Tree-based data mining for safety assessment of first COVID-19 booster doses in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

BackgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) has been performing safety surveillance for COVID-19 vaccines since their earliest authorization in the United States. Complementing its real-time surveillance for pre-specified health outcomes using pre-specified risk intervals, the VSD conducts tree-based data-mining to look for clustering of a broad range of health outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination. This study’s objective was to use this untargeted, hypothesis-generating approach to assess the safety of first booster doses of Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S) COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsVSD enrollees receiving a first booster of COVID-19 vaccine through April 2, 2022 were followed for 56 days. Incident diagnoses in inpatient or emergency department settings were analyzed for clustering within both the hierarchical ICD-10-CM code structure and the follow-up period. The self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic was used, conditioning on the total number of cases for each diagnosis. P-values were estimated by Monte Carlo simulation; p = 0.01 was pre-specified as the cut-off for statistical significance of clusters.ResultsMore than 2.4 and 1.8 million subjects received Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna boosters after an mRNA primary series, respectively. Clusters of urticaria/allergy/rash were found during Days 10–15 after the Moderna booster (p = 0.0001). Other outcomes that clustered after mRNA boosters, mostly with p = 0.0001, included unspecified adverse effects, common vaccine-associated reactions like fever and myalgia, and COVID-19. COVID-19 clusters were in Days 1–10 after booster receipt, before boosters would have become effective. There were no noteworthy clusters after boosters following primary Janssen vaccination.ConclusionsIn this untargeted data-mining study of COVID-19 booster vaccination, a cluster of delayed-onset urticaria/allergy/rash was detected after the Moderna booster, as has been reported after Moderna vaccination previously. Other clusters after mRNA boosters were of unspecified or common adverse effects and COVID-19, the latter evidently reflecting immunity to COVID-19 after 10 days.     

Safety signal identification for COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccination using tree-based scan statistics in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

BackgroundTraditional active vaccine safety monitoring involves pre-specifying health outcomes and biologically plausible outcome-specific time windows of concern, limiting the adverse events that can be evaluated. In this study, we used tree-based scan statistics to look broadly for >60,000 possible adverse events after bivalent COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsVaccine Safety Datalink enrollees aged ≥5 years receiving Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine through November 2022 were followed for 56 days post-vaccination. Incident diagnoses in inpatient or emergency department settings were analyzed for clustering within the hierarchical ICD-10-CM diagnosis code “tree” and temporally within post-vaccination follow-up. The conditional self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic was used, conditioning on total number of cases of each diagnosis and total number of cases of any diagnosis occurring during the scanning risk window across the entire tree. P = 0.01 was the pre-specified cut-off for statistical significance.ResultsAnalysis included 352,509 doses of Moderna and 979,189 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent vaccines. After Moderna vaccination, no statistically significant clusters were found. After Pfizer-BioNTech, there were clusters of unspecified adverse events (Days 1–3, p = 0.0001–0.0007), influenza (Days 35–56, p = 0.0001), cough (Days 44–55, p = 0.0002), and COVID-19 (Days 52–56, p = 0.0004).ConclusionsFor Pfizer-BioNTech only, we detected clusters of: (1) unspecified adverse effects, as have been observed in other vaccine studies using this method, and (2) respiratory disease toward the end of follow-up. The respiratory clusters were likely due to overlap of follow-up with the spread of respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and COVID-19, i.e., confounding by seasonality. The untargeted nature of the method and its inherent adjustment for the many diagnoses and risk intervals evaluated are unique advantages. Limitations include susceptibility to time-varying confounding, lower statistical power for assessing risks of specific outcomes than in traditional studies targeting fewer outcomes, and the possibility of missing adverse events not strongly clustered in time or within the “tree.”     

Incidence of myopericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination: A meta-analysis with focus on adolescents aged 12–17 years

BackgroundThe incidence of myopericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents aged 12–17 years remains unknown. Therefore, we conducted a study to pool the incidence of myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination in this age group.MethodsWe did a meta-analysis by searching 4 electronic databases until February 6, 2023. The following main keywords were used: “COVID-19”, “vaccines”, “myocarditis”, “pericarditis”, and “myopericarditis”. Observational studies reporting on adolescents aged 12–17 years who had myopericarditis in temporal relation to receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were included. The pooled incidence of myopericarditis and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a single-group meta-analysis.ResultsFifteen studies were included. The pooled incidences of myopericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents aged 12–17 years were 43.5 (95 % CI, 30.8–61.6) cases per million vaccine doses for both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 (39 628 242 doses; 14 studies), and 41.8 (29.4–59.4) cases for BNT162b2 alone (38 756 553 doses; 13 studies). Myopericarditis was more common among males (66.0 [40.5–107.7] cases) than females (10.1 [6.0–17.0] cases) and among those receiving the second dose (60.4 [37.6–96.9] cases) than those receiving the first dose (16.6 [8.7–31.9] cases). The incidences of myopericarditis did not differ significantly when grouped by age, type of myopericarditis, country, and World Health Organization region. None of the incidences of myopericarditis pooled in the current study were higher than those after smallpox vaccinations and non-COVID-19 vaccinations, and all of them were significantly lower than those in adolescents aged 12–17 years after COVID-19 infection.ConclusionsThe incidences of myopericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents aged 12–17 years were very rare; they were not higher than other important reference incidences. These findings provide an important context for health policy makers and parents with vaccination hesitancy to weight the risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents aged 12–17 years.     

Surveillance of COVID-19 vaccine safety among elderly persons aged 65 years and older

BackgroundMonitoring safety outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination is critical for understanding vaccine safety especially when used in key populations such as elderly persons age 65 years and older who can benefit greatly from vaccination. We present new findings from a nationally representative early warning system that may expand the safety knowledge base to further public trust and inform decision making on vaccine safety by government agencies, healthcare providers, interested stakeholders, and the public.MethodsWe evaluated 14 outcomes of interest following COVID-19 vaccination using the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data covering 30,712,101 elderly persons. The CMS data from December 11, 2020 through Jan 15, 2022 included 17,411,342 COVID-19 vaccinees who received a total of 34,639,937 doses. We conducted weekly sequential testing and generated rate ratios (RR) of observed outcome rates compared to historical (or expected) rates prior to COVID-19 vaccination.FindingsFour outcomes met the threshold for a statistical signal following BNT162b2 vaccination including pulmonary embolism (PE; RR = 1.54), acute myocardial infarction (AMI; RR = 1.42), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC; RR = 1.91), and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP; RR = 1.44). After further evaluation, only the RR for PE still met the statistical threshold for a signal; however, the RRs for AMI, DIC, and ITP no longer did. No statistical signals were identified following vaccination with either the mRNA-1273 or Ad26 COV2.S vaccines.InterpretationThis early warning system is the first to identify temporal associations for PE, AMI, DIC, and ITP following BNT162b2 vaccination in the elderly. Because an early warning system does not prove that the vaccines cause these outcomes, more robust epidemiologic studies with adjustment for confounding, including age and nursing home residency, are underway to further evaluate these signals. FDA strongly believes the potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the potential risks of COVID-19 infection.     

Safety of co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) during July 1, 2021–June 30, 2022

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccines may be co-administered with other recommended vaccines, including seasonal influenza vaccines. However, few studies have evaluated the safety of co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines.ObjectiveTo describe reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines.MethodsWe searched the VAERS database for reports of adverse events (AEs) following co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines and following a first booster dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine alone, during July 1, 2021–June 30, 2022. We assessed the characteristics of these reports and described the most frequently reported MedDRA preferred terms (PTs). Clinicians reviewed available medical records for serious reports and reports of adverse events of special interest (AESI) and categorized the main diagnosis by system organ class.ResultsFrom July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, VAERS received 2,449 reports of adverse events following co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines. Median age of vaccinees was 48 years (IQR: 31, 66); 387 (15.8%) were classified as serious. Most reports (1,713; 69.3%) described co-administration of a first booster dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with seasonal influenza vaccine. The most common AEs among non-serious reports were injection site reactions (193; 14.5%), headache (181; 13.6%), and pain (171; 12.8%). The most common AEs among reports classified as serious were dyspnea (38; 14.9%), COVID-19 infection (32; 12.6%), and chest pain (27; 10.6%).DiscussionThis review of reports to VAERS following co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines did not reveal any unusual or unexpected patterns of AEs. Increased reporting of certain events (e.g., COVID-19 disease) was expected. CDC will continue to monitor the safety of co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines, including co-administration involving bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccines that have been recommended for people ages ≥ 6 months in the United States.     

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundAssessment of COVID-19 vaccines safety during pregnancy is urgently needed.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components and technological platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy and animal studies to complement direct evidence. We searched literature databases from its inception to September 2021 without language restriction, COVID-19 vaccine websites, and reference lists of other systematic reviews and the included studies. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, data extracted, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. (PROSPERO CRD42021234185).ResultsWe retrieved 8,837 records from the literature search; 71 studies were included, involving 17,719,495 pregnant persons and 389 pregnant animals. Most studies (94%) were conducted in high-income countries, were cohort studies (51%), and 15% were classified as high risk of bias. We identified nine COVID-19 vaccine studies, seven involving 309,164 pregnant persons, mostly exposed to mRNA vaccines. Among non-COVID-19 vaccines, the most frequent exposures were AS03 and aluminum-based adjuvants.A meta-analysis of studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed no association with adverse outcomes, regardless of the vaccine or the trimester of vaccination.Neither the reported rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes nor reactogenicity exceeded expected background rates, which was the case for ASO3- or aluminum-adjuvanted non-COVID-19 vaccines in the proportion meta-analyses of uncontrolled studies/arms. The only exception was postpartum hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccination (10.40%; 95% CI: 6.49–15.10%), reported by two studies; however, the comparison with non-exposed pregnant persons, available for one study, found non-statistically significant differences (adjusted OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.56–2.12). Animal studies showed consistent results with studies in pregnant persons.ConclusionWe found no safety concerns for currently administered COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Additional experimental and real-world evidence could enhance vaccination coverage. Robust safety data for non-mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are still needed.     

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

IntroductionWe investigated the potential association of COVID-19 vaccination with three acute neurological events: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis and Bell’s palsy.MethodsWith 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.ResultsAmong 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).ConclusionsCOVID-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 safety study evaluating non-COVID-19 mortality risk following COVID-19 vaccination

BackgroundThe safety of COVID-19 vaccines plays an important role in addressing vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a large cohort study to evaluate the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality after COVID-19 vaccination while adjusting for confounders including individual-level demographics, clinical risk factors, health care utilization, and community-level socioeconomic risk factors.MethodsThe retrospective cohort study consisted of members from seven Vaccine Safety Datalink sites from December 14, 2020 through August 31, 2021. We conducted three separate analyses for each of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US. Crude non-COVID-19 mortality rates were reported by vaccine type, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The counting process model for survival analyses was used to analyze non-COVID-19 mortality where a new observation period began when the vaccination status changed upon receipt of the first dose and the second dose. We used calendar time as the basic time scale in survival analyses to implicitly adjust for season and other temporal trend factors. A propensity score approach was used to adjust for the potential imbalance in confounders between the vaccinated and comparison groups.ResultsFor each vaccine type and across age, sex, and race/ethnicity groups, crude non-COVID-19 mortality rates among COVID-19 vaccinees were lower than those among comparators. After adjusting for confounders with the propensity score approach, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44–0.49) after dose 1 and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.46–0.50) after dose 2 of the BNT162b2 vaccine, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.39–0.44) after dose 1 and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.37–0.40) after dose 2 of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51–0.59) after receipt of Ad26.COV2.S.ConclusionWhile residual confounding bias remained after adjusting for several individual-level and community-level risk factors, no increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality among recipients of three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.     

Association between history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe systemic adverse events after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among U.S. adults

BackgroundRisk of experiencing a systemic adverse event (AE) after mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination may be greater among persons with a history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; data on serious events are limited. We assessed if adults reporting systemic AEs resulting in emergency department visits or hospitalizations during days 0–7 after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose 1 were more likely to have a history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with persons who reported no or non-severe systemic AEs.MethodsWe conducted a nested case-control study using v-safe surveillance data. Participants were ≥ 18 years and received dose 1 during December 14, 2020─May 9, 2021. Cases reported severe systemic AEs 0–7 days after vaccination. Three controls were frequency matched per case by age, vaccination date, and days since vaccination. Follow-up surveys collected SARS-CoV-2 histories.ResultsFollow-up survey response rates were 38.6 % (potential cases) and 56.8 % (potential controls). In multivariable analyses including 3,862 case-patients and 11,586 controls, the odds of experiencing a severe systemic AE were 2.4 (Moderna, mRNA-1273; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.89, 3.09) and 1.5 (Pfizer-BioNTech, BNT162b2; 95 % CI: 1.17, 2.02) times higher among participants with pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 histories compared with those without. Medical attention of any kind for symptoms during days 0–7 following dose 2 was not common among case-patients or controls.ConclusionsHistory of SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with severe systemic AEs following dose 1 of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine; the effect varied by vaccine received. Most participants who experienced severe systemic AEs following dose 1 did not require medical attention of any kind for symptoms following dose 2. Vaccine providers can use these findings to counsel patients who had pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection histories, experienced severe systemic AEs following dose 1, and are considering not receiving additional mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.     

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines at preventing emergency department or urgent care encounters and hospitalizations among immunocompromised adults: An observational study of real-world data across 10 US states from August-December 2021

BackgroundImmunocompromised (IC) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and are less protected by 1–2 COVID-19 vaccine doses than are immunocompetent (non-IC) persons. We compared vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended COVID-19 of 2–3 mRNA and 1–2 viral-vector vaccine doses between IC and non-IC adults.MethodsUsing a test-negative design among eight VISION Network sites, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) events and hospitalizations from 26 August-25 December 2021 was estimated separately among IC and non-IC adults and among specific IC condition subgroups. Vaccination status was defined using number and timing of doses. VE for each status (versus unvaccinated) was adjusted for age, geography, time, prior positive test result, and local SARS-CoV-2 circulation.ResultsWe analyzed 8,848 ED/UC events and 18,843 hospitalizations among IC patients and 200,071 ED/UC events and 70,882 hospitalizations among non-IC patients. Among IC patients, 3-dose mRNA VE against ED/UC (73% [95% CI: 64–80]) and hospitalization (81% [95% CI: 76–86]) was lower than that among non-IC patients (ED/UC: 94% [95% CI: 93–94]; hospitalization: 96% [95% CI: 95–97]). Similar patterns were observed for viral-vector vaccines. Transplant recipients had lower VE than other IC subgroups.ConclusionsDuring B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, IC adults received moderate protection against COVID-19–associated medical events from three mRNA doses, or one viral-vector dose plus a second dose of any product. However, protection was lower in IC versus non-IC patients, especially among transplant recipients, underscoring the need for additional protection among IC adults.     

Monitoring vaccine safety using the vaccine safety Datalink: Assessing capacity to integrate data from Immunization Information systems

BackgroundThe Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) uses vaccination data from electronic health records (EHR) at eight integrated health systems to monitor vaccine safety. Accurate capture of data from vaccines administered outside of the health system is critical for vaccine safety research, especially for COVID-19 vaccines, where many are administered in non-traditional settings. However, timely access and inclusion of data from Immunization Information Systems (IIS) into VSD safety assessments is not well understood.MethodsWe surveyed the eight data-contributing VSD sites to assess: 1) status of sending data to IIS; 2) status of receiving data from IIS; and 3) integration of IIS data into the site EHR. Sites reported separately for COVID-19 vaccination to capture any differences in capacity to receive and integrate data on COVID-19 vaccines versus other vaccines.ResultsAll VSD sites send data to and receive data from their state IIS. All eight sites (100%) routinely integrate IIS data for COVID-19 vaccines into VSD research studies. Six sites (75%) also routinely integrate all other vaccination data; two sites integrate data from IIS following a reconciliation process, which can result in delays to integration into VSD datasets.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccines are being administered in a variety of non-traditional settings, where IIS are commonly used as centralized reporting systems. All eight VSD sites receive and integrate COVID-19 vaccine data from IIS, which positions the VSD well for conducting quality assessments of vaccine safety. Efforts to improve the timely receipt of all vaccination data will improve capacity to conduct vaccine safety assessments within the VSD.     

Safety of components and platforms of COVID-19 vaccines considered for use in pregnancy: A rapid review

BackgroundRapid assessment of COVID-19 vaccine safety during pregnancy is urgently needed.MethodsWe conducted a rapid systematic review, to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines selected by the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access-Maternal Immunization Working Group in August 2020, including their components and their technological platforms used in other vaccines for pregnant persons. We searched literature databases, COVID-19 vaccine pregnancy registries, and explored reference lists from the inception date to February 2021 without language restriction. Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies through COVIDENCE, and performed the data extraction and the risk of bias assessment. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021234185).ResultsWe retrieved 6757 records and 12 COVID-19 pregnancy registries from the search strategy; 38 clinical and non-clinical studies (involving 2,398,855 pregnant persons and 56 pregnant animals) were included. Most studies (89%) were conducted in high-income countries and were cohort studies (57%). Most studies (76%) compared vaccine exposures with no exposure during the three trimesters of pregnancy. The most frequent exposure was to AS03 adjuvant, in the context of A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccines, (n = 24) and aluminum-based adjuvants (n = 11). Only one study reported exposure to messenger RNA in lipid nanoparticles COVID-19 vaccines. Except for one preliminary report about A/H1N1 influenza vaccination (adjuvant AS03), corrected by the authors in a more thorough analysis, all studies concluded that there were no safety concerns.ConclusionThis rapid review found no evidence of pregnancy-associated safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines or of their components or platforms when used in other vaccines. However, the need for further data on several vaccine platforms and components is warranted, given their novelty. Our findings support current WHO guidelines recommending that pregnant persons may consider receiving COVID-19 vaccines, particularly if they are at high risk of exposure or have comorbidities that enhance the risk of severe disease.     

A broad assessment of covid-19 vaccine safety using tree-based data-mining in the vaccine safety datalink

BackgroundExcept for spontaneous reporting systems, vaccine safety monitoring generally involves pre-specifying health outcomes and post-vaccination risk windows of concern. Instead, we used tree-based data-mining to look more broadly for possible adverse events after Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsVaccine Safety Datalink enrollees receiving ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine in 2020–2021 were followed for 70 days after Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna and 56 days after Janssen vaccination. Incident diagnoses in inpatient or emergency department settings were analyzed for clustering within both the hierarchical ICD-10-CM code structure and the post-vaccination follow-up period. We used the self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic and TreeScan software. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate p-values; p = 0.01 was the pre-specified cut-off for statistical significance of a cluster.ResultsThere were 4.1, 2.6, and 0.4 million Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen vaccinees, respectively. Clusters after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination included: (1) unspecified adverse effects, (2) common vaccine reactions, such as fever, myalgia, and headache, (3) myocarditis/pericarditis, and (4) less specific cardiac or respiratory symptoms, all with the strongest clusters generally after Dose 2; and (5) COVID-19/viral pneumonia/sepsis/respiratory failure in the first 3 weeks after Dose 1. Moderna results were similar but without a significant myocarditis/pericarditis cluster. Further investigation suggested the fifth signal group was a manifestation of mRNA vaccine effectiveness after the first 3 weeks. Janssen vaccinees had clusters of unspecified or common vaccine reactions, gait/mobility abnormalities, and muscle weakness. The latter two were deemed to have arisen from confounding related to practices at one site.ConclusionsWe detected post-vaccination clusters of unspecified adverse effects, common vaccine reactions, and, for the mRNA vaccines, chest pain and palpitations, as well as myocarditis/pericarditis after Pfizer-BioNTech Dose 2. Unique advantages of this data mining are its untargeted nature and its inherent adjustment for the multiplicity of diagnoses and risk intervals scanned.     

Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people who inject drugs

IntroductionWe studied characteristics of COVID-19 vaccination uptake among people who inject drugs (PWID).MethodsParticipants aged ≥18 years who injected drugs ≤1 month ago were recruited into a community-based cohort from October 2020 to September 2021 in San Diego, California Poisson regression identified correlates of having had ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose based on semi-annual follow-up interviews through March 15, 2022.ResultsOf 360 participants, 74.7% were male, mean age was 42 years; 63.1% were Hispanic/Mexican/Latinx. More than one-third had ≥1 co-morbidity. HIV and HCV seroprevalence were 4.2% and 50.6% respectively; 41.1% lacked health insurance. Only 37.8% reported having ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose. None received ≥3 doses. However, of those vaccinated, 37.5% were previously unwilling/unsure about COVID-19 vaccines. Believing COVID-19 vaccines include tracking devices (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42,0.92) and lacking health insurance (aIRR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.40,0.91) were associated with approximately 40% lower COVID-19 vaccination rates). Ever receiving influenza vaccines (aIRR: 2.16; 95%CI: 1.46, 3.20) and testing HIV-seropositive (aIRR: 2.51; 95% CI: 1.03, 6.10) or SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive (aIRR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.05, 3.16) independently predicted higher COVID-19 vaccination rates. Older age, knowing more vaccinated people, and recent incarceration were also independently associated with higher COVID-19 vaccination rates.ConclusionsOne year after COVID-19 vaccines became available to U.S. adults, only one third of PWID had received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose. Multi-faceted approaches that dispel disinformation, integrate public health and social services and increase access to free, community-based COVID-19 vaccines are urgently needed.     

Effectiveness of adenovirus type 5 vectored and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic COVID-19, COVID-19 pneumonia,and severe COVID-19 caused by the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant: Evidence from an outbreak in Yunnan,China, 2021

BackgroundIn partial response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, countries around the world are conducting large-scale vaccination campaigns. Real-world estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant are still limited. An outbreak in Ruili city of China provided an opportunity to evaluate VE against the Delta variant of two types of COVID-19 vaccines in use in China and globally – inactivated (CoronaVac and BBIBP-CorV) and adenovirus type 5 vectored (Convidecia) vaccines.MethodsWe estimated VE using a retrospective cohort study two months after the Ruili vaccination campaign (median: 63 days). Close contacts of infected people (Chinese nationality, 18 years and above) were included to assess VE against symptomatic Covid-19, COVID-19 pneumonia, and severe COVID-19. We calculated the relative risks (RR) of the outcomes for unvaccinated compared with fully vaccinated individuals. We used logistic regression analyses to estimate adjusted VEs, controlling for gender and age group (18–59 years and 60 years and over).We compared unvaccinated and fully vaccinated individuals on duration of RT-PCR positivity and Ct value.FindingsThere were 686 close contacts eligible for VE estimates. Adjusted VE of ad5-vectored vaccine was 61.5% (95% CI, 9.5–83.6) against symptomatic COVID-19, 67.9% (95%CI: 1.7–89.9) against pneumonia, and 100% (95%CI: 36.6–100) against severe/critical illness. For the two inactivated vaccines, combined VE was 74.6% (95% CI, 36.0–90.0) against symptomatic COVID-19, 76.7% (95% CI: 19.3–93.3) against pneumonia, and 100% (95% CI: 47.6–100) against severe/critical COVID-19. There were no statistically significant differences in VE between two inactivated vaccines for symptomatic COVID-19 and for pneumonia, nor were there statistically significant differences between inactivated and ad5-vectored VE in any of the three outcomes. The median durations of RT-PCR positivity were 17 days for fifteen people vaccinated with an inactivated vaccine, 18 days for forty-four people vaccinated with the Ad5 vectored vaccine, and 26 days for eleven unvaccinated individuals. InterpretationThese results provide reassuring evidence that the three vaccines are effective at preventing Delta-variant COVID-19 in short term following vaccination campaign, and are most effective at preventing more serious illness. The findings of reduced duration of RT-PCR positivity and length of hospital stay associated with full vaccination suggests potential saving of health-care system resources.     

Reactogenicity within 2 weeks after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: Findings from the CDC v-safe surveillance system

BackgroundPost-authorization monitoring of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines is needed to better characterize their reactogenicity. We assessed reactions reported during the 2 weeks after receipt of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines.MethodsWe monitored persons who enrolled in v-safe after vaccination health checker^SM, a U.S. smartphone-based vaccine monitoring system, after receiving BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. V-safe participants received text message prompts to complete web-based surveys. We analyzed responses from persons who received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 from December 14, 2020 through March 14, 2021 and completed at least one survey by March 28, 2021. We measured the proportion of participants reporting local and systemic reactions solicited in surveys completed days 0 through 7 post-vaccination. For day 14 surveys, participants described new or worsening symptoms in a free-text response. We assessed the proportion of participants reporting new or worsening local and systemic reactions.ResultsOne-third of participants were aged <45 years, two-thirds were female, and approximately half received BNT162b2 vaccine. A total of 4,717,908 participants reported during the 7 days after dose 1 and 2,906,377 reported during the 7 days after dose 2. Most reported at least one injection-site reaction (68.5% after dose 1; 72.9% after dose 2) or at least one systemic reaction (50.6% after dose 1; 69.5% after dose 2). Reactogenicity was greater after dose 2 and among mRNA-1273 recipients, persons aged <45 years, and females. New or worsening local and systemic reactions were uncommon during week 2 after either dose; the most frequent were local reactions for dose 1 mRNA-1273 recipients (2.6%). These reactions were reported more often among females after dose 1 mRNA-1273 (3.6%).ConclusionsDuring post-authorization monitoring among >4 million vaccinees, local and systemic reactions were commonly reported following mRNA-based vaccines. Reactions were most common during the first week following dose 2 and among persons aged <45 years, females, and mRNA-1273 recipients.     

Near real-time surveillance of safety outcomes in US COVID-19 vaccine recipients aged 12 to 64 years

BackgroundActive monitoring of safety outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination is critical to understand vaccine safety and can provide early detection of rare outcomes not identified in pre-licensure trials. We present findings from an early warning rapid surveillance system in three large commercial insurance databases including more than 16 million vaccinated individuals.MethodsWe evaluated 17 outcomes of interest following COVID-19 vaccination among individuals aged 12–64 years in Optum, HealthCore, and CVS Health databases from December 11, 2020, through January 22, 2022, January 7, 2022, and December 31, 2021, respectively. We conducted biweekly or monthly sequential testing and generated rate ratios (RR) of observed outcome rates compared to historical (or expected) rates prior to COVID-19 vaccination.FindingsAmong 17 outcomes evaluated, 15 did not meet the threshold for statistical signal in any of the three databases. Myocarditis/pericarditis met the statistical threshold for a signal following BNT162b2 in two of three databases (RRs: 1.83–2.47). Anaphylaxis met the statistical threshold for a signal in all three databases following BNT162b2 vaccination (RRs: 4.48–10.86) and mRNA-1273 vaccination (RRs: 7.64–12.40).DiscussionConsistent with published literature, our near-real time monitoring of 17 adverse outcomes following COVID-19 vaccinations identified signals for myocarditis/pericarditis and anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations. The method is intended for early detection of safety signals, and results do not imply a causal effect. Results of this study should be interpreted in the context of the method’s utility and limitations, and the validity of detected signals must be evaluated in fully adjusted epidemiologic studies.     

Exploring the attitudes,concerns, and knowledge regarding COVID-19 vaccine by the parents of children with rheumatic disease: Cross-sectional online survey

BackgroundVaccination programs are effective strategies in preventing infectious diseases and controlling epidemics. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in children has not yet been approved globally, and it is unclear what attitude families will take when it is approved in children. We aimed to investigate the underlying causes of vaccine acceptance, hesitation, and refusal, as well as concerns about the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine by parents of children with rheumatic diseases.MethodsParents of children followed up with a diagnosis of rheumatic disease in the pediatric rheumatology outpatient clinic of a university hospital were included in the study. We applied a closed web-based online survey conducted cross-sectionally and sent to the participants via mobile smartphones.ResultsFor fathers, mothers, and their children, acceptance rates for a COVID-19 vaccine were 64.2%, 57.7%, and 41.8%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, factors affecting parents' acceptance of vaccines for their children were as follows: “Receiving antirheumatic medications regularly (AOR 5.40, 95% CI 1.10–26.33, p = 0.03), the previous history of getting special recommended vaccines (AOR 4.12, 95% CI 1.12–27.85, p = 0.03), relying on vaccines for ending pandemic (AOR 8.84, 95% CI 2.80–27.85, p = 0.001), complying with the pandemic measures entirely (AOR 5.24, 95% CI 1.46–18.74, p = 0.01)“. The two most common reasons for vaccine rejection were fear of the side effects of the vaccine and its possible interaction with rheumatic drugs used by children.ConclusionAccording to our survey, parents were more likely to accept a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves than their children. The success of COVID-19 vaccination programs sources highly on people's willingness to accept the vaccine. It is crucial to vaccinate children for achieving herd immunity and in terms of avoiding vaccine hesitancy. Larger data examining the causes of concerns in parents of both healthy children and children with chronic diseases should be delineated.     

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among persons living in homeless shelters in France

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is frequent and can constitute a barrier to the dissemination of vaccines once they are available. Unequal access to vaccines may also contribute to socioeconomic inequalities with regard to COVID-19. We studied vaccine hesitancy among persons living in homeless shelters in France between May and June 2020 (n = 235). Overall, 40.9% of study participants reported vaccine hesitancy, which is comparable to general population trends in France. In multivariate regression models, factors associated with vaccine hesitancy are: being a woman (OR = 2.55; 95% CI 1.40–4.74), living with a partner (OR = 2.48, 95% CI 1.17–5.41), no legal residence in France (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.27–0.92), and health literacy (OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.21, 0.68). Our results suggest that trends in vaccine hesitancy and associated factors are similar among homeless persons as in the general population. Dissemination of information on vaccine risks and benefits needs to be adapted to persons who experience severe disadvantage.