Balancing Benefits and Harms of COVID-19 Vaccines: Lessons from the Ongoing Mass Vaccination Campaign in Lombardy, Italy.

Background. Limited evidence exists on the balance between the benefits and harms of the COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to compare the benefits and safety of mRNA-based (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) and adenovirus-vectored (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in subpopulations defined by age and sex. Methods. All citizens who are newly vaccinated from 27 December 2020 to 3 May 2021 are matched to unvaccinated controls according to age, sex, and vaccination date. Study outcomes include the events that are expected to be avoided by vaccination (i.e., hospitalization and death from COVID-19) and those that might be increased after vaccine inoculation (i.e., venous thromboembolism). The incidence rate ratios (IRR) of vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens are separately estimated within strata of sex, age category and vaccine type. When suitable, number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) are calculated to evaluate the balance between the benefits and harm of vaccines within each sex and age category. Results. In total, 2,351,883 citizens are included because they received at least one dose of vaccine (755,557 Oxford-AstraZeneca and 1,596,326 Pfizer/Moderna). A reduced incidence of COVID-19-related outcomes is observed with a lowered incidence rate ranging from 55% to 89% and NNT values ranging from 296 to 3977. Evidence of an augmented incidence of harm-related outcomes is observed only for women aged <50 years within 28 days after Oxford-AstraZeneca (being the corresponding adjusted IRR of 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.6, and NNH value of 23,207, 95% CI 10,274-89,707). Conclusions. A favourable balance between benefits and harms is observed in the current study, even among younger women who received Oxford-AstraZeneca.

Change in healthcare during Covid-19 pandemic was assessed through observational designs.

OBJECTIVE: Methodological challenges for investigating the changes in healthcare utilization during COVID-19 pandemic must be considered for obtaining unbiased estimates. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A population-based study in the Lombardy region (Italy) measured the association between the level of epidemic restrictions (increasing exposure during pre-epidemic, post-lockdown, and lockdown periods) and the recommended healthcare (outcome) for patients with schizophrenia, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, breast cancer, and pregnancy women. Two designs are applied: the self-controlled case series (SCCS) and the usual cohort design. Adjustments for between-patients unmeasured confounders and seasonality of medical services delivering were performed. RESULTS: Compared with pre-epidemic, reductions in delivering recommended healthcare during lockdown up to 73% (95% confidence interval: 63%-80%) for timeliness of breast cancer surgery, and up to 20% (16%-23%) for appropriated gynecologic visit during pregnancy were obtained from SCCS and cohort design, respectively. Healthcare provision came back to pre-epidemic levels during the post-lockdown, with the exception of schizophrenic patients for whom the SCCS showed a reduction in continuity of care of 11% (11%-12%). CONCLUSION: Strategies for investigating the changes in healthcare utilization during pandemic must be implemented. Recommendations for taking into account sources of systematic uncertainty are discussed and illustrated by using motivating examples.