Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Breast Cancer: Cross-Sectional Study in China
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The widespread use of vaccines against the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has become one of the most effective means to establish a population immune barrier. Patients with cancer are vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, adverse events, and high mortality, and should be the focus of epidemic prevention and treatment. However, real-world data on the safety of vaccines for patients with breast cancer are still scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the safety of COVID-19 vaccines between patients vaccinated before or after being diagnosed with breast cancer. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer who sought medical advice from October 2021 to December 2021 were screened. Those who received COVID-19 vaccines were enrolled in this study to analyze the safety of the vaccines. The primary outcome was patient-reported adverse events (AEs). All events after vaccine injection were retrospectively documented from the patients. RESULTS: A total of 15,455 patients with breast cancer from 41 hospitals in 20 provinces in China were screened, and 5766 patients who received COVID-19 vaccines were enrolled. Of those enrolled, 45.1% (n=2599) of patients received vaccines before breast cancer diagnosis, 41.3% (n=2379) were vaccinated after diagnosis, and 13.6% (n=784) did not known the accurate date of vaccination or cancer diagnosis. Among the patients vaccinated after diagnosis, 85.4% (n=2032) were vaccinated 1 year after cancer diagnosis and 95.4% (n=2270) were vaccinated during early-stage cancer. Of all 5766 vaccinated patients, 93.9% (n=5415) received an inactivated vaccine, 3.7% (n=213) received a recombinant subunit vaccine, and 2.4% (n=138) received other vaccines, including adenovirus and mRNA vaccines. In the first injection of vaccines, 24.4% (n=10, 95% CI 11.2-37.5) of patients who received an adenovirus vaccine reported AEs, compared to only 12.5% (n=677, 95% CI 11.6-13.4) of those who received an inactivated vaccine. Patients with metastatic breast cancer reported the highest incidence of AEs (n=18, 16.5%, 95% CI 9.5-23.5). Following the second injection, patients who received an inactivated vaccine (n=464, 8.7%, 95% CI 8.0-9.5) and those who received a recombinant vaccine (n=25, 8.7%, 95% CI 5.5-12.0) reported the same incidence of AEs. No significant differences in patient-reported AEs were found between the healthy population and patients with breast cancer (16.4% vs 16.9%, respectively); the most common AEs were local pain (11.1% vs 9.1%, respectively), fatigue (5.5% vs 6.3%, respectively), and muscle soreness (2.3% vs 3.6%, respectively). The type of vaccine and time window of vaccination had little impact on patient-reported AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients vaccinated before breast cancer diagnosis, there were no significant differences in patient-reported AEs in the patients vaccinated after diagnosis. Thus, it is safe for patients with breast cancer, especially for those in the early stage, to receive COVID-19 vaccines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200055509; https://tinyurl.com/33zzj882.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».