Effectiveness and Side Effects of Moderna versus Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines Essay
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages
Effectiveness and Side Effects of Moderna versus Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines Essay
MODERNA VERSUS PFIZER COVID-19 VACCINES
Effectiveness and side effects of Moderna versus Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines
Luis M. Cintrón Nieves
Departamento de Biología
Biol 498 Curso Integrador de Biología
October 28, 2021
Effectiveness and side effects of Moderna versus Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines
COVID-19 has claimed many lives since it began to spread in 2020. Thanks to the efforts of science and technology, scientists were able to develop a series of vaccines to reduce its spread and negative effects. The development of these vaccines was done in record time, since a technology was known that could be capable of producing the proteins that had to be activated to fight the virus. Pfizer and Moderna developed two of these vaccines using mRNA technology. In this paper, a comparison and contrast of these vaccines is made in terms of their development, effectiveness, and side effects.
Scientists have worked unprecedentedly to develop a vaccine to stop the spread of COVID-19, which has claimed many lives worldwide. Prior to these discoveries, prophylactic measures were recommended to control contagion through social distancing, use of masks, and frequent hand washing (Shmerling, 2021). Although these measures have been somewhat effective, it was necessary to have a drug to reduce the number of cases and deaths that were occurring on a daily basis. With the use of new technology and existing scientific knowledge, pharmaceuticals were able to alter the genetics of the virus in such a way that its mutation and resistance became more difficult. The vaccines that we currently use contain a technique known as mRNA, which causes the body to produce proteins to activate the immune system response to fight the virus (CDC, 2021). Other novel developments are currently in the testing stages, which would increase the availability of other medications to counter this virus. In this essay we are going to compare and contrast two of different types of vaccines available in terms of their formula, effectiveness and possible side effects.
The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) has approved the use of at least three vaccines for preventing COVID-19 contagion. Two of these vaccines are distributed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna (CDC, 2021). The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been approved for people over 16 years of age in two vaccines that must be given 3 weeks in between, while the vaccines for children between 5 to 15 years has an emergency use approval. On the other hand, Moderna’s vaccine can be given to people over 18 years of age in two doses 4 weeks between. With all these vaccines, immunity is supposed to be acquired after two weeks after the second dose (CDC, 2021). These means that in terms of the population that can be vaccinated, Pfizer can reach more groups within the population, including children.
In terms of the technology used to developed the vaccines both, Pfizer and Moderna used the mRNA. The mRNA technique will cause the body to produce the proteins necessary to activate the immune system against the virus (CDC, 2021). The mRNA technique, called mRNA-1273 for Moderna and BNT162b2 for Pfizer, contains encapsulated lipid nanoparticles that encode the protein that is activated by COVID-19 (Baden, et.al. 2021). These vaccines could be developed quickly by pharmaceutical companies because there was already some knowledge about mRNA for more than a decade. In the case of COVID-19, vaccines´ development only needed the correct information about the genetic sequence of the virus in order for the vaccine to be manufactured using synthetic materials. This same technology had already been proved successful in preventing influenza, Zika virus, Ebola virus, and other bacterial or parasitic infections (Maruggi, et.al., 2019).
The effectiveness of vaccines has been determined through extensive clinical studies in different groups of populations. For example, in a study with 30,420 participants it was found that mRNA technology was effective in preventing COVID-19 contagion with a 94.1% effectiveness, including in patients with severe cases and people older than 65 years old (Baden, et.al. 2021; Koff, 2021). On this matter, Nanduri et.al. (2021) found that in the nursing home population the effectiveness of Moderna’s vaccine could reach up to 92%, but with the delta variant it fell to 53.1%. In the case of the Pfizer vaccine, the level of effectiveness was estimated at 95% according to the study carried out by Polack et.al. (2020). On the other hand, the study by Kaiser et.al. (2021) found that dialysis patients who received Moderna’s vaccine had higher anti-S-antibody titers than those vaccinated with Pfizer. It can be concluded that when it comes to the effectiveness of these vaccines, both have a very similar levels, although the Pfizer vaccine the level appears to be around 3% higher.
In the first studies on the vaccines´ side effects, it was suggested that people could develop certain problems such as biodistribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression, autoreactive antibodies, toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides or delivery system components (Wang, Kream & Stefano, 2020). However, according to the most recent literature, the most common side effects that occur from the application of these vaccines could be: pain at the injection site, pain or swelling in the lymph nodes of the arm where the vaccine was administered, fatigue, headache, muscle or joint pain, nausea and vomiting, or fever and chills, specially after the second dose (Jackson, et.at., 2021). Koff (2021) also found that these sides effects can be experimented in older adults, but in mild to moderate levels. A serious side effect that has been identified in some patients is anaphylaxis or other allergic reactions, which has occurred mainly in people who have had reactions to other vaccines in the past (Kim, et.al., 2021). These reactions occur by residual non-human proteins, preservatives or stabilizers included in the vaccines´ formula (Kim, et.al., 2021). One cannot fail to mention that these vaccines have been associated with thrombosis with thrombocytopenia deaths, but at this time they were associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (See, 2021). However, this study presents the cases reported in the VAERS system and had not been peer-reviewed.
Baden, L. R., El Sahly, H. M., Essink, B., Kotloff, K., Frey, S., Novak, R., Diemert, D., Spector, S. A., Rouphael, N., Creech, C. B., McGettigan, J., Khetan, S., Segall, N., Solis, J., Brosz, A., Fierro, C., Schwartz, H., Neuzil, K., Corey, L., … Zaks, T. (2021, February 4). Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-COV-2 vaccine, The New England Journal of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7787219/.
Chen, L., Zhao, J., Peng, J., Li, X., Deng, X., Geng, Z., Shen, Z., Guo, F., Zhang, Q., Jin, Y., Wang, L., & Wang, S. (2020, October 19). Detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 in saliva and characterization of oral symptoms in COVID‐19 patients.Cell Prolif. 53(12), Article e12923. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cpr.12923.
Dooling, K., McClung, N., Chamberland, M., Marin, M., Wallace, M., Bell, B. P., Lee, G. M., Talbot, H. K., Romero, J. R., & Oliver, S. E. (2020). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ interim recommendation for allocating initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccine — United States, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(49), 1857–1859. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33301429/
Gharpure, R., Patel, A., & Link-Gelles, R. (2021). First-dose COVID-19 vaccination coverage among skilled nursing facility residents and staff. Journal of the American Medical Association. 325, 1670-1671. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33625464/
Jackson, L. A., Anderson, E. J., Rouphael, N. G., Roberts, P. C., Makhene, M., Coler, R. N., McCullough, M. P., Chappell, J. D., Denison, M. R., Stevens, L. J., Pruijssers, A. J., McDermott, A., Flach, B., Doria-Rose, N. A., Corbett, K. S., Morabito, K. M., O’Dell, S., Schmidt, S. D., Swanson, P. A., … mRNA-1273 Study Group. (2020, November 12). An mRNA vaccine against SARS-COV-2 – preliminary report. The New England Journal of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377258/.
Jochum, S., Kirste, I., Hortsch, S., Grunert, V. P., Legault, H., Eichenlaub, U., Kashlan, B., & Pajon, R. (2021). Clinical utility of Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay in COVID-19 vaccination: An exploratory analysis of the mRNA-1273 phase 1 trial. medRxiv. Article e2021.10.04.21264521 https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.04.21264521
Kaiser, R. A., Haller, M. C., Apfalter, P., Kerschner, H., & Cejka, D. (2021). Comparison of BNT162B2 (Pfizer–Biontech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) SARS-COV-2 mRNA vaccine immunogenicity in dialysis patients. Kidney International, 100(3), 697–698. https://search.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/resource/en/covidwho-1364322
Kim, M.-A., Lee, Y. W., Kim, S. R., Kim, J.-H., Min, T. Ki., Park, H.-S., Shin, M., Ye, Y.-M., Lee, S., Lee, J., Choi, J.-H., Jang, G. C., & Chang, Y.-S. (2021). Covid-19 vaccine-associated anaphylaxis and allergic reactions: Consensus statements of the KAAACI Urticaria/Angioedema/Anaphylaxis Working Group. Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Research, 13(4), 526-544. https://doi.org/10.4168/aair.2021.13.4.526
Maruggi, G., Zhang, C., Li, J., Ulmer, J. B., & Yu, D. (2019). mRNA as a transformative technology for vaccine development to control infectious diseases. Molecular Therapy, 27(4), 757–772. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30803823/
Nanduri, S., Pilishvili, T., Derado, G., Soe, M. M., Dollard, P., Wu, H., Li, Q., Bagchi, S., Dubendris, H., Link-Gelles, R., Jernigan, J. A., Budnitz, D., Bell, J., Benin, A., Shang, N., Edwards, J. R., Verani, J. R., & Schrag, S. J. (2021). Effectiveness of Pfizer-Biontech and Moderna vaccines in preventing SARS-COV-2 infection among nursing home residents before and during widespread circulation of the SARS-COV-2 B.1.617.2 (delta) variant — National Healthcare Safety Network, March 1–August 1, 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(34), 1163–1166. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7034e3
Omar, D. I., & Hani, B. M. (2021). Attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccines and associated factors among Egyptian adults. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2021: S1876-0341(21)00185-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2021.06.019
Polack, F. P., Thomas, S. J., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., Perez, J. L., Pérez Marc, G., Moreira, E. D., Zerbini, C., Bailey, R., Swanson, K. A., Roychoudhury, S., Koury, K., Li, P., Kalina, W. V., Cooper, D., Frenck, R. W., Hammitt, L. L., … Gruber, W. C. (2020). Safety and efficacy of the BNT162B2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(27), 2603–2615. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
Spratling, R., Hallas, D. (2020). Reporting and appraising research Atudies Journal of Pediatric Health Car. 35(1), 108-113. https://www.jpedhc.org/article/S0891-5245(20)30230-3/fulltext e, 10.1016/j.pedhc.2020.08.008
Wang, F., Kream, R. M., & Stefano, G. B. (2020). An evidence-based perspective on mRNA-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development. Medical Science Monitor, Article e924700. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7218962/
Yang, Y., Gilbert, P., Longini, Jr., I. M., & Halloran, M. E. (2008). A Bayesian framework for estimating vaccine efficacy per infectious contact. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2(4), 1409-1431. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-aoas193
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper.
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!