ABSTRACT
Background: Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population. Methods: A multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases. Findings: Substantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism. Interpretation: Our findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term. Funding: None.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Clinical research has faced new challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to excessive operational demands affecting all stakeholders. We evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on clinical research strategies and compared different adaptations by regulatory bodies and academic research institutions in a global context, exploring what can be learned for possible future pandemics. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey and identified and assessed different COVID-19-specific adaptation strategies used by academic research institutions and regulatory bodies. RESULTS: All 19 participating academic research institutions developed and followed similar strategies, including preventive measures, manpower recruitment, and prioritisation of COVID-19 projects. In contrast, measures for centralised management or coordination of COVID-19 projects, project preselection, and funding were handled differently amongst institutions. Regulatory bodies responded similarly to the pandemic by implementing fast-track authorisation procedures for COVID-19 projects and developing guidance documents. Quality and consistency of the information and advice provided was rated differently amongst institutions. CONCLUSION: Both academic research institutions and regulatory bodies worldwide were able to cope with challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic by developing similar strategies. We identified some unique approaches to ensure fast and efficient responses to a pandemic. Ethical concerns should be addressed in any new decision-making process.