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).
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 ReportABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Although clinical data have shown that the BNT162b2 vaccine, which is widely used in many countries, is safe and effective as a protection against the SARS-CoV-2 infection, extant research in adverse reactions using real-world data of various sociodemographic characteristics is scant. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study to compare age differences in self-reported reactogenicity of BNT162b2 in Hong Kong. A total of 1,516 participants were intensively followed up for two weeks following both doses of BNT162b2 vaccination, during which their basic demographic, health conditions, and medication information were collected. RESULTS: Results from the generalized mixed model showed that compared with adults aged 18 to 59 years, older adults aged 60 years or above had a lower risk of adverse reactions and adolescents aged 12 to 17 years had a moderately higher risk. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study should be informative to parents considering BNT162b2 vaccination for their children in that moderately increased reactogenicity compared with adults is anticipated.