4.4 Article

Safety of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among healthcare workers in China

Journal

EXPERT REVIEW OF VACCINES
Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages 891-898

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2021.1925112

Keywords

Adverse reaction; China; COVID-19 vaccination; healthcare workers; safety

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to assess the safety of the CoronaVac vaccine among healthcare workers, finding a low incidence of adverse reactions with localized pain at the injection site being the most common, indicating an acceptable safety profile for the vaccine among this population.
Background: Although the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) has undergone preclinical tests and clinical trials evaluating its efficacy and safety, few data have been reported in the post-licensure real-world setting. We aimed to assess the safety of the vaccine among healthcare workers. Methods: A self-administered online survey on monitoring adverse reactions post vaccination was conducted among the staff who worked at and were vaccinated in a tertiary hospital in Taizhou, China, from February 24 to 7 March 2021. A total of 1526 subjects responded to the questionnaire when they received an e-mail or an e-poster on WeChat. Results: The incidences of overall adverse reactions after the first and second injections were 15.6% (238/1526) and 14.6% (204/1397), respectively. The most common adverse reaction was localized pain at the injection site, with an incidence of 9.6% and 10.7% after each dose, accounting for 61.8% and 73.0% of adverse reactions, respectively. Fatigue, muscle pain, and headache were the most common systemic adverse reactions. Conclusions: These findings implied that the inactivated CoronaVac vaccine has an acceptable safety profile among healthcare workers due to the low incidence of self-reported adverse reactions. This may boost public confidence in nationwide mass vaccination campaigns.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available