Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Vaccine hesitancy has been a growing challenge for public health in recent decades. Among factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy, concerns regarding vaccine safety and Adverse Events (AEs) play the leading role. Moreover, cognitive biases are critical in connecting such concerns to vaccine hesitancy behaviors, but their role has not been comprehensively studied. In this study, our first objective is to address concerns regarding vaccine AEs to increase vaccine acceptance. Our second objective is to identify the potential cognitive biases connecting vaccine hesitancy concerns to vaccine-hesitant behaviors and identify the mechanism they get triggered in the vaccine decision-making process. Methods First, to mitigate concerns regarding AEs, we quantitatively analyzed the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 2011 to 2018 and provided evidence regarding the non-severity of the AEs that can be used as a communicable summary to increase vaccine acceptance. Second, we focused on the vaccination decision-making process. We reviewed cognitive biases and vaccine hesitancy literature to identify the most potential cognitive biases that affect vaccine hesitancy and categorized them adopting the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM). Results Our results show that the top frequent AEs are expected mild reactions like injection site erythema (4.29%), pyrexia (3.66%), and injection site swelling (3.21%). 94.5% of the reports are not serious and the average population-based serious reporting rate over the 8 years was 25.3 reports per 1 million population. We also identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect people’s vaccination decision-making and nudge them toward vaccine hesitancy. We categorized these biases based on the factors that trigger them and discussed how they contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Conclusions This paper provided an evidence-based communicable summary of VAERS. As the most trusted sources of vaccine information, health practitioners can use this summary to provide evidence-based vaccine information to vaccine decision-makers (patients/parents) and mitigate concerns over vaccine safety and AEs. In addition, we identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect the vaccination decision-making process and nudge people toward vaccine hesitancy. Any plan, intervention, and message to increase vaccination uptake should be modified to decrease the effect of these potential cognitive biases.

In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials. Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on Brighton Collaboration adverse events of special interest. Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI −3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39). The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.

The Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project, established in 2021 under the multinational Global Vaccine Data Network™ (GVDN®), facilitates comprehensive assessment of vaccine safety. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of adverse events of special interest (AESI) following COVID-19 vaccination from 10 sites across eight countries. Using a common protocol, this observational cohort study compared observed with expected rates of 13 selected AESI across neurological, haematological, and cardiac outcomes. Expected rates were obtained by participating sites using pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data stratified by age and sex. Observed rates were reported from the same healthcare datasets since COVID-19 vaccination program rollout. AESI occurring up to 42 days following vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) and adenovirus-vector (ChAdOx1) vaccines were included in the primary analysis. Risks were assessed using observed versus expected (OE) ratios with 95 % confidence intervals. Prioritised potential safety signals were those with lower bound of the 95 % confidence interval (LBCI) greater than 1.5. Participants included 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals. In total, 183,559,462 doses of BNT162b2, 36,178,442 doses of mRNA-1273, and 23,093,399 doses of ChAdOx1 were administered across participating sites in the study period. Risk periods following homologous vaccination schedules contributed 23,168,335 person-years of follow-up. OE ratios with LBCI > 1.5 were observed for Guillain-Barré syndrome (2.49, 95 % CI: 2.15, 2.87) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (3.23, 95 % CI: 2.51, 4.09) following the first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis showed an OE ratio of 3.78 (95 % CI: 1.52, 7.78) following the first dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine. The OE ratios for myocarditis and pericarditis following BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 were significantly increased with LBCIs > 1.5. This multi-country analysis confirmed pre-established safety signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Other potential safety signals that require further investigation were identified.

Childhood adversity may sensitize certain individuals to later stress which triggers or amplifies psychopathology. The current study uses data from a longitudinal randomized controlled trial to examine whether severe early neglect among children reared in institutions increases vulnerability to the effects of later stressful life events on externalizing problems in adolescence, and whether social enrichment in the form of high-quality foster care buffers this risk. Children abandoned to Romanian institutions were randomly assigned to a foster care intervention or care-as-usual during early childhood. A sample of never-institutionalized children served as a comparison group. Here we report that, among those with prolonged institutional rearing, more stressful life events in preadolescence predicted higher externalizing problems in adolescence. This effect was not observed for never-institutionalized children or those in foster care, thus providing experimental evidence that positive caregiving experiences protect against the stress-sensitizing effects of childhood neglect on externalizing problems in adolescence. Early adversity may sensitize people to the effects of later stress, amplifying psychopathology risk. Here, the authors show this stress sensitization effect for adolescents who experienced prolonged institutional deprivation in childhood, but not those assigned to foster care intervention.

Immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) are often seen during immune‐checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment of various malignancies. Endocrine irAEs including thyroid dysfunctions are the most common irAEs, but their biomarkers remain unclear. In order to identify individuals who are susceptible to thyroid irAE for earlier diagnosis and appropriate follow‐up, the current study is aimed to investigate biomarkers of thyroid irAE. Herein, patients with advanced malignant diseases who received ICIs treatment were prospectively studied. Clinical and laboratory examination, thyroid function, and autoantibodies were evaluated at baseline, and every 4 wk after first treatment with ICIs. Cytokines/chemokines were measured at baseline and at 4 wk. In vivo effects of ICIs on experimental autoimmune thyroiditis were evaluated. Twenty‐six patients with malignant diseases who received ICIs treatment were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: those who developed thyroid irAE, and those without irAEs. Comparing the two groups, early increase (≤4 wk) in serum thyroglobulin (Tg) levels and thyroid autoantibodies was seen in thyroid irAE (P < .05). Notably, higher levels of serum IL‐1β, IL‐2, and GM‐CSF at baseline, and early decrease of IL‐8, G‐CSF, and MCP‐1 were significantly associated in the development of thyroid irAE (P < .05). In vivo effects of anti‐PD‐1 antibody on deterioration of mice experimental thyroiditis were seen. In conclusion, early change in Tg, thyroid autoimmunity, and cytokine levels might indicate development of thyroid irAE. Pre‐existing thyroid autoimmunity might be involved with the development of thyroid irAE. Potential application of these factors as surrogate biomarkers for tumor therapy was indicated.

The occurrence, second-line management and outcome of sr/sd-irAEs was investigated in patients with skin cancer. All skin cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) between 2013 and 2021 at a tertiary care center were analyzed retrospectively. Adverse events were coded by CTCAE version 5.0. The course and frequency of irAEs were summarized using descriptive statistics. A total of 406 patients were included in the study. In 44.6% (n = 181) of patients, 229 irAEs were documented. Out of those, 146 irAEs (63.8%) were treated with systemic steroids. Sr-irAEs and sd-irAEs (n = 25) were detected in 10.9% of all irAEs, and in 6.2% of ICI-treated patients. In this cohort, infliximab (48%) and mycophenolate mofetil (28%) were most often administered as second-line immunosuppressants. The type of irAE was the most important factor associated with the choice of second-line immunosuppression. The Sd/sr-irAEs resolved in 60% of cases, had permanent sequelae in 28% of cases, and required third-line therapy in 12%. None of the irAEs were fatal. Although these side effects manifest in only 6.2% of patients under ICI therapy, they impose difficult therapy decisions, especially since there are few data to determine the optimal second-line immunosuppression.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conduct post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a spontaneous (or passive) reporting system. This means that after a vaccine is approved, CDC and FDA continue to monitor safety while it is distributed in the marketplace for use by collecting and analyzing spontaneous reports of adverse events that occur in persons following vaccination. Various methods and statistical techniques are used to analyze VAERS data, which CDC and FDA use to guide further safety evaluations and inform decisions around vaccine recommendations and regulatory action. VAERS data must be interpreted with caution due to the inherent limitations of passive surveillance. VAERS is primarily a safety signal detection and hypothesis generating system. Generally, VAERS data cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event. VAERS data interpreted alone or out of context can lead to erroneous conclusions about cause and effect as well as the risk of adverse events occurring following vaccination. CDC makes VAERS data available to the public and readily accessible online. We describe fundamental vaccine safety concepts, provide an overview of VAERS for healthcare professionals who provide vaccinations and might want to report or better understand a vaccine adverse event, and explain how CDC and FDA analyze VAERS data. We also describe strengths and limitations, and address common misconceptions about VAERS. Information in this review will be helpful for healthcare professionals counseling patients, parents, and others on vaccine safety and benefit-risk balance of vaccination.

Cancer immunotherapies, including checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell therapy, manipulate the immune system to recognize and attack cancer cells. These therapies have the potential to induce durable responses in multiple solid and hema-tologic malignancies and thus have transformed treatment algorithms for numerous tumor types. Cancer immunotherapies lead to unique toxicity profiles distinct from the toxicities of other cancer therapies, depending on their mechanism of action. These toxicities often require specific management, which can include steroids and immune-modulating therapy and for which consensus guidelines have been pub-lished. This review will focus on the toxicities of checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T cells, including pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management.

The treatment of cancer patients with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) (anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, combined therapy anti-PD-1/PD-L1 with anti-CTLA-4) has without doubt been a significant breakthrough in the field of oncology in recent years and constitutes a major step forward as a novel type of immunotherapy in the treatment of cancer. ICIs have contributed to a significant improvement in the outcome of treatment and prognosis of patients with different types of malignancy. With the expansion of the use of ICIs, it is expected that caregivers will face new challenges, namely, they will have to manage the adverse side effects associated with the use of these drugs. New treatment options pose new challenges not only for oncologists but also for specialists in other clinical fields, including general practitioners (GPs). They also endorse the need for taking a holistic approach to the patient, which is a principle widely recognized in oncology and especially relevant in the case of the expanding use of ICIs, which may give rise to a wide variety of organ complications resulting from treatment. Knowledge and awareness of the spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) will allow doctors to qualify patients for treatment more appropriately, prevent complications, correctly recognize, and ultimately treat them. Additionally, patients with more non-specific symptoms would be expected, in the first instance, to consult their general practitioners, as complications may appear even after the termination of treatment and do not always proceed in line with disease progression. Dealing with any iatrogenic complications, will not only be the remit of oncologists but because of the likelihood that specific organs may be affected, is likely to extend also to specialists in various fields of internal medicine. These specialists, e.g., endocrinologists, dermatologists, pulmonologists, and gastroenterologists, are likely to receive referrals for patients suffering from specific types of adverse events or will be asked to provide care in cases requiring hospitalization of patients with complications in their field of expertise. In view of these considerations, we believe that there is an urgent need for multidisciplinary teamwork in the treatment of cancer patients undergoing immunotherapy and suffering the consequent adverse reactions to treatment.

Rhabdomyolysis is a potentially fatal adverse reaction mainly caused by certain medications. Few real-world studies have shown a clear association between atypical antipsychotics and rhabdomyolysis. This study aimed to evaluate the association between atypical antipsychotics and rhabdomyolysis using the FDA Adverse Event Report System (FAERS) database. The data were obtained from the FAERS database from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2023. To identify potential risk signals from the FAERS database, a disproportionality analysis was conducted using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with p -values adjusted via Bonferroni correction. The time to onset, hospitalization rate, and mortality of atypical antipsychotics associated rhabdomyolysis were also investigated. A total of 2360 rhabdomyolysis case reports from the FAERS database were considered. Quetiapine had the greatest proportion (27.75%). Olanzapine had the highest positive signal values of rhabdomyolysis. Statistically significant rhabdomyolysis RORs (95% CI) for atypical antipsychotics were (in descending order): olanzapine 4.02 (3.72–4.35), quetiapine 3.81 (0.53–27.6), ziprasidone 2.76 (2.19–3.49), risperidone 2.12 (1.91–2.35), aripiprazole 2 (1.8–2.21), clozapine 1.47 (1.31–1.64). In the time to onset analysis, all atypical antipsychotics associated rhabdomyolysis had early failure type characteristics, the risk of rhabdomyolysis occurrence would be gradually decreased over time. Our study highlights the importance of vigilant patient monitoring following the prescription of atypical antipsychotics to reduce the risk of rhabdomyolysis. It is necessary to monitor serum creatinine kinase (CK) level early, especially during dose adjustment or initiation of new atypical antipsychotics. This research may provide a valuable information for patients, clinicians, and others concerned with the safety of atypical antipsychotics, and optimize clinical practice.