Next Article in Journal
Rate and Predictors of Hesitancy toward SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine among Type 2 Diabetic Patients: Results from an Italian Survey
Next Article in Special Issue
First Dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Reduces Symptom Duration and Viral Clearance in Healthcare Workers
Previous Article in Journal
Engineered Human Monoclonal scFv to Receptor Binding Domain of Ebolavirus
Previous Article in Special Issue
Off-Label Use of COVID-19 Vaccines from Ethical Issues to Medico-Legal Aspects: An Italian Perspective
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Post-Marketing Active Surveillance of Adverse Reactions Following Influenza Cell-Based Quadrivalent Vaccine: An Italian Prospective Observational Study

Vaccines 2021, 9(5), 456; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9050456
by Pasquale Stefanizzi 1, Sara De Nitto 1, Giuseppe Spinelli 1, Sabrina Lattanzio 1, Paolo Stella 2, Domenica Ancona 2, Maria Dell'Aera 3, Margherita Padovano 3, Savino Soldano 4, Silvio Tafuri 1,* and Francesco Paolo Bianchi 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Vaccines 2021, 9(5), 456; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9050456
Submission received: 21 March 2021 / Revised: 27 April 2021 / Accepted: 28 April 2021 / Published: 4 May 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled “Post-marketing active surveillance of adverse reactions following influenza cell-based quadrivalent vaccine: an Italian prospective observational study” is a perspective observational study evaluating, through a post-marketing active surveillance program developed during 2019/20 influenza season, any Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFIs) happened in the 7 days after immunization with Flucelvax Tetra, which is a cell-based quadrivalent vaccine. This is an important field of study as active surveillance programs can be useful in defining the safety profiles of a given vaccine/drug in certain population subgroups. The manuscript has been written very well and shows the importance of active surveillance program in defining the safety profiles of a given vaccine.

Minor Comments:

  1. Please include the age group/gender of the HCW that were part of this study.
  2. Please break down the data based on age groups/Gender. This may indicate if the AEFI’s were higher in certain age groups/certain population.
  3. Please increase the font size of Figure 1. In the current form it is very difficulty to read the figure data.

 

Author Response

A1. Revided

A2. Revised

A3. Revised

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written paper addressing an interesting topic.  My interest is enhanced by the fact that the almost identical study could be applied for the different COVID-19 vaccinations.  I am particularly impressed by the response rate.  

My only negative comment relates to Figure 1.  The scale on the horizontal axis is not consistent.  The time span for the first 2 12 hour points is identical to the subsequent one-day time marks.  This affects the shape of the curves.

a minor point at line 43.  provided not providec.

Author Response

A1. Revised

A2. Revised

Back to TopTop