MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S1004 Adverse Events and Serological Responses Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Individuals With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

2022· article· en· W4316085795 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ante Markovinović, Michelle Herauf, Joshua Quan, Lindsay Hracs, Joseph W. Windsor, Nastaran Sharifi, Stephanie Coward, Léa Caplan, Christopher Ma, Remo Panaccione, R Ingram, Jamil N. Kanji, Graham Tipples, Jessalyn K. Holodinsky, Çharles N. Bernstein, Douglas J. Mahoney, Sasha Bernatsky, Eric I. Benchimol, Gilaad G. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntramuscular injections and effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill UniversityUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectChillsVaccinationInflammatory bowel diseaseSerologyCohortInternal medicineImmunologyDiseaseAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The rapid development and distribution of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has raised concerns surrounding vaccine safety in immunocompromised populations, such as those with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We described adverse events (AEs) following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in those with IBD and to determine any relationship of AEs to post-vaccination antibody titres. Methods: Individuals with IBD from a prospective cohort in Calgary, Canada who received a first, second, third, and/or fourth dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and/or AstraZeneca) were assessed for serological response and interviewed via telephone for AEs using questions based on the Adverse Events Following Immunization form. Subsequently, we used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to analyze AEs and geometric mean titers (GMT). Interview and chart review were used to assess a flare of IBD within 30 days of vaccination. Results: Table describes characteristics of individuals with IBD following the first dose (n=331), second dose (n=331), third dose (n=195), and fourth dose (n=100) of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. AEs were reported in 83.3% of participants after first dose, 79.1% following second dose, 77.4% following third dose, and 67.0% following fourth dose (Table). Injection site reaction (pain, redness, etc.) was the most common AE (50.8% of total AEs), with fatigue and malaise (18.1% of total AEs), headache and migraine (8.6% of total AEs), musculoskeletal discomfort (8.2% of total AEs), and fever and chills (6.5% of total AEs) also commonly reported. Only one participant was diagnosed with a severe AE requiring hospitalization: immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) following their second dose of a Pfizer vaccine. No cases of IBD flare occurred within 30 days of a vaccine. Analysis found elevated GMT levels in those with injection site reactions compared to those without injection site reactions following all four doses, with second dose serological responses being statistically significantly different (8614/mL vs 6841 AU/mL [p< 0.05], respectively) (Figure). Conclusion: AEs following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are generally mild and become less common with each consecutive dose. Antibody titres may be higher for participants who report injection site reactions compared to those without injections site reactions after second dose. Vaccines did not appear to be associated with a flare of IBD within 30 days of vaccination.Figure 1.: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody concentration across four doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for participants who reported injection site reactions compared to participants who did not. * indicates statistical significant differences. Table 1. - Participant characteristics and adverse events following first, second, third, and fourth dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine Characteristics Dose 1 (/331) Dose 2 (/331) Dose 3 (/195) Dose 4 (/100) Sex, n (%) Male Female 155 (46.8%)176 (53.2%) 155 (46.8%)176 (53.2%) 86 (44.1%)109 (55.9%) 49 (49.0%)51 (51.0%) Mean age (SD) 52.05 (14.52) 52.05 (14.52) 51.81 (15.20) 57.98 (14.01) IBD Type, n (%) Crohn’s Disease Ulcerative Colitis & IBD-U 238 (71.9%)93 (28.1%) 238 (71.9%)93 (28.1%) 150 (76.9%)45 (23.1%) 75 (75.0%)25 (25.0%) Medication, n (%) No immunosuppressives Anti-TNF only† Immunomodulators only Vedolizumab only Ustekinumab only Tofacitinib only Combination therapy‡ Oral Corticosteroids 33 (10.0%)118 (35.7%)7 (2.1%) 37 (11.2%)76 (23.0%)5 (1.5%)49 (14.8%)6 (1.8%) 32 (9.7%)119 (36.0%)7 (2.1%)39 (11.8%)74 (22.4%)5 (1.5%)47 (14.2%)8 (2.4%) 14 (7.2%)74 (38.0%)5 (2.6%)19 (9.7%)42 (21.5%)< 536 (18.5%)< 5 27 (27.0%)20 (20.0%)< 59 (9.0%)16 (16.0%)—18 (18.0%)7 (7.0%) Vaccine Type, n (%) Pfizer Moderna AstraZeneca 271 (81.9%)45 (13.6%)15 (4.5%) 275 (83.1%)49 (14.8%)7 (2.1%) 179 (91.8%)16 (8.2%)— 82 (82.0%)18 (18.0%)— Adverse Events Dose 1 (/331) Dose 2 (/331) Dose 3 (/195) Dose 4 (/100) Injection site, n (%) 250 (75.5%) 231 (70%) 138 (70.8%) 55 (55.0%) Lymph node swelling, n (%) 1 (0.3%) 9 (2.7%) 14 (7.2%) 1 (1.0%) Gastrointestinal, n (%) 17 (5.1%) 16 (4.8%) 6 (3.1%) 2 (2.0%) Fatigue or malaise, n (%) 86 (26.0%) 87 (26.3%) 45 (23.1%) 22 (22.0%) Fever or chills, n (%) 27 (8.2%) 35 (10.6%) 19 (9.7%) 5 (5.0%) Musculoskeletal, n (%) 34 (10.3%) 41 (12.4%) 25 (12.8%) 9 (9.0%) Headache or migraine, n (%) 34 (10.3%) 46 (13.9%) 23 (11.8%) 11 (11.0%) Other, n (%) 16 (4.8%)α 14 (4.2%)β 7 (3.6%)γ 2 (2.0%)δ Any symptoms, n (%) 275 (83.3%) 261 (79.1%) 151 (77.4%) 67 (67.0%) †One of golimumab, adalimumab, or infliximab (originator or biosimilar) ‡Any combination of anti-TNF and one or more of the following therapies: vedolizumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, or methotrexate αParesthesia, chin swelling, dysgeusia, numbness, hot flashes, irritability, ennui, hyperactivity, brain fog, congestion, dry eyes, sleep trouble, testicular swelling, angioedema, sinus swelling, throat swelling βShingles, hot flashes, brain fog, sleep troubles, rapid heartbeat, forced breathing, congestion, angioedema, throat swelling, leg swelling γHot flashes, brain fog, sleep troubles, sore throat, congestion, angioedema, ITP δParesthesia, sleep troubles

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicIntramuscular injections and effectsFrench-language works237,207