31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      First-dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events in Scotland

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Reports of ChAdOx1 vaccine–associated thrombocytopenia and vascular adverse events have led to some countries restricting its use. Using a national prospective cohort, we estimated associations between exposure to first-dose ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 vaccination and hematological and vascular adverse events using a nested incident-matched case-control study and a confirmatory self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis. An association was found between ChAdOx1 vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) (0–27 d after vaccination; adjusted rate ratio (aRR) = 5.77, 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.41–13.83), with an estimated incidence of 1.13 (0.62–1.63) cases per 100,000 doses. An SCCS analysis confirmed that this was unlikely due to bias (RR = 1.98 (1.29–3.02)). There was also an increased risk for arterial thromboembolic events (aRR = 1.22, 1.12–1.34) 0–27 d after vaccination, with an SCCS RR of 0.97 (0.93–1.02). For hemorrhagic events 0–27 d after vaccination, the aRR was 1.48 (1.12–1.96), with an SCCS RR of 0.95 (0.82–1.11). A first dose of ChAdOx1 was found to be associated with small increased risks of ITP, with suggestive evidence of an increased risk of arterial thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events. The attenuation of effect found in the SCCS analysis means that there is the potential for overestimation of the reported results, which might indicate the presence of some residual confounding or confounding by indication. Public health authorities should inform their jurisdictions of these relatively small increased risks associated with ChAdOx1. No positive associations were seen between BNT162b2 and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events.

          Abstract

          New data from the EAVE II cohort in Scotland suggests that a first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine might be associated with a small increase in the risk of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura between 0 and 27 d after vaccination.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

            Abstract Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

              Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                aziz.sheikh@ed.ac.uk
                Journal
                Nat Med
                Nat Med
                Nature Medicine
                Nature Publishing Group US (New York )
                1078-8956
                1546-170X
                9 June 2021
                9 June 2021
                2021
                : 27
                : 7
                : 1290-1297
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.267827.e, ISNI 0000 0001 2292 3111, School of Health, Wellington Faculty of Health, , Victoria University of Wellington, ; Wellington, New Zealand
                [2 ]GRID grid.4305.2, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7988, Usher Institute, , University of Edinburgh, ; Edinburgh, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.8756.c, ISNI 0000 0001 2193 314X, MRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, , University of Glasgow, ; Glasgow, UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.508718.3, Public Health Scotland, ; Glasgow, Scotland
                [5 ]GRID grid.11914.3c, ISNI 0000 0001 0721 1626, School of Medicine, , University of St. Andrews, ; St. Andrews, UK
                [6 ]GRID grid.7107.1, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7291, Centre of Academic Primary Care, , University of Aberdeen, ; Aberdeen, UK
                [7 ]GRID grid.11984.35, ISNI 0000000121138138, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, , University of Strathclyde, ; Glasgow, UK
                [8 ]GRID grid.4777.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0374 7521, Queen’s University Belfast, ; Belfast, UK
                [9 ]GRID grid.454053.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0494 5490, Public Health Agency, ; Belfast, Northern Ireland
                [10 ]GRID grid.507332.0, Health Data Research UK, , BREATHE Hub, ; Edinburgh, UK
                [11 ]GRID grid.4991.5, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, , University of Oxford, ; Oxford, UK
                [12 ]GRID grid.4827.9, ISNI 0000 0001 0658 8800, Population Data Science, , Swansea University, ; Swansea, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4101-4535
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6593-9092
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5672-0443
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1468-1823
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4308-856X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2520-526X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8553-2641
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5853-4625
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0814-0801
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7022-3056
                Article
                1408
                10.1038/s41591-021-01408-4
                8282499
                34108714
                5769dfa5-3aad-473f-adbc-dad0f6a2dcf1
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 4 May 2021
                : 26 May 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, DH | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR);
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc. 2021

                Medicine
                epidemiology
                Medicine
                epidemiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article