Cohort Event Monitoring of Adverse Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines in Seven European Countries: Pooled Results on First Dose

Introduction: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly authorised, thus requiring intense post-marketing re-evaluation of their benefit-risk profile. A multi-national European collaboration was established with the aim to prospectively monitor safety of the COVID-19 vaccines through web-based survey of vaccinees. Methods: A prospective cohort event monitoring study was conducted with primary consented data collection in seven European countries. Through the web applications, participants received and completed baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires on self-reported adverse reactions for at least 6 months following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, Italy) and baseline and up to ten follow-up questionnaires for one year in Germany and Croatia. Rates of adverse reactions have been described by type (solicited, non-solicited; serious/non-serious; and adverse events of special interest) and stratified by vaccine brand. We calculated the frequency of adverse reaction after dose 1 and prior to dose 2 among all vaccinees who completed at least one follow-up questionnaire. Results: Overall, 117,791 participants were included and completed the first questionnaire in addition to the baseline: 88,196 (74.9%) from Germany, 27,588 (23.4%) from Netherlands, 984 (0.8%) from France, 570 (0.5%) from Italy, 326 (0.3%) from Croatia, 89 (0.1%) from the UK and 38 (0.03%) from Belgium. There were 89,377 (75.9%) respondents who had received AstraZeneca vaccines, 14,658 (12.4%) BioNTech/Pfizer, 11,266 (9.6%) Moderna and 2490 (2.1%) Janssen vaccines as a first dose. Median age category was 40–49 years for all vaccines except for Pfizer where median age was 70–79 years. Most vaccinees were female with a female-to-male ratio of 1.34, 1.96 and 2.50 for AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen, respectively. BioNtech/Pfizer had slightly more men with a ratio of 0.82. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported solicited systemic adverse reactions and injection-site pain was the most common solicited local reaction. The rates of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were 0.1–0.2% across all vaccine brands. Conclusion: This large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients showed, for all the studied vaccines, a high frequency of systemic reactions, related to the immunogenic response, and local reactions at the injection site, while serious reactions or AESIs were uncommon, consistent with those reported on product labels. This study demonstrated the feasibility of setting up and conducting cohort event monitoring across multiple European countries to collect safety data on novel vaccines that are rolled out at scale in populations which may not have been included in pivotal trials

Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines in Persons with Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A European Multi-Country Study

In all pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines, the history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was mentioned as one of the main exclusion criteria. In the absence of clinical trials, observational studies are the primary source for evidence generation. This study aims to describe the patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following the first COVID-19 vaccination cycle, as well as the administration of booster doses of different vaccine brands, in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to prior infection-free matched cohorts of vaccinees. A web-based prospective study was conducted collecting vaccinee-reported outcomes through electronic questionnaires from eleven European countries in the period February 2021-February 2023. A baseline questionnaire and up to six follow-up questionnaires collected data on the vaccinee's characteristics, as well as solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Overall, 3886 and 902 vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and having received the first dose or a booster dose, respectively, were included in the analysis. After the first dose or booster dose, vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a higher frequency than those matched without prior infection (3470 [89.6%] vs. 2916 [75.3%], and 614 [68.2%] vs. 546 [60.6%], respectively). On the contrary side, after the second dose, vaccinees with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a lower frequency, compared to matched controls (1443 [85.0%] vs. 1543 [90.9%]). The median time to onset and the median time to recovery were similar across all doses and cohorts. The frequency of adverse reactions was higher in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received Vaxzevria as the first dose and Spikevax as the second and booster doses. The frequency of serious ADRs was low for all doses and cohorts. Data from this large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccinees could be used to inform people as to the likelihood of adverse effects based on their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, age, sex, and the type of vaccine administered. In line with pivotal trials, the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines was also confirmed in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection

Medications Recommended for Secondary Prevention After First Acute Coronary Syndrome : Effectiveness of Treatment Combinations in a Real-Life Setting

Long-term effectiveness of evidence-based cardiovascular medications (EBCMs) indicated after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) needs to be assessed considering the combination effects for these drugs recommended in association. Using a nationwide database, we conducted a cohort study to evaluate the effectiveness of all possible incomplete EBCMs-based combinations as compared to that associating the four recommended EBCMs over up to 5 years of follow-up. Among the 31,668 patients included, 22.9% had ACS recurrence or died during follow-up. The risks associated with the use of 3-EBCM based combinations were 1.46 (95% confidence interval: 1.33-1.60) for the combinations without statins, 1.30 (1.17-1.43) for the combinations without angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, 1.11 (0.98-1.25) for the combinations without antiplatelet agents, and 0.99 (0.89-1.10) for the combination without beta-blockers. These findings question the interest of maintaining long-term treatment with beta-blockers in addition to the other EBCMs for post-ACS secondary prevention

Correction to: Comparative Real-Life Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran or Rivaroxaban vs. Vitamin K Antagonists: A High-Dimensional Propensity Score Matched New Users Cohort Study in the French National Healthcare Data System SNDS

Correction to: American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs (2020) 20:81–103 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-019-00359-

Idarucizumab for Reversion of Anticoagulant Effect in Daily Practice

International audienceBackground and Purpose— We compared the 1-year safety and effectiveness of rivaroxaban 15 mg (R15) or rivaroxaban 20 mg (R20) to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Methods— New user cohort study of patients dispensed R15 or R20 versus VKA in 2013 or 2014 for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, followed 1 year in the French Système National des Données de Santé (66 million people). R15 and R20 users were matched 1:1 with VKA users on sex, age, date of first drug dispensing, and high-dimensional propensity score. Hazard ratios (95% CIs) for stroke and systemic embolism, major bleeding, and death were computed using Cox proportional hazards or models by Fine and Gray during exposure. Results— In 31 171 matched R20 and VKA, mean age, 71; 62% men; 76% with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥2; 5% HAS-BLED >3 (hypertension, abnormal renal and liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile INR, elderly, drugs or alcohol); incidence rates for stroke and systemic embolism were 1.5% and 1.9% (hazard ratio, 0.79 [0.69–0.90]); major bleeding, 1.5% and 2.2% (0.67 [0.59–0.77]); death, 3.9% and 5.8% (0.67 [0.61–0.73]). In 23 314 matched R15 and VKA patients, mean age, 80; 47% men; 93% with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥2 and 9% with HAS-BLED >3; incidence rates of stroke and systemic embolism were 2.3% and 2.1% (1.05 [0.92–1.21]); major bleeding, 2.4% and 2.9% (0.84 [0.74–0.96]); death, 9.1% and 10.8% (0.85 [0.79–0.90]). Numbers needed to treat to observe one fewer death (NNT) were 46 for R15 and 61 for R20. Conclusions— In real life in France over 2013 to 2015, R15 and R20 were at least as effective and safer than VKA. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.encepp.eu . Unique identifier: EUPAS14567

Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes but without prior myocardial infarction or stroke and THEMIS-like patients: real-world prevalence and risk of major outcomes from the SNDS French nationwide claims database

International audienceAIM AND HYPOTHESES: The THEMIS randomized trial compared ticagrelor plus aspirin versus placebo plus aspirin for patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus (CAD-T2DM), and without prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. The aim of the study was to quantify the size of the CAD-T2DM population without prior MI or stroke population in a real-world setting, and more specifically populations with similar THEMIS selection criteria (THEMIS-like and THEMIS-PCI-like populations), as well as their risk of major outcomes in current practice. METHODS: A 2-year follow-up cohort study included all CAD-T2DM without MI/stroke prevalent patients on January 1st, 2014 in the SNDS French nationwide claims database. The THEMIS-like population concerned those ≥ 50 years of age with similar THEMIS inclusion and exclusion criteria. Prevalence was standardized to the European population. The cumulative incidence function was used to estimate the incidence of clinical outcomes (MI, ischemic stroke, and major bleeding according to the TIMI classification) with death as competing risk, and the Kaplan-Meier estimate for all-cause death and a composite outcome of MI, stroke and all-cause death. RESULTS: From a population of about 50 million adults, the prevalence of CAD-T2DM without MI/stroke, THEMIS-like and THEMIS-PCI-like populations was respectively at 6.04, 1.50 and 0.27 per 1000 adults, with a mean age of 72.7, 72.3 and 70.9 years and less comorbidities and diabetic complications for the THEMIS-like and THEMIS-PCI-like population. The 2-year cumulative incidence was respectively 1.7%, 1.3% and 1.6% for MI, 1.7%, 1.5% and 1.4% for stroke, 4.8%, 3.1% and 2.9% for major bleeding, 13.6%, 9.7% and 6.8% for all-cause death, and 16.2%, 12.0% and 9.5% for the composite outcome. CONCLUSION: THEMIS-like prevalence was estimated at 1.50 per 1,000 adults, representing about a quarter of CAD-T2DM without MI/stroke patients, and 0.27 per 1000 adults for the THEMIS-PCI-like populations. In current French practice, the median age of both these populations was about 5-6 years older than in the THEMIS trial, with a 2-year incidence of major outcomes between two or four time above the ones of the placebo arm of the THEMIS trial using very close definitions. Registration No. EUPAS27402 ( http://www.ENCEPP.eu )

Cohort Event Monitoring of Adverse Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines in Seven European Countries: Pooled Results on First Dose

Introduction: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly authorised, thus requiring intense post-marketing re-evaluation of their benefit-risk profile. A multi-national European collaboration was established with the aim to prospectively monitor safety of the COVID-19 vaccines through web-based survey of vaccinees. Methods: A prospective cohort event monitoring study was conducted with primary consented data collection in seven European countries. Through the web applications, participants received and completed baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires on self-reported adverse reactions for at least 6 months following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, Italy) and baseline and up to ten follow-up questionnaires for one year in Germany and Croatia. Rates of adverse reactions have been described by type (solicited, non-solicited; serious/non-serious; and adverse events of special interest) and stratified by vaccine brand. We calculated the frequency of adverse reaction after dose 1 and prior to dose 2 among all vaccinees who completed at least one follow-up questionnaire. Results: Overall, 117,791 participants were included and completed the first questionnaire in addition to the baseline: 88,196 (74.9%) from Germany, 27,588 (23.4%) from Netherlands, 984 (0.8%) from France, 570 (0.5%) from Italy, 326 (0.3%) from Croatia, 89 (0.1%) from the UK and 38 (0.03%) from Belgium. There were 89,377 (75.9%) respondents who had received AstraZeneca vaccines, 14,658 (12.4%) BioNTech/Pfizer, 11,266 (9.6%) Moderna and 2490 (2.1%) Janssen vaccines as a first dose. Median age category was 40-49 years for all vaccines except for Pfizer where median age was 70-79 years. Most vaccinees were female with a female-to-male ratio of 1.34, 1.96 and 2.50 for AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen, respectively. BioNtech/Pfizer had slightly more men with a ratio of 0.82. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported solicited systemic adverse reactions and injection-site pain was the most common solicited local reaction. The rates of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were 0.1-0.2% across all vaccine brands. Conclusion: This large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients showed, for all the studied vaccines, a high frequency of systemic reactions, related to the immunogenic response, and local reactions at the injection site, while serious reactions or AESIs were uncommon, consistent with those reported on product labels. This study demonstrated the feasibility of setting up and conducting cohort event monitoring across multiple European countries to collect safety data on novel vaccines that are rolled out at scale in populations which may not have been included in pivotal trials

Cohort Event Monitoring of Adverse Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines in Seven European Countries: Pooled Results on First Dose

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly authorised, thus requiring intense post-marketing re-evaluation of their benefit-risk profile. A multi-national European collaboration was established with the aim to prospectively monitor safety of the COVID-19 vaccines through web-based survey of vaccinees. METHODS: A prospective cohort event monitoring study was conducted with primary consented data collection in seven European countries. Through the web applications, participants received and completed baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires on self-reported adverse reactions for at least 6 months following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, Italy) and baseline and up to ten follow-up questionnaires for one year in Germany and Croatia. Rates of adverse reactions have been described by type (solicited, non-solicited; serious/non-serious; and adverse events of special interest) and stratified by vaccine brand. We calculated the frequency of adverse reaction after dose 1 and prior to dose 2 among all vaccinees who completed at least one follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, 117,791 participants were included and completed the first questionnaire in addition to the baseline: 88,196 (74.9%) from Germany, 27,588 (23.4%) from Netherlands, 984 (0.8%) from France, 570 (0.5%) from Italy, 326 (0.3%) from Croatia, 89 (0.1%) from the UK and 38 (0.03%) from Belgium. There were 89,377 (75.9%) respondents who had received AstraZeneca vaccines, 14,658 (12.4%) BioNTech/Pfizer, 11,266 (9.6%) Moderna and 2490 (2.1%) Janssen vaccines as a first dose. Median age category was 40-49 years for all vaccines except for Pfizer where median age was 70-79 years. Most vaccinees were female with a female-to-male ratio of 1.34, 1.96 and 2.50 for AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen, respectively. BioNtech/Pfizer had slightly more men with a ratio of 0.82. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported solicited systemic adverse reactions and injection-site pain was the most common solicited local reaction. The rates of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were 0.1-0.2% across all vaccine brands. CONCLUSION: This large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients showed, for all the studied vaccines, a high frequency of systemic reactions, related to the immunogenic response, and local reactions at the injection site, while serious reactions or AESIs were uncommon, consistent with those reported on product labels. This study demonstrated the feasibility of setting up and conducting cohort event monitoring across multiple European countries to collect safety data on novel vaccines that are rolled out at scale in populations which may not have been included in pivotal trials

Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines in Persons with Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A European Multi-Country Study

In all pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines, the history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was mentioned as one of the main exclusion criteria. In the absence of clinical trials, observational studies are the primary source for evidence generation. This study aims to describe the patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following the first COVID-19 vaccination cycle, as well as the administration of booster doses of different vaccine brands, in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to prior infection-free matched cohorts of vaccinees. A web-based prospective study was conducted collecting vaccinee-reported outcomes through electronic questionnaires from eleven European countries in the period February 2021–February 2023. A baseline questionnaire and up to six follow-up questionnaires collected data on the vaccinee’s characteristics, as well as solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Overall, 3886 and 902 vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and having received the first dose or a booster dose, respectively, were included in the analysis. After the first dose or booster dose, vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a higher frequency than those matched without prior infection (3470 [89.6%] vs. 2916 [75.3%], and 614 [68.2%] vs. 546 [60.6%], respectively). On the contrary side, after the second dose, vaccinees with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a lower frequency, compared to matched controls (1443 [85.0%] vs. 1543 [90.9%]). The median time to onset and the median time to recovery were similar across all doses and cohorts. The frequency of adverse reactions was higher in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received Vaxzevria as the first dose and Spikevax as the second and booster doses. The frequency of serious ADRs was low for all doses and cohorts. Data from this large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccinees could be used to inform people as to the likelihood of adverse effects based on their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, age, sex, and the type of vaccine administered. In line with pivotal trials, the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines was also confirmed in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection

‘Real-world’ observational studies in arrhythmia research: data sources, methodology, and interpretation. A position document from European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), endorsed by Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia-Pacific HRS (APHRS), and Latin America HRS (LAHRS)

International audienceAbstract The field of observational studies or “real world studies” is in rapid development with many new techniques introduced and increased understanding of traditional methods. For this reason the current paper provides an overview of current methods with focus on new techniques. Some highlights can be emphasized: We provide an overview of sources of data for observational studies. There is an overview of sources of bias and confounding. Next There is an overview of causal inference techniques that are increasingly used. The most commonly used techniques for statistical modelling are reviewed with focus on the important distinction of risk versus prediction. The final section provides examples of common problems with reporting observational data