocebo effect). Since booster studies lack comparators, estimating the extent of the nocebo effect is difficult. We aimed to overcome this obstacle through a systematic comparison of most common AE frequencies across vaccine doses (first, second, booster), age groups, and vaccine vs. placebo arms. MethodsWe systematically assessed systemic AEs in approved COVID-19 vaccines according to the PRISMA guidelines. All documents regarding COVID-19 vaccines with a booster dose authorized by the FDA (cutoff date 19 November 2021) were systematically searched on PubMed and the FDA website. Solicited systemic AEs from all documents supporting approval/authorization were collected. After standardization of doses and age groups, AE frequencies were compared between vaccine and placebo. FindingsTwo trials were identified for BNT162b2 (n=21,785 participants), two for mRNA-1273 (n=22,324), and one for Ad26.COV2.S (n=4,085). Fever cases dropped to about half with the booster dose in all vaccines, whereas all other systemic AE frequencies were similar to the preceding dose. Almost no fever cases occurred with placebo (first/second dose); all other systemic AEs occurred at high frequencies. After subtracting placebo arm values from vaccine values, the frequencies for the various AEs were roughly comparable within each dose for each vaccine. InterpretationFever is the only solicited systemic AE that can be assessed objectively. It occurs about 50% less often with the booster than with the preceding dose. This may indirectly indicate a considerable overestimation of systemic AEs in the case of booster vaccinations and a pronounced nocebo effect. The nocebo effect appears to substantially contribute to the differences in the frequencies of the various systemic AEs. FundingNo funding received. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSA high nocebo effect has recently been shown for the most common solicited adverse events (AEs) based on the randomized controlled trials of several vaccines approved for COVID-19. To date, there has been no systematic review of systemic AEs in COVID-19 vaccines with a booster dose approved by the FDA. Normally, assessing the extent of the nocebo effect requires the implementation of randomized, placebo-controlled studies. However, for ethical reasons, studies underlying the authorization of COVID-19 booster vaccines are not controlled. Therefore, reported AEs lack any reference parameter. We searched PubMed and medRxiv for nocebo effects regarding the objectively measurable AE fever using the terms "(COVID) AND (nocebo) AND (fever)" with no language restrictions; no hits were found on PubMed and six were found on medRxiv. The search without any indication, using only the search terms "(nocebo) AND (fever)", resulted in two hits on PubMed and six hits on medRxiv. An additional search was performed for "(vaccine or COVID) AND nocebo"; 21 hits were found on PubMed and 12 on medRxiv. None of the hits obtained with the three searches showed evidence of relevance for the present topic of a direct association of fever with the nocebo effect. Added value of this studyInstead of placebo AE data as reference parameter, we suggest fever as an objectively measurable value to estimate the extent of the nocebo effect in uncontrolled vaccination studies. To our knowledge, this is a new concept with which evidence for the extent of a possible nocebo effect in COVID-19 booster vaccination can be provided. With this approach we directly supplement information on the most recently reported nocebo effects in first, second and booster vaccine doses. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to indirectly compare the solicited systemic AE frequencies of approved COVID-19 vaccines across all doses, with easy-to-understand graphs and based on all approval-relevant trials. This is astonishing, as in the context of a pandemic it is essential to communicate scientific data in a generally understandable manner and according to the highest scientific standards. The graphs provided in this work could serve as an example for such clear communication. Implications of all the available evidenceUsing the example of systemic AEs, we were able to show that the frequency of AEs in COVID-19 booster vaccination may be overestimated. Fever as an objective measure to estimate the nocebo effect could help to optimize public awareness campaigns in the future. The graphic presentation of results facilitates a deeper understanding of complex scientific data and provides new insights. It is therefore ideal for a highly dynamic scientific field and may also be applied to other challenges in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.0%
2
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.0%
3
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.6%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.7%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.1%
8
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
9
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.9%
10
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
11
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
12
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
13
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
15
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
16
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
17
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.2%
18
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
19
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
20
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
21
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
22
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
24
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.8%
25
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
26
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
27
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
28
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
29
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
30
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%