Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 13 de 13
Filter
1.
Elife ; 122023 03 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2284601

ABSTRACT

Quantifying variation of individual infectiousness is critical to inform disease control. Previous studies reported substantial heterogeneity in transmission of many infectious diseases including SARS-CoV-2. However, those results are difficult to interpret since the number of contacts is rarely considered in such approaches. Here, we analyze data from 17 SARS-CoV-2 household transmission studies conducted in periods dominated by ancestral strains, in which the number of contacts was known. By fitting individual-based household transmission models to these data, accounting for number of contacts and baseline transmission probabilities, the pooled estimate suggests that the 20% most infectious cases have 3.1-fold (95% confidence interval: 2.2- to 4.2-fold) higher infectiousness than average cases, which is consistent with the observed heterogeneity in viral shedding. Household data can inform the estimation of transmission heterogeneity, which is important for epidemic management.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epidemics , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Probability , Virus Shedding
2.
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci ; 2022 Nov 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2288092

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Older adults have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. While COVID-19 vaccines are effective for reducing mortality and severe complications, vaccine hesitancy remains a substantial concern particularly among older adults. This was a qualitative study to explore how Chinese older adults reached a decision to delay or refuse the COVID-19 vaccines in Hong Kong. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 27 older adults aged ≥60 years who had never received COVID-19 vaccines. Grounded Theory approach guided the selection of informants, data collection, data analysis and report writing. RESULTS: Older adults' vaccine hesitancy and resistance weaved into the context of lacking sufficient decisional support and attitude roots of negative perception of ageing, fatalistic risk attitudes, present-oriented time perspectives, and negative values on western biomedicine. Attitude roots were used as decisional anchors to further shape older adults' peripheral processing of vaccine-related information, resulting into a spectrum of vaccine-resistant and vaccine-hesitant attitudes. While participants refused or delayed COVID-19 vaccination, they engaged in alternative coping strategies to regain self-control and justify their vaccination disengagement in the pandemic. DISCUSSIONS: Interventions to address vaccine hesitancy in older adults should focus on addressing attitude roots and strengthening the connectivity of older adults with family, doctors, and government to engage older adults in the vaccination decision making. Risk communication should shift to provide more personal relevant information in a caring style, meet older adults' preference for peripheral information processing, and address their existing misperceptions about COVID-19 vaccines.

3.
Ann Intern Med ; 176(4): 505-514, 2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2285919

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Humans , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 Vaccines , Ritonavir/therapeutic use
4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 Jun 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2236760

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Observable symptoms of Bell's palsy following vaccinations may arouse concern over the safety profiles of novel COVID-19 vaccines in the general public. However, there are only a few studies on Bell's palsy following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination with inconclusive findings. This study aimed to update the previous analysis on the risk of Bell's palsy following mRNA (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: This study included cases aged ≥16-years-old with a new diagnosis of Bell's palsy within 28 days after BNT162b2 vaccinations from the population-based electronic health records in Hong Kong, using a nested case-control and self-controlled case series (SCCS) analyses were employed. The association between Bell's palsy and BNT162b2 was evaluated using conditional logistic and Poisson regression in nested case-control and SCCS analysis, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 54 individuals were newly diagnosed with Bell's palsy after BNT162b2 vaccinations. The incidence of Bell's palsy was 1.58 (95% CI:1.19-2.07) per 100,000 doses administered. The nested case-control analysis showed significant association between BNT162b2 vaccinations and Bell's palsy (Adjusted OR: 1.543, 95%CI:1.123 - 2.121), with up to 1.112 excess events per 100,000 people receiving two doses of BNT162b2. An increased risk of Bell's palsy was observed during the first 14 days after the second dose of BNT162b2 in both nested case-control (Adjusted OR: 2.325, 95%CI:1.414 - 3.821) and SCCS analysis (Adjusted IRR=2.44, 95%CI:1.32-4.50). CONCLUSION: There is an overall increased risk of Bell's palsy following BNT162b2 vaccination, particularly within the first 14 days after the second dose, but the absolute risk was very low.

5.
Emerg Microbes Infect ; 11(1): 2304-2314, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1991970

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
6.
Lancet Healthy Longev ; 3(7): e491-e500, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1915223

ABSTRACT

Background: Because evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults is scarce, we aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk of adverse events after CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech) vaccination in adults aged 60 years or older. Methods: In this modified self-controlled case series, we enrolled adults aged 60 years or older who had received at least one dose of CoronaVac in Hong Kong between Feb 23, 2021, and Jan 31, 2022. We extracted population-based, electronic health record data from the clinical management system of the Hospital Authority on adverse events of special interest (from Jan 1, 2005, to Feb 23, 2022) and patients' demographic information (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), previous diagnoses (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), medication history (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), and laboratory tests, including those for SARS-CoV-2 infection (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022). Details of vaccination status were provided by the Department of Health of the Hong Kong Government and were linked to data from the Hospital Authority with identity card numbers or passport numbers. Our outcomes were the overall incidence of any adverse event of special interest and the incidence rates of 30 adverse events of special interest, as suggested by the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, in the inpatient setting within 21 days (2 days for anaphylaxis) of either the first, second, or third CoronaVac dose compared with a baseline period. Individuals who had a history of a particular event between Jan 1, 2005, and Feb 23, 2021, were excluded from the corresponding analysis. We evaluated the risk of an adverse event of special interest using conditional Poisson regression, adjusting for seasonal effects. Findings: Of 1 253 497 individuals who received at least one dose of CoronaVac during the study period, 622 317 (49·6%) were aged at least 60 years and were included in the analysis. Our analysis sample received 1 229 423 doses of CoronaVac and had a mean age of 70·40 years (SD 8·10). 293 086 (47·1%) of 622 317 participants were men and 329 231 (52·9%) were women. The incidence of individual adverse events of interest ranged from 0·00 per 100 000 people to 57·49 per 100 000 people (thromboembolism). The first and third doses of CoronaVac were not associated with a significant excess risk of an adverse event of special interest within 21 days (or 2 days for anaphylaxis) of vaccination. After the second dose, the only significantly increased risk was for anaphylaxis (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2·61, 95% CI 1·08-6·31; risk difference per 100 000 people 0·61, 95% CI 0·03-1·81). Interpretation: Because older age is associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the benefits of CoronaVac vaccination in older adults outweigh the risks in regions where COVID-19 is prevalent. Ongoing monitoring of vaccine safety is warranted. Funding: The Food and Health Bureau of the Government, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China and AIR@InnoHK, administered by the Innovation and Technology Commission. Translation: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19 Vaccines , Female , Hong Kong , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Virion
7.
EClinicalMedicine ; 50: 101504, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1906956

ABSTRACT

Background: This study aims to evaluate the association between thromboembolic events and hemorrhagic stroke following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccination. Methods: Patients with incident thromboembolic events or hemorrhagic stroke within 28 days of covid-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 positive test during 23 February to 30 September 2021 were included. The incidence per 100,000 covid-19 vaccine doses administered and SARS-CoV-2 test positive cases were estimated. A modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis using the data from the Hong Kong territory-wide electronic health and vaccination records. Seasonal effect was adjusted by month. Findings: A total of 5,526,547 doses of BNT162b2 and 3,146,741 doses of CoronaVac were administered. A total of 334 and 402 thromboembolic events, and 57 and 49 hemorrhagic stroke cases occurred within 28 days after BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccination, respectively. The crude incidence of thromboembolic events and hemorrhagic stroke per 100,000 doses administered for both covid-19 vaccines were smaller than that per 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 test positive cases. The modified SCCS detected an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke in BNT162b2 14-27 days after first dose with adjusted IRR of 2.53 (95% CI 1.48-4.34), and 0-13 days after second dose with adjusted IRR 2.69 (95% CI 1.54-4.69). No statistically significant risk was observed for thromboembolic events for both vaccines. Interpretation: We detected a possible safety signal for hemorrhagic stroke following BNT162b2 vaccination. The incidence of thromboembolic event or hemorrhagic stroke following vaccination is lower than that among SARS-CoV-2 test positive cases; therefore, vaccination against covid-19 remains an important public health intervention. Funding: This study was funded by a research grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (reference COVID19F01).

8.
Elife ; 112022 05 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1856226

ABSTRACT

Evaluating the characteristics of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is essential to inform pandemic risk assessment. A variant may grow faster if it produces a larger number of secondary infections ("R advantage") or if the timing of secondary infections (generation time) is better. So far, assessments have largely focused on deriving the R advantage assuming the generation time was unchanged. Yet, knowledge of both is needed to anticipate the impact. Here, we develop an analytical framework to investigate the contribution of both the R advantage and generation time to the growth advantage of a variant. It is known that selection on a variant with larger R increases with levels of transmission in the community. We additionally show that variants conferring earlier transmission are more strongly favored when the historical strains have fast epidemic growth, while variants conferring later transmission are more strongly favored when historical strains have slow or negative growth. We develop these conceptual insights into a new statistical framework to infer both the R advantage and generation time of a variant. On simulated data, our framework correctly estimates both parameters when it covers time periods characterized by different epidemiological contexts. Applied to data for the Alpha and Delta variants in England and in Europe, we find that Alpha confers a+54% [95% CI, 45-63%] R advantage compared to previous strains, and Delta +140% [98-182%] compared to Alpha, and mean generation times are similar to historical strains for both variants. This work helps interpret variant frequency dynamics and will strengthen risk assessment for future variants of concern.


Mutations in genes of the SARS-CoV-2 virus have generated new variants of concern, like Alpha, Delta, and more recently Omicron. These strains contain genetic modifications that help the virus spread more easily as well as altering the severity of the illness it causes. This has led to rising numbers of infections, known as epidemic waves, in many parts of the world. Tracking new variants of concern is crucial to protecting the public. To do this, scientists monitor how many people one person with the virus can infect, also known as the number of secondary infections. They may also measure when in the course of the illness an individual may pass along the virus to others. Together, these metrics help determine how fast and large an outbreak caused by a new variant will grow. The more people the new variant infects and the quicker it spreads, the more likely it is to replace existing strains of the virus. So far, most studies have assumed that the growth rate of a new variant solely depends on the number of secondary infections, and the timing of secondary infections is often not considered. To address this, Blanquart et al. built a mathematical model that combines both these parameters to determine the growth rate of new viral strains. The model showed that variants which rapidly cause secondary infections have a larger growth advantage over existing strains when the virus is more easily transmitted between individuals and the epidemic spreads rapidly. But when there is less transmission and the epidemic is declining, variants that generate secondary infections after a longer time have an advantage. For example, when control measures like mask wearing or social distancing are in place, delayed secondary infections may be more advantageous. Blanquart et al. then applied their model to data from the Alpha and Delta variant outbreaks in the United Kingdom. They found that Alpha and Delta did not change the timing of secondary infections compared to previously circulating strains. But the Alpha variant had a 54% transmission advantage over previous strains and the Delta variant had a 140% transmission advantage over Alpha. Taken together, these findings suggest that the timing of secondary infections and transmission rates both play an important role in how quickly a virus spreads. The new mathematical model created by Blanquart et al. may help epidemiologists better predict the trajectory of new SARS-CoV-2 variants and determine how to best control their spread.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
9.
BMC Med ; 20(1): 119, 2022 03 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1745454

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Safety after the second dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine remains to be elucidated, especially among individuals reporting adverse events after their first dose. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a delayed second dose on all-cause mortality and emergency services. METHODS: A territory-wide, retrospective cohort of people who had completed two doses of mRNA (BNT162b2) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 (CoronaVac) vaccine between February 23 and July 3, 2021, in Hong Kong was analyzed, with linkage to electronic health records retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Vaccine recipients were classified as receiving a second dose within recommended intervals (21-28 days for BNT162b2; 14-28 days for CoronaVac) or delayed. Study outcomes were all-cause mortality, emergency department (ED) visits, and unscheduled hospitalizations within 28 days after the second dose of vaccination. RESULTS: Among 417,497 BNT162b2 and 354,283 CoronaVac second dose recipients, 3.8% and 28.5% received the second dose beyond the recommended intervals (mean 34.4 and 31.8 days), respectively. During the study period, there were < 5 daily new cases of COVID-19 infections in the community. Delaying the second dose was not associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.185, 95% CI 0.478-2.937, P = 0.714), risk of ED visit (HR = 0.966, 95% CI 0.926-1.008, P = 0.113), and risk of unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 0.956, 95% CI 0.878-1.040, P = 0.294) compared to that within the recommended interval for CoronaVac recipients. No statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality (HR = 4.438, 95% CI 0.951-20.701, P = 0.058), ED visit (HR = 1.037, 95% CI 0.951-1.130, P = 0.411), and unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 1.054, 95% CI 0.867-1.281, P = 0.597) were identified between people who received a second dose of BNT162b2 within and beyond the recommended intervals. CONCLUSIONS: No significant association between delayed second dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac and all-cause mortality, ED visit, and unscheduled hospitalization was observed in the present cohort. Regardless of the recommended or delayed schedule for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, a second dose of both vaccines should be administered to obtain better protection against infection and serious disease. The second dose should be administered within the recommended interval following the manufacturer's product information, until further studies support the benefits of delaying vaccination outweighing the risks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Emergency Service, Hospital , Hospitalization , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
10.
Vaccine ; 40(10): 1390-1396, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1671277

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: CoronaVac (Sinovac) Covid-19 vaccine has recently been approved for emergency use by the World Health Organization. However, data on its reactogenicity in real-world settings is scant. This study aimed to compare self-reported post-vaccination adverse reactions between CoronaVac and Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech). METHODS: We adopted a prospective cohort study design using online surveys from the day of first-dose vaccination with intensive follow-up through two weeks after the second dose (11 time points). The primary outcome was adverse reactions (any versus none) and secondary outcomes were the sub-categories of adverse reactions (local, systemic, and severe allergic reactions). Potential effect modification across multimorbidity status, older age, and sex was examined. RESULTS: In total, 2,098 participants who were scheduled to complete the 14th-day survey were included, with 46.2% receiving Comirnaty. Retention rate two weeks after the second dose was 81.0% for the CoronaVac group and 83.6% for the Comirnaty group. Throughout the follow-up period, 801 (82.7%) of those receiving Comirnaty and 543 (48.1%) of those receiving CoronaVac reported adverse reactions. Adjusted analysis suggested that compared with Comirnaty, CoronaVac was associated with 83%-reduced odds of any adverse reactions [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.20], 92%-reduced odds of local adverse reactions (AOR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.06-0.09), and 76%-reduced odds of systemic adverse reactions (AOR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.16-0.28). No significant effect modification was identified. CONCLUSION: This post-marketing study comparing the reactogenicity of Covid-19 vaccines suggests a lower risk of self-reported adverse reactions following vaccination with CoronaVac compared with Comirnaty.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report
11.
Lancet Reg Health West Pac ; 21: 100393, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1665253

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Stimulation of immunity by vaccination may elicit adverse events. There is currently inconclusive evidence on the relationship between herpes zoster related hospitalization and COVID-19 vaccination. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of inactivated virus (CoronaVac, Sinovac) and mRNA (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Fosun Pharma) COVID-19 vaccine on the risk of herpes zoster related hospitalization. METHODS: Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis was conducted using the data from the electronic health records in Hospital Authority and COVID-19 vaccination records in the Department of Health in Hong Kong. We conducted the SCCS analysis including patients with a first primary diagnosis of herpes zoster in the hospital inpatient setting between February 23 and July 31, 2021. A confirmatory analysis by nested case-control method was also conducted. Each herpes zoster case was randomly matched with ten controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, and date of hospital admission. Conditional Poisson regression and logistic regression models were used to assess the potential excess rates of herpes zoster after vaccination. FINDINGS: From February 23 to July 31, 2021, a total of 16 and 27 patients were identified with a first primary hospital diagnosis of herpes zoster within 28 days after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations. The incidence of herpes zoster was 7.9 (95% Confidence interval [CI]: 5.2-11.5) for CoronaVac and 7.1 (95% CI: 4.1-11.5) for BNT162b2 per 1,000,000 doses administered. In SCCS analysis, CoronaVac vaccination was associated with significantly higher risk of herpes zoster within 14 days after first dose (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]=2.67, 95% CI: 1.08-6.59) but not in other periods afterwards compared to the baseline period. Regarding BNT162b2 vaccination, a significantly increased risk of herpes zoster was observed after first dose up to 14 days after second dose (0-13 days after first dose: aIRR=5.23, 95% CI: 1.61-17.03; 14-27 days after first dose: aIRR=5.82, 95% CI: 1.62-20.91; 0-13 days after second dose: aIRR=5.14, 95% CI: 1.29-20.47). Using these relative rates, we estimated that there has been an excess of approximately 5 and 7 cases of hospitalization as a result of herpes zoster after every 1,000,000 doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccination, respectively. The findings in the nested case control analysis showed similar results. INTERPRETATION: We identified an increased risk of herpes zoster related hospitalization after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations. However, the absolute risks of such adverse event after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations were very low. In locations where COVID-19 is prevalent, the protective effects on COVID-19 from vaccinations will greatly outweigh the potential side effects of vaccination. FUNDING: The project was funded by Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ref. No.COVID19F01). FTTL (Francisco Tsz Tsun Lai) and ICKW (Ian Chi Kei Wong)'s posts were partly funded by D24H; hence this work was partly supported by AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission.

12.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(1): 64-72, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1599084

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Bell's palsy is a rare adverse event reported in clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines. However, to our knowledge no population-based study has assessed the association between the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and Bell's palsy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of Bell's palsy after BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccination. METHODS: In this case series and nested case-control study done in Hong Kong, we assessed the risk of Bell's palsy within 42 days following vaccination with BNT162b2 (Fosun-BioNTech [equivalent to Pfizer-BioNTech]) or CoronaVac (from Sinovac Biotech, Hong Kong) using data from voluntary surveillance reporting with the Hospital Authority, the COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Event Online Reporting system for all health-care professionals, and the Hospital Authority's territory-wide electronic health records from the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System. We described reported cases of Bell's palsy among vaccine recipients (aged 18-110 years for CoronaVac and aged 16-110 years for BNT162b2). We compared the estimated age-standardised incidence of clinically confirmed cases among individuals who had received the CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccination (up to 42 days before presentation) with the background incidence in the population. A nested case-control study was also done using conditional logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) for risk of Bell's palsy and vaccination. Cases and controls were matched (1:4) by age, sex, admission setting, and admission date. FINDINGS: Between February 23 and May 4, 2021, 451 939 individuals received the first dose of CoronaVac and 537 205 individuals received the first dose of BNT162b2. 28 clinically confirmed cases of Bell's palsy were reported following CoronaVac and 16 cases were reported following BNT162b2. The age-standardised incidence of clinically confirmed Bell's palsy was 66·9 cases per 100 000 person-years (95% CI 37·2 to 96·6) following CoronaVac vaccination and 42·8 per 100 000 person-years (19·4 to 66·1) for BNT162b2 vaccination. The age-standardised difference for the incidence compared with the background population was 41·5 (95% CI 11·7 to 71·4) for CoronaVac and 17·0 (-6·6 to 40·6) for BNT162b2, equivalent to an additional 4·8 cases per 100 000 people vaccinated for CoronaVac and 2·0 cases per 100 000 people vaccinated for BNT162b2. In the nested case-control analysis, 298 cases were matched to 1181 controls, and the adjusted ORs were 2·385 (95% CI 1·415 to 4·022) for CoronaVac and 1·755 (0·886 to 3·477) for BNT162b2. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest an overall increased risk of Bell's palsy after CoronaVac vaccination. However, the beneficial and protective effects of the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine far outweigh the risk of this generally self-limiting adverse event. Additional studies are needed in other regions to confirm our findings. FUNDING: The Food and Health Bureau of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
BNT162 Vaccine/adverse effects , Bell Palsy/etiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination/adverse effects , Vaccines, Inactivated/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bell Palsy/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Population , Young Adult
13.
Pathogens ; 10(11)2021 Nov 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1524101

ABSTRACT

Guangdong province, located in South China, is an important economic hub with a large domestic migrant population and was among the earliest areas to report COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan. We conducted a cross-sectional, age-stratified serosurvey to determine the seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after the emergence of COVID-19 in Guangdong. We tested 14,629 residual serum samples that were submitted for clinical testing from 21 prefectures between March and June 2020 for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using a magnetic particle based chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay and validated the results using a pseudovirus neutralization assay. We found 21 samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG, resulting in an estimated age- and sex-weighted seroprevalence of 0.15% (95% CI: 0.06-0.24%). The overall age-specific seroprevalence was 0.07% (95% CI: 0.01-0.24%) in persons up to 9 years old, 0.22% (95% CI: 0.03-0.79%) in persons aged 10-19, 0.16% (95% CI: 0.07-0.33%) in persons aged 20-39, 0.13% (95% CI: 0.03-0.33%) in persons aged 40-59 and 0.18% (95% CI: 0.07-0.40%) in persons ≥60 years old. Fourteen (67%) samples had pseudovirus neutralization titers to S-protein, suggesting most of the IgG-positive samples were true-positives. Seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was low, indicating that there were no hidden epidemics during this period. Vaccination is urgently needed to increase population immunity to SARS-CoV-2.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL