Safety of monovalent and bivalent BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters in at-risk populations in Israel: a large-scale, retrospective, self-controlled case series study

Risk of adverse events after Omicron XBB-adapted BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in the United States

BACKGROUND

Limited data exists regarding the safety of the COVID-19 2023-2024 vaccine formulations and whether the safety profiles differ from the original formulations. We evaluated the association between the BNT162b2 XBB COVID-19 vaccine and the risk of 20 pre-specified adverse events of special interest (AESIs).

METHODS

We identified commercially-insured individuals in the US age ≥ 6 months who received the BNT162b2 XBB COVID-19 vaccine between September 11, 2023 and January 15, 2024 within the Optum pre-adjudicated database. The self-controlled risk interval design was used to compare the incidence of 20 pre-specified AESIs during a risk period following vaccination to a control period. Relative incidence and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using exact conditional Poisson regression.

RESULTS

The analysis included 113,459 individuals who received the BNT162b2 XBB COVID-19 vaccine (median [interquartile range] age: 47.1 [33.0-59.1] years). Relative incidence was calculated when ≥1 event occurred in either the risk or control period. For these 10 AESIs, there was no significant association between receipt of the BNT162b2 XBB COVID-19 vaccine and the incidence of any of these AESIs. Point estimates were higher in the risk period compared to the control period for ischemic stroke (relative incidence: 1.52; 95 % CI: 0.44-5.94), myocarditis/pericarditis (relative incidence: 1.50; 95 % CI: 0.22-12.61), immune-mediated myositis (relative incidence: 1.44; 95 % CI: 0.83-2.52), herpes zoster (relative incidence: 1.24; 95 % CI: 0.69-2.28), and non-febrile convulsions/seizures (relative incidence: 1.22; 95 % CI: 0.86-1.73). These estimates were not statistically significant, though most were based on few events. Results were generally similar in subgroup analyses of individuals administered a concomitant seasonal influenza vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no increased risk of 20 pre-specified AESIs following receipt of the BNT162b2 XBB COVID-19 vaccine among US commercially insured individuals aged ≥6 months. Findings are consistent with the current evidence on the safety of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines. Public registration: EUPAS108135.

Association of new onset seizure and COVID-19 vaccines and long-term follow-up: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Seizures have been reported as an adverse event of the COVID-19 vaccine. However, there is no solid evidence of increased seizure occurrence compared to the general population. This study was undertaken to investigate seizure occurrence among COVID-19 vaccine recipients compared to unvaccinated controls.

METHODS

A systematic search was made of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to April 9, 2024. Studies reporting seizure occurrence following COVID-19 vaccination were included. This study is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework and was conducted using random- and common-effect models. The risk of bias in the studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The outcome of interest was new onset seizure incidence proportion compared among (1) COVID-19 vaccine recipients, (2) unvaccinated cohorts, and (3) various types of COVID-19 vaccines.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included, of which seven entered the meta-analysis. Results of the pooled analysis of the new onset seizure incidence (21- or 28-day period after vaccination) in 13 016 024 vaccine recipients and 13 013 262 unvaccinated individuals by pooling the cohort studies did not show any statistically significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR] = .48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .19-1.20, p = .12, I2 = 95%, τ2 = .7145). Pooling four studies accounting for 19 769 004 mRNA versus 47 494 631 viral vector vaccine doses demonstrated no significant difference in terms of new onset seizure incidence between the groups (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = .78-1.78, p = .44, I2 = 0%, τ2 = .004).

SIGNIFICANCE

This systematic review and meta-analysis shows no statistically significant difference in the risk of new onset seizure incidence between COVID-19 vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated individuals.

Comparison of physiological and clinical reactions to COVID-19 and influenza vaccination

BACKGROUND

Public reluctance to receive COVID-19 vaccination is associated with safety concerns. By contrast, the seasonal influenza vaccine has been administered for decades with a solid safety record and a high level of public acceptance. We compare the safety profile of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 booster vaccine to that of the seasonal influenza vaccine.

METHODS

We study a prospective cohort of 5079 participants in Israel and a retrospective cohort of 250,000 members of MHS selected randomly. We examine reactions to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 booster and to influenza vaccinations. All prospective cohort participants wore a smartwatch and completed a daily digital questionnaire. We compare pre-vaccination and post-vaccination smartwatch heart-rate data, and a stress measure based on heart-rate variability. We also examine adverse events from electronic health records.

RESULTS

In the prospective cohort, 1905 participants receive the COVID-19 booster vaccine; 899 receive influenza vaccination. Focusing on those who receive both vaccines yields a total of 689 participants in the prospective cohort and 31,297 members in the retrospective cohort. Individuals reporting a more severe reaction after influenza vaccination tend to likewise report a more severe reaction after COVID-19 vaccination. In paired analysis, the increase in both heart rate and stress measure for each participant is higher for COVID-19 than for influenza in the first 2 days after vaccination. No elevated risk of hospitalization due to adverse events is found following either vaccine. Except for Bell's palsy after influenza vaccination, no elevated risk of adverse events is found.

CONCLUSIONS

The more pronounced side effects after COVID-19 vaccination may explain the greater concern associated with it. Nevertheless, our comprehensive analysis supports the safety profile of both vaccines.

Comparative safety of monovalent and bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccines in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years in the Republic of Korea

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) bivalent and monovalent booster vaccines, including the frequency of adverse events (AEs) such as myocarditis and pericarditis, in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years in the Republic of Korea. We aimed to share the safety profile of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine booster doses.

METHODS

We analyzed the frequencies of AEs reported to the COVID-19 vaccination management system (CVMS) or self-reported through the text message survey (TMS). Diagnostic eligibility and causality with vaccines were compared using odds ratios (ORs) by vaccine type, and incidence rates per 100,000 person-days were calculated for confirmed cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following monovalent and bivalent booster doses.

RESULTS

In the CVMS, the AE reporting rate (per 100,000 doses) was lower after the bivalent booster (66.5) than after the monovalent booster (264.6). Among the AEs reported for both monovalent and bivalent vaccines 98.3% were non-serious and 1.7% were serious. According to the TMS, both local and systemic AEs were reported less frequently after the bivalent vaccination than after the monovalent vaccination in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years (p<0.001). The incidence rates per 100,000 person-days for confirmed myocarditis/pericarditis following monovalent and bivalent booster doses were 0.03 and 0.05, respectively; this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 1.797; 95% confidence interval, 0.210-15.386).

CONCLUSION

AEs in 12- to 17-year-olds following the bivalent booster were less frequent than those following the monovalent booster in the Republic of Korea, and no major safety issues were identified. However, the reporting rates for AEs were low.

Ischemic Stroke After Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccination: Self-Controlled Case Series Study

BACKGROUND

The potential association between bivalent COVID-19 vaccination and ischemic stroke remains uncertain, despite several studies conducted thus far.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the risk of ischemic stroke following bivalent COVID-19 vaccination during the 2022-2023 season.

METHODS

A self-controlled case series study was conducted among members aged 12 years and older who experienced ischemic stroke between September 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023, in a large health care system. Ischemic strokes were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes in emergency departments and inpatient settings. Exposures were Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccination. Risk intervals were prespecified as 1-21 days and 1-42 days after bivalent vaccination; all non-risk-interval person-time served as the control interval. The incidence of ischemic stroke was compared in the risk interval and control interval using conditional Poisson regression. We conducted overall and subgroup analyses by age, history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and coadministration of influenza vaccine. When an elevated risk was detected, we performed a chart review of ischemic strokes and analyzed the risk of chart-confirmed ischemic stroke.

RESULTS

With 4933 ischemic stroke events, we found no increased risk within the 21-day risk interval for the 2 vaccines and by subgroups. However, risk of ischemic stroke was elevated within the 42-day risk interval among individuals aged younger than 65 years with coadministration of Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent and influenza vaccines on the same day; the relative incidence (RI) was 2.13 (95% CI 1.01-4.46). Among those who also had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the RI was 3.94 (95% CI 1.10-14.16). After chart review, the RIs were 2.34 (95% CI 0.97-5.65) and 4.27 (95% CI 0.97-18.85), respectively. Among individuals aged younger than 65 years who received Moderna bivalent vaccine and had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the RI was 2.62 (95% CI 1.13-6.03) before chart review and 2.24 (95% CI 0.78-6.47) after chart review. Stratified analyses by sex did not show a significantly increased risk of ischemic stroke after bivalent vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

While the point estimate for the risk of chart-confirmed ischemic stroke was elevated in a risk interval of 1-42 days among individuals younger than 65 years with coadministration of Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent and influenza vaccines on the same day and among individuals younger than 65 years who received Moderna bivalent vaccine and had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk was not statistically significant. The potential association between bivalent vaccination and ischemic stroke in the 1-42-day analysis warrants further investigation among individuals younger than 65 years with influenza vaccine coadministration and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, the findings on ischemic stroke risk after bivalent COVID-19 vaccination underscore the need to evaluate monovalent COVID-19 vaccine safety during the 2023-2024 season.

Comparative safety profile of bivalent and original COVID-19 mRNA vaccines regarding myocarditis/pericarditis: A pharmacovigilance study

OBJECTIVES

Bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which contain two different components, were authorized to provide protection against both the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 and the Omicron variant as a measure to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerns regarding the risk of myocarditis/pericarditis associated with bivalent vaccination have been raised due to the observed superior neutralizing antibody responses. This study aimed to investigate the risk of myocarditis/pericarditis following bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccination compared to monovalent vaccination.

METHODS

The CDC COVID Data Tracker and the Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) were analyzed between December 13, 2020 to March 8, 2023. Reporting rates were determined by dividing the number of myocarditis/pericarditis cases by the total number of vaccine doses administered. Disproportionality patterns regarding myocarditis/pericarditis were evaluated for various COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations using reporting odds ratios (RORs).

RESULTS

The reporting rate for myocarditis/pericarditis following original monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccination was 6.91 (95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 6.71-7.12) per million doses, while the reporting rate for bivalent vaccination was significantly lower (1.24, 95%CI 0.96-1.58). Disproportionality analysis revealed a higher reporting of myocarditis/pericarditis following original vaccination with a ROR of 2.21 (95 %CI 2.00-2.43), while bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccination was associated with fewer reports of myocarditis/pericarditis (ROR 0.57, 95 %CI 0.45-0.72). Sub-analyses based on symptoms, sex, age and manufacturer further supported these findings.

CONCLUSION

This population-based study provides evidence that bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is not associated with risk of myocarditis/pericarditis. These findings provide important insights into the safety profile of bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and support their continued use as updated boosters.

Neurovascular Adverse Effects of Sars-Cov-2 Vaccination

The global deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been pivotal in curbing the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing morbidity and mortality associated with the virus. While most of these vaccines have demonstrated high efficacy and overall safety, emerging reports have highlighted potential neurovascular adverse effects, albeit uncommon, associated with these vaccinations. This review aims to assess and summarize the current knowledge on the neurovascular complications arising post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We conducted an extensive literature review, focusing on clinical studies and case reports to identify reported neurovascular events, such as ischemic stroke, cerebral sinus venous thrombosis, intracerebral hemorrhage, pituitary apoplexy and primary CNS angiitis Despite the relative rarity of these events, their impact on affected individuals underscores the importance of ongoing surveillance, early detection, and management strategies. We aim to provide healthcare professionals with the latest evidence on neurovascular adverse effects, facilitating informed decision-making in the context of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programs. Furthermore, we highlight areas requiring further research to understand the pathophysiology of these adverse events better and to develop targeted prevention and treatment strategies.

Pfizer COVID19 vaccine is not associated with acute cardiovascular events excluding myocarditis- a national self-controlled case series study

BACKGROUND

Despite publications assuring no increased risk for acute cardiovascular events (excluding myocarditis) and sudden death following administration of COVID19 vaccines, these issues still stir much public ado. We assessed the risk for acute cardiovascular events that require hospitalization (excluding myocarditis) and for mortality in the short-term following administration of the second dose of the Pfizer COVID19 vaccine in Israel.

METHODS

Using a self-controlled case series (SCCS) study design and national databases, all second-dose vaccinees, who had not been diagnosed with COVID19 and who had an acute cardiovascular event (acute myocardial infarction/acute stroke/acute thromboembolic event) that required hospitalization in the 60 days following vaccine administration between Jan 11th, 2021 and Oct 31st 2021, were included. A similar analysis was carried out for mortality. The first 30 days following vaccination were defined as risk period while the next 30 days were defined as control period. The probability for an event between these periods was compared using a conditional logistic regression model, accounting for sex, age group, background morbidity and seasonal risk.

RESULTS

Out of 5,700,112  second dose vaccinees, 4,163 had an acute cardiovascular event in the 60 days following vaccine administration. Following exclusion of 106 due to technical considerations, 1,979 events occurred during the risk period and 2,078 during the control period: Odds ratio, OR = 0.95, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.90-1.01, p = 0.12. Adjusted OR was similar (OR = 0.88, 95%CI 0.72-1.08). Stratifying by age showed no increased risk in any age group. Mortality assessment indicated low number of events in both periods. These results were consistent in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no increased risk for acute cardiovascular events (excluding myocarditis) in the risk period compared to the control period following administration of the second dose of Pfizer COVID19 vaccine. Mortality data raised no concerns either, but may have been biased.

Booster vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines and myocarditis in adolescents and young adults: a Nordic cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines are associated with an increased risk of myocarditis. This association appears to be strongest in male adolescents and younger males and after the second dose. The aim was to evaluate the risk of myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA booster vaccination in 12-to-39-year-olds.

METHODS

A multinational cohort study was conducted using nationwide register data in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden and comprising all 8.9 million individuals residing in each of the four countries. Participants were followed for an inpatient diagnosis of myocarditis. In each of the four countries, Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of myocarditis comparing vaccination schedules, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Country-specific results were combined in meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 8.9 million residents were followed for 12 271 861 person-years and 1533 cases of myocarditis were identified. In 12-to-39-year-old males, the 28-day acute risk period following the third dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 was associated with an increased incidence rate of myocarditis compared to the post-acute risk period 28 days or more after the second dose [IRR 2.08 (95% CI 1.31-3.33) and 8.89 (2.26-35.03), respectively]. For females, the corresponding IRR was only estimable for BNT162b2, 3.99 (0.41-38.64). The corresponding absolute risks following the third dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 in males were 0.86 (95% CI 0.53-1.32) and 1.95 (0.53-4.99) myocarditis events within 28 days per 100 000 individuals vaccinated, respectively. In females, the corresponding absolute risks following the third dose of BNT162b2 were 0.15 (0.04-0.39) events per 100 000 individuals vaccinated. No deaths occurred within 30 days of vaccine-related cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that a booster dose is associated with increased myocarditis risk in adolescents and young adults. However, the absolute risk of myocarditis following booster vaccination is low.

Stroke Risk After COVID-19 Bivalent Vaccination Among US Older Adults

Importance

In January 2023, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration noted a safety concern for ischemic stroke among adults aged 65 years or older who received the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2; WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine.

Objective

To evaluate stroke risk after administration of (1) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, (2) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine on the same day (concomitant administration), and (3) a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Self-controlled case series including 11 001 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (among 5 397 278 vaccinated individuals). The study period was August 31, 2022, through February 4, 2023.

Exposures

Receipt of (1) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (primary) or (2) a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (secondary).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack, combined outcome of nonhemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack, or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.

Results

There were 5 397 278 Medicare beneficiaries who received either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (median age, 74 years [IQR, 70-80 years]; 56% were women). Among the 11 001 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, there were no statistically significant associations between either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine and the outcomes of nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack, nonhemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack, or hemorrhagic stroke during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window vs the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12). Among the 4596 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after concomitant administration of either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine, there was a statistically significant association between vaccination and nonhemorrhagic stroke during the 22- to 42-day risk window for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2; WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (IRR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.01-1.42]; risk difference/100 000 doses, 3.13 [95% CI, 0.05-6.22]) and a statistically significant association between vaccination and transient ischemic attack during the 1- to 21-day risk window for the Moderna mRNA-1273.222 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (IRR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.06-1.74]; risk difference/100 000 doses, 3.33 [95% CI, 0.46-6.20]). Among the 21 345 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after administration of a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine, there was a statistically significant association between vaccination and nonhemorrhagic stroke during the 22- to 42-day risk window (IRR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.02-1.17]; risk difference/100 000 doses, 1.65 [95% CI, 0.43-2.87]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, there was no evidence of a significantly elevated risk for stroke during the days immediately after vaccination.

Incidence and Nature of Short-Term Adverse Events following COVID-19 Second Boosters: Insights from Taiwan's Universal Vaccination Strategy

This study evaluates the incidence and characteristics of adverse events (AEs) following the second COVID-19 booster dose, leveraging Taiwan's distinctive approach of extending booster vaccinations to all citizens, unlike the targeted high-risk group strategies in other countries. Utilizing data from Taipei Veterans General Hospital's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 27 October 2022 to 19 January 2023, this research examines AEs in 441 out of 1711 booster recipients, considering factors like age, vaccine brands, and booster combinations. The findings revealed incidence rates (IRs) of 25.6% (95% CI: 21.1-30.8) after the first booster and 24.9% (95% CI: 20.5-30.0) after the second, mostly non-serious, with those having AEs post-first booster being five times more likely to report them again (incidence rate ratio, 5.02, p < 0.001). Significantly, switching from the mRNA1273 vaccine to another brand reduced AE risk by 18%. This study underscores that AEs are more repetitive than cumulative with additional booster doses, advocating for personalized vaccination strategies based on individual medical histories and previous vaccine reactions. These insights are valuable for healthcare providers in discussing potential AEs with patients, thereby improving vaccine compliance and public trust, and for policymakers in planning future booster vaccination strategies.

Factors associated with uptake of bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in a large US health care system

BACKGROUND

Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were developed to provide protection against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 variants, but uptake in the United States has been low. Sociodemographic disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake have been documented, but it is unclear if similar disparities persist among individuals who previously completed a primary series of monovalent COVID-19 vaccine.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) including youth aged 5-17 years and adults aged ≥18 years who were KPSC members and had completed a primary series of monovalent COVID-19 vaccine. Individuals were followed from index date (date of eligibility for bivalent vaccine) to 03/31/2023 to ascertain receipt of any dose of bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or until disenrollment from KPSC or death. Multivariable robust Poisson regression was conducted to assess the adjusted relative risk and 95 % confidence intervals of factors associated with receipt of bivalent vaccine.

RESULTS

The final cohorts included 305,339 youth and 2,534,619 adults, of whom 19.5 % and 30.7 %, respectively, had received bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. Factors associated with being more likely to receive bivalent COVID-19 vaccine included older age, Asian race, more prior year outpatient and virtual visits, Charlson score ≥1, and immunocompromised status. Factors associated with being less likely to receive a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine included age 12-17 vs 5-11 years, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity, ≥1 prior year inpatient or emergency department visits, prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (adults only), Medicaid insurance, and higher neighborhood deprivation index.

CONCLUSION

Even among youth and adults who had previously received a primary series of monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, sociodemographic and clinical disparities were observed in receipt of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. These findings are critical to inform equitable strategies for the implementation of the updated monovalent COVID-19 vaccine targeting the Omicron XBB strain.

Safety signal identification for COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccination using tree-based scan statistics in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

BACKGROUND

Traditional active vaccine safety monitoring involves pre-specifying health outcomes and biologically plausible outcome-specific time windows of concern, limiting the adverse events that can be evaluated. In this study, we used tree-based scan statistics to look broadly for >60,000 possible adverse events after bivalent COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

Vaccine Safety Datalink enrollees aged ≥5 years receiving Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine through November 2022 were followed for 56 days post-vaccination. Incident diagnoses in inpatient or emergency department settings were analyzed for clustering within the hierarchical ICD-10-CM diagnosis code "tree" and temporally within post-vaccination follow-up. The conditional self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic was used, conditioning on total number of cases of each diagnosis and total number of cases of any diagnosis occurring during the scanning risk window across the entire tree. P = 0.01 was the pre-specified cut-off for statistical significance.

RESULTS

Analysis included 352,509 doses of Moderna and 979,189 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent vaccines. After Moderna vaccination, no statistically significant clusters were found. After Pfizer-BioNTech, there were clusters of unspecified adverse events (Days 1-3, p = 0.0001-0.0007), influenza (Days 35-56, p = 0.0001), cough (Days 44-55, p = 0.0002), and COVID-19 (Days 52-56, p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

For Pfizer-BioNTech only, we detected clusters of: (1) unspecified adverse effects, as have been observed in other vaccine studies using this method, and (2) respiratory disease toward the end of follow-up. The respiratory clusters were likely due to overlap of follow-up with the spread of respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and COVID-19, i.e., confounding by seasonality. The untargeted nature of the method and its inherent adjustment for the many diagnoses and risk intervals evaluated are unique advantages. Limitations include susceptibility to time-varying confounding, lower statistical power for assessing risks of specific outcomes than in traditional studies targeting fewer outcomes, and the possibility of missing adverse events not strongly clustered in time or within the "tree."