Myocarditis and myopericarditis cases following COVID-19 mRNA vaccines administered to 12–17-year olds in Victoria, Australia

Importance COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated myocarditis has previously been described;however specific features in the adolescent population are currently not well understood. Objective To describe myocarditis adverse events following immunisation reported following any COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in the adolescent population in Victoria, Australia. Design Statewide, population-based study. Setting Surveillance of Adverse Events Following Vaccination in the Community (SAEFVIC) is the vaccine-safety service for Victoria, Australia. Participants All SAEFVIC reports of myocarditis and myopericarditis in 12–17-year-old COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees submitted between 22 February 2021 and 22 February 2022, as well as accompanying diagnostic investigation results where available, were assessed using Brighton Collaboration criteria for diagnostic certainty. Exposures Any mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Main outcomes/Mmeasure Confirmed myocarditis as per Brighton Collaboration criteria (levels 1–3). Results Clinical review demonstrated definitive (Brighton level 1) or probable (level 2) diagnoses in 75 cases. Confirmed myocarditis reporting rates were 8.3 per 100 000 doses in this age group. Cases were predominantly male (n=62, 82.7%) and post dose 2 (n=61, 81.3%). Rates peaked in the 16–17-year-old age group and were higher in males than females (17.7 vs 3.9 per 100 000, p=<0.001). The most common presenting symptoms were chest pain, dyspnoea and palpitations. A large majority of cases who had a cardiac MRI had abnormalities (n=33, 91.7%). Females were more likely to have ongoing clinical symptoms at 1-month follow-up (p=0.02). Conclusion Accurate evaluation and confirmation of episodes of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated myocarditis enabled understanding of clinical phenotypes in the adolescent age group. Any potential vaccination and safety surveillance policies needs to consider age and gender differences.

Bio-Ethics and One Health: A Case Study Approach to Building Reflexive Governance.

Surveillance programs supporting the management of One Health issues such as antibiotic resistance are complex systems in themselves. Designing ethical surveillance systems is thus a complex task (retroactive and iterative), yet one that is also complicated to implement and evaluate (e.g., sharing, collaboration, and governance). The governance of health surveillance requires attention to ethical concerns about data and knowledge (e.g., performance, trust, accountability, and transparency) and empowerment ethics, also referred to as a form of responsible self-governance. Ethics in reflexive governance operates as a systematic critical-thinking procedure that aims to define its value: What are the "right" criteria to justify how to govern "good" actions for a "better" future? The objective is to lay the foundations for a methodological framework in empirical bioethics, the rudiments of which have been applied to a case study to building reflexive governance in One Health. This ongoing critical thinking process involves "mapping, framing, and shaping" the dynamics of interests and perspectives that could jeopardize a "better" future. This paper proposes to hybridize methods to combine insights from collective deliberation and expert evaluation through a reflexive governance functioning as a community-based action-ethics methodology. The intention is to empower individuals and associations in a dialogue with society, which operation is carried out using a case study approach on data sharing systems. We based our reasoning on a feasibility study conducted in Québec, Canada (2018-2021), envisioning an antibiotic use surveillance program in animal health for 2023. Using the adaptive cycle and governance techniques and perspectives, we synthesize an alternative governance model rooted in the value of empowerment. The framework, depicted as a new "research and design (R&D)" practice, is linking operation and innovation by bridging the gap between Reflexive, Evaluative, and Deliberative reasonings and by intellectualizing the management of democratizing critical thinking locally (collective ethics) by recognizing its context (social ethics). Drawing on the literature in One Health and sustainable development studies, this article describes how a communitarian and pragmatic approach can broaden the vision of feasibility studies to ease collaboration through public-private-academic partnerships. The result is a process that "reassembles" the One Health paradigm under the perspective of global bioethics to create bridges between the person and the ecosystem through pragmatic ethics.

COVID-19 and Moral Imperialism in Multinational Clinical Research.

A TV debate in April 2020 between two French doctors regarding the benefits of testing a coronavirus vaccine in Africa where there are no masks or treatments available has led to international criticism. This case highlights a problematic ethical double standard in multinational clinical research: trials that would be considered unethical in high income countries (e.g., placebo-controlled where there is an existing treatment) are nonetheless justified in low-and-middle-income countries because the existing standards of care are less (i.e., no access to a treatment). Underlying this ethical double standard in some multinational clinical trials is a moral imperialism and persistent colonialist thinking that must be rejected.