Characterising the treatment of thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination in 4 European countries and the US: An international network cohort study.

Background: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) has been identified as a rare adverse event following some COVID-19 vaccines. Various guidelines have been issued on the treatment of TTS. We aimed to characterize the treatment of TTS and other thromboembolic events (venous thromboembolism (VTE), and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) after COVID-19 vaccination and compared to historical (pre-vaccination) data in Europe and the US. Methods: We conducted an international network cohort study using 8 primary care, outpatient, and inpatient databases from France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, The United Kingdom, and The United States. We investigated treatment pathways after the diagnosis of TTS, VTE, or ATE for a pre-vaccination (background) cohort (01/2017-11/2020), and a vaccinated cohort of people followed for 28 days after a dose of any COVID-19 vaccine recorded from 12/2020 onwards). Results: Great variability was observed in the proportion of people treated (with any recommended therapy) across databases, both before and after vaccination. Most patients with TTS received heparins, platelet aggregation inhibitors, or direct Xa inhibitors. The majority of VTE patients (before and after vaccination) were first treated with heparins in inpatient settings and direct Xa inhibitors in outpatient settings. In ATE patients, treatments were also similar before and after vaccinations, with platelet aggregation inhibitors prescribed most frequently. Inpatient and claims data also showed substantial heparin use. Conclusion: TTS, VTE, and ATE after COVID-19 vaccination were treated similarly to background events. Heparin use post-vaccine TTS suggests most events were not identified as vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia by the treating clinicians.

Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in Catalonia, Spain.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Here we compare rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with the background (expected) rates in the general population. In addition, we compare the rates of the same adverse events among persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 with background rates. Primary care and linked hospital data from Catalonia, Spain informed the study, with participants vaccinated with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (27/12/2020-23/06/2021), COVID-19 cases (01/09/2020-23/06/2021) or present in the database as of 01/01/2017. We included 2,021,366 BNT162b2 (1,327,031 with 2 doses), 592,408 ChAdOx1, 174,556 COVID-19 cases, and 4,573,494 background participants. Standardised incidence ratios for venous thromboembolism were 1.18 (95% CI 1.06-1.32) and 0.92 (0.81-1.05) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, and 0.92 (0.71-1.18) after first dose ChAdOx1. The standardised incidence ratio for venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 was 10.19 (9.43-11.02). Standardised incidence ratios for arterial thromboembolism were 1.02 (0.95-1.09) and 1.04 (0.97-1.12) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.06 (0.91-1.23) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.13 (3.83-4.45) for COVID-19. Standardised incidence ratios for thrombocytopenia were 1.49 (1.43-1.54) and 1.40 (1.35-1.45) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.28 (1.19-1.38) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.59 (4.41- 4.77) for COVID-19. While rates of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia were generally similar to background rates, the standardised incidence ratio for pulmonary embolism with thrombocytopenia after first-dose BNT162b2 was 1.70 (1.11-2.61). These findings suggest that the safety profiles of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 are similar, with rates of adverse events seen after vaccination typically similar to background rates. Meanwhile, rates of adverse events are much increased for COVID-19 cases further underlining the importance of vaccination.

Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the United Kingdom.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Using data from the United Kingdom, here we compare observed rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and infection with SARS-CoV-2 with background (expected) rates in the general population. First and second dose cohorts for ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 between 8 December 2020 and 2 May 2021 in the United Kingdom were identified. A further cohort consisted of people with no prior COVID-19 vaccination who were infected with SARS-Cov-2 identified by a first positive PCR test between 1 September 2020 and 2 May 2021. The fourth general population cohort for background rates included those people in the database as of 1 January 2017. In total, we included 3,768,517 ChAdOx1 and 1,832,841 BNT162b2 vaccinees, 401,691 people infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 9,414,403 people from the general population. An increased risk of venous thromboembolism was seen after first dose of ChAdOx1 (standardized incidence ratio: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.20]), BNT162b2 (1.12 [1.03 to 1.21]), and positive PCR test (7.27 [6.86 to 7.72]). Rates of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis were higher than otherwise expected after first dose of ChAdOx1 (4.14 [2.54 to 6.76]) and a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (3.74 [1.56 to 8.98]). Rates of arterial thromboembolism after vaccination were no higher than expected but were increased after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (1.39 [1.21 to 1.61]). Rates of venous thromboembolism with thrombocytopenia were higher than expected after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (5.76 [3.19 to 10.40]).

Comparative risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or thromboembolic events associated with different covid-19 vaccines: international network cohort study from five European countries and the US.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the comparative risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or thromboembolic events associated with use of adenovirus based covid-19 vaccines versus mRNA based covid-19 vaccines. DESIGN: International network cohort study. SETTING: Routinely collected health data from contributing datasets in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the US. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (age ≥18 years) registered at any contributing database and who received at least one dose of a covid-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), or Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson)), from December 2020 to mid-2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or venous or arterial thromboembolic events within the 28 days after covid-19 vaccination. Incidence rate ratios were estimated after propensity scores matching and were calibrated using negative control outcomes. Estimates specific to the database were pooled by use of random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 1 332 719 of 3 829 822 first dose ChAdOx1-S recipients were matched to 2 124 339 of 2 149 679 BNT162b2 recipients from Germany and the UK. Additionally, 762 517 of 772 678 people receiving Ad26.COV2.S were matched to 2 851 976 of 7 606 693 receiving BNT162b2 in Germany, Spain, and the US. All 628 164 Ad26.COV2.S recipients from the US were matched to 2 230 157 of 3 923 371 mRNA-1273 recipients. A total of 862 thrombocytopenia events were observed in the matched first dose ChAdOx1-S recipients from Germany and the UK, and 520 events after a first dose of BNT162b2. Comparing ChAdOx1-S with a first dose of BNT162b2 revealed an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (pooled calibrated incidence rate ratio 1.33 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.50) and calibrated incidence rate difference of 1.18 (0.57 to 1.8) per 1000 person years). Additionally, a pooled calibrated incidence rate ratio of 2.26 (0.93 to 5.52) for venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome was seen with Ad26.COV2.S compared with BNT162b2. CONCLUSIONS: In this multinational study, a pooled 30% increased risk of thrombocytopenia after a first dose of the ChAdOx1-S vaccine was observed, as was a trend towards an increased risk of venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after Ad26.COV2.S compared with BNT162b2. Although rare, the observed risks after adenovirus based vaccines should be considered when planning further immunisation campaigns and future vaccine development.

Factors Influencing Background Incidence Rate Calculation: Systematic Empirical Evaluation Across an International Network of Observational Databases.

Objective: Background incidence rates are routinely used in safety studies to evaluate an association of an exposure and outcome. Systematic research on sensitivity of rates to the choice of the study parameters is lacking. Materials and Methods: We used 12 data sources to systematically examine the influence of age, race, sex, database, time-at-risk, season and year, prior observation and clean window on incidence rates using 15 adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines as an example. For binary comparisons we calculated incidence rate ratios and performed random-effect meta-analysis. Results: We observed a wide variation of background rates that goes well beyond age and database effects previously observed. While rates vary up to a factor of 1,000 across age groups, even after adjusting for age and sex, the study showed residual bias due to the other parameters. Rates were highly influenced by the choice of anchoring (e.g., health visit, vaccination, or arbitrary date) for the time-at-risk start. Anchoring on a healthcare encounter yielded higher incidence comparing to a random date, especially for short time-at-risk. Incidence rates were highly influenced by the choice of the database (varying by up to a factor of 100), clean window choice and time-at-risk duration, and less so by secular or seasonal trends. Conclusion: Comparing background to observed rates requires appropriate adjustment and careful time-at-risk start and duration choice. Results should be interpreted in the context of study parameter choices.

Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50.

Although pivotal trials with varying populations and study methods suggest higher efficacy for mRNA than adenoviral Covid-19 vaccines, not many studies have directly compared vaccine effectiveness in the population. Here, we conduct a head-to-head comparison of BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 against Covid-19. We analyse 235,181 UK Biobank participants aged 50 years or older and vaccinated with one or two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. People are followed from the vaccination date until 18/10/2021. Inverse probability weighting is used to minimise confounding and the Cox models to derive hazard ratio. We find that, compared with one dose of ChAdOx1, vaccination with BNT162b2 is associated with a 28% (95% CI, 12-42) decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Also, two doses of BNT162b2 vs ChAdOx1 confers 30% (95% CI, 25-35) and 29% (95% CI, 10-45) lower risks of both infection and hospitalisation during the study period when the Delta variant is dominant. Furthermore, the comparative protection against the infection persists for at least six months among the fully vaccinated, suggesting no differential waning between the two vaccines. These findings can inform evidence-based Covid-19 vaccination campaigns and booster strategies.

Association between covid-19 vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and risk of immune mediated neurological events: population based cohort and self-controlled case series analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To study the association between covid-19 vaccines, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and risk of immune mediated neurological events. DESIGN: Population based historical rate comparison study and self-controlled case series analysis. SETTING: Primary care records from the United Kingdom, and primary care records from Spain linked to hospital data. PARTICIPANTS: 8 330 497 people who received at least one dose of covid-19 vaccines ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or Ad.26.COV2.S between the rollout of the vaccination campaigns and end of data availability (UK: 9 May 2021; Spain: 30 June 2021). The study sample also comprised a cohort of 735 870 unvaccinated individuals with a first positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test result for SARS-CoV-2 from 1 September 2020, and 14 330 080 participants from the general population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were incidence of Bell's palsy, encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and transverse myelitis. Incidence rates were estimated in the 21 days after the first vaccine dose, 90 days after a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, and between 2017 and 2019 for background rates in the general population cohort. Indirectly standardised incidence ratios were estimated. Adjusted incidence rate ratios were estimated from the self-controlled case series. RESULTS: The study included 4 376 535 people who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 3 588 318 who received BNT162b2, 244 913 who received mRNA-1273, and 120 731 who received Ad26.CoV.2; 735 870 people with SARS-CoV-2 infection; and 14 330 080 people from the general population. Overall, post-vaccine rates were consistent with expected (background) rates for Bell's palsy, encephalomyelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Self-controlled case series was conducted only for Bell's palsy, given limited statistical power, but with no safety signal seen for those vaccinated. Rates were, however, higher than expected after SARS-CoV-2 infection. For example, in the data from the UK, the standardised incidence ratio for Bell's palsy was 1.33 (1.02 to 1.74), for encephalomyelitis was 6.89 (3.82 to 12.44), and for Guillain-Barré syndrome was 3.53 (1.83 to 6.77). Transverse myelitis was rare (<5 events in all vaccinated cohorts) and could not be analysed. CONCLUSIONS: No safety signal was observed between covid-19 vaccines and the immune mediated neurological events of Bell's palsy, encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and transverse myelitis. An increased risk of Bell's palsy, encephalomyelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome was, however, observed for people with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The impact of prioritisation and dosing intervals on the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in Europe: an agent-based cohort model.

Different strategies have been used to maximise the effect of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in Europe. We modelled the impact of different prioritisation choices and dose intervals on infections, hospitalisations, mortality, and public health restrictions. An agent-based model was built to quantify the impact of different vaccination strategies over 6 months. Input parameters were derived from published phase 3 trials and official European figures. We explored the effect of prioritising vulnerable people, care-home staff and residents, versus contagious groups; and the impact of dose intervals ranging from 3 to 12 weeks. Prioritising vulnerable people, rather than the most contagious, led to higher numbers of COVID-19 infections, whilst reducing mortality, hospital admissions, and public health restrictions. At a realistic vaccination speed of ≤ 0·1% population/day, separating doses by 12 weeks (vs a baseline scenario of 3 weeks) reduced hospitalisations, mortality, and restrictions for vaccines with similar first- and second-dose efficacy (e.g., the Oxford-AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines), but not for those with lower first vs second-dose efficacy (e.g., the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine). Mass vaccination will dramatically reduce the effect of COVID-19 on Europe's health and economy. Early vaccination of vulnerable populations will reduce mortality, hospitalisations, and public health restrictions compared to prioritisation of the most contagious people. The choice of interval between doses should be based on expected vaccine availability and first-dose efficacy, with 12-week intervals preferred over shorter intervals in most realistic scenarios.

Associations of BNT162b2 vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospital admission and death with covid-19 in nursing homes and healthcare workers in Catalonia: prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine associations of BNT162b2 vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospital admission and death with covid-19 among nursing home residents, nursing home staff, and healthcare workers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Nursing homes and linked electronic medical record, test, and mortality data in Catalonia on 27 December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 28 456 nursing home residents, 26 170 nursing home staff, and 61 791 healthcare workers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were followed until the earliest outcome (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission or death with covid-19) or 26 May 2021. Vaccination status was introduced as a time varying exposure, with a 14 day run-in after the first dose. Mixed effects Cox models were fitted to estimate hazard ratios with index month as a fixed effect and adjusted for confounders including sociodemographics, comorbidity, and previous medicine use. RESULTS: Among the nursing home residents, SARS-CoV-2 infection was found in 2482, 411 were admitted to hospital with covid-19, and 450 died with covid-19 during the study period. In parallel, 1828 nursing home staff and 2968 healthcare workers were found to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, but fewer than five were admitted or died with covid-19. The adjusted hazard ratio for SARS-CoV-2 infection after two doses of vaccine was 0.09 (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.11) for nursing home residents, 0.20 (0.17 to 0.24) for nursing home staff, and 0.13 (0.11 to 0.16) for healthcare workers. Adjusted hazard ratios for hospital admission and mortality after two doses of vaccine were 0.05 (0.04 to 0.07) and 0.03 (0.02 to 0.04), respectively, for nursing home residents. Nursing home staff and healthcare workers recorded insufficient events for mortality analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination was associated with 80-91% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection in all three cohorts and greater reductions in hospital admissions and mortality among nursing home residents for up to five months. More data are needed on longer term effects of covid-19 vaccines.

Characterising the background incidence rates of adverse events of special interest for covid-19 vaccines in eight countries: multinational network cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the background incidence rates of 15 prespecified adverse events of special interest (AESIs) associated with covid-19 vaccines. DESIGN: Multinational network cohort study. SETTING: Electronic health records and health claims data from eight countries: Australia, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, mapped to a common data model. PARTICIPANTS: 126 661 070 people observed for at least 365 days before 1 January 2017, 2018, or 2019 from 13 databases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Events of interests were 15 prespecified AESIs (non-haemorrhagic and haemorrhagic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, anaphylaxis, Bell's palsy, myocarditis or pericarditis, narcolepsy, appendicitis, immune thrombocytopenia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis (including acute disseminated encephalomyelitis), Guillain-Barré syndrome, and transverse myelitis). Incidence rates of AESIs were stratified by age, sex, and database. Rates were pooled across databases using random effects meta-analyses and classified according to the frequency categories of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. RESULTS: Background rates varied greatly between databases. Deep vein thrombosis ranged from 387 (95% confidence interval 370 to 404) per 100 000 person years in UK CPRD GOLD data to 1443 (1416 to 1470) per 100 000 person years in US IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid data among women aged 65 to 74 years. Some AESIs increased with age. For example, myocardial infarction rates in men increased from 28 (27 to 29) per 100 000 person years among those aged 18-34 years to 1400 (1374 to 1427) per 100 000 person years in those older than 85 years in US Optum electronic health record data. Other AESIs were more common in young people. For example, rates of anaphylaxis among boys and men were 78 (75 to 80) per 100 000 person years in those aged 6-17 years and 8 (6 to 10) per 100 000 person years in those older than 85 years in Optum electronic health record data. Meta-analytic estimates of AESI rates were classified according to age and sex. CONCLUSION: This study found large variations in the observed rates of AESIs by age group and sex, showing the need for stratification or standardisation before using background rates for safety surveillance. Considerable population level heterogeneity in AESI rates was found between databases.

The DIOS framework for optimizing infectious disease surveillance: Numerical methods for simulation and multi-objective optimization of surveillance network architectures.

Infectious disease surveillance systems provide vital data for guiding disease prevention and control policies, yet the formalization of methods to optimize surveillance networks has largely been overlooked. Decisions surrounding surveillance design parameters-such as the number and placement of surveillance sites, target populations, and case definitions-are often determined by expert opinion or deference to operational considerations, without formal analysis of the influence of design parameters on surveillance objectives. Here we propose a simulation framework to guide evidence-based surveillance network design to better achieve specific surveillance goals with limited resources. We define evidence-based surveillance design as an optimization problem, acknowledging the many operational constraints under which surveillance systems operate, the many dimensions of surveillance system design, the multiple and competing goals of surveillance, and the complex and dynamic nature of disease systems. We describe an analytical framework-the Disease Surveillance Informatics Optimization and Simulation (DIOS) framework-for the identification of optimal surveillance designs through mathematical representations of disease and surveillance processes, definition of objective functions, and numerical optimization. We then apply the framework to the problem of selecting candidate sites to expand an existing surveillance network under alternative objectives of: (1) improving spatial prediction of disease prevalence at unmonitored sites; or (2) estimating the observed effect of a risk factor on disease. Results of this demonstration illustrate how optimal designs are sensitive to both surveillance goals and the underlying spatial pattern of the target disease. The findings affirm the value of designing surveillance systems through quantitative and adaptive analysis of network characteristics and performance. The framework can be applied to the design of surveillance systems tailored to setting-specific disease transmission dynamics and surveillance needs, and can yield improved understanding of tradeoffs between network architectures.

Revealing Opinions for COVID-19 Questions Using a Context Retriever, Opinion Aggregator, and Question-Answering Model: Model Development Study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has challenged global public health because it is highly contagious and can be lethal. Numerous ongoing and recently published studies about the disease have emerged. However, the research regarding COVID-19 is largely ongoing and inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: A potential way to accelerate COVID-19 research is to use existing information gleaned from research into other viruses that belong to the coronavirus family. Our objective is to develop a natural language processing method for answering factoid questions related to COVID-19 using published articles as knowledge sources. METHODS: Given a question, first, a BM25-based context retriever model is implemented to select the most relevant passages from previously published articles. Second, for each selected context passage, an answer is obtained using a pretrained bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) question-answering model. Third, an opinion aggregator, which is a combination of a biterm topic model and k-means clustering, is applied to the task of aggregating all answers into several opinions. RESULTS: We applied the proposed pipeline to extract answers, opinions, and the most frequent words related to six questions from the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset Challenge. By showing the longitudinal distributions of the opinions, we uncovered the trends of opinions and popular words in the articles published in the five time periods assessed: before 1990, 1990-1999, 2000-2009, 2010-2018, and since 2019. The changes in opinions and popular words agree with several distinct characteristics and challenges of COVID-19, including a higher risk for senior people and people with pre-existing medical conditions; high contagion and rapid transmission; and a more urgent need for screening and testing. The opinions and popular words also provide additional insights for the COVID-19-related questions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other methods of literature retrieval and answer generation, opinion aggregation using our method leads to more interpretable, robust, and comprehensive question-specific literature reviews. The results demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed method in answering COVID-19-related questions with main opinions and capturing the trends of research about COVID-19 and other relevant strains of coronavirus in recent years.