Highlights d An overview of amino acid features associated with condensate-forming (PPS) proteins d Development of a machine learning classifier (PSAP) to predict candidate PPS proteins d PSAP enabled the discovery of new PPS proteins, including DAZAP1 and CPEB3
Introduction
The rapid rollout of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for a large proportion of the population necessitates a strong emphasis on safety. Complementary to the existing spontaneous reporting system, The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb conducted patient-reported cohort event monitoring (CEM).
Objective
The primary aim was to investigate differences in the frequencies of any and commonly reported, ‘well-known’, systemic adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) with four COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer’s Comirnaty
®
, Moderna’s Spikevax
®
, AstraZeneca’s Vaxzevria
®
and the Janssen vaccine). As a secondary aim, we analyzed the frequencies of well-known systemic adverse events after the first and, if applicable, second COVID-19 vaccinations, taking into account age, sex and prior COVID-19 infection.
Methods
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the Netherlands starting in February 2021 were analyzed using a prospective cohort design.
Results
Data of 27,554 participants who received one vaccination and 20,682 participants who received complete immunization were analyzed. The percentage of patients reporting any AEFI was high and ranged from approximately 53% for the Pfizer vaccine to approximately 94% for the Moderna vaccine. The frequency of serious AEFIs was low, with the highest frequency found for the AstraZeneca vaccine (0.228%). AEFIs were most often experienced by participants receiving the first dose of the AstraZeneca and Janssen vaccines and the second dose of the Moderna vaccine; the Pfizer vaccine was associated with the lowest rate of AEFIs. Participants with a COVID-19 history before vaccination experienced commonly reported systemic AEFIs more frequently after the first vaccination than after the second vaccination. Women and young people experienced more AEFIs than men and older people, respectively.
Conclusions
The analysis of a large cohort provides important information about the rates of AEFIs across age groups, among brands of vaccines and between those with and without prior COVID-19 infection. Participants reported a high number of AEFIs in general, but the frequency of serious AEFIs was low.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40264-022-01151-w.
Background: This study aims to compare nature and frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), time to first ADR, drug survival, and the share of ADRs in treatment discontinuation of first-time treatment with adalimumab (ADA) and etanercept (ETN) in real-world RA patients. Research design and methods: Retrospective, single-center cohort study including naïve patients treated between January 2003-April 2020. Time to first ADR and drug survival of first-time treatment were studied using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression models up to 10 years, with 2-and 5-year posthoc sensitivity analysis. Nature and frequencies of first-time ADRs and causes of treatment discontinuation were assessed. Results: In total, 416 patients (ADA: 255, ETN: 161, 4865 patient years) were included, of which 92 (22.1%) experienced ADR(s) (ADA: 59, 23.1%; ETN: 33, 20.4%). Adjusted for age, gender and concomitant conventional DMARD use, ADA was more likely to be discontinued than ETN up to 2-, 5-and 10-year follow-up (adjusted HRs 1.63; 1.62; 1.59 (all p<0.001)). ADRs were the second reason of treatment discontinuation (ADA 20.7%, ETN 21.4%). Conclusions: Despite seemingly different nature and frequencies, ADRs are the second reason of treatment discontinuation for both bDMARDs. Furthermore, 2-, 5-, and 10-year drug survival is longer for ETN compared to ADA.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.