Cited by 70Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

Frequency and Associations of Adverse Reactions of COVID-19 Vaccines Reported to Pharmacovigilance Systems in the European Union and the United States

Open access
Montano, Diego·2022·Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract

Introduction: This study aims to provide a risk assessment of the adverse reactions related to the COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by AstraZeneca, Janssen, Moderna, and Pfizer-BioNTech which have been in use in the European Union and the United States between December 2020 and October 2021. Methods: Data from the European Database of Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction (EudraVigilance) and the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) from 2020 to October 2021 are analysed. More than 7.8 million adverse reactions of about 1.6 million persons are included. The adverse reactions are classified with the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) categories. COVID-19 vaccine exposures and adverse reactions reported between December 2020 and October 2021 are compared to influenza vaccine exposures and adverse reactions reported between 2020 and 2021. The population-level vaccine exposures to COVID-19 and influenza vaccines comprised about 451 million and 437 million exposures, respectively. Absolute and relative risk estimates are calculated by CTC categories and COVID-19 vaccines for the EU and US populations aged 18 years and older. Results: A higher risk of reporting serious adverse reactions was observed for the COVID-19 vaccines in comparison to the influenza vaccines. Individuals age 65 and older were associated with a higher frequency of death, hospitalisations, and life-threatening reactions than younger individuals (relative risk estimates between 1.49 99% CI [1.44–1.55] and 8.61 99% CI [8.02–9.23]). Outcome onset of serious adverse reactions occurred within the first 7 days after vaccination in about 77.6–89.1% of cases. The largest absolute risks were observed for allergic, constitutional reactions, dermatological, gastrointestinal, neurological reactions, and localised and non-localised pain. The largest relative risks between COVID-19 vs. influenza vaccines were observed for allergic reactions, arrhythmia, general cardiovascular events, coagulation, haemorrhages, gastrointestinal, ocular, sexual organs reactions, and thrombosis. Conclusion: The present study provides an overview of adverse reactions frequently reported to the pharmacovigilance systems following COVID-19 vaccination in the EU and US populations. Despite the limitations of passive reporting systems, these results may inform further clinical research investigating in more detail the pathophysiological mechanisms potentially associated with the COVID-19 vaccines.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpubh.2021.756633

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A study using VAERS and EudraVigilance comparing the disproportionality of adverse event reports between the influenza vaccine versus the mRNA COVID19 vaccines reported excess risks for the following Brighton AESIs: cardiovascular events, coagulation events, hemorrhages, gastrointestinal events, and thromboses.

    “For example, a study using VAERS and EudraVigilance comparing the disproportionality of adverse event reports between the influenza vaccine versus the mRNA COVID19 vaccines reported excess risks for the following Brighton AESIs: cardiovascular events, coagulation events, hemorrhages, gastrointestinal events, and thromboses. [22]”

    From Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults (2022) · cites this paper as [22]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Using data from three postmarketing safety databases for vaccines (VAERS, EudraVigilance, and VigiBase), disproportionality studies have reported excess risks for many of the same SAE types as in the present study.

    “Using data from three postmarketing safety databases for vaccines (VAERS, EudraVigilance, and VigiBase), disproportionality studies have reported excess risks for many of the same SAE types as in the present study. [21-23]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [8]Food and Drug Administration. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for an Unapproved Product Review Memorandum. Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. Revision: February 2021. Silver Spring: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 2020.
  2. [34]European Chemicals Agency. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.8: Characterisation of Dose [Concentration]-Response for Human Health. Version 2.1. Helsiki: European Chemicals Agency, 2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Montano, D.
Venue
Frontiers in Public Health
Published
2022-02-03
Volume
9
Pages
756633-756633
ISSN
2296-2565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4210753706
Cited by
70
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 16
FWCI
10.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine adverse reactions, pharmacovigilance, EudraVigilance, VAERS, serious adverse events, thrombosis, allergic reactions, cardiovascular events, age-related risk, relative risk, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, European Union, United States
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, Adolescent, Aged, European Union, Humans, Influenza Vaccines, United States, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems, Pharmacovigilance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review