I wanted to check if the ratio was similar if you include all reports and not just serious reports, but it was about 75.8 reports per 100,000 doses for Moderna and 58.1 for Pfizer, so the ratio did in fact remain similar.
In a Czech batch safety dataset, the rate of serious adverse event reports per doses shipped was higher for Pfizer tha…
I wanted to check if the ratio was similar if you include all reports and not just serious reports, but it was about 75.8 reports per 100,000 doses for Moderna and 58.1 for Pfizer, so the ratio did in fact remain similar.
In a Czech batch safety dataset, the rate of serious adverse event reports per doses shipped was higher for Pfizer than Moderna, even though the rate of all reports per doses shipped was higher for Moderna than Pfizer: sars2.net/czech3.html#Batch_study_by_authors_from_Palack_University. But when I used doses administered instead of doses shipped as the denominator, then the ratio of serious adverse event reports per dose also became higher for Moderna than Pfizer. The percentage of doses administered out of doses shipped was about 55% for Pfizer and 43% for Moderna, so if you use doses shipped instead of doses administered as the denominator, it gives an advantage to Moderna.
However the Canadian data seems to use doses administered instead of doses shipped as the denominator, which is one advantage compared to studies like Schmeling's Danish study which uses doses shipped as the denominator. But I wish the Canadian data was also normalized for age or it showed the number of adverse event reports for each age group, because adverse event reports are more common in older age groups. And for example in the US VAERS reports that are not missing an age, the average age is about 47.8 for Pfizer and 53.6 for Moderna, which might partially explain why Moderna has a higher rate of reports per dose (https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html):
I wanted to check if the ratio was similar if you include all reports and not just serious reports, but it was about 75.8 reports per 100,000 doses for Moderna and 58.1 for Pfizer, so the ratio did in fact remain similar.
In a Czech batch safety dataset, the rate of serious adverse event reports per doses shipped was higher for Pfizer than Moderna, even though the rate of all reports per doses shipped was higher for Moderna than Pfizer: sars2.net/czech3.html#Batch_study_by_authors_from_Palack_University. But when I used doses administered instead of doses shipped as the denominator, then the ratio of serious adverse event reports per dose also became higher for Moderna than Pfizer. The percentage of doses administered out of doses shipped was about 55% for Pfizer and 43% for Moderna, so if you use doses shipped instead of doses administered as the denominator, it gives an advantage to Moderna.
However the Canadian data seems to use doses administered instead of doses shipped as the denominator, which is one advantage compared to studies like Schmeling's Danish study which uses doses shipped as the denominator. But I wish the Canadian data was also normalized for age or it showed the number of adverse event reports for each age group, because adverse event reports are more common in older age groups. And for example in the US VAERS reports that are not missing an age, the average age is about 47.8 for Pfizer and 53.6 for Moderna, which might partially explain why Moderna has a higher rate of reports per dose (https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html):
> va=do.call(rbind,lapply(2020:2024,\(i)fread(paste0(i,"VAERSDATA.csv"))))
> va=merge(va,do.call(rbind,lapply(2020:2024,\(i)fread(paste0(i,"VAERSVAX.csv")))))
> a=va[VAX_TYPE=="COVID19",.(reports=.N),.(age=AGE_YRS,type=VAX_MANU)]
> a[,.(age=weighted.mean(age,reports,na.rm=T),N=sum(reports)),type][order(-N)]|>print(r=F)
type age N
PFIZER\\BIONTECH 47.77687 481402
MODERNA 53.60780 469655
JANSSEN 46.48158 73454
UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER 53.38512 7363
NOVAVAX 48.86575 492