Lack of inflammatory bowel disease flare-up following two-dose BNT162b2 vaccine: a population-based cohort study

Efficacy of COVID-19 Oral antivirals in hospitalised oldest-old with high morbidity burden: a target trial emulation study

BACKGROUND

Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are orally administered pharmacotherapies for mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of these drugs among very old (≥80 years), hospitalised patients remains unclear, limiting the risk-benefit assessment of these antivirals in this specific group. This study investigates the effectiveness of these antivirals in reducing mortality among this group of hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Using a territory-wide public healthcare database in Hong Kong, a target trial emulation study was conducted with data from 13 642 eligible participants for the molnupiravir trial and 9553 for the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir trial. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Immortal time and confounding bias was minimised using cloning-censoring-weighting approach. Mortality odds ratios were estimated by pooled logistic regression after adjusting confounding biases by stabilised inverse probability weights.

RESULTS

Both molnupiravir (HR: 0.895, 95% CI: 0.826-0.970) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (HR: 0.804, 95% CI: 0.678-0.955) demonstrated moderate mortality risk reduction among oldest-old hospitalised patients. No significant interaction was observed between oral antiviral treatment and vaccination status. The 28-day risk of mortality was lower in initiators than non-initiators for both molnupiravir (risk difference: -1.09%, 95% CI: -2.29, 0.11) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (risk difference: -1.71%, 95% CI: -3.30, -0.16) trials. The effectiveness of these medications was observed regardless of the patients' prior vaccination status.

CONCLUSIONS

Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are moderately effective in reducing mortality risk among hospitalised oldest-old patients with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status.

Comparison of safety and efficacy between Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir in the treatment of COVID-19 infection in patients with advanced kidney disease: a retrospective observational study

Background

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is used in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with normal or mild renal impairment (eGFR ≥30 ml/min per 1.73 m2). There is limited data regarding its use in advanced kidney disease (eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2). We performed a retrospective territory-wide observational study evaluating the safety and efficacy of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir when compared with molnupiravir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 with advanced kidney disease.

Methods

We adopted target trial emulation using data from a territory-wide electronic health record database on eligible patients aged ≥18 years with advanced kidney disease (history of eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2) who were infected with COVID-19 and were prescribed with either molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within five days of infection during the period from 16 March 2022 to 31 December 2022. A sequence trial approach and 1:4 propensity score matching was applied based on the baseline covariates including age, sex, number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), hospitalisation, eGFR, renal replacement therapy, comorbidities (cancer, respiratory disease, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, diabetes, hypertension), and drug use (renin-angiotensin-system agents, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, nitrates, lipid lowering agents, insulins, oral antidiabetic drugs, antiplatelets, immuno-suppressants, corticosteroids, proton pump inhibitors, histamine H2 receptor antagonists, monoclonal antibody infusion) within past 90 days. Individuals were followed up from the index date until the earliest outcome occurrence, death, 90 days from index date or the end of data availability. Stratified Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted with baseline covariates was used to compare the risk of outcomes between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients and molnupiravir recipients which include (i) all-cause mortality, (ii) intensive care unit (ICU) admission, (iii) ventilatory support, (iv) hospitalisation, (v) hepatic impairment, (vi) ischaemic stroke, and (vii) myocardial infarction. Subgroup analyses included age (<70; ≥70 years); sex, Charlson comorbidity index (≤5; >5), and number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received (0-1; ≥2 doses).

Findings

A total of 4886 patients were included (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 1462; molnupiravir: 3424). There were 347 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 74, 5.06%; molnupiravir: 273, 7.97%), 10 events of ICU admission (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 4, 0.27%; molnupiravir: 6, 0.18%), 48 events of ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 13, 0.89%; molnupiravir: 35, 1.02%), 836 events of hospitalisation (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 218, 23.98%; molnupiravir: 618, 28.14%), 1 event of hepatic impairment (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 0, 0%; molnupiravir: 1, 0.03%), 8 events of ischaemic stroke (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 3, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 5, 0.16%) and 9 events of myocardial infarction (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 2, 0.15%; molnupiravir: 7, 0.22%). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users had lower rates of all-cause mortality (absolute risk reduction (ARR) at 90 days 2.91%, 95% CI: 1.47-4.36%) and hospitalisation (ARR at 90 days 4.16%, 95% CI: 0.81-7.51%) as compared with molnupiravir users. Similar rates of ICU admission (ARR at 90 days -0.09%, 95% CI: -0.4 to 0.2%), ventilatory support (ARR at 90 days 0.13%, 95% CI: -0.45 to 0.72%), hepatic impairment (ARR at 90 days 0.03%, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.09%), ischaemic stroke (ARR at 90 days -0.06%, 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.22%), and myocardial infarction (ARR at 90 days 0.07%, 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.33%) were found between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir users. Consistent results were observed in relative risk adjusted with baseline characteristics. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.624, 95% CI: 0.455-0.857) and hospitalisation (HR: 0.782, 95% CI: 0.64-0.954).

Interpretation

Patients with COVID-19 with advanced kidney disease receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir had a lower rate of all-cause mortality and hospital admission when compared with molnupiravir. Other adverse clinical outcomes were similar in both treatment groups.

Funding

Health and Medical Research Fund (COVID1903010), Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.

Proton pump inhibitors associated with severe COVID-19 among two-dose but not three-dose vaccine recipients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may increase the risk of COVID-19 among non-vaccinated subjects via various mechanisms, including gut dysbiosis. We aimed to investigate whether PPIs also affect the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 among vaccine recipients.

METHODS

This was a territory-wide cohort study of 3 272 286 vaccine recipients (aged ≥ 18 years) of ≥ 2 doses of either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac. Exclusion criteria included prior gastrointestinal surgery, immunocompromised status, and prior COVID-19. The primary outcome was COVID-19, and secondary outcomes included COVID-19-related hospitalization and severe infection (composite of intensive care unit admission, ventilatory support, and/or death). Covariates include age, sex, the Charlson Comorbidity Index, comorbidities, and concomitant medication use. Subjects were followed from index date (first dose of vaccination) until outcome occurrence, death, additional dose of vaccination, or March 31, 2022. Exposure was pre-vaccination PPI use (any prescription within 90 days before the index date). Propensity score (PS) matching and a Poisson regression model were used to estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) of outcomes with PPI use.

RESULTS

Among 439 154 PS-matched two-dose vaccine recipients (mean age: 65.3 years; male: 45.7%) with a median follow-up of 6.8 months (interquartile range: 2.6-7.9), PPI exposure was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 (aIRR: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.05-1.10), hospitalization (aIRR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.08-1.33), and severe infection (aIRR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.24-1.98). Among 188 360 PS-matched three-dose vaccine recipients (mean age: 62.5 years; male: 49.0%; median follow-up: 9.1 months [interquartile range: 8.0-10.9]), PPIs were associated with higher infection risk (aIRR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.08-1.15) but not other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PPI use was associated with a higher COVID-19 risk, severe infection was limited to two-dose but not three-dose vaccine recipients.

Autoimmune disorders reported following COVID-19 vaccination: A disproportionality analysis using the WHO database

PURPOSE

Owing to adverse event following immunization (AEFI) related to autoimmune disorders and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines sharing common biological mechanisms, identifying the risk of AEFIs associated with COVID-19 vaccines remains a critical unmet need. We aimed to assess the potential safety signals for 16 AEFIs and explore co-reported adverse events (AEs) and drugs using the global database of the World Health Organization, VigiBase.

METHODS

We assessed the occurrence of 16 AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccination through the Standardized MedDRA Queries group "Immune-mediated/Autoimmune Disorders" from MedDRA and performed a disproportionality analysis using reporting odds ratio (ROR) and information component (IC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We identified 25,219 events associated with COVID-19 vaccines in VigiBase. Although rare, we detected four potential safety signals related to autoimmune disorders following COVID-19 vaccination, including ankylosing spondylitis or psoriatic arthritis (ROR 1.86; 95% CI 1.53-2.27), inflammatory bowel disease (ROR 1.77; 95% CI 1.60-1.96), polymyalgia rheumatica (ROR 1.42; 95% CI 1.30-1.55), and thyroiditis (ROR 1.40; 95% CI 1.30-1.50), with positive IC025 values. The top co-reported AEs were musculoskeletal disorders, and immunosuppressants were the most representative co-reported drugs.

CONCLUSION

In addressing the imperative to comprehend AEFI related to autoimmune disorders following COVID-19 vaccination, our study identified four potential safety signals. Thus, our research underscores the importance of proactive safety monitoring for the identification of the four AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccination, considering the associated advantages.

Effects of sequential vs single pneumococcal vaccination on cardiovascular diseases among older adults: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Recommendations around the use of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) seldom focus on potential benefits of vaccine on comorbidities. We aimed to investigate whether sequential vaccination with PCV13 and PPSV23 among older adults would provide protection against cardiovascular diseases (CVD) compared with using a single pneumococcal vaccine.

METHODS

We conducted a Hong Kong-wide retrospective cohort study between 2012 and 2020. Adults aged ≥65 years were identified as receiving either a single or sequential dual vaccination and followed up until the earliest CVD occurrence, death or study end. To minimize confounding, we matched each person receiving a single vaccination to a person receiving sequential vaccination according to their propensity scores. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) of CVD risk using Cox regression and applied structural equation modelling to test whether the effect of sequential dual vaccination on CVD was mediated via the reduction in pneumonia.

RESULTS

After matching, 69 390 people remained in each group and the median (interquartile range) follow-up time was 1.89 (1.55) years. Compared with those receiving a single vaccine, those receiving sequential dual vaccination had a lower risk of CVD [HR (95% CI): 0.75 (0.71, 0.80), P < 0.001]. Post-hoc mediation analysis showed strong evidence that the decreased CVD risk was mediated by the reduction in all-cause pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential dual pneumococcal vaccination was associated with lower risk of CVD compared with single-dose PCV13 or PPSV23 in older adults. Such additional CVD benefits should be considered when making decisions about pneumococcal vaccination.

Risk of flare or relapse in patients with immune-mediated diseases following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with autoimmune and immune-mediated diseases (AI-IMD) are at greater risk of COVID-19 infection; therefore, they should be prioritized in vaccination programs. However, there are concerns regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in terms of disease relapse, flare, or exacerbation. In this study, we aimed to provide a more precise and reliable vision using systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed-MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for original articles reporting the relapse/flare in adult patients with AI-IMD between June 1, 2020 and September 25, 2022. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the sources of heterogeneity. Statistical analysis was performed using R software.

RESULTS

A total of 134 observations of various AI-IMDs across 74 studies assessed the rate of relapse, flare, or exacerbation in AI-IMD patients. Accordingly, the crude overall prevalence of relapse, flare, or exacerbation was 6.28% (95% CI [4.78%; 7.95%], I2 = 97.6%), changing from 6.28% (I2 = 97.6%) to 6.24% (I2 = 65.1%) after removing the outliers. AI-IMD patients administering mRNA, vector-based, and inactive vaccines showed 8.13% ([5.6%; 11.03%], I2 = 98.1%), 0.32% ([0.0%; 4.03%], I2 = 93.5%), and 3.07% ([1.09%; 5.9%], I2 = 96.2%) relapse, flare, or exacerbation, respectively (p-value = 0.0086). In terms of disease category, nephrologic (26.66%) and hematologic (14.12%) disorders had the highest and dermatologic (4.81%) and neurologic (2.62%) disorders exhibited to have the lowest crude prevalence of relapse, flare, or exacerbation (p-value < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The risk of flare/relapse/exacerbation in AI-IMD patients is found to be minimal, especially with vector-based vaccines. Vaccination against COVID-19 is recommended in this population.

Effectiveness of molnupiravir vs nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a target trial emulation study

Background

Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have emerged as promising options for COVID-19 treatment, but direct comparisons of their effectiveness have been limited. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these two oral antiviral drugs in non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Methods

In this target trial emulation study, we used data from a territory-wide electronic health records database on eligible patients aged ≥18 years infected with COVID-19 who were prescribed either molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within five days of infection between 16 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 in the non-hospitalised and hospitalised settings in Hong Kong. A sequence trial approach and 1:1 propensity score matching was applied based on age, sex, number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, Charlson comorbidity index, comorbidities, and drug use within past 90 days. Cox regression adjusted with patients' characteristics was used to compare the risk of effectiveness outcomes (all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or ventilatory support and hospitalisation) between groups. Subgroup analyses included age (<70; ≥70 years); sex, Charlson comorbidity index (<4; ≥4), and number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received (0-1; ≥2 doses).

Findings

A total of 63,522 non-hospitalised (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 31,761; molnupiravir: 31,761) and 11,784 hospitalised (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 5892; molnupiravir: 5892) patients were included. In non-hospitalised setting, 336 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 71, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 265, 0.83%), 162 events of ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 71, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 91, 0.29%), and 4890 events of hospitalisation (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 1853, 5.83%; molnupiravir: 3037, 9.56%) were observed. Lower risks of all-cause mortality (absolute risk reduction (ARR) at 28 days: 0.61%, 95% CI: 0.50-0.72; HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.56) and hospital admission (ARR at 28 days: 3.73%, 95% CI: 3.31-4.14; HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.67-0.76) were observed in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users compared to molnupiravir users. In hospitalised setting, 509 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 176, 2.99%; molnupiravir: 333, 5.65%), and 50 events of ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 26, 0.44%; molnupiravir: 24, 0.41%) were observed. Risk of all-cause mortality was lower for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users than for molnupiravir users (ARR at 28 days: 2.66%, 95% CI: 1.93-3.40; HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.71). In both settings, there was no difference in the risk of intensive care unit admission or ventilatory support between groups. The findings were consistent across all subgroup's analyses.

Interpretation

Our analyses suggest that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the risk of all-cause mortality in both non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients. When neither drug is contraindicated, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir may be considered the more effective option.

Funding

HMRF Research on COVID-19, The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government; Collaborative Research Fund, University Grants Committee, the HKSAR Government; and Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, the HKSAR Government; the Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (D24H) funded by the AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission.

Effectiveness of Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 : A Target Trial Emulation Study

BACKGROUND

Whether hospitalized patients benefit from COVID-19 oral antivirals is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the real-world effectiveness of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the Omicron outbreak.

DESIGN

Target trial emulation study.

SETTING

Electronic health databases in Hong Kong.

PARTICIPANTS

The molnupiravir emulated trial included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 aged 18 years or older between 26 February and 18 July 2022 (n = 16 495). The nirmatrelvir-ritonavir emulated trial included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 aged 18 years or older between 16 March and 18 July 2022 (n = 7119).

INTERVENTION

Initiation of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within 5 days of hospitalization with COVID-19 versus no initiation of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

MEASUREMENTS

Effectiveness against all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or use of ventilatory support within 28 days.

RESULTS

The use of oral antivirals in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (molnupiravir: hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.93]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 0.77 [CI, 0.66 to 0.90]) but no significant risk reduction in terms of ICU admission (molnupiravir: HR, 1.02 [CI, 0.76 to 1.36]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 1.08 [CI, 0.58 to 2.02]) or the need for ventilatory support (molnupiravir: HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.89 to 1.30]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 1.03 [CI, 0.70 to 1.52]). There was no significant interaction between drug treatment and the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, thereby supporting the effectiveness of oral antivirals regardless of vaccination status. No significant interaction between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment and age, sex, or Charlson Comorbidity Index was observed, whereas molnupiravir tended to be more effective in older people.

LIMITATION

The outcome of ICU admission or need for ventilatory support may not capture all severe COVID-19 cases; unmeasured confounders, such as obesity and health behaviors, may exist.

CONCLUSION

Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduced all-cause mortality in both vaccinated and unvaccinated hospitalized patients. No significant reduction in ICU admission or the need for ventilatory support was observed.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Health and Medical Research Fund Research on COVID-19, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Research Grants Council, Collaborative Research Fund; and Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Treatment-resistant depression and risk of autoimmune diseases: evidence from a population-based cohort and nested case-control study

Recent literature indicates that patients with depression had increased immune activation. We hypothesised that treatment-resistant depression (TRD), an indicator of non-responsive depression with long-term dysregulated inflammation, could be an independent risk factor for subsequent autoimmune diseases. We performed a cohort study and a nested case-control study to examine the association between TRD and risk of autoimmune diseases, and to explore potential sex-specific difference. Using electronic medical records in Hong Kong, we identified 24,576 patients with incident depression between 2014 and 2016 without autoimmune history and followed up from diagnosis to death or December 2020 to identify TRD status and autoimmune incidence. TRD was defined as having at least two antidepressant regimens and the third regimen to confirm previous treatment failures. Based on age, sex and year of depression, we matched TRD patients 1:4 to the non-TRD in the cohort analysis using nearest-neighbour matching, and matched cases and controls 1:10 using incidence density sampling in the nested case-control analysis. We conducted survival analyses and conditional logistic regression respectively for risk estimation, adjusting for medical history. Across the study period, 4349 patients without autoimmune history (17.7%) developed TRD. With 71,163 person-years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of 22 types of autoimmune diseases among the TRD patients was generally higher than the non-TRD (21.5 vs. 14.4 per 10,000 person-years). Cox model suggested a non-significant association (HR:1.48, 95% CI: 0.99-2.24, p = 0.059), whereas conditional logistic model showed a significant association (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.10-2.53, p = 0.017) between TRD status and autoimmune diseases. Subgroup analysis showed that the association was significant in organ-specific diseases but not in systemic diseases. Risk magnitudes were generally higher among men compared to women. In conclusion, our findings provide evidence for an increased risk of autoimmune diseases in patients with TRD. Controlling chronic inflammation in hard-to-treat depression might play a role in preventing subsequent autoimmunity.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 omicron infection in people aged 60 years or above: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

In view of limited evidence that specifically addresses vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the older population, this study aims to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in older adults during the Omicron BA.2 outbreak.

METHODS

This case-control study analyzed data available between January and March 2022 from the electronic health databases in Hong Kong and enrolled individuals aged 60 or above. Each case was matched with up to 10 controls by age, sex, index date and Charlson Comorbidity Index for the four outcomes (COVID-19 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, severe complications, and all-cause mortality) independently. Conditional logistic regression was conducted to evaluate VE of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac against COVID-19-related outcomes within 28 days after COVID-19 infection among participants stratified by age groups (60-79, ≥80 years old).

RESULTS

A dose-response relationship between the number of vaccine doses received and protection against severe or fatal disease was observed. Highest VE (95% CI) against COVID-19 infection was observed in individuals aged ≥80 who received three doses of BNT162b2 [75.5% (73.1-77.7%)] or three doses of CoronaVac [53.9% (51.0-56.5%)] compared to those in the younger age group who received three doses of BNT162b2 [51.1% (49.9-52.4%)] or three doses of CoronaVac [2.0% (-0.1-4.1%)]. VE (95% CI) was higher for other outcomes, reaching 91.9% (89.4-93.8%) and 86.7% (84.3-88.8%) against COVID-19-related hospitalization; 85.8% (61.2-94.8%) and 89.8% (72.4-96.3%) against COVID-19-related severe complications; and 96.4% (92.9-98.2%) and 95.0% (92.1-96.8%) against COVID-19-related mortality after three doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in older vaccine recipients, respectively. A similar dose-response relationship was established in younger vaccine recipients and after stratification by sex and Charlson Comorbidity Index.

CONCLUSION

Both BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccination were effective in protecting older adults against COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-related severe outcomes amidst the Omicron BA.2 pandemic, and VE increased further with the third dose.

Prognosis of Myocarditis Developing After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Compared With Viral Myocarditis

BACKGROUND

Association between messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis has aroused public concern over vaccine safety.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to compare the prognosis of this condition with viral infection-related myocarditis over 180 days.

METHODS

A territory-wide electronic public health care database in Hong Kong linked with population-based vaccination records was used to conduct a retrospective cohort study. Since the roll-out of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), patients aged ≥12 years hospitalized with myocarditis within 28 days after BNT162b2 vaccination were compared against viral infection-related myocarditis recorded before the pandemic (2000-2019), over a 180-day follow-up period (starting from diagnosis of myocarditis). All-cause mortality, heart failure, dilated cardiomyopathy, heart transplant, and postdischarge health care utilization were examined with Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

A total of 866 patients were included for analysis. Over the follow-up period, 1 death (1.0%) of 104 patients with postvaccination myocarditis and 84 deaths (11.0%) of 762 patients with viral infection-related myocarditis were identified. One case (1.0%) of dilated cardiomyopathy and 2 cases (1.9%) of heart failure were identified in the postvaccination group, compared with 28 (3.7%) and 93 (12.2%) in the viral infection-related myocarditis group, respectively. Adjusted analysis showed that the postvaccination myocarditis group had a 92% lower mortality risk (adjusted HR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.57). No significant differences in other prognostic outcomes were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found a significantly lower rate of mortality among individuals with myocarditis after mRNA vaccination compared with those with viral infection-related myocarditis. Prognosis of this iatrogenic condition may be less severe than naturally acquired viral infection-related myocarditis.

Adverse events of special interest following the use of BNT162b2 in adolescents: a population-based retrospective cohort study

Accruing evidence suggests an increased risk of myocarditis in adolescents from messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines. However, other potential adverse events remain under-researched. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adolescents aged 12-18 with a territory-wide electronic healthcare database of the Hong Kong population linked with population-based vaccination records and supplemented with age- and sex-specific population numbers. Two age- and sex-matched retrospective cohorts were formed to observe 28 days following the first and second doses of BNT162b2 and estimate the age- and sex-adjusted incidence rate ratios between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Thirty AESIs adapted from the World Health Organization's Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety were examined. Eventually, the first-dose cohort comprised 274,881 adolescents (50.25% received the first dose) and the second-dose cohort 237,964 (50.29% received the second dose). Ninety-four (34.2 per 100,000 persons) adolescents in the first-dose cohort and 130 (54.6 per 100,000 persons) in the second-dose cohort experienced ≥1 AESIs. There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of any AESI associated with BNT162b2 except myocarditis [first-dose cohort: incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 9.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14-73.16; second-dose cohort: IRR = 29.61, 95% CI 4.04-217.07] and sleeping disturbances/disorders after the second dose (IRR = 2.06, 95% CI 1.01-4.24). Sensitivity analysis showed that, with myocarditis excluded as AESIs, no significantly elevated risk of AESIs as a composite outcome associated with vaccination was observed (P = 0.195). To conclude, the overall absolute risk of AESIs was low with no evidence of an increased risk of AESIs except myocarditis and sleeping disturbances/disorders.

Risk of acute liver injury following the mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) COVID-19 vaccines

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Case reports of severe acute liver injury (ALI) following COVID-19 vaccination have recently been published. We evaluated the risks of ALI following COVID-19 vaccination (BNT162b2 or CoronaVac).

METHODS

We conducted a modified self-controlled case series analysis using the vaccination records in Hong Kong with data linkage to electronic medical records from a territory-wide healthcare database. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for ALI outcome in the 56-day period following first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines in comparison to the non-exposure period were estimated and compared to the ALI risk in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

Among 2,343,288 COVID-19 vaccine recipients who were at risk, 4,677 patients developed ALI for the first time between 23^rd February 2021 to 30^th September 2021. The number of ALI cases within 56 days after the first and second dose of vaccination were 307 and 521 (335 and 334 per 100,000 person-years) for BNT162b2, and 304 and 474 (358 and 403 per 100,000 person-years) for CoronaVac, respectively, compared to 32,997 ALI cases per 100,000 person-years among patients within 56 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Compared to the non-exposure period, no increased risk was observed in the 56-day risk period for first (IRR 0.800; 95% CI 0.680-0.942) and second (IRR 0.944; 95% CI 0.816-1.091) dose of BNT162b2, or first (IRR 0.689; 95% CI 0.588-0.807) and second (IRR 0.905; 95% CI 0.781-1.048) dose of CoronaVac. There were no severe or fatal cases of ALI following COVID-19 vaccination.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of an increased risk of ALI associated with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccination. Based on all current available evidence from previous studies and our study, the benefit of mass vaccination far outweighs the ALI risk from vaccination.

LAY SUMMARY

There have been some recent reports that COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with acute liver injury. In our study, we found no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increased the risk of acute liver injury, which was much more common after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination. Hence, our study provides further data indicating that the benefits of mass COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the potential risks.

Risk of thyroid dysfunction associated with mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines: a population-based study of 2.3 million vaccine recipients

BACKGROUND

In view of accumulating case reports of thyroid dysfunction following COVID-19 vaccination, we evaluated the risks of incident thyroid dysfunction following inactivated (CoronaVac) and mRNA (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccines using a population-based dataset.

METHODS

We identified people who received COVID-19 vaccination between 23 February and 30 September 2021 from a population-based electronic health database in Hong Kong, linked to vaccination records. Thyroid dysfunction encompassed anti-thyroid drug (ATD)/levothyroxine (LT4) initiation, biochemical picture of hyperthyroidism/hypothyroidism, incident Graves' disease (GD), and thyroiditis. A self-controlled case series design was used to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of thyroid dysfunction in a 56-day post-vaccination period compared to the baseline period (non-exposure period) using conditional Poisson regression.

RESULTS

A total of 2,288,239 people received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination (57.8% BNT162b2 recipients and 42.2% CoronaVac recipients). 94.3% of BNT162b2 recipients and 92.2% of CoronaVac recipients received the second dose. Following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination, there was no increase in the risks of ATD initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.864, 95% CI 0.670-1.114; CoronaVac: IRR 0.707, 95% CI 0.549-0.912), LT4 initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.911, 95% CI 0.716-1.159; CoronaVac: IRR 0.778, 95% CI 0.618-0.981), biochemical picture of hyperthyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 0.872, 95% CI 0.744-1.023; CoronaVac: IRR 0.830, 95% CI 0.713-0.967) or hypothyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 1.002, 95% CI 0.838-1.199; CoronaVac: IRR 0.963, 95% CI 0.807-1.149), GD, and thyroiditis. Similarly, following the second dose of COVID-19 vaccination, there was no increase in the risks of ATD initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.972, 95% CI 0.770-1.227; CoronaVac: IRR 0.879, 95%CI 0.693-1.116), LT4 initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 1.019, 95% CI 0.833-1.246; CoronaVac: IRR 0.768, 95% CI 0.613-0.962), hyperthyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 1.039, 95% CI 0.899-1.201; CoronaVac: IRR 0.911, 95% CI 0.786-1.055), hypothyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 0.935, 95% CI 0.794-1.102; CoronaVac: IRR 0.945, 95% CI 0.799-1.119), GD, and thyroiditis. Age- and sex-specific subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed consistent neutral associations between thyroid dysfunction and both types of COVID-19 vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our population-based study showed no evidence of vaccine-related increase in incident hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism with both BNT162b2 and CoronaVac.

BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is safe in a setting of patients on biologic therapy with inflammatory bowel diseases: a monocentric real-life study

OBJECTIVES

: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease were excluded from trials that led to the approval of anti-COVID-19 vaccines and are worthy of real-life studies providing information on the safety of these vaccines in this clinical setting.

METHODS

: A prospective observational study was performed to estimate BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine local and systemic adverse events (AEs) incidence related to administration in patients with inflammatory bowel disease through a questionnaire administered at the first, second, and third doses. Disease activity by Mayo Partial Score and Harvey-Bradshaw Index was also evaluated.

RESULTS

80 patients with a median age of 47.5 years were initially enrolled. The local AEs rate was 26.25%, 58.75%, and 28.37% at the first, second, and third doses of the vaccine, respectively. In contrast, the systemic AEs rate was 52.2%, 48.75%, and 43.24%. Clinic-demographic predictor variables for AEs were not identified. Vaccination did not affect disease activity and no statistically significant difference in disease activity index scores was observed between the three doses. No serious adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

This vaccine is safe in a population of patients with inflammatory bowel disease and, therefore, can be safely administered in this clinical setting.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations against mortality and severe complications after SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 infection: a case-control study

Data regarding protection against mortality and severe complications after Omicron BA.2 infection with CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccines remains limited. We conducted a case–control study to evaluate the risk of severe complications and mortality following 1–3 doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 using electronic health records database. Cases were adults with their first COVID-19-related mortality or severe complications between 1 January and 31 March 2022, matched with up-to 10 controls by age, sex, index date, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related mortality and severe complications by type and number of doses was estimated using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbidities and medications. Vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) against COVID-19-related mortality after two doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac were 90.7% (88.6–92.3) and 74.8% (72.5–76.9) in those aged ≥65, 87.6% (81.4–91.8) and 80.7% (72.8–86.3) in those aged 50–64, 86.6% (71.0–93.8) and 82.7% (56.5–93.1) in those aged 18–50. Vaccine effectiveness against severe complications after two doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac were 82.1% (74.6–87.3) and 58.9% (50.3–66.1) in those aged ≥65, 83.0% (69.6–90.5) and 67.1% (47.1–79.6) in those aged 50–64, 78.3% (60.8–88.0) and 77.8% (49.6–90.2) in those aged 18–50. Further risk reduction with the third dose was observed especially in those aged ≥65 years, with vaccine effectiveness of 98.0% (96.5–98.9) for BNT162b2 and 95.5% (93.7–96.8) for CoronaVac against mortality, 90.8% (83.4–94.9) and 88.0% (80.8–92.5) against severe complications. Both CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccination were effective against COVID-19-related mortality and severe complications amidst the Omicron BA.2 pandemic, and risks decreased further with the third dose.

Messenger RNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination With BNT162b2 Increased Risk of Bell's Palsy: A Nested Case-Control and Self-Controlled Case Series Study

BACKGROUND

Observable symptoms of Bell's palsy following vaccinations arouse concern over the safety profiles of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. However, there are only inconclusive findings on Bell's palsy following messenger (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination. This study aims to update the previous analyses on the risk of Bell's palsy following mRNA (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

This study included cases aged ≥16 years with a new diagnosis of Bell's palsy within 28 days after BNT162b2 vaccinations from the population-based electronic health records in Hong Kong. Nested case-control and self-controlled case series (SCCS) analyses were used, where the association between Bell's palsy and BNT162b2 was evaluated using conditional logistic and Poisson regression, respectively.

RESULTS

Totally 54 individuals were newly diagnosed with Bell's palsy after BNT162b2 vaccinations. The incidence of Bell's palsy was 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-2.07) per 100 000 doses administered. The nested case-control analysis showed significant association between BNT162b2 vaccinations and Bell's palsy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.543; 95% CI, 1.123-2.121), with up to 1.112 excess events per 100 000 people who received 2 doses of BNT162b2. An increased risk of Bell's palsy was observed during the first 14 days after the second dose of BNT162b2 in both nested case-control (aOR, 2.325; 95% CI, 1.414-3.821) and SCCS analysis (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.32-4.50).

CONCLUSIONS

There was an overall increased risk of Bell's palsy following BNT162b2 vaccination, particularly within the first 14 days after the second dose, but the absolute risk was very low.

Autoimmune conditions following mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) COVID-19 vaccination: A descriptive cohort study among 1.1 million vaccinated people in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the autoimmune safety of COVID-19 vaccines may negatively impact vaccine uptake. We aimed to describe the incidence of autoimmune conditions following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccination and compare these with age-standardized incidence rates in non-vaccinated individuals.

METHODS

This is a descriptive cohort study conducted in public healthcare service settings. Territory-wide longitudinal electronic medical records of Hong Kong Hospital Authority users (≥16 years) were linked with COVID-19 vaccination records between February 23, 2021 and June 30, 2021. We classified participants into first/second dose BNT162b2 groups, first/second dose CoronaVac groups and non-vaccinated individuals for incidence comparison. The study outcomes include hospitalized autoimmune diseases (16 types of immune-mediated diseases across six body systems) within 28 days after first and second dose of vaccination. Age-standardized incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Poisson distribution.

RESULTS

This study included around 3.9 million Hong Kong residents, of which 1,122,793 received at least one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2: 579,998; CoronaVac: 542,795), and 721,588 completed two doses (BNT162b2: 388,881; CoronaVac: 332,707). Within 28 days following vaccination, cumulative incidences for all autoimmune conditions were below 9 per 100,000 persons, for both vaccines and both doses. None of the age-standardized incidence rates were significantly higher than the non-vaccinated individuals, except for an observed increased incidence of hypersomnia following the first dose of BNT162b2 (standardized IRR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.10-1.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Autoimmune conditions requiring hospital care are rare following mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccination with similar incidence to non-vaccinated individuals. The association between first dose BNT162b2 vaccination and immune-related sleeping disorders requires further research. Population-based robust safety surveillance is essential to detect rare and unexpected vaccine safety events.

Impact of a delayed second dose of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) on risks of all-cause mortality, emergency department visit, and unscheduled hospitalization

BACKGROUND

Safety after the second dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine remains to be elucidated, especially among individuals reporting adverse events after their first dose. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a delayed second dose on all-cause mortality and emergency services.

METHODS

A territory-wide, retrospective cohort of people who had completed two doses of mRNA (BNT162b2) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 (CoronaVac) vaccine between February 23 and July 3, 2021, in Hong Kong was analyzed, with linkage to electronic health records retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Vaccine recipients were classified as receiving a second dose within recommended intervals (21-28 days for BNT162b2; 14-28 days for CoronaVac) or delayed. Study outcomes were all-cause mortality, emergency department (ED) visits, and unscheduled hospitalizations within 28 days after the second dose of vaccination.

RESULTS

Among 417,497 BNT162b2 and 354,283 CoronaVac second dose recipients, 3.8% and 28.5% received the second dose beyond the recommended intervals (mean 34.4 and 31.8 days), respectively. During the study period, there were < 5 daily new cases of COVID-19 infections in the community. Delaying the second dose was not associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.185, 95% CI 0.478-2.937, P = 0.714), risk of ED visit (HR = 0.966, 95% CI 0.926-1.008, P = 0.113), and risk of unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 0.956, 95% CI 0.878-1.040, P = 0.294) compared to that within the recommended interval for CoronaVac recipients. No statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality (HR = 4.438, 95% CI 0.951-20.701, P = 0.058), ED visit (HR = 1.037, 95% CI 0.951-1.130, P = 0.411), and unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 1.054, 95% CI 0.867-1.281, P = 0.597) were identified between people who received a second dose of BNT162b2 within and beyond the recommended intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant association between delayed second dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac and all-cause mortality, ED visit, and unscheduled hospitalization was observed in the present cohort. Regardless of the recommended or delayed schedule for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, a second dose of both vaccines should be administered to obtain better protection against infection and serious disease. The second dose should be administered within the recommended interval following the manufacturer's product information, until further studies support the benefits of delaying vaccination outweighing the risks.