Heart failure after dengue infection- a population-based self-controlled case-series study.

BACKGROUND: Major cardiovascular events (MACEs) have been described with dengue infection. Among these MACEs, heart failure (HF) is the most common but has not been thoroughly assessed. This study aimed to evaluate the association between dengue and HF. METHODS: Under the self-controlled case-series study design, we used the Notifiable Infectious Disease dataset linkage with the National Health Insurance claims data to obtain the study subjects. All laboratory-confirmed dengue cases who were hospitalized for HF after dengue infection within one year between 2009 and 2015 in Taiwan were included. We identified the first 7 and 14 days after dengue infection as the risk intervals. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for HF were estimated by conditional Poisson regression. RESULTS: Among the 65,906 dengue patients, 230 had admission for HF after dengue infection within one year. The IRR of HF admission within the first week after dengue infection was 56.50 (95% C.I. 43.88-72.75). This risk was highest in >60 years (IRR = 59.32, 95% C.I. 45.43-77.43) and lower in 0-40 years (IRR = 25.82, 95% C.I. 2.89-231.02). The risk was nearly nine times higher among admission (for dengue infection) than among nonadmission cases (IRR 75.35 vs. 8.61, p < 0.0001). The risks increased slightly in the second week 8.55 and became less obvious after the third and fourth week. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with dengue infection have a risk of developing acute heart failure within one week, especially in >60 years, men, and dengue admission subjects. The findings emphasize the awareness of diagnosis and further appropriate treatment of HF.

A Comparison of the Effect of Facemasks on Perceived Breathability and Air Quality during Daily Activities and Indoor Exercises.

Transmission of COVID-19 occurs predominantly through respired droplets and aerosols containing the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As a solution, face masks have been used to protect against infection. Wearing face masks during indoor exercises is essential to prevent the spread of virus-containing respiratory droplets and aerosols. However, previous studies have not investigated all elements, including the users' perceived breathability (PB) and perceived air quality (PAQ) when wearing a face mask during indoor exercises. The current study aimed to assess users' perceived comfort (PC) of face masks based on assessment criteria of PB and PAQ during moderate to vigorous exercises, and compare them with those during normal daily activities. Data on PC, PB, and PAQ were collected from an online questionnaire survey from 104 participants doing regular moderate to vigorous exercises. Within-subjects comparison with self-controlled case series design was performed to compare PC, PB, and PAQ between wearing face masks during exercises and daily activities. Results showed that the degree of dissatisfaction with PC, PB, and PAQ while wearing face masks and performing indoor exercises is higher than when performing daily activities (p < 0.05). The significance of the study implies that masks comfortable for daily activities may not remain the same during moderate to vigorous exercises, especially during indoor exercises.

Safety of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccines in patients with heart failure: A self-controlled case series study

Background: COVID-19 vaccines are important for patients with heart failure (HF) to prevent severe outcomes but the safety concerns could lead to vaccine hesitancy. This study aimed to investigate the safety of two COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, in patients with HF. Methods: We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using the data from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and the Department of Health. The primary outcome was hospitalization for HF and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all hospitalization. We identified patients with a history of HF before February 23, 2021 and developed the outcome event between February 23, 2021 and March 31, 2022 in Hong Kong. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using conditional Poisson regression to evaluate the risks following the first three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac. Findings: We identified 32,490 patients with HF, of which 3035 were vaccinated and had a hospitalization for HF during the observation period (BNT162b2 = 755;CoronaVac = 2280). There were no increased risks during the 0–13 days (IRR 0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.33–1.26];0.94 [0.50–1.78];0.82 [0.17–3.98]) and 14–27 days (0.73 [0.35–1.52];0.95 [0.49–1.84];0.60 [0.06–5.76]) after the first, second and third doses of BNT162b2. No increased risks were observed for CoronaVac during the 0–13 days (IRR 0.60 [0.41–0.88];0.71 [0.45–1.12];1.64 [0.40–6.77]) and 14–27 days (0.91 [0.63–1.32];0.79 [0.46–1.35];1.71 [0.44–6.62]) after the first, second and third doses. We also found no increased risk of MACE or all hospitalization after vaccination. Interpretation: Our results showed no increased risk of hospitalization for HF, MACE or all hospitalization after receiving BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines in patients with HF. Funding: The project was funded by a Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ref. No. COVID19F01). F.T.T.L. (Francisco T.T. Lai) and I.C.K.W. (Ian C.K. Wong)'s posts were partly funded by the D24H;hence this work was partly supported by AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission. © 2022 The Authors

Safety of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccines in patients with heart failure: A self-controlled case series study

Summary Background COVID-19 vaccines are important for patients with heart failure (HF) to prevent severe outcomes but the safety concerns could lead to vaccine hesitancy. This study aimed to investigate the safety of two COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, in patients with HF. Methods We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using the data from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and the Department of Health. The primary outcome was hospitalization for HF and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all hospitalization. We identified patients with a history of HF before February 23, 2021 and developed the outcome event between February 23, 2021 and March 31, 2022 in Hong Kong. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using conditional Poisson regression to evaluate the risks following the first three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac. Findings We identified 32,490 patients with HF, of which 3035 were vaccinated and had a hospitalization for HF during the observation period (BNT162b2 = 755;CoronaVac = 2280). There were no increased risks during the 0–13 days (IRR 0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.33–1.26];0.94 [0.50–1.78];0.82 [0.17–3.98]) and 14–27 days (0.73 [0.35–1.52];0.95 [0.49–1.84];0.60 [0.06–5.76]) after the first, second and third doses of BNT162b2. No increased risks were observed for CoronaVac during the 0–13 days (IRR 0.60 [0.41–0.88];0.71 [0.45–1.12];1.64 [0.40–6.77]) and 14–27 days (0.91 [0.63–1.32];0.79 [0.46–1.35];1.71 [0.44–6.62]) after the first, second and third doses. We also found no increased risk of MACE or all hospitalization after vaccination. Interpretation Our results showed no increased risk of hospitalization for HF, MACE or all hospitalization after receiving BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines in patients with HF. Funding The project was funded by a Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ref. No. COVID19F01). F.T.T.L. (Francisco T.T. Lai) and I.C.K.W. (Ian C.K. Wong)'s posts were partly funded by the D24H;hence this work was partly supported by AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission.

A post-marketing safety assessment of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination for serious adverse outcomes using administrative claims data linked with vaccination registry in a city of Japan.

INTRODUCTION: The safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines are incompletely evaluated in Japan. OBJECTIVES: To examine the risk of serious adverse effects after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) in cohort studies and self-controlled case series (SCCS). METHODS: Using an administrative claims database linked with the COVID-19 vaccination registry in a city in Japan between September 2020 and September 2021, we identified health insurance enrolees aged ≥ 18 years. We evaluated the risk of acute myocardial infarction, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, convulsions/seizures, disseminated intravascular coagulation, immune thrombocytopenia, pulmonary embolism, haemorrhagic or ischemic stroke, venous thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality, 21 days following any COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, compared with non-vaccination periods. For the cohort studies, we estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) by Poisson regression and rate differences (IRDs) by weighted least-squares regression, adjusting for sex, age, and Charlson comorbidity index. We applied a modified SCCS design to appropriately treat outcome-dependent exposures. For the modified SCCS, we estimated within-subject IRRs by weighted conditional Poisson regression. Subgroup analyses stratified by sex and age were also conducted. RESULTS: We identified 184,491 enrolees [male: 87,218; mean (standard deviation) age: 64.2 (19.5) years] with 136,667 first and 127,322 s dose vaccinations. The risks of any outcomes did not increase in any analyses, except for the fact that the modified SCCS indicated an increased risk of pulmonary embolism after the first dose in women (within-subject IRR [95%CI]: 3.97 [1.18-13.32]). CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine was generally safe, whilst a signal of pulmonary embolism following the first dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine was observed.

Association between the risk of seizure and COVID-19 vaccinations: A self-controlled case-series study.

OBJECTIVE: The risk of seizure following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations has been sparsely investigated. This study aimed to evaluate this association. METHOD: Patients who had their first seizure-related hospitalization between February 23, 2021 and January 31, 2022, were identified in Hong Kong. All seizure episodes happening on the day of vaccination (day 0) were excluded, since clinicians validated that most of the cases on day 0 were syncopal episodes. Within-individual comparison using a modified self-controlled case series analysis was applied to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of seizure using conditional Poisson regression. RESULTS: We identified 1656 individuals who had their first seizure-related hospitalization (BNT162b2: 426; CoronaVac: 263; unvaccinated: 967) within the observation period. The incidence of seizure was 1.04 (95% CI .80-1.33) and 1.11 (95% CI .80-1.50) per 100 000 doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac administered, respectively. Sixteen and 17 individuals, respectively, received a second dose after having a first seizure within 28 days after the first dose of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations. None had recurrent seizures after the second dose. There was no increased risk during day 1-6 after the first (BNT162b2: IRR = 1.39, 95% CI = .75-2.58; CoronaVac: IRR = 1.19, 95% CI = .50-2.83) and second doses (BNT162b2: IRR = 1.36, 95% CI = .72-2.57; CoronaVac: IRR = .71, 95% CI = .22-2.30) of vaccinations. During 7-13, 14-20, and 21-27 days post-vaccination, no association was observed for either vaccine. SIGNIFICANCE: The findings demonstrated no increased risk of seizure following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations. Future studies will be warranted to evaluate the risk of seizure following COVID-19 vaccinations in different populations, with subsequent doses to ensure the generalizability.

Risk of serious adverse events after the BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines in Malaysia: A self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines is challenging for safety surveillance, especially on adverse events of special interest (AESIs) that were not identified during the pre-licensure studies. This study evaluated the risk of hospitalisations for predefined diagnoses among the vaccinated population in Malaysia. METHODS: Hospital admissions for selected diagnoses between 1 February 2021 and 30 September 2021 were linked to the national COVID-19 immunisation register. We conducted self-controlled case-series study by identifying individuals who received COVID-19 vaccine and diagnosis of thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, myocarditis/pericarditis, arrhythmia, stroke, Bell's Palsy, and convulsion/seizure. The incidence of events was assessed in risk period of 21 days postvaccination relative to the control period. We used conditional Poisson regression to calculate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with adjustment for calendar period. RESULTS: There was no increase in the risk for myocarditis/pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, stroke, and myocardial infarction in the 21 days following either dose of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. A small increased risk of venous thromboembolism (IRR 1.24; 95% CI 1.02, 1.49), arrhythmia (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07, 1.26), and convulsion/seizure (IRR 1.26; 95% CI 1.07, 1.48) was observed among BNT162b2 recipients. No association between CoronaVac vaccine was found with all events except arrhythmia (IRR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01, 1.30). ChAdOx1 vaccine was associated with an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (IRR 2.67; 95% CI 1.21, 5.89) and venous thromboembolism (IRR 2.22; 95% CI 1.17, 4.21). CONCLUSION: This study shows acceptable safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines among recipients of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. This information can be used together with effectiveness data for risk-benefit analysis of the vaccination program. Further surveillance with more data is required to assess AESIs following COVID-19 vaccination in short- and long-term.

Association between BNT162b2 or CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccines and major adverse cardiovascular events among individuals with cardiovascular disease.

AIMS: Concern about the cardiovascular safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines among individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD) may lead to vaccine hesitancy. We sought to assess the association between two COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in individuals with established CVD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified individuals with a history of CVD before 23 February 2021 and a diagnosis of MACE between 23 February 2021 and 31 January 2022 in Hong Kong. MACE was defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and cardiovascular death. Electronic health records from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority were linked to vaccination records from the Department of Health. A self-controlled case-series method was used to evaluate the risk of MACE for 0-13 and 14-27 days after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) to compare the risk of MACE between each risk period and the baseline period. A total of 229 235 individuals with CVD were identified, of which 1764 were vaccinated and had a diagnosis of MACE during the observation period (BNT162b2 = 662; CoronaVac = 1102). For BNT162b2, IRRs were 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-1.02] for the first dose and 0.87 (95% CI 0.50-1.52) for the second dose during the 0-13 days risk period, 0.40 (95% CI 0.18-0.93) for the first dose and 1.13 (95% CI 0.70-1.84) for the second dose during the 14-27 days risk period. For CoronaVac, the IRRs were 0.43 (95% CI 0.24-0.75) for the first dose and, 0.73 (95% CI 0.46-1.16) for the second dose during the 0-13 days risk period, 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90) for the first dose and 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-1.29) for the second dose during the 14-27 days risk period. Consistent results were found in subgroup analyses for different sexes, age groups and different underlying cardiovascular conditions. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed no evidence of an increased risk of MACE after vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac in patients with CVD. Future research is required to monitor the risk after the third dose of each vaccine.

Relative effectiveness of booster vs. 2-dose mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in the Veterans Health Administration: Self-controlled risk interval analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate relative effectiveness of the booster mRNA Covid-19 vaccination versus the 2-dose primary series for both Delta and Omicron variants with self-controlled study design. METHODS: We used the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse to identify U.S. Veterans who received the 2-dose primary mRNA Covid-19 vaccine series and a mRNA Covid-19 booster, and who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test during the Delta (9/23/2021-11/30/2021) or Omicron (1/1/22-3/19/22) predominant period. Among them, we conducted a self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) analysis to compare odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection during a booster exposure interval versus a control interval. Exposures were a control interval (days 4-6 post-booster vaccination, presumably prior to gain of booster immunity), and booster exposure interval (days 14-16 post-booster vaccination, presumably following gain of booster immunity). Cases had a positive PCR or antigen SARS-CoV-2 test. Separately for Delta and Omicron periods, we used conditional logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) of a positive test for the booster versus control interval and calculated relative effectiveness of booster versus 2-dose primary series as (1-OR)*100. The SCRI approach implicitly controlled for time-fixed confounders. RESULTS: We found 42 individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test in the control interval and 14 in the booster exposure interval during the Delta period, and 141 and 70, respectively, in the Omicron period. For the booster versus 2-dose primary series, the odds of infection were 70% (95 %CI: 42%, 84%) lower during the Delta period and 54% (95 %CI: 38%, 66%) lower during Omicron. In sensitivity analyses among those with prior Covid-19 history, and age stratification, ORs were similar to the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Booster vaccination was more effective relative to a 2-dose primary series during the Delta and Omicron predominant periods, and the relative effectiveness was consistent across age groups.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccination and acute neurological events: A self-controlled case series in England using the OpenSAFELY platform.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the potential association of COVID-19 vaccination with three acute neurological events: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis and Bell's palsy. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England we analysed primary care data from >17 million patients in England linked to emergency care, hospital admission and mortality records in the OpenSAFELY platform. Separately for each vaccine brand, we used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the incidence rate ratio for each outcome in the period following vaccination (4-42 days for GBS, 4-28 days for transverse myelitis and Bell's palsy) compared to a within-person baseline, using conditional Poisson regression. RESULTS: Among 7,783,441 ChAdOx1 vaccinees, there was an increased rate of GBS (N = 517; incidence rate ratio 2·85; 95% CI2·33-3·47) and Bell's palsy (N = 5,350; 1·39; 1·27-1·53) following a first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine, corresponding to 11.0 additional cases of GBS and 17.9 cases of Bell's palsy per 1 million vaccinees if causal. For GBS this applied to the first, but not the second, dose. There was no clear evidence of an association of ChAdOx1 vaccination with transverse myelitis (N = 199; 1·51; 0·96-2·37). Among 5,729,152 BNT162b2 vaccinees, there was no evidence of any association with GBS (N = 283; 1·09; 0·75-1·57), transverse myelitis (N = 109; 1·62; 0·86-3·03) or Bell's palsy (N = 3,609; 0·89; 0·76-1·03). Among 255,446 mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients there was no evidence of an association with Bell's palsy (N = 78; 0·88, 0·32-2·42). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines save lives, but it is important to understand rare adverse events. We observed a short-term increased rate of Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell's palsy after first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. The absolute risk, assuming a causal effect attributable to vaccination, was low.

A modified self-controlled case series method for event-dependent exposures and high event-related mortality, with application to COVID-19 vaccine safety.

We propose a modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) method to handle both event-dependent exposures and high event-related mortality. This development is motivated by an epidemiological study undertaken in France to quantify potential risks of cardiovascular events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. Event-dependence of vaccinations, and high event-related mortality, are likely to arise in other SCCS studies of COVID-19 vaccine safety. Using this case study and simulations to broaden its scope, we explore these features and the biases they may generate, implement the modified SCCS model, illustrate some of the properties of this model, and develop a new test for presence of a dose effect. The model we propose has wider application, notably when the event of interest is death.

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.

Avoiding bias in self-controlled case series studies of coronavirus disease 2019.

Many studies, including self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, are being undertaken to quantify the risks of complications following infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). One such SCCS study, based on all COVID-19 cases arising in Sweden over an 8-month period, has shown that SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risks of AMI and ischemic stroke. Some features of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19, present in this study and likely in others, complicate the analysis and may introduce bias. In the present paper we describe these features, and explore the biases they may generate. Motivated by data-based simulations, we propose methods to reduce or remove these biases.