Adverse events of special interest and mortality following vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in Hong Kong: A retrospective study

Association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters and mortality in Japan: The VENUS study

Although previous studies have shown no increased mortality risk after the primary series of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, reports on booster doses are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate mortality risk after the mRNA vaccine boosters in addition to the primary series. This nested case-control study included two age-specific cohorts (18-64 and ≥65 years as of February 1, 2021) in two municipalities. All deaths were identified and matched five controls for each case at each date of death (index date) with risk set sampling according to municipality, age, and sex. The adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mRNA vaccines (first to fifth doses) were estimated by comparing with no vaccination within 21 and 42 days before the index date using a conditional logistic regression model. The 18-64-years cohort comprised 431 cases (mean age, 57.0 years; men, 58.2%) and 2,155 controls (mean age, 56.0; men, 58.2%), whereas the ≥65-years cohort comprised 12,166 cases (84.0; 50.2%) and 60,830 controls (84.0, 50.2%). The aORs (95% CI) in 0-21 days after the third and fourth doses in the 18-64-years cohort were 0.62 (0.24, 1.62) and 0.38 (0.08, 1.84), respectively. The aORs (95% CI) after the third to fifth doses in the ≥65 years cohort were 0.36 (0.31, 0.43), 0.30 (0.25, 0.37), and 0.26 (0.20, 0.33), respectively. In conclusion, booster doses of mRNA vaccines do not increase mortality risk. These findings could help subsequent vaccine campaigns and alleviate vaccine hesitancy.

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.

COVID-19 Vaccination-Related Myocarditis: What We Learned From Our Experience and What We Need to Do in The Future

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has led to a global health crisis with substantial mortality and morbidity. To combat the COVID-19 pandemic, various vaccines have been developed, but unexpected serious adverse events including vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, carditis, and thromboembolic events have been reported and became a huddle for COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine-related myocarditis (VRM) is a rare but significant adverse event associated primarily with mRNA vaccines. This review explores the incidence, risk factors, clinical presentation, pathogenesis, management strategies, and outcomes associated with VRM. The incidence of VRM is notably higher in male adolescents and young adults, especially after the second dose of mRNA vaccines. The pathogenesis appears to involve an immune-mediated process, but the precise mechanism remains mostly unknown so far. Most studies have suggested that VRM is mild and self-limiting, and responds well to conventional treatment. However, a recent nationwide study in Korea warns that severe cases, including fulminant myocarditis or death, are not uncommon in patients with COVID-19 VRM. The long-term cardiovascular consequences of VRM have not been well understood and warrant further investigation. This review also briefly addresses the critical balance between the substantial benefits of COVID-19 vaccination and the rare risks of VRM in the coming endemic era. It emphasizes the need for continued surveillance, research to understand the underlying mechanisms, and strategies to mitigate risk. Filling these knowledge gaps would be vital to refining vaccination recommendations and improving patient care in the evolving COVID-19 pandemic landscape.

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.

Psychiatric adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the Republic of Korea: a systematic review

This systematic review evaluated psychiatric adverse events (AEs) following vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We included studies that reported or investigated psychiatric AEs in individuals who had received an approved COVID-19 vaccine in the Republic of Korea. Systematic electronic searches of Ovid-Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and KoreaMed databases were conducted on March 22, 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies 2.0. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023449422). Of the 301 articles initially selected, 7 were included in the final analysis. All studies reported on sleep disturbances, and 2 highlighted anxiety-related AEs. Sleep disorders like insomnia and narcolepsy were the most prevalent AEs, while depression was not reported. Our review suggests that these AEs may have been influenced by biological mechanisms as well as the broader psychosocial context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although this study had limitations, such as a primary focus on the BNT162b2 vaccine and an observational study design, it offered a systematic, multi-vaccine analysis that fills a critical gap in the existing literature. This review underscores the need for continued surveillance of psychiatric AEs and guides future research to investigate underlying mechanisms, identify risk factors, and inform clinical management.

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.

Thrombocytopenia and venous thromboembolic events after BNT162b2, CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 vaccines and SARS-CoV-2 infection: a self-controlled case series study

This study assessed the association between COVID-19 vaccines, SARS-CoV-2 infection and the risk of thrombocytopenia and venous thromboembolism (VTE). This self-controlled case series study used hospital records between 1st February 2021 and 28th February 2022 linked to the national immunisation registry and COVID-19 surveillance data in Malaysia. Conditional Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) of events in the risk period (day 1-21 post-exposure) relative to control period with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) adjusted for calendar period. We found no significant increased risk of thrombocytopenia in 1-21 days following BNT162b2, CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 vaccines while the risk was increased following SARS-CoV-2 infection (IRR 15.52, 95% CI 13.38-18.00). Similarly, vaccination with BNT162b2, CoronaVac, or ChAdOx1 was not associated with an increased risk of VTE during the 1-21 days risk period. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risk of VTE (IRR 39.84, 95% CI 27.45-32.44). Our findings showed low event rates of thrombocytopenia and VTE following booster vaccination with comparable safety profiles between those who received homologous and heterologous booster combinations. Our findings showed the risk of thrombocytopenia and VTE was not increased after COVID-19 vaccination while the risks were substantially higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Safety and Efficacy of a Third Dose of the BNT162b2 Vaccine in Liver-Transplanted and Healthy Adolescents

Objectives

According to our previous study, the 2-dose-BNT162b2 vaccination is less effective against the Omicron variant. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a 3-dose-BNT162b2 vaccination in liver-transplanted (LT) and healthy adolescents.

Methods

LT and healthy adolescents who met the inclusion criteria received a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). Antireceptor-binding domain immunoglobulin and T-cell-specific responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike peptides were assessed 3 months before the third dose (Visit -1) and 0 (Visit 0), 1 (Visit 1), and 2 months (Visit 2) after the third dose. Antinucleocapsid immunoglobulin and neutralizing antibodies were assessed at Visits 0 and 1. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored.

Results

Eleven LT and 14 healthy adolescents aged 14.64 (13.2, 15.7) years (44.2% male) had antireceptor-binding domain immunoglobulin geometric mean titers of 1412.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 948.18-2041.11) and 1235.79 (95% CI, 901.07-1705.73) U/mL at Visit -1 but increased to 38 587.76 (95% CI, 24 628.03-60 460.18) and 29 222.38 (95% CI, 16 291.72-52 401.03) U/mL (P < 0.05) at Visit 1, respectively. This was consistent with neutralizing antibodies (42.29% and 95.37% vs 44.65% and 91.68%, P < 0.001) and interferon-γ-secreting cells in LT and healthy adolescents at Visit 0 versus Visit 1, respectively. For serious AEs, an LT girl with autoimmune overlap syndrome died 5 months postvaccination from acute liver failure.

Conclusions

In both LT and healthy adolescents, humoral and cellular immune responses were high after the 3-dose-BNT162b2 vaccination. However, serious AEs were suspected in LT adolescents with autoimmune diseases.

Incidence of diabetes following COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection in Hong Kong: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

The risk of incident diabetes following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination remains to be elucidated. Also, it is unclear whether the risk of incident diabetes after Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is modified by vaccination status or differs by SARS-CoV-2 variants. We evaluated the incidence of diabetes following mRNA (BNT162b2), inactivated (CoronaVac) COVID-19 vaccines, and after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this population-based cohort study, individuals without known diabetes were identified from an electronic health database in Hong Kong. The first cohort included people who received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine and those who did not receive any COVID-19 vaccines up to September 2021. The second cohort consisted of confirmed COVID-19 patients and people who were never infected up to March 2022. Both cohorts were followed until August 15, 2022. A total of 325,715 COVID-19 vaccine recipients (CoronaVac: 167,337; BNT162b2: 158,378) and 145,199 COVID-19 patients were 1:1 matched to their respective controls using propensity score for various baseline characteristics. We also adjusted for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection when estimating the conditional probability of receiving vaccinations, and vaccination status when estimating the conditional probability of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident diabetes were estimated using Cox regression models. In the first cohort, we identified 5,760 and 4,411 diabetes cases after receiving CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccines, respectively. Upon a median follow-up of 384 to 386 days, there was no evidence of increased risks of incident diabetes following CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccination (CoronaVac: 9.08 versus 9.10 per 100,000 person-days, HR = 0.998 [95% CI 0.962 to 1.035]; BNT162b2: 7.41 versus 8.58, HR = 0.862 [0.828 to 0.897]), regardless of diabetes type. In the second cohort, we observed 2,109 cases of diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Upon a median follow-up of 164 days, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with significantly higher risk of incident diabetes (9.04 versus 7.38, HR = 1.225 [1.150 to 1.305])-mainly type 2 diabetes-regardless of predominant circulating variants, albeit lower with Omicron variants (p for interaction = 0.009). The number needed to harm at 6 months was 406 for 1 additional diabetes case. Subgroup analysis revealed no evidence of increased risk of incident diabetes among fully vaccinated COVID-19 survivors. Main limitations of our study included possible misclassification bias as type 1 diabetes was identified through diagnostic coding and possible residual confounders due to its observational nature.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of increased risks of incident diabetes following COVID-19 vaccination. The risk of incident diabetes increased following SARS-CoV-2 infection, mainly type 2 diabetes. The excess risk was lower, but still statistically significant, for Omicron variants. Fully vaccinated individuals might be protected from risks of incident diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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.

Temporal association between the age-specific incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in Republic of Korea: a nationwide time-series correlation study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) changed significantly during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Emerging reports suggest that viral vector-based vaccines may be associated with an elevated risk of GBS.

METHODS

In this nationwide time-series correlation study, we examined the age-specific incidence of GBS from January 2011 to August 2022, as well as data on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccinations and infections from February 2021 to August 2022. We compared the forecasted estimates of age-specific GBS incidence, using the pre-SARS-CoV-2 period as a benchmark, with the actual incidence observed during the post-vaccination period of the pandemic. Furthermore, we assessed the temporal association between GBS, SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, and COVID-19 for different age groups.

RESULTS

In the age group of 60 and older, the rate ratio was significantly elevated during June-August and November 2021. A significant, strong positive association was observed between viral vector-based vaccines and GBS incidence trends in this age group (r=0.52, p=0.022). For the 30 to 59 years age group, the rate ratio was notably high in September 2021. A statistically significant, strong positive association was found between mRNA-based vaccines and GBS incidence in this age group (r=0.61, p=0.006).

CONCLUSION

Viral vector-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were found to be temporally associated with an increased risk of GBS, particularly in older adults. To minimize age-specific and biological mechanism-specific adverse events, future vaccination campaigns should adopt a more personalized approach, such as recommending homologous mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for older adults to reduce the heightened risk of GBS.

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.

Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine adverse event using language model and unsupervised machine learning

BACKGROUND

After the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has made efforts to recover from the chaotic situation. Vaccination is a way to help control infectious diseases, and many people have been vaccinated against COVID-19 by this point. However, an extremely small number of those who received the vaccine have experienced diverse side effects.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this study, we examined people who experienced adverse events with the COVID-19 vaccine by gender, age, vaccine manufacturer, and dose of vaccinations by using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System datasets. Then we used a language model to vectorize symptom words and reduced their dimensionality. We also clustered symptoms by using unsupervised machine learning and analyzed the characteristics of each symptom cluster. Lastly, to discover any association rules among adverse events, we used a data mining approach. The frequency of adverse events was higher for women than men, for Moderna than for Pfizer or Janssen, and for the first dose than for the second dose. However, we found that characteristics of vaccine adverse events, including gender, vaccine manufacturer, age, and underlying diseases were different for each symptom cluster, and that fatal cases were significantly related to a particular cluster (associated with hypoxia). Also, as a result of the association analysis, the {chills ↔ pyrexia} and {vaccination site pruritus ↔ vaccination site erythema} rules had the highest support value of 0.087 and 0.046, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We aim to contribute accurate information on the adverse events of the COVID-19 vaccine to relieve public anxiety due to unconfirmed statements about vaccines.

BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine Safety among Healthcare Workers of a Tertiary Hospital in Italy

Millions of people have died because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The vaccination campaign helped tackle the pandemic and saved millions of lives. In a retrospective pharmacovigilance study, we explored the safety of the BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs) in a large Italian teaching hospital, and 2428 Adverse Events Reports (AERs) filed by HCWs after the administration of the first dose of vaccine were collected and analyzed, reporting the results quantitively and comparing them to the vaccine Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC). Spearman's correlation coefficients were computed to investigate the correlation among reported adverse effects, and recurrent clusters of symptoms were investigated through the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and k-means Cluster Analysis. The BNT162b2 vaccine's safety profile was favorable, with predominant reports of early onset, mild, non-serious and short-term resolved symptoms. We observed higher than the expected frequency for various non-serious undesirable effects, especially among those listed and classified as less common in the SPC. Furthermore, we identified three clusters of adverse effects that were frequently reported together, defined by the presence/absence of fatigue, malaise, localized pain, chills, pyrexia, insomnia, nausea and injection site pain. Post-marketing pharmacovigilance activities, together with targeted public health interventions, can be valuable tools to promote vaccination and improve the control of the spread of the pandemic, especially in sensitive settings and populations such as hospitals and healthcare professionals.

Risks of Cardiac Arrhythmia Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the current evidence regarding the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and the risk of cardiac arrhythmia. MEDLINE, via PubMed and OVID, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched using the relevant keywords to identify the relevant citations. Comprehensive Meta-analysis and Review Manager 5.4.1 were used for all the statistical analyses. Seventeen studies (n = 567,033,087 patients) were included. The pooled analysis showed that the incidence of cardiac arrhythmia post-COVID-19 vaccination with Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, CoronaVac, and Sinopharm was 0.22%, 95% CI: (0.07% to 0.66%), 0.76%, 95% CI: (0.04% to 12.08%), 0.04%, 95% CI: (0.00% to 0.98%), 0.01%, 95% CI: (0.00% to 0.03%), and 0.03%, 95% CI: (0.00% to 18.48%), respectively. Compared to CoronaVac, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Sinopharm had a higher incidence ratio rate (IRR; 22-times, 76-times, 4-times, and 3-times higher), respectively. Likewise, Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca showed a higher IRR than Sinopharm (7.3-times, 25.3-times, and 1.3-times higher). The current evidence shows that the incidence rate (IR) of cardiac arrhythmia post-COVID-19 vaccination is rare and ranges between 1 and 76 per 10,000. mRNA vaccines were associated with a higher IR of arrhythmia compared to vector-based vaccines. Inactivated vaccines showed the lowest IR of arrhythmia.

Primary and booster vaccination in reducing severe clinical outcomes associated with Omicron Naïve infection

BACKGROUND

Little is known about long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in reducing severity and deaths associated with Omicron VOC not perturbed by prior infection and independent of oral anti-viral therapy and non-pharmaceutical (NPI).

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study was applied to Taiwan community during the unprecedent large-scale outbreaks of Omicron BA.2 between April and August, 2022. Primary vaccination since March, 2021 and booster vaccination since January, 2022 were offered on population level. Oral Anti-viral therapy was also offered as of mid-May 2022. The population-based effectiveness of vaccination in reducing the risk of moderate and severe cases of and death from Omicron BA.2 with the consideration of NPI and oral anti-viral therapy were assessed by using Bayesian hierarchical models.

RESULTS

The risks of three clinical outcomes associated with Omicron VOC infection were lowest for booster vaccination, followed by primary vaccination, and highest for incomplete vaccination with the consistent trends of being at increased risk for three outcomes from the young people aged 12 years or below until the elderly people aged 75 years or older with 7 age groups. Before the period using oral anti-viral therapy, complete primary vaccination with the duration more than 9 months before outbreaks conferred the statistically significant 47 % (23-64 %) reduction of death, 48 % (30-61 %) of severe disease, and 46 % (95 % CI: 37-54 %) of moderate disease after adjusting for 10-20 % independent effect of NPI. The benefits of booster vaccination within three months were further enhanced to 76 % (95 % CI: 67-86 %), 74 % (95 % CI: 67-80 %), and 61 % (95 % CI: 56-65 %) for three corresponding outcomes. The additional effectiveness of oral anti-viral therapy in reducing moderate disease was 13 % for the booster group and 5.8 % for primary vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

We corroborated population effectiveness of primary vaccination and its booster vaccination, independent of oral anti-viral therapy and NPI, in reducing severe clinical outcomes associated with Omicron BA.2 naïve infection population.

Association between the risk of seizure and COVID-19 vaccinations: A self-controlled case-series study

OBJECTIVE

The risk of seizure following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations has been sparsely investigated. This study aimed to evaluate this association.

METHOD

Patients who had their first seizure-related hospitalization between February 23, 2021 and January 31, 2022, were identified in Hong Kong. All seizure episodes happening on the day of vaccination (day 0) were excluded, since clinicians validated that most of the cases on day 0 were syncopal episodes. Within-individual comparison using a modified self-controlled case series analysis was applied to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of seizure using conditional Poisson regression.

RESULTS

We identified 1656 individuals who had their first seizure-related hospitalization (BNT162b2: 426; CoronaVac: 263; unvaccinated: 967) within the observation period. The incidence of seizure was 1.04 (95% CI .80-1.33) and 1.11 (95% CI .80-1.50) per 100 000 doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac administered, respectively. Sixteen and 17 individuals, respectively, received a second dose after having a first seizure within 28 days after the first dose of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations. None had recurrent seizures after the second dose. There was no increased risk during day 1-6 after the first (BNT162b2: IRR = 1.39, 95% CI = .75-2.58; CoronaVac: IRR = 1.19, 95% CI = .50-2.83) and second doses (BNT162b2: IRR = 1.36, 95% CI = .72-2.57; CoronaVac: IRR = .71, 95% CI = .22-2.30) of vaccinations. During 7-13, 14-20, and 21-27 days post-vaccination, no association was observed for either vaccine.

SIGNIFICANCE

The findings demonstrated no increased risk of seizure following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations. Future studies will be warranted to evaluate the risk of seizure following COVID-19 vaccinations in different populations, with subsequent doses to ensure the generalizability.