211
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Analysis of Thromboembolic and Thrombocytopenic Events After the AZD1222, BNT162b2, and MRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in 3 Nordic Countries

      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

          This study evaluates the association between the AZD1222, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 vaccines and subsequent thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic events between 3 Nordic countries.

          Key Points

          Question

          Are COVID-19 vaccines associated with increased risk of thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic events?

          Findings

          In this self-controlled case series, AZD1222 was associated with increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia in 3 Nordic countries. No consistent associations were observed between the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders and cerebrovascular disease.

          Meaning

          The findings of this study suggest that AZD1222 vaccination is associated with cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Vaccinations are paramount to halt the COVID-19 pandemic, and safety data are essential to determine the risk-benefit ratio of each COVID-19 vaccine.

          Objective

          To evaluate the association between the AZD1222, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 vaccines and subsequent thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic events.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This self-controlled case series used individual-level data from national registries in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Participants included individuals with hospital contacts because of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, or cerebrovascular disease between January 1, 2020, and May 16, 2021.

          Exposures

          AZD1222, BNT162b2, or mRNA-1273 vaccine.

          Main Outcomes and Measure

          Relative rate (RR) of hospital contacts for coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, or cerebrovascular disease in a 28-day period following vaccination compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

          Results

          We found 265 339 hospital contacts, of whom 112 984 [43%] were for female patients, 246 092 [93%] were for patients born in 1971 or earlier, 116 931 [44%] were for coronary artery disease, 55 445 [21%] were for coagulation disorders, and 92 963 [35%] were for cerebrovascular disease. In the 28-day period following vaccination, there was an increased rate of coronary artery disease following mRNA-1273 vaccination (RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.25]), but not following AZD1222 vaccination (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.82-1.03]) or BNT162b2 vaccination (RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]). There was an observed increased rate of coagulation disorders following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.75-2.31]; BNT162b2: RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.07-1.19]; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.07-1.47]). There was also an observed increased rate of cerebrovascular disease following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16-1.52]; BNT162b2: RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05-1.13]; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.09-1.35]). For individual diseases within the main outcomes, 2 notably high rates were observed: 12.04 (95% CI, 5.37-26.99) for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 (95% CI, 2.96-6.20) for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 (95% CI, 0.6-2.6) and 4.9 (95% CI, 2.9-6.9) excess events per 100 000 doses, respectively, following AZD1222 vaccination.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this self-controlled case series, there was an increased rate of hospital contacts because of coagulation disorders and cerebrovascular disease, especially for thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous thrombosis, following vaccination with AZD1222. Although increased rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccination were observed, these increases were less than the rates observed after AZD1222, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent. Confirmatory analysis on the 2 mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

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

          Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing

            Bookmark
            • 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

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                14 June 2022
                June 2022
                14 June 2022
                : 5
                : 6
                : e2217375
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
                [2 ]Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
                [3 ]Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [4 ]The Information Services Department, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland
                [5 ]The Department of Public Health and Welfare, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Tampere, Finland
                [6 ]Pharmacovigilance Research Center, Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: April 28, 2022.
                Published: June 14, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.17375
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Dag Berild J et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Medical Officer, Department of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, 0213 Oslo, Norway ( jdbe@ 123456fhi.no ).
                Author Contributions : Dr Berild had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Berild, Palmu, Hviid.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Berild.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Larsen, Thiesson, Lehtonen, Grøsland, Helgeland, Hansen.
                Obtained funding: Hviid.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Berild.
                Supervision: Wohlfahrt, Palmu, Hviid.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Thiesson reported receiving grants from Lundbeck Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr Palmu reported receiving grants from Sanofi Inc, Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA outside the submitted work. Dr Hviid reported receiving grants from The Lundbeck Foundation during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: The Danish part of this study was supported in part the Lundbeck Foundation.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi220506
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.17375
                9198750
                35699955
                438acd27-2d17-42a3-9701-7bd62abba166
                Copyright 2022 Dag Berild J et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 11 November 2021
                : 28 April 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Public Health

                Comments

                Comment on this article