Vascular thrombosis after single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine in healthcare workers in South Africa: open label, single arm, phase 3B study (Sisonke study).

Objective: To assess the rates of vascular thrombotic adverse events in the first 35 days after one dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) in healthcare workers in South Africa and to compare these rates with those observed in the general population. Design: Open label, single arm, phase 3B study. Setting: Sisonke study, South Africa, 17 February to 15 June 2021. Participants: The Sisonke cohort of 477 234 healthcare workers, aged ≥18 years, who received one dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. Main outcome measures: Observed rates of venous arterial thromboembolism and vaccine induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis in individuals who were vaccinated, compared with expected rates, based on age and sex specific background rates from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database (database of longitudinal routinely collected electronic health records from UK primary care practices using Vision general practice patient management software). Results: Most of the study participants were women (74.9%) and median age was 42 years (interquartile range 33-51). Twenty nine (30.6 per 100 000 person years, 95% confidence interval 20.5 to 44.0) vascular thrombotic events occurred at a median of 14 days (7-29) after vaccination. Of these 29 participants, 93.1% were women, median age 46 (37-55) years, and 51.7% had comorbidities. The observed to expected ratios for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia and pulmonary embolism with thrombocytopenia were 10.6 (95% confidence interval 0.3 to 58.8) and 1.2 (0.1 to 6.5), respectively. Because of the small number of adverse events and wide confidence intervals, no conclusions were drawn between these estimates and the expected incidence rates in the population. Conclusions: Vaccine induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis after one dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was found in only a few patients in this South African population of healthcare workers. These findings are reassuring if considered in terms of the beneficial effects of vaccination against covid-19 disease. These data support the continued use of this vaccine, but surveillance is recommended to identify other incidences of venous and arterial thromboembolism and to improve confidence in the data estimates. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04838795.

Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine in health-care workers in South Africa (the Sisonke study): results from a single-arm, open-label, phase 3B, implementation study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a single dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Johnson & Johnson) in health-care workers in South Africa during two waves of the South African COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS: In the single-arm, open-label, phase 3B implementation Sisonke study, health-care workers aged 18 years and older were invited for vaccination at one of 122 vaccination sites nationally. Participants received a single dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. Vaccinated participants were linked with their person-level data from one of two national medical insurance schemes (scheme A and scheme B) and matched for COVID-19 risk with an unvaccinated member of the general population. The primary outcome was vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19, defined as COVID-19-related admission to hospital, hospitalisation requiring critical or intensive care, or death, in health-care workers compared with the general population, ascertained 28 days or more after vaccination or matching, up to data cutoff. This study is registered with the South African National Clinical Trial Registry, DOH-27-022021-6844, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04838795, and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR202102855526180, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 17 and May 17, 2021, 477 102 health-care workers were enrolled and vaccinated, of whom 357 401 (74·9%) were female and 119 701 (25·1%) were male, with a median age of 42·0 years (33·0-51·0). 215 813 vaccinated individuals were matched with 215 813 unvaccinated individuals. As of data cutoff (July 17, 2021), vaccine effectiveness derived from the total matched cohort was 83% (95% CI 75-89) to prevent COVID-19-related deaths, 75% (69-82) to prevent COVID-19-related hospital admissions requiring critical or intensive care, and 67% (62-71) to prevent COVID-19-related hospitalisations. The vaccine effectiveness for all three outcomes were consistent across scheme A and scheme B. The vaccine effectiveness was maintained in older health-care workers and those with comorbidities including HIV infection. During the course of the study, the beta (B.1.351) and then the delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variants of concerns were dominant, and vaccine effectiveness remained consistent (for scheme A plus B vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospital admission during beta wave was 62% [95% CI 42-76] and during delta wave was 67% [62-71], and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related death during beta wave was 86% [57-100] and during delta wave was 82% [74-89]). INTERPRETATION: The single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine shows effectiveness against severe COVID-19 disease and COVID-19-related death after vaccination, and against both beta and delta variants, providing real-world evidence for its use globally. FUNDING: National Treasury of South Africa, the National Department of Health, Solidarity Response Fund NPC, The Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, The Elma Vaccines and Immunization Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Allergic reactions to the Ad26.COV2.S Vaccine in South Africa

Background The Janssen-Ad26.COV2.S vaccine is authorised for use in several countries with over 30 million doses administered. Mild and severe allergic adverse events following immunisation(AEFI) have been reported. The aim of this report is to detail allergic reactions reported during the Sisonke phase 3B study in South Africa. Methods A single-dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was administered to 477234 South African Healthcare Workers between 17 February and 17 May 2021. Monitoring of adverse events used a combination of passive reporting and active case finding. Telephonic contact was attempted for all adverse events reported as “allergy”. Anaphylaxis adjudication was performed using the Brighton Collaboration (BCC) and NIAID case definitions. Results Only 251(0.052%) patients reported any allergic-type reaction(less than 1 in 2000), with four cases of adjudicated anaphylaxis (BCC level 1, n=3)(prevalence of 8.4 per million doses). All anaphylaxis cases had a prior history of drug or vaccine-associated anaphylaxis. Cutaneous allergic reactions were the commonest non-anaphylatic reactions and included: self-limiting, transient/localised rashes requiring no healthcare contact(n=92);or isolated urticaria and/or angioedema[n=70 median onset 48(IQR 11.5-120) hours post vaccination] that necessitated healthcare contact(81%), antihistamine(63%), and/or systemic/topical corticosteroid(16%). All immediate (including adjudicated anaphylaxis) and the majority of delayed AEFI(65/69) cases resolved completely. Conclusions Allergic AEFI are rare following a single-dose of Ad26.COV with complete resolution in all cases of anaphylaxis. Though rare, isolated, delayed onset urticaria and/or angioedema was the commonest allergic AEFI requiring treatment, with nearly half occurring in participants without known atopic disease.

The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management and course of chronic urticaria.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically disrupts health care around the globe. The impact of the pandemic on chronic urticaria (CU) and its management are largely unknown. AIM: To understand how CU patients are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; how specialists alter CU patient management; and the course of CU in patients with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our cross-sectional, international, questionnaire-based, multicenter UCARE COVID-CU study assessed the impact of the pandemic on patient consultations, remote treatment, changes in medications, and clinical consequences. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic severely impairs CU patient care, with less than 50% of the weekly numbers of patients treated as compared to before the pandemic. Reduced patient referrals and clinic hours were the major reasons. Almost half of responding UCARE physicians were involved in COVID-19 patient care, which negatively impacted on the care of urticaria patients. The rate of face-to-face consultations decreased by 62%, from 90% to less than half, whereas the rate of remote consultations increased by more than 600%, from one in 10 to more than two thirds. Cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroids, but not antihistamines or omalizumab, are used less during the pandemic. CU does not affect the course of COVID-19, but COVID-19 results in CU exacerbation in one of three patients, with higher rates in patients with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic brings major changes and challenges for CU patients and their physicians. The long-term consequences of these changes, especially the increased use of remote consultations, require careful evaluation.