Should I stay or should I go? Observation post-vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic and the law of unintended consequences

  1. Gerard Ingham
  2. Rebecca Kippen

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background Standard practice after all vaccinations in Australia is to observe patients for 15 min. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, could the risk of contracting and dying from COVID-19 acquired in the waiting room be greater than the risk of dying from post-vaccine anaphylaxis when leaving immediately? Methods The risks are modelled for a patient aged 70+ years attending for annual influenza vaccination in a typical Australian general practice clinic. The risk of death from anaphylaxis is estimated based on known rates of anaphylaxis shortly after influenza vaccination. The risk of acquiring COVID-19 during a 15-min wait and then dying from that infection is estimated using the COVID-19 Aerosol Transmission Estimator and COVID-19 Risk Calculator. Results Other than at times of extremely low COVID-19 prevalence, the risk of death from anaphylaxis for a patient aged 70+ years leaving immediately after influenza vaccine is less than the risk of death from COVID-19 acquired via aerosol transmission during a 15-min wait. The risk of death from COVID-19 is greatest for the unimmunised and when masks are not worn. Conclusions A more nuanced approach to advice post-vaccination is recommended that considers current COVID-19 prevalence and virulence, the characteristics of the waiting room, the risk of anaphylaxis, and the patient’s susceptibility to death from COVID-19. There are many circumstances where it would be safer for a patient to leave immediately after vaccination.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1071/py22074
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.05.22273373: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.05.22273373v1 on medRxiv