Bell's palsy following vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a case series and nested case-control study

Safety and reactogenicity of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine: Development, post-marketing surveillance, and real-world data

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) led to urgent actions by innovators, vaccine developers, regulators, and other stakeholders to ensure public access to protective vaccines while maintaining regulatory agency standards. Although development timelines for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 were much quicker than standard vaccine development timelines, regulatory requirements for efficacy and safety evaluations, including the volume and quality of data collected, were upheld. Rolling review processes supported by sponsors and regulatory authorities enabled rapid assessment of clinical data as well as emergency use authorization. Post-authorization and pharmacovigilance activities enabled the quantity and breadth of post-marketing safety information to quickly exceed that generated from clinical trials. This paper reviews safety and reactogenicity data for the BNT162 vaccine candidates, including BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine) and bivalent variant-adapted BNT162b2 vaccines, from preclinical studies, clinical trials, post-marketing surveillance, and real-world studies, including an unprecedentedly large body of independent evidence.

Comparative effectiveness of combination therapy with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and remdesivir versus monotherapy with remdesivir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a target trial emulation study

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) were reported to improve the outcome of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Preclinical data suggest that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir might be more effective than remdesivir alone or in combination with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for people at high risk of severe COVID-19. We aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of combining remdesivir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir compared with using each drug alone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this target trial emulation study, we used electronic health records of patients aged 18 years or older who received either combination treatment of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and remdesivir or monotherapy of either drug between March 16 and Dec 31, 2022, within 5 days of hospitalisation for COVID-19 in Hong Kong. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to balance baseline patient characteristics across the treatment groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting weighting was used to compare the risk of all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or ventilatory support for 90 days of follow-up between groups.

FINDINGS

Between March 16 and Dec 31, 2022, 18 196 participants were identified from electronic health records and assigned to receive remdesivir (n=4232), nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n=13 656), or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and remdesivir (n=308). By applying an inverse probability of treatment weighting, a weighted sample composed of 18 410 recipients of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and remdesivir combination treatment, 18 178 recipients of remdesivir monotherapy, and 18 287 recipients of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir monotherapy was obtained. After a median follow-up of 84 days (IQR 45-90), risk of mortality was lower in patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·18 [95% CI 0·15 to 0·20]; absolute risk reduction [ARR] -16·33% [95% CI -16·98 to -15·68]) or remdesivir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination therapy (HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·49 to 0·89]; ARR -6·52% [95% CI -7·29 to -5·74]) than in patients who received remdesivir monotherapy. Similar results were observed for ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir monotherapy: HR 0·09 [95% CI 0·07 to 0·11]; ARR -10·04% [95% CI -10·53 to -9·56]; combination therapy: HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·42 to 1·12]; ARR -3·24% [95% CI -3·84 to -2·64]). Compared with combination therapy, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir monotherapy was associated with lower risk of mortality (HR 0·27 [95% CI 0·20 to 0·37]; ARR -9·81% [95% CI -10·39 to -9·24]) and ICU admission or ventilatory support (HR 0·13 [95% CI 0·08 to 0·22]; ARR -6·80% [95% CI -7·22 to -6·39]).

INTERPRETATION

Our study highlighted the potential for reduced risk of mortality, ICU admission, or the need for ventilatory support in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as a monotherapy compared with treatment regimens based on nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and remdesivir combination therapy or remdesivir monotherapy. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to support the validity of the current results.

FUNDING

The Health and Medical Research Fund Commissioned Research on COVID-19.

TRANSLATION

For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Effectiveness and safety of continuous low-molecular-weight heparin versus switching to direct oral anticoagulants in cancer-associated venous thrombosis

Given the existing uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and safety of switching from low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cancer-associated venous thrombosis (CAT), we conducted a comprehensive population-based cohort study utilizing electronic health database in Hong Kong. A total of 4356 patients with CAT between 2010 and 2022 were included, with 1700 (39.0%) patients switching to DOAC treatment. Compared to continuous LMWH treatment, switching to DOACs was associated with a significantly lower risk of hospitalization due to venous thromboembolism (HR: 0.49 [95% CI = 0.35-0.68]) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.67 [95% CI = 0.61-0.74]), with no significant difference in major bleeding (HR: 1.04 [95% CI = 0.83-1.31]) within six months. These findings provide reassurance regarding the effectiveness and safety of switching from LMWH to DOACs among patients with CAT, including vulnerable patient groups.

Bell's Palsy, an Adverse Event Following COVID Vaccines

Introduction

Bell's palsy is one of the most concerning complications of the COVID vaccine that has impacted vaccine acceptance among the general population. These vaccines were introduced to provide immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and have been found to be quite effective. Little did we know that Bell's palsy could be one of its serious complications.

Materials and Methods

We used various search engines to gather data in the form of a case series and case reports related to patients who were affected by the vaccine and had developed Bell's palsy.

Results

A total of eleven case reports and 4 case series were included in the analysis. The vaccines mentioned in the case reports were Pfizer, Moderna, Sinovac, AstraZeneca, and Janssen, while the case series included Pfizer and Sinovac. The majority of patients were female and aged between 31-40 years. Right-sided laterality was observed in 45.45% of patients, left-sided laterality in 45.45% of patients, and bilateral laterality in 9.1% of patients. Three patients had a history of Bell's palsy or stroke. After treatment, three patients showed partial improvement, six patients fully recovered, and the status of two patients was unknown.

Conclusions

Bell's palsy is a rare complication that can occur after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. This review aims to increase awareness about this rare adverse event of the vaccine so that it can be properly addressed and managed. Additionally, it will serve as a foundation for future research on the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab: A Target Trial Emulation Study

BACKGROUND

Immunocompromised individuals are at high risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and subsequent severe or fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet they have suboptimal responses to mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. The efficacy of tixagevimab-cilgavimab in reducing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was demonstrated in phase III clinical trials. Nevertheless, real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of tixagevimab-cilgavimab remain limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tixagevimab-cilgavimab among immunocompromised individuals.

METHODS

Adults who were immunocompromised or receiving immunosuppressive therapies were included in this target trial emulation using territory-wide electronic health records in Hong Kong. A sequential trial emulation approach was adopted to compare effectiveness and safety outcomes between individuals who received tixagevimab-cilgavimab and individuals who did not.

RESULTS

A total of 746 tixagevimab-cilgavimab recipients and 2980 controls were included from 1 May 2022 to 30 November 2022. Tixagevimab-cilgavimab significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection (hazard ratio [HR] 0.708, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.527-0.951) during a median follow-up of 60 days. No significant difference was observed in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation. Zero versus eight COVID-19 mortality cases and zero versus two severe COVID-19 cases were observed in tixagevimab-cilgavimab recipients and controls, respectively. Notably, significant risk reduction in COVID-19 infection was also observed among immunocompromised individuals who had been previously vaccinated with three or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine, or had no prior COVID-19 infection history.

CONCLUSIONS

Tixagevimab-cilgavimab was effective in reducing COVID-19 infection among immunocompromised patients during the Omicron wave. Findings were consistent among individuals who previously received three or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine, or had no previous history of COVID-19 infection.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in Hong Kong: A target trial emulation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the difference between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in vaccine effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

This target trial emulation study included individuals aged ≥12 during 2022. Propensity score matching was applied to ensure group balance. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the effectiveness outcomes including COVID-19 infection, severity, 28-day hospitalization, and 28-day mortality after infection. Poisson regression was used for safety outcomes including 32 adverse events of special interests between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 639,818 and 1804,388 individuals were identified for the 2-dose and 3-dose comparison, respectively. In 2-dose and 3-dose comparison, the hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals [CI]) were 0.844 [0.833-0.856] and 0.749 [0.743-0.755] for COVID-19 infection, 0.692 [0.656-0.731] and 0.582 [0.559-0.605] for hospitalization, 0.566 [0.417-0.769] and 0.590 [0.458-0.76] for severe COVID-19, and 0.563 [0.456-0.697] and 0.457 [0.372-0.561] for mortality for BNT162b2 recipients versus CoronaVac recipients, respectively. Regarding safety, 2-dose BNT162b2 recipients had a significantly higher incidence of myocarditis (incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI]: 8.999 [1.14-71.017]) versus CoronaVac recipients, but the difference was insignificant in 3-dose comparison (IRR [95% CI]: 2.000 [0.500-7.996]).

CONCLUSION

BNT162b2 has higher effectiveness among individuals aged ≥12 against COVID-19-related outcomes for SARS-CoV-2 omicron compared to CoronaVac, with almost 50% lower mortality risk.

Global and regional burden of vaccine-associated facial paralysis, 1967-2023: Findings from the WHO international pharmacovigilance database

The scarce and conflicting data on vaccine-associated facial paralysis limit our understanding of vaccine safety on a global scale. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the global burden of vaccine-associated facial paralysis and to identify the extent of its association with individual vaccines, thereby contributing to the development of a more effective vaccination program. We used data on vaccine-associated facial paralysis from 1967 to 2023 (total reports, n = 131 255 418 418) from the World Health Organization International Pharmacovigilance Database. Global reporting counts, reported odds ratios (ROR), and information components (ICs) were computed to elucidate the association between the 16 vaccines and the occurrence of vaccine-associated facial paralysis across 156 countries. We identified 26 197 reports (men, n = 10 507 [40.11%]) of vaccine-associated facial paralysis from 49 537 reports of all-cause facial paralysis. Vaccine-associated facial paralysis has been consistently reported; however, a pronounced increase in reported incidence has emerged after the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which is attributable to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Most vaccines were associated with facial paralysis, with differing levels of association, except for tuberculosis vaccines. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines had the highest association with facial paralysis reports (ROR, 28.31 [95% confidence interval, 27.60-29.03]; IC, 3.37 [IC0.25, 3.35]), followed by encephalitis, influenza, hepatitis A, papillomavirus, hepatitis B, typhoid, varicella-zoster, meningococcal, Ad-5 vectored COVID-19, measles, mumps and rubella, diphtheria, tetanus toxoids, pertussis, polio, and Hemophilus influenza type b, pneumococcal, rotavirus diarrhea, and inactivated whole-virus COVID-19 vaccines. Concerning age- and sex-specific risks, vaccine-associated facial paralysis was more strongly associated with older age groups and males. The serious adverse outcome and death rate of vaccine-associated facial paralysis were extremely low (0.07% and 0.00%, respectively). An increase in vaccine-induced facial paralysis, primarily owing to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, was observed with most vaccines, except tuberculosis vaccines. Given the higher association observed in the older and male groups with vaccine-associated facial paralysis, close monitoring of these demographics when administering vaccines that are significantly associated with adverse reactions is crucial.

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.

Effectiveness of Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in CKD Patients With COVID-19

Introduction

Even with effective vaccines, patients with CKD have a higher risk of hospitalization and death subsequent to COVID-19 infection than those without CKD. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have been approved for emergency use, but their effectiveness for the CKD population is still unknown. This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of these drugs in reducing mortality and severe COVID-19 in the CKD population.

Methods

This was a target trial emulation study using electronic health databases in Hong Kong. Patients with CKD aged 18 years or older who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were included. The per-protocol average treatment effect among COVID-19 oral antiviral initiators, including all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and ventilatory support within 28 days, were compared to noninitiators.

Results

Antivirals have been found to lower the risk of all-cause mortality, with Molnupiravir at a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.95] and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir at an HR of 0.78 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.00]. However, they do not significantly reduce the risk of ICU admission (molnupiravir: HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.30]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.32]) or ventilatory support (molnupiravir: HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.33]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.37]). There was a greater risk reduction in males and those with higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The nirmatrelvir-ritonavir trial also showed reduced risk for those who had antiviral treatment and received 3 or more vaccine doses.

Conclusion

Both molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduced mortality rates for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CKD.

Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 in CKD

BACKGROUND

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed increased risks of hospitalization and mortality in patients with underlying CKD. Current data on vaccine effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines are limited to patients with CKD on dialysis and seroconversion in the non-dialysis population.

METHODS

A case-control study was conducted of adults with CKD using data extracted from the electronic health record database in Hong Kong. Adults with CKD and COVID-19 confirmed by PCR were included in the study. Each case was matched with up to ten controls attending Hospital Authority services without a diagnosis of COVID-19 on the basis of age, sex, and index date (within three calendar days). The vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in preventing COVID-19 infection, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality was estimated using conditional logistic regression adjusted by patients' comorbidities and medication history during the outbreak from January to March 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 20,570 COVID-19 cases, 6604 COVID-19-related hospitalizations, and 2267 all-cause mortality were matched to 81,092, 62,803, and 21,348 controls, respectively. Compared with the unvaccinated group, three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac were associated with a reduced risk of infection (BNT162b2: 64% [95% confidence interval (CI), 60 to 67], CoronaVac: 42% [95% CI, 38 to 47]), hospitalization (BNT162b2: 82% [95% CI, 77 to 85], CoronaVac: 80% [95% CI, 76 to 84]), and mortality (BNT162b2: 94% [95% CI, 88 to 97], CoronaVac: 93% [95% CI, 88 to 96]). Vaccines were less effective in preventing infection and hospitalization in the eGFR <15 and 15-29 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 subgroups as compared with higher GFR subgroups. However, receipt of vaccine, even for one dose, was effective in preventing all-cause mortality, with estimates similar to the higher eGFR subgroups, as compared with unvaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

A dose-response relationship was observed between the number of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac doses and the effectiveness against COVID-19 infection and related comorbidity in the CKD population.

Understanding and mitigating negative affect in preventive health behaviors: Evidence from the COVID-19 vaccination process

The study investigated the willingness for vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic (April-June 2021), and explored the effect of both mindfulness and health education in managing negative affect post-vaccination. In study 1, a sample of 468 Chinese college students completed a one-time survey, assessing loneliness, stress, medical fear, and vaccination likelihood. Results showed that medical fear mediated the relationship between loneliness, stress and vaccination likelihood. In study 2, 70 college students were randomly assigned to one of three intervention conditions (mindfulness, health education, and control) during vaccination. Participants in mindfulness group showed lower negative affect scores than the control group post-intervention (p = 0.019). However, no significant difference was reported between health education with the other two conditions. As such, medical fear would be an important factor to target for improving the likelihood of vaccine uptake. Furthermore, a short mindfulness intervention was effective to improve experience of vaccination through mitigating negative affect.

Treatment of Peripheral Facial Paralysis After COVID-19 Infection With Traditional Chinese Medicine Therapies: A Case Report

Peripheral facial paralysis, characterized by facial expression and motor dysfunction of facial muscle groups, stems from lower motor neuron lesions of the facial nerve and can arise from various medical conditions such as viral infections, trauma, tumors, and autoimmune disorders, among others. It affects individuals across all age groups, from pediatric to geriatric populations. While many cases have no discernible cause, some are associated with infectious or non-infectious factors. Typically, most patients experience gradual recovery within one to three months following appropriate treatment in the acute phase, which may include inflammation control, antiviral therapy, reduction of neuroedema, and nerve nourishment. Although relatively rare, there have been few reports of peripheral facial paralysis following COVID-19 infection. Here, we present a case possibly linked to COVID-19: a 23-year-old male who reported numbness, facial asymmetry, and ear pain on the right side of his face persisting for five days after contracting COVID-19. Upon physical examination, peripheral facial paralysis of House-Brackmann grade IV was observed, prompting the initiation of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment. On the 10th day of treatment, acupoint catgut embedding was introduced as an adjunct therapy. Following four weeks of combined treatment, the patient's peripheral facial paralysis improved to grade I, and treatment was subsequently discontinued. TCM therapies, including acupuncture, electroacupuncture, plum blossom needle, moxibustion, acupoint catgut embedding, Chinese herbal medicine, etc., are safe and promising complementary treatments for the acute management of peripheral facial paralysis. However, additional large-scale, randomized controlled studies are needed to determine whether these interventions have a significant additive or synergistic effect on achieving full recovery in patients with peripheral facial paralysis.

Persistence in risk and effect of COVID-19 vaccination on long-term health consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection

The persisting risk of long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the protection against such risk conferred by COVID-19 vaccination remains unclear. Here we conducted a retrospective territory-wide cohort study on 1,175,277 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection stratified by their vaccination status and non-infected controls to evaluate the risk of clinical sequelae, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality using a territory-wide public healthcare database with population-based vaccination records in Hong Kong. A progressive reduction in risk of all-cause mortality was observed over one year between patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and controls. Patients with complete vaccination or have received booster dose incurred a lower risk of health consequences including major cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality than unvaccinated or patients with incomplete vaccination 30-90 days after infection. Completely vaccinated and patients with booster dose of vaccines did not incur significant higher risk of health consequences from 271 and 91 days of infection onwards, respectively, whilst un-vaccinated and incompletely vaccinated patients continued to incur a greater risk of clinical sequelae for up to a year following SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study provided real-world evidence supporting the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the risk of long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its persistence following infection.

Effectiveness and Respiratory Adverse Events Following Inactivated and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with COPD and Asthma: A Chinese Population-Based Study

INTRODUCTION

Effectiveness and respiratory adverse events following coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have not been well investigated in Chinese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma.

METHODS

Using electronic health care records in Hong Kong, we included adults with COPD or asthma or both and hospitalised for severe respiratory exacerbation in a self-controlled case series (SCCS) study between 23/02/2021 and 30/11/2022. Conditional Poisson regression models were used to estimate the incidence of outcomes within exposure periods (28 days after each dose) compared with baseline periods. Cox proportional hazard models evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-related mortality, hospitalisation, and severe complications, including admission to intensive care units or ventilatory support. The VE assessment was based on vaccine types and the number of doses.

RESULTS

In the SCCS, 343 CoronaVac recipients and 212 BNT162b2 recipients were included. No increased risk of outcomes was observed within the exposure periods. In the cohort study, 108,423 and 83,323 patients received ≥ 2 doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2, respectively. The VE (95% CI) against COVID-related mortality, hospitalisation, and severe complications after two-dose CoronaVac was 77% (74-80%), 18% (6-23%), and 29% (12-43%), respectively, while for the two-dose regimen of BNT162b2, it was 92% (91-94%), 33% (30-37%), and 57% (45-66%), respectively. Higher VE against COVID-related mortality, hospitalisation, and severe complications was found for the three-dose regimen of CoronaVac (94%, 40%, and 71%) and BNT162b2 (98%, 65%, and 83%). Administering a fourth dose of either vaccine showed additional reductions in COVID-related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Among people with COPD and asthma, the COVID-19 vaccines CoronaVac and BNT162b2 did not increase severe exacerbations and achieved moderate-to-high effectiveness against COVID-related outcomes. COVID-19 vaccination remains essential and should be encouraged to protect this vulnerable population in future epidemic waves.

Bell's Palsy and COVID-19: Insights from a Population-Based Analysis

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been linked to Bell's palsy and facial paralysis. Studies have also shown increased risk of Bell's palsy in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients. Objective: To compare the relationship between Bell's palsy and COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Design: This is a retrospective longitudinal study. Methods: The COVID-19 research network was used to identify patients with facial palsy presenting to 70 health care organizations in the United States. The incidence of Bell's palsy was measured within an 8-week window after COVID-19 test or vaccination event in identified patients. Results: Incidence of facial palsy diagnosis (0.99%) was higher than the background rate within 2 months of COVID-19 infection. When compared with their negative counterparts, patients with COVID-19 infection had significantly higher risk of Bell's palsy (risk ratio [RR] = 1.77, p < 0.01) and facial weakness (RR = 2.28, p < 0.01). Risk ratio was also amplified when evaluating Bell's palsy (RR = 12.57, p < 0.01) and facial palsy (RR = 44.43; p < 0.01) in COVID-19-infected patients against patients who received COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusion: In our patient population, there is a higher risk of developing facial palsy within 2 months of COVID-19 infection versus vaccination. Vaccinated patients are not at higher risk of developing facial palsy.

Has Coranavirus Disease 2019 Changed the Incidence and Outcome of Bell's Palsy?

BACKGROUND

Objectives: (1) To determine whether the incidence of Bell's Palsy (BP) increased during the pandemic. (2) To investigate whether the outcomes of patients with BP and COVID-19 infection or vaccination differ from those in the pre-pandemic era.

METHODS

Patients with BP were studied in 2 periods retrospectively (March 2021-March 2022 and August 2018-August 2019). A prospective study from March 2021 to March 2022 was also performed. Primary outcome was grade ≤Ⅱ in the House-Brackmann (HB) and/or >70 in the Sunnybrook facial grading system (SFGS) scales at the 12-week visit. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based SARS-CoV-2 immuonoglobulin G (IgG) test (blood) were measured.

RESULTS

About 162 and 196 patients with BP were identified between March 2021 and March 2022 and August 2018 and August 2019, respectively. Forty-seven patients (29%) entered the prospective study; 85% had HB grades I or II, while 92% had an SFGS score of 71-100 at the last visit. Only 3 patients (6.5%) had a positive PCR during the initial episode, whereas 35 patients (77%) had positive IgG SARS-CoV-2. There was no association between positive PCR and facial function outcomes. Of the 162 patients, 105 (67%) had received COVID-19 vaccine. In 23 of them (22%), the paralysis appeared within the first 30 days after a vaccine dose.

CONCLUSION

Coronavirus disease 2019 did not increase the incidence of BP. A direct association between the coronavirus and BP outcome cannot be established. The considerable number of patients developing BP within the first month suggests a possible association between COVID-19 vaccines and BP.

Risk and characteristics of Bell's palsy in adults as an adverse event following COVID-19 vaccination: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although an association between COVID-19 vaccination and Bell's palsy (BP) has been reported, a clear causal relationship has not been elucidated. We investigated the risk and clinical characteristics of BP after COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review evaluated the association between COVID-19 vaccination and BP by comparing the number of patients diagnosed with BP during the pre-COVID-19 vaccination period (March 2018-February 2021) and the COVID-19 mass vaccination period (March 2021-February 2022). We then compared vaccine-related (time between vaccination and BP onset < 42 days) and -unrelated (time interval ≥ 42 days or non-vaccination) clinical characteristics in newly diagnosed patients with BP.

RESULTS

BP occurred more during the COVID-19 vaccination period than in the previous three pre-vaccination years. Thirteen patients developed BP within 42 days of vaccination. All patients, except one, developed BP after mRNA-based vaccination, with most cases (9/13, 69.2%) occurring after the second or third dose. Thirteen patients with vaccine-related BP were younger (age 43.92 ± 13.14 vs. 54.32 ± 16.01 years; p = 0.033) and more frequently experienced taste changes (58.8% vs. 10.9%; p = 0.002) than 52 patients with vaccine-unrelated BP. Patients with vaccine-related BP had a greater likelihood of good and faster (p = 0.042) facial nerve function recovery than those with vaccine-unrelated BP (100% vs. 78%).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccines, especially mRNA-based vaccines, may be associated with BP cases with distinctive clinical characteristics, which occur more frequently in young individuals, are frequently accompanied by taste changes, and have fast and good recovery.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infections, hospitalizations, and severe complications in the pediatric population in Hong Kong: a case-control study

Severe COVID-19 appears to be disproportionately more common in children and adolescents since the emergence of Omicron. More evidence regarding vaccine effectiveness (VE) is urgently needed to assist policymakers in making decisions and minimize vaccine hesitancy among the public. This was a case-control study in the pediatric population using data extracted from the electronic health records database in Hong Kong. Individuals aged 3-17 with COVID-19 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction were included in the study. Each case was matched with up to 10 controls based on age, gender, and index date (within 3 calendar days). The VE of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in preventing COVID-19, hospitalizations, and severe outcomes were estimated using conditional logistic regression adjusted by patients' comorbidities and medication history during the outbreak from January to August 2022. A total of 36,434 COVID-19 cases, 2231 COVID-19-related hospitalizations, and 1918 severe COVID-19 cases were matched to 109,004, 21,788, and 18,823 controls, respectively. Compared to the unvaccinated group, three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac was associated with reduced risk of infection [VE: BNT162b2: 56.0% (95% CI: 49.6-61.6), CoronaVac: 39.4% (95% CI: 25.6-50.6)], hospitalization [VE: BNT162b2: 58.9% (95% CI: 36.1-73.6), CoronaVac: 51.7% (11.6-73.6)], and severe outcomes [VE: BNT162b2: 60.2% (95% CI: 33.7-76.1), CoronaVac: 42.2% (95% CI: -6.2-68.6)]. Our findings showed that three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac was effective in preventing COVID-19, hospitalizations, and severe outcomes among the pediatric population during Omicron-dominant pandemic, which was further enhanced after a booster dose.

Risk of Bell's palsy following SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Despite some evidence of an increased risk of neurologic symptoms following viral vector COVID-19 vaccine administration, it is unclear whether SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with Bell's palsy (BP), especially over a long enough follow-up period.

METHODS

The study population of this nationwide population-based study was derived from the South Korean population, including 11 593 365 and 36 565 099 participants with and without COVID-19, respectively. The Fine and Gray's regression model was utilized to calculate the adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (aSHR), considering death as a competing risk, to assess the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the risk of BP. All participants were followed up from 1 December 2021, until the incident BP, SARS-CoV-2 infection, death, or 31 March 2022. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on participants' vaccination status (completion of the primary series vs. unvaccinated).

RESULTS

COVID-19 was associated with an increased risk of BP in all participants (aSHR, 1.24; CI, 1.19-1.29). However, the size of the COVID-19-related BP risk was significantly lower among those who completed the primary series of the COVID-19 vaccine (aSHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15-1.25) compared to those who were unvaccinated (aSHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.59-2.12; p for interaction: <0.001). The severity of COVID-19 exhibited a gradual escalation in BP risk for both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

DISCUSSION

While both unvaccinated individuals and those who completed the primary series of the COVID-19 vaccine may be at an increased risk of developing BP due to COVID-19, the risk appears to be lower among those who completed the vaccination.

Review of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines, highlighting their frequencies and reported cases

This review examines the immunological and autoimmune adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines, highlighting their frequencies, reported cases, and associations with specific vaccine classes. The concept of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia is crucial in addressing vaccine skepticism. Understanding this concept helps healthcare professionals identify and manage potential adverse events after vaccination. Despite their rarity, immunological and autoimmune adverse events cause concern and anxiety among the public. To maintain public trust in vaccination programs, healthcare professionals and public health agencies must actively monitor and address these adverse events, promptly disclose suspicious incidents, take measures to mitigate dangers, and inform the public with transparency and accurate information. Continuing research and surveillance are essential for understanding the underlying mechanisms of these adverse events and developing strategies to minimize their occurrence.

SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein-Expressing Enterococcus for Oral Vaccination: Immunogenicity and Protection

The declaration of the conclusion of the COVID-19 pandemic notwithstanding, coronavirus remains prevalent in circulation, and the potential emergence of novel variants of concern introduces the possibility of new outbreaks. Moreover, it is not clear how quickly and to what extent the effectiveness of vaccination will decline as the virus continues to mutate. One possible solution to combat the rapidly mutating coronavirus is the creation of safe vaccine platforms that can be rapidly adapted to deliver new, specific antigens in response to viral mutations. Recombinant probiotic microorganisms that can produce viral antigens by inserting specific viral DNA fragments into their genome show promise as a platform and vector for mucosal vaccine antigen delivery. The authors of this study have developed a convenient and universal technique for inserting the DNA sequences of pathogenic bacteria and viruses into the gene that encodes the pili protein of the probiotic strain E. faecium L3. The paper presents data on the immunogenic properties of two E. faecium L3 vaccine strains, which produce two different fragments of the coronavirus S1 protein, and provides an assessment of the protective efficacy of these oral vaccines against coronavirus infection in Syrian hamsters.

Bell's Palsy After Vaccination Against Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify studies reporting the incidence of Bell's Palsy after vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and assess whether this incidence is greater than among the general population.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Databases were searched from inception to May 9, 2022, for studies reporting the incidence of Bell's Palsy among individuals vaccinated against Covid-19 and control populations. Meta-analyses of odds ratios (ORs) were performed to compare the incidence of Bell's Palsy in these groups.

RESULTS

We identified 7 studies reporting the incidence of Bell's Palsy after vaccination and among the general population, including 20,234,931 total vaccinated patients. The length of postvaccination follow-up ranged from 7 to 43 days in these studies. The incidence of Bell's Palsy was not significantly greater among vaccinated individuals (OR: 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-1.71; p = .82). Stratifying by dose, the incidence of Bell's Palsy was not significantly greater after receiving either the first dose (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.47-1.49; p = .54) or second dose (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.58-1.79; p = .96).

CONCLUSION

Among the available evidence, the incidence of Bell's Palsy after vaccination against Covid-19 is comparable to that of the general unvaccinated population. Patient counseling should provide reassurance that there is no known association between Bell's Palsy and Covid-19 vaccination.

Risks of COVID-19-related hospitalisation and mortality among individuals with mental disorders following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations: A case-control study

Concerns have been raised regarding potential weaker vaccine immunogenicity with higher immune suppression for individuals with pre-existing mental disorders. Yet, data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccinations among this vulnerable population are limited. A case-control study was conducted to investigate the risks of COVID-19-related hospitalisation and mortality among individuals with mental disorders following one to three doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations in Hong Kong. Data were extracted from electronic health records, vaccination and COVID-19 confirmed case records. Conditional logistic regression was applied with adjustment for comorbidities and medication history. Subgroup analyses were performed with stratification: by age (< 65 and ≥ 65) and mental disorders diagnosis (depression, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder). Two doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac significantly reduced COVID-19-related hospitalisation and mortality. Further protection for both outcomes was provided after three doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac. The vaccine effectiveness magnitude of BNT162b2 was generally higher than CoronaVac, but the difference diminished after the third dose. Individuals with mental disorders should be prioritised in future mass vaccination programmes of booster doses or bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. Targeted strategies should be developed to resolve the reasons behind vaccine hesitancy among this population and increase their awareness on the benefits of vaccination.

Long-term follow-up of a young male who developed acute macular neuroretinopathy following COVID-19 vaccination

This report presents the clinical findings and prognosis of a healthy male patient who developed acute macular neuroretinopathy after COVID-19 vaccination. Abnormal findings improved about 1 month after the onset and disappeared 3 months later. The subjective symptoms disappeared in 3 months, and no recurrence was observed for 1 year.

Topics in Antivax and Provax Discourse: Yearlong Synoptic Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Tweets

BACKGROUND

Developing an understanding of the public discourse on COVID-19 vaccination on social media is important not only for addressing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic but also for future pathogen outbreaks. There are various research efforts in this domain, although, a need still exists for a comprehensive topic-wise analysis of tweets in favor of and against COVID-19 vaccines.

OBJECTIVE

This study characterizes the discussion points in favor of and against COVID-19 vaccines posted on Twitter during the first year of the pandemic. The aim of this study was primarily to contrast the views expressed by both camps, their respective activity patterns, and their correlation with vaccine-related events. A further aim was to gauge the genuineness of the concerns expressed in antivax tweets.

METHODS

We examined a Twitter data set containing 75 million English tweets discussing the COVID-19 vaccination from March 2020 to March 2021. We trained a stance detection algorithm using natural language processing techniques to classify tweets as antivax or provax and examined the main topics of discourse using topic modeling techniques.

RESULTS

Provax tweets (37 million) far outnumbered antivax tweets (10 million) and focused mostly on vaccine development, whereas antivax tweets covered a wide range of topics, including opposition to vaccine mandate and concerns about safety. Although some antivax tweets included genuine concerns, there was a large amount of falsehood. Both stances discussed many of the same topics from opposite viewpoints. Memes and jokes were among the most retweeted messages. Most tweets from both stances (9,007,481/10,566,679, 85.24% antivax and 24,463,708/37,044,507, 66.03% provax tweets) came from dual-stance users who posted both provax and antivax tweets during the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is a comprehensive account of COVID-19 vaccine discourse in the English language on Twitter from March 2020 to March 2021. The broad range of discussion points covered almost the entire conversation, and their temporal dynamics revealed a significant correlation with COVID-19 vaccine-related events. We did not find any evidence of polarization and prevalence of antivax discourse over Twitter. However, targeted countering of falsehoods is important because only a small fraction of antivax discourse touched on a genuine issue. Future research should examine the role of memes and humor in driving web-based social media activity.

Vaccination is the most effective and best way to avoid the disease of COVID-19

Most of the vaccines that are effective against SARS-CoV-2 have used the following functional strategies: inactivated viruses, live attenuated viruses, viral vector-based vaccines, subunit vaccines, recombinant proteins, and DNA/RNA vaccines. Among the vaccines that stimulate the host's immune system with the help of DNA are: undergoing Phase 2/3 trials including INO-4800 (International Vaccine Institute; Inovio Pharmaceuticals), Symvivo, Canada-COVID19 (AnGes, Inc.); GX-19 (Genexine, Inc.). BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were made by BioNTech/Pfizer/Fosun Pharma group and Moderna/NIAID group, respectively, which are considered as types of RNA vaccines. Vaccines that are based on the viral vector are AstraZeneca, Sputonium, and Johnson-Jensen. Among the inactive viral vaccines, the following can be mentioned: CoronaVac (Sinovac) WIBP vaccine (Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, Sinopharm), BBIBPCorV (Beijing Institute of Biological Products, Sinopharm), BBV152/Covaxin (Bharat Biotech, ICMR, National Institute of Virology) And among the protein-based/subunit vaccines, the following can be counted: NVX-CoV2373: (Novavax); SCB-2019 vaccine (Clover Biopharmaceuticals AUS Pty Ltd.); Covax-19 (GeneCure Biotechnologies; Vaxine Pty Ltd.) mRNA vaccines, viral vector vaccines, and protein subunit vaccines cannot cause disease because these vaccines stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against virus proteins instead of the virus itself (or its antigen). MRNA vaccines increase SARS-CoV-2 proteins and ultimately stimulate the production of T and B lymphocytes. The epidemic of HCoVs and their destructive and harmful effects on life has caused the scientific community to seek the production of an effective and efficient vaccine before its catastrophic release. We all need to know that none of us will be healed until the other is healed. The purpose of this review article is to present a selection of existing knowledge in the field of fighting and preventing the coronavirus.

Association of Influenza Vaccination With Risk of Bell Palsy Among Older Adults in Taiwan

Importance

Annual administration of the influenza vaccine (fluVc) is currently the most effective method of preventing the influenza virus in older adults. However, half of adults older than 65 years remain unvaccinated in Taiwan, possibly because of concern about adverse events, such as Bell palsy (BP). Currently, studies on the association between fluVc and risk of BP are inconsistent.

Objective

To determine whether the incidence of BP increases following fluVc in older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A self-controlled case series study design was used. Days 1 through 7, days 8 through 14, days 15 through 30, and days 31 through 60 following fluVc were identified as risk intervals, and days 61 through 180 were considered the control interval. A total of 4367 vaccinated individuals aged 65 years or older who developed BP within 6 months following fluVc were enrolled. Population-based retrospective claims data were obtained between 2010 and 2017; data were analyzed from April 2022 through September 2022.

Exposure

Government-funded seasonal fluVc.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcome of interest was BP onset in risk intervals compared with control intervals. Three or more consecutive diagnoses of BP within 60 days following fluVc were used as the definition of a patient with BP. Poisson regression was used to analyze the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of risk intervals compared with control intervals.

Results

In total, 13 261 521 patients who received the fluVc were extracted from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017. Of those, 7 581 205 patients older than 65 years old met the inclusion criteria. The number of patients with BP diagnosed within 6 months following fluVc enrolled for risk analysis was 4367 (mean [SD] age, 74.19 [5.97] years; 2349 [53.79%] female patients). The incidence rate of BP among all observed fluVc older adults was 57.87 per 100 000 person-years. The IRRs for BP on days 1 through 7, days 8 through 14, and days 15 through 30 were 4.18 (95% CI, 3.82-4.59), 2.73 (95% CI, 2.45-3.05), and 1.67 (95% CI, 1.52-1.84), respectively. However, there was no increase during days 31 through 60 (IRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-1.16). The postvaccination risk of BP was consistent across all subgroups stratified by sex, age group, and baseline conditions.

Conclusions and Relevance

The present self-controlled case series indicated that the risk of BP in individuals older than 65 years increased within the first month, especially within the first week, following fluVc. But overall, the adverse event rate of BP was low, and considering the morbidity and mortality of influenza infection, the benefits of fluVc still outweigh the risks.

Incidence of Bell's palsy after Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the pooled incidence of Bell's palsy after COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and google scholar were searched by two independent researchers. We also searched gray literature including references of the references and conference abstracts. We extracted data regarding the total number of participants, first author, publication year, the country of origin, female/male, type of vaccines, and the number of patients who developed Bell's palsy after COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

Literature search revealed 370 articles, subsequently deleting duplicates 227 remained. After careful evaluation of the full texts, twenty articles remained for meta-analysis. The most commonly administered vaccines were Pfizer followed by Moderna. In total, 4.54e+07 individuals received vaccines against COVID-19, and 1739 cases developed Bell's palsy. In nine studies, controls (individuals without vaccination) were enrolled. The total number of controls was 1809069, of whom, 203 developed Bell's palsy. The incidence of Bell's palsy after COVID-19 vaccines was ignorable. The odds of developing Bell's palsy after COVID-19 vaccines was 1.02 (95%CI: 0.79-1.32) (I2 = 74.8%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that the incidence of peripheral facial palsy after COVID-19 vaccination is ignorable and vaccination does not increase the risk of developing Bell's palsy. Maybe, Bell's palsy is a presenting symptom of a more severe form of COVID-19, so clinicians must be aware of this.

Observed-over-Expected analysis as additional method for pharmacovigilance signal detection in large-scaled spontaneous adverse event reporting

BACKGROUND

The large-scale COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in 2021 and 2022 led to a rapid increase in numbers of received adverse event reports in spontaneous reporting systems. As background incidences of naturally occurring medical events became increasingly relevant for causality assessment of potential associations with the vaccines, a novel approach for signal detection was warranted.

OBJECTIVES

This article illustrates the Observed-over-Expected (O/E) analysis as an additional method for signal detection and risk assessment in large-scaled spontaneous reporting systems.

METHODS

All individual case safety reports (ICSRs) concerning idiopathic peripheral facial paralysis or Bell's palsy following administration of the COVID-19 vaccines (n = 291) manufactured by Pfizer/BioNTech (Comirnaty), Moderna (Spikevax), AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria) and Janssen (JCOVDEN) received by the National Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb until 24th March 2022 were included in the O/E analysis, within a risk window of 7 and 14 days following immunisation. Dutch background incidence rates from 2019 and exposure of the Dutch population to the vaccines were obtained from the PHARMO institute and RIVM. The data was stratified in age groups, gender and administered dose in order to differentiate between population subgroups.

RESULTS

Bell's palsy was reported more frequently than expected in several population subgroups following administration of all four COVID-19 vaccines, including children and adolescents. Among children, a high O/E ratio was found for boys aged 5-14 years after receiving the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Regarding adolescents and young adults, women aged 15-24 years receiving Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, and men aged 15-24 years receiving Janssen developed Bell's palsy more often than expected. Furthermore, O/E ratios were high for individuals aged 25-64, regarding females receiving Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca and males receiving Janssen. As facial paralysis was not labelled as an adverse event for the Janssen vaccine, this analysis contributed to signalling the association and warranting further regulatory action.

CONCLUSIONS

The O/E method is a useful approach for signal detection of potential adverse reactions when handling large numbers of ICSRs. Further research is needed to attest to the causality on a clinical basis.

Neurological Disorders following COVID-19 Vaccination

Nowadays, people all over the world have been receiving different types of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. While their effectiveness has been well recognized, various post-vaccination disorders are not fully understood. In this review, we discuss neurological disorders related to vascular, immune, infectious, and functional factors following COVID-19 vaccination, and attempt to provide neuroscientists, psychiatrists, and vaccination staff with a reference for the diagnosis and treatment of these diseases. These disorders may present as a recurrence of previous neurological disorders or new-onset diseases. Their incidence rate, host and vaccine characteristics, clinical manifestations, treatment, and prognosis differ significantly. The pathogenesis of many of them remains unclear, and further studies are needed to provide more evidence. The incidence rate of severe neurological disorders is relatively low, most of which are reversible or treatable. Therefore, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk of COVID-19 infection, especially among fragile populations.

Safety of simultaneous vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

INTRODUCTION

Safety data on simultaneous vaccination (SV) with primary series monovalent COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines are limited. We describe SV with primary series COVID-19 vaccines and assess 23 pre-specified health outcomes following SV among persons aged ≥5 years in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

METHODS

We utilized VSD's COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data from December 11, 2020-May 21, 2022. Analyses assessed frequency of SV. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression when the number of outcomes was ≥5 across both doses, comparing outcome rates between COVID-19 vaccinees receiving SV and COVID-19 vaccinees receiving no SV in the 1-21 days following COVID-19 vaccine dose 1 and 1-42 days following dose 2 by SV type received ("All SV", "Influenza SV", "Non-influenza SV").

RESULTS

SV with COVID-19 vaccines was not common practice (dose 1: 0.7 % of 8,455,037 persons, dose 2: 0.3 % of 7,787,013 persons). The most frequent simultaneous vaccines were influenza, HPV, Tdap, and meningococcal. Outcomes following SV with COVID-19 vaccines were rare (total of 56 outcomes observed after dose 1 and dose 2). Overall rate of outcomes among COVID-19 vaccinees who received SV was not statistically significantly different than the rate among those who did not receive SV (6.5 vs. 6.8 per 10,000 persons). Statistically significant elevated RRs were observed for appendicitis (2.09; 95 % CI, 1.06-4.13) and convulsions/seizures (2.78; 95 % CI, 1.10-7.06) in the "All SV" group following dose 1, and for Bell's palsy (2.82; 95 % CI, 1.14-6.97) in the "Influenza SV" group following dose 2.

CONCLUSION

Combined pre-specified health outcomes observed among persons who received SV with COVID-19 vaccine were rare and not statistically significantly different compared to persons who did not receive SV with COVID-19 vaccine. Statistically significant adjusted rate ratios were observed for some individual outcomes, but the number of outcomes was small and there was no adjustment for multiple testing.

Evaluation of potential adverse events following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among adults aged 65 years and older: Two self-controlled studies in the U.S

BACKGROUND

Our near-real-time safety monitoring of 16 adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination identified potential elevation in risk for six AEs following primary series and monovalent booster dose administration. The crude association with AEs does not imply causality. Accordingly, we conducted robust evaluation of potential associations.

METHODS

We conducted two self-controlled case series studies of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) in U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 years. Adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated following primary series doses for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism (PE), immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC); and following monovalent booster doses for AMI, PE, ITP, Bell's Palsy (BP) and Myocarditis/Pericarditis (Myo/Peri).

RESULTS

The primary series study included 3,360,981 individuals who received 6,388,542 primary series doses; the booster study included 6,156,100 individuals with one monovalent booster dose. The AMI IRR following BNT162b2 primary series and booster was 1.04 (95 % CI: 0.91 to 1.18) and 1.06 (95 % CI: 1.003 to 1.12), respectively; for mRNA-1273 primary series and booster, 1.01 (95 % CI: 0.82 to 1.26) and 1.05 (95 % CI: 0.998 to 1.11), respectively. The hospital inpatient PE IRR following BNT162b2 primary series and booster was 1.19 (95 % CI: 1.03 to 1.38) and 0.86 (95 % CI: 0.78 to 0.95), respectively; for mRNA-1273 primary series and booster, 1.15 (95 % CI: 0.94 to 1.41) and 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.79 to 0.96), respectively. The studies' results do not support that exposure to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines elevate the risk of ITP, DIC, Myo/Peri, and BP.

CONCLUSION

We did not find an increased risk for AMI, ITP, DIC, BP, and Myo/Peri and there was not consistent evidence for PE after exposure to COVID-19 mRNA primary series or monovalent booster vaccines. These results support the favorable safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. elderly population.

Barriers to COVID-19 vaccine surveillance: the issue of under-reporting adverse events

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the reporting rates of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) to the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) and its predictors among individuals with AEFIs after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from December 2, 2021 to December 20, 2021, recruiting participants >14 days after completion of a primary COVID-19 vaccination series. Reporting rates were calculated by dividing the number of participants who reported AEFIs to the SRS by the total number of participants who experienced AEFIs. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) using multivariate logistic regression to determine factors associated with spontaneous AEFIs reporting.

RESULTS

Among 2,993 participants, 90.9% and 88.7% experienced AEFIs after the first and second vaccine doses, respectively (reporting rates, 11.6 and 12.7%). Furthermore, 3.3% and 4.2% suffered moderate to severe AEFIs, respectively (reporting rates, 50.5 and 50.0%). Spontaneous reporting was more prevalent in female (aOR, 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31 to 1.81); those with moderate to severe AEFIs (aOR, 5.47; 95% CI, 4.45 to 6.73), comorbidities (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.57), a history of severe allergic reactions (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.47 to 2.77); and those who had received mRNA-1273 (aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.49) or ChAdOx1 (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.30) vaccines versus BNT162b2. Reporting was less likely in older individuals (aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98 to 0.99 per 1-year age increment).

CONCLUSIONS

Spontaneous reporting of AEFIs after COVID-19 vaccination was associated with younger age, female sex, moderate to severe AEFIs, comorbidities, history of allergic reactions, and vaccine type. AEFIs under-reporting should be considered when delivering information to the community and in public health decision-making.

Breast cancer risks following antipsychotic use in women with bipolar disorder versus schizophrenia: A territory-wide nested case-control study spanning two decades

Accrued epidemiologic data largely support an association of antipsychotic use with breast cancer in women with schizophrenia. No studies have specifically investigated such risks in women with bipolar disorder. This study aims to examine the association between antipsychotics and breast cancer in women with bipolar disorder and compare it against schizophrenia. We conducted a nested case-control study using a territory-wide public healthcare database in Hong Kong examining women aged ≥18 years with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Using incidence density sampling, women with a breast cancer diagnosis were matched by up to 10 control participants. In total, 672 case participants (109 with bipolar disorder) and 6,450 control participants (931 with bipolar disorder) were included. Results show a significant association of first-generation antipsychotics with breast cancer in both women with schizophrenia [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-1.90] or bipolar disorder (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.11-2.93). Second-generation antipsychotics was associated with breast cancer only in women with bipolar disorder (aOR 2.49, 95% CI 1.29-4.79), with no significant association found in women with schizophrenia (aOR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.36). In conclusion, further research on breast cancer risks is warranted for women with bipolar disorder on antipsychotics.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination or Infection With Bell Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Bell palsy (BP) has been reported as an adverse event following the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, but neither a causative relationship nor a higher prevalence than in the general population has been established.

Objective

To compare the incidence of BP in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine recipients vs unvaccinated individuals or placebo recipients.

Data Sources

A systematic search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from the inception of the COVID-19 report (December 2019) to August 15, 2022.

Study Selection

Articles reporting BP incidence with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline and was conducted with the random- and fixed-effect models using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcomes of interest were to compare BP incidence among (1) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine recipients, (2) nonrecipients in the placebo or unvaccinated cohorts, (3) different types of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and (4) SARS-CoV-2-infected vs SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated individuals.

Results

Fifty studies were included, of which 17 entered the quantitative synthesis. Pooling 4 phase 3 randomized clinical trials showed significantly higher BP in recipients of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (77 525 vaccine recipients vs 66 682 placebo recipients; odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% CI, 1.10-8.18; I2 = 0%). There was, however, no significant increase in BP after administration of the messenger RNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in pooling 8 observational studies (13 518 026 doses vs 13 510 701 unvaccinated; OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.16; I2 = 94%). No significant difference was found in BP among 22 978 880 first-dose recipients of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine compared with 22 978 880 first-dose recipients of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.82-1.15; I2 = 0%). Bell palsy was significantly more common after SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 2 822 072) than after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (n = 37 912 410) (relative risk, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.57-6.62; I2 = 95%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests a higher incidence of BP among SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated vs placebo groups. The occurrence of BP did not differ significantly between recipients of the Pfizer/BioNTech vs Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 infection posed a significantly greater risk for BP than SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Serious neurological adverse events following immunization against SARS-CoV-2: a narrative review of the literature

Amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, massive immunization campaigns became the most promising public health measure. During clinical trials, certain neurological adverse effects following immunization (AEFIs) were observed; however, acceptable safety profiles lead to emergency authorization for the distribution and use of the vaccines. To contribute to pharmacovigilance and lessen the potential negative impact that vaccine hesitancy would have on immunization programs, we conducted a review of the scientific literature concerning the epidemiological data, clinical presentation, and potential mechanisms of these neurological AEFIs. There is some epidemiological evidence linking COVID-19 vaccines to cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, arterial ischemic stroke, convulsive disorder, Guillain-Barré syndrome, facial nerve palsy, and other neurological conditions. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis has been associated with a thrombotic thrombocytopenia induced by the vaccine, similar to that induced by heparin, which suggests similar pathogenic mechanisms (likely involving antibodies against platelet factor 4, a chemokine released from activated platelets). Arterial ischemic stroke is another thrombotic condition observed among some COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Vaccine-induced convulsive disorder might be the result of structural abnormalities potentially caused by the vaccine or autoimmune mechanisms. Guillain-Barré syndrome and facial nerve palsy may also be linked to the immunization event, possibly due to immune mechanisms such as uncontrolled cytokine release, autoantibody production, or bystander effect. However, these events are mostly uncommon and the evidence for the association with the vaccine is not conclusive. Furthermore, the potential pathophysiological mechanisms remain largely unknown. Nevertheless, neurological AEFIs can be serious, life-threatening or even fatal. In sum, COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe and the risk of neurological AEFIs does not outweigh the benefits of immunization. However, early diagnosis and treatment of neurological AEFIs are of utmost importance, and both health professionals and the public should be aware of these conditions.

BNT162b2 or CoronaVac Vaccinations Are Associated With a Lower Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Stroke After SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Patients With Cardiovascular Disease

Background COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and mortality. The association between vaccination and risk of cardiovascular complications shortly after SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with cardiovascular disease remains unknown. Methods and Results A case-control study was conducted with cases defined as patients who had myocardial infarction or stroke within 28 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 1, 2022 and August 15, 2022. Controls were defined as all other patients who attended any health services and were not cases. Individuals without history of cardiovascular disease were excluded. Each case was randomly matched with 10 controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, and date of hospital admission. Adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI was estimated using conditional logistic regression. We identified 808 cases matched with 7771 controls among all patients with cardiovascular disease. Results showed that vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction or stroke after SARS-CoV-2 infection with a dose-response relationship. For BNT162b2, risk decreased from 0.49 (95% CI, 0.29-0.84) to 0.30 (95% CI, 0.20-0.44) and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.08-0.34) from 1 to 3 doses, respectively. Similar trends were observed for CoronaVac, with risk decreased from 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57-0.85) to 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.52) and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.21-0.49) from 1 to 3 doses, respectively. Conclusions Vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac is associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction or stroke after SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with cardiovascular disease.

Immunogenicity, Safety, and Breakthrough Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections After Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination in Organ Transplant Recipients: A Prospective Multicenter Canadian Study

Background

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), despite vaccination. Our study aimed to elucidate COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity and evaluate adverse events such as hospitalization, rejection, and breakthrough infection in a SOT cohort.

Methods

We performed a prospective, observational study on 539 adult SOT recipients (age ≥18 years old) recruited from 7 Canadian transplant centers. Demographics including transplant characteristics, vaccine types, and immunosuppression and events such as hospitalization, infection, and rejection were recorded. Follow ups occurred every 4-6 weeks postvaccination and at 6 and 12 months from first dose. Serum was processed from whole blood to measure anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to assess immunogenicity.

Results

The COVID-19 vaccines were found to be safe in SOT recipients with low rates of rejection requiring therapy (0.7%). Immunogenicity improved after the third vaccine dose, yet 21% developed no anti-RBD response. Factors such as older age, lung transplantation, chronic kidney disease, and shorter duration from transplant were associated with decreased immunogenicity. Patients with at least 3 doses were protected from hospitalization when experiencing breakthrough infections. Significantly increased anti-RBD levels were observed in patients who received 3 doses and had breakthrough infection.

Conclusions

Three or four doses of COVID-19 vaccines were safe, increased immunogenicity, and protected against severe disease requiring hospitalization. Infection paired with multiple vaccinations significantly increased anti-RBD response. However, SOT populations should continue to practice infection prevention measures, and they should be prioritized for SARS-CoV-2 pre-exposure prophylactics and early therapeutics.

Effectiveness and safety of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review and summarise recent evidence on the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation and death in adults as well as in specific population groups, namely pregnant women, and children and adolescents. We also sought to summarise evidence on vaccine safety in relation to cardiovascular and neurological complications. In order to do so, we drew primarily on evidence from two our own data platforms and supplement these with insights from related large population-based studies and systematic reviews.

RECENT FINDINGS

All studies showed high vaccine effectiveness against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and in particular against COVID-19 hospitalisation and death. However, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 infection waned over time. These studies also found that booster vaccines would be needed to maintain high vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 outcomes. Rare cardiovascular and neurological complications have been reported in association with COVID-19 vaccines.

SUMMARY

The findings from this paper support current recommendations that vaccination remains the safest way for adults, pregnant women, children and adolescents to be protected against COVID-19. There is a need to continue to monitor the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines as these continue to be deployed in the evolving pandemic.

Oral side effects of COVID-19 vaccines in 32 European countries: Analysis of EudraVigilance reports

The recent reports of oral side effects (SEs) following COVID-19 vaccination warrant further investigation into their prevalence, severity, and aetiology. This study was conducted to synthesize the first-ever population-level evidence about oral SEs of COVID-19 vaccines in Europe. The European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Pharmacovigilance (EudraVigilance) database was accessed in August 2022 to extract summary data of all potential oral SEs reported after COVID-19 vaccination. The data were reported descriptively and cross-tabulated to facilitate sub-group analysis per vaccine type, sex, and age group. Dysgeusia was the most commonly reported oral SE (0.381 case per each 100 received reports), followed by oral paraesthesia (0.315%), ageusia (0.296%), lip swelling (0.243%), dry mouth (0.215%), oral hypoaesthesia (0.210%), swollen tongue (0.207%), and taste disorder (0.173%). Females had significantly (Sig. < 0.001) a higher prevalence of all most common (top 20) oral SEs, except for salivary hypersecretion, which was equally prevalent among females and males. The present study revealed a low prevalence of oral SEs, with taste-related, other sensory and anaphylactic SEs being the most common SEs in Europe, similar to what was found earlier among the US population. Future studies should explore the potential risk factors of oral sensory and anaphylactic SEs to verify whether they are causally linked to COVID-19 vaccines.

Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac against SARS-CoV-2 omicron infection and related hospital admission among people with substance use disorder in Hong Kong: a matched case-control study

BACKGROUND

People with substance use disorder have a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent poor outcomes. Few studies have evaluated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among people with substance use disorder. We aimed to estimate the vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Fosun-BioNTech) and CoronaVac (Sinovac) against SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) infection and related hospital admission in this population.

METHODS

We did a matched case-control study using electronic health databases in Hong Kong. Individuals diagnosed with substance use disorder between Jan 1, 2016, and Jan 1, 2022, were identified. People aged 18 years and older with SARS-CoV-2 infection from Jan 1 to May 31, 2022, and people with COVID-19-related hospital admission from Feb 16 to May 31, 2022, were included as cases and were matched by age, sex, and previous clinical history with controls from all individuals diagnosed with substance use disorder who attended the Hospital Authority health services: up to three controls for SARS-CoV-2 infection and up to ten controls for hospital admission. Conditional logistical regression was used to evaluate the association between vaccination status (ie, one, two, or three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac) and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission, adjusted for baseline comorbidities and medication use.

FINDINGS

Among 57 674 individuals with substance use disorder, 9523 people with SARS-CoV-2 infections (mean age 61·00 years, SD 14·90; 8075 [84·8%] males and 1448 [15·2%] females) were identified and matched to 28 217 controls (mean age 60·99 years, 14·67; 24 006 [85·1%] males and 4211 [14·9%] females), and 843 people with COVID-19-related hospital admissions (mean age 70·48 years, SD 14·68; 754 [89·4%] males and 89 [10·6%] females) were identified and matched to 7459 controls (mean age 70·24 years, 13·87; 6837 [91·7%] males and 622 [8·3%] females). Data on ethnicity were not available. We observed significant vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection for two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination (20·7%, 95% CI 14·0-27·0, p<0·0001) and three-dose vaccination (all BNT162b2 41·5%, 34·4-47·8, p<0·0001; all CoronaVac 13·6%, 5·4-21·0, p=0·0015; BNT162b2 booster after two-dose CoronaVac 31·3%, 19·8-41·1, p<0·0001), but not for one dose of either vaccine or two doses of CoronaVac. Significant vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospital admission was detected after one dose of BNT162b2 vaccination (35·7%, 3·8-57·1, p=0·032), two-dose vaccination (both BNT162b2 73·3%, 64·3 to 80·0, p<0·0001; both CoronaVac 59·9%, 50·2-67·7, p<0·0001), and three-dose vaccination (all BNT162b2 86·3%, 75·6-92·3, p<0·0001; all CoronaVac 73·5% 61·0-81·9, p<0·0001; BNT162b2 booster after two-dose CoronaVac 83·7%, 64·6-92·5, p<0·0001), but not after one dose of CoronaVac.

INTERPRETATION

For both BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, two-dose or three-dose vaccination was protective against COVID-19-related hospital admission and the booster dose provided protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection among people with substance use disorder. Our findings confirm the importance of booster doses in this population during the period dominated by the omicron variant.

FUNDING

Health Bureau, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Neurological Considerations with COVID-19 Vaccinations

The benefits of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination significantly outweigh its risks on a public health scale, and vaccination has been crucial in controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Nonetheless, several reports of adverse events following vaccination have been published.To summarize reports to date and assess the extent and quality of evidence regarding possible serious adverse neurological events following COVID-19 vaccination, focusing on Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved vaccines in the United States (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S).A review of literature from five major electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) was conducted between December 1, 2020 and June 5, 2022. Articles included in the review were systematic reviews and meta-analysis, cohort studies, retrospective studies, case-control studies, case series, and reports. Editorials, letters, and animal studies were excluded, since these studies did not include quantitative data regarding adverse side effects of vaccination in human subjects.Of 149 total articles and 97 (65%) were case reports or case series. Three phase 3 trials initially conducted for BNT162b2, MRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S were included in the analysis.The amount and quality of evidence for possible neurological adverse events in the context of FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccinations is overall low tier. The current body of evidence continues to suggest that COVID-19 vaccinations have a high neurological safety profile; however, the risks and benefits of vaccination must continue to be closely monitored.

Risk of Adverse Events and Delirium After COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients Living With Dementia

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare incidences of adverse events of special interest (AESI) and delirium in 3 cohorts: after COVID-19 vaccination, prepandemic, and SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test positive.

DESIGN

This is a population-based cohort study using electronic medical records linked with vaccination records in Hong Kong.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 17,449 older people with dementia received at least 1 dose of CoronaVac (n = 14,719) or BNT162b2 (n = 2730) between February 23, 2021, and March 31, 2022. Moreover, 43,396 prepandemic and 3592 SARS-CoV-2 test positive patients were also included in this study.

METHODS

The incidences of AESI and delirium up to 28 days after vaccination in the vaccinated dementia cohort were compared with the prepandemic and SARS-CoV-2 test positive dementia cohorts by calculating incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Patients who received multiple doses were followed up separately for each dose, up to the third dose.

RESULTS

We did not detect an increased risk of delirium and most AESI following vaccination compared to the prepandemic period and those tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. No AESI group nor delirium incidence exceeded 10 per 1000 person-days in vaccinated individuals.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings provide evidence for the safe use of COVID-19 vaccines in older patients with dementia. In the short run, benefit appears to outweigh the harm due to vaccine; however, longer follow-up should be continued to identify remote adverse events.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 after extending the primary series dosing interval in children and adolescents aged 5-17

Extended intervals between the first and second doses of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines may reduce the risk of myocarditis in children and adolescents. However, vaccine effectiveness after this extension remains unclear. To examine this potential variable effectiveness, we conducted a population-based nested case-control study of children and adolescents aged 5-17 years who had received two doses of BNT162b2 in Hong Kong. From January 1 to August 15, 2022, 5396 Covid-19 cases and 202 Covid-19 related hospitalizations were identified and matched with 21,577 and 808 controls, respectively. For vaccine recipients with extended intervals [≥28 days, adjusted odds ratio 0.718, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.619, 0.833] there was a 29.2%-reduced risk of Covid-19 infection compared to those with regular intervals (21-27 days). If the threshold was set at eight weeks, the risk reduction was estimated at 43.5% (aOR 0.565, 95% CI: 0.456, 0.700). In conclusion, longer dosing intervals for children and adolescents should be considered.

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.

Neuromuscular Complications of COVID-19: Evidence from the Third Year of the Global Pandemic

Accumulating evidence in the third year of the global pandemic suggests that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause neuromuscular complications during or after the acute phase of infection. Direct viral infection and immune-mediated mechanisms have been hypothesized. Furthermore, in patients with underlying autoimmune neuromuscular diseases, COVID-19 infection may trigger a disease flare. COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe and effective at preventing severe illness from COVID-19. Certain vaccines are associated with an increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome and possibly Bell's palsy, but the absolute incidence is low, and benefits likely outweigh the risks. Newer prophylactic therapies and treatments are also becoming available for patients who may not mount a sufficient response to vaccination or have contraindications. In this article, we discuss the current available evidence on neuromuscular complications of COVID-19 and clinical considerations regarding vaccination.

Risk of carditis after three doses of vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2) or inactivated (CoronaVac) covid-19 vaccination: a self-controlled cases series and a case-control study

Background

Large-scale comparative research exploring the risk after the third dose and after inactivated covid-19 vaccination is limited. This study aimed to assess the risk of carditis following three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac.

Methods

We conducted a self-controlled case series (SCCS) and a case-control study using electronic health and vaccination records in Hong Kong. Carditis incidents within 28 days of covid-19 vaccination were included as cases. In the case-control study, up to 10 hospitalized controls were selected with stratified probability sampling by age, sex, and hospital admission (±1 day). The incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were reported from conditional Poisson regressions for SCCS, and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were reported from multivariable logistic regressions.

Findings

A total of 8,924,614 doses of BNT162b2 and 6,129,852 doses of CoronaVac were administered from February 2021 to March 2022. The SCCS detected increased carditis risks after BNT162b2: 4.48 (95%confidence interval [CI]:2.99-6.70] in 1-14 days and 2.50 (95%CI:1.43-4.38) in 15-28 days after first dose; 10.81 (95%CI:7.63-15.32) in 1-14 days and 2.95 (95%CI:1.82-4.78) in 15-28 days after second dose; 4.72 (95%CI:1.40-15.97) in 1-14 days after third dose. Consistent results were observed from the case-control study. Risks were specifically found in people aged below 30 years and males. No significant risk increase was observed after CoronaVac in all primary analyses.

Interpretations

We detected increased carditis risks within 28 days after all three doses of BNT162b2 but the risk after the third doses were not higher than that of the second dose when compared with baseline period. Continuous monitoring of carditis after both mRNA and inactivated covid-19 vaccines is needed.

Funding

: This study was funded by Hong Kong Health Bureau (COVID19F01).

Engineered Design of a Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticle-Based Nanocarrier for Efficient mRNA Delivery in Vivo

We have developed tailor-designed mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNPs) specifically for delivering mRNA. Our unique assembly protocol involves premixing mRNA with a cationic polymer and then electrostatically binding it to the MSNP surface. Since the key physicochemical parameters of MSNPs could influence the biological outcome, we also investigated the roles of size, porosity, surface topology, and aspect ratio on the mRNA delivery. These efforts allow us to identify the best-performing carrier, which was able to achieve efficient cellular uptake and intracellular escape while delivering a luciferase mRNA in mice. The optimized carrier remained stable and active for at least 7 days after being stored at 4 °C and was able to enable tissue-specific mRNA expression, particularly in the pancreas and mesentery after intraperitoneal injection. The optimized carrier was further manufactured in a larger batch size and found to be equally efficient in delivering mRNA in mice and rats, without any obvious toxicity.

A 1-year analysis of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in Lebanon: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Since the deployment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, skepticism about the safety, incidence, and severity of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) was a concern. The study has two main objectives. First, to analyze AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech, AstraZeneca, Sputnik, and Sinopharm) during the vaccination campaign in Lebanon and correlate them with age and gender. Second, to correlate Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines' AEFI with the dose administered.

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out between February 14th, 2021, and February 14th, 2022. AEFI case reports received to the Lebanese Pharmacovigilance (PV) Program were cleaned, validated, and analyzed using SPSS software.

RESULTS

A total of 6808 AEFI case reports were received to the Lebanese PV Program during the period of this study. Case reports were mostly received from females (60.7%) and from vaccine recipients aged 18-44 years. As for the vaccine type, AEFIs occurred more frequently with the AstraZeneca vaccine compared to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The latter had AEFIs mainly following dose 2, whereas AEFIs with the AstraZeneca vaccine were more frequently reported after dose 1, with general body pain being the most reported systemic AEFI with PZ (34.6%), while fatigue was the most reported AEFI with AZ vaccine (56.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The AEFI reported with COVID-19 vaccines in Lebanon were aligned with those reported worldwide. The incidence of rare serious AEFIs should not discourage the public from getting vaccinated. Further studies are needed to evaluate their long-term potential risk.