A13 THE RATE OF ADVERSE EVENTS AFTER COVID-19 VACCINATION IS SIMILAR IN PATIENTS WITH CELIAC DISEASE AND NON-CELIAC POPULATION: RESULTS OF A LARGE INTERNATIONAL CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with celiac disease (CeD) reported increased COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy due to a fear of adverse events (AEs). However, the risk of AEs post-COVID-19 vaccination in patients with CeD is unknown. Purpose To assess whether the rate of common side effects (SEs) and AEs due to COVID vaccines are higher in patients with CeD compared to a non-CeD population. Method We conducted a collaborative international cross-sectional study in 16 countries between April 2022 and July 2022. An online survey was distributed to patients with CeD through patients' local societies, and to non-CeD from the general population in each country through social media posts, word-of-mouth, and through academic institutions. We collected data on participant demographics, medical conditions, CeD diagnosis, GFD adherence, history of COVID-19 vaccinations (type and doses) and self-reported SEs and AEs post-COVID-19 vaccine. SEs included pain/swelling at the site, fatigue, fever, chills, nausea and/or headaches. AEs included thrombosis, myocarditis, anaphylactic reaction, and hospitalization related to the vaccine. Logistic regression models were used to assess predictors such as CeD diagnosis, age, gender, vaccine type and comorbidities on the likelihood of reporting SEs and AEs post-vaccine. Result(s) : A total of 17,795 participants completed the survey, 13,638 with CeD (median age of 45[27]) and 4,157 non-CeD controls (median age of 43[20]). There were no significant differences in sex between CeD and controls. Overall, CeD patients had similar odds of SEs compared with non-CeD individuals (aOR=1.02;95% CI=0.92-1.14). SEs were slightly increased only in the second dose of the vaccine in the CeD population compared to non-CeD individuals (aOR= 1.35; 95% CI=1.19-1.53). The most common reported SEs in CeD and controls were pain/swelling at the injection site (29% vs 23 %, p< 0.0001) and fatigue (29% vs 24%, p<0.0001). The odds of SEs were higher with Moderna Spikevax, AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson and Johnson vaccines than after the Pfizer vaccine (p< 0.0001). The overall rate of AEs post-vaccine was similar between patients with CeD and non-CeD individuals (aOR= 1.29; 95% CI= 0.89-1.87). Overall, female gender, older age, GFD adherence, respiratory conditions, obesity and receiving immunosuppressive medications increased the odds of SEs, while only age and a history of allergies increased the odds of AEs. Conclusion(s) In this large international study, patients with CeD reported similar rates of SEs and AEs post-COVID vaccine compared to non-CeD individuals. This information is highly relevant as it addresses the main concern leading to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in CeD patients. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".