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 (CI) 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: 0.80-1.33) and 1.11 (95% CI: 0.80-1.50) per 100,000 doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac administered respectively. 16 and 17 individuals received second dose after having first seizure within 28 days after first dose of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations, respectively. 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=0.75-2.58; CoronaVac: IRR=1.19, 95% CI=0.50-2.83) and second doses (BNT162b2: IRR=1.36, 95% CI 0.72-2.57; CoronaVac: IRR=0.71, 95% CI=0.22-2.30) of vaccinations. During 7-13, 14-20- and 21-27-days post-vaccination, no association was observed for both vaccines. 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

Sex-based differences in risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism after BNT162b2 or CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccination in patients with atrial fibrillation: a self-controlled case series and nested case-control study

AIMS: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism with a greater risk for female patients. This study aims to evaluate the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AF and the sex differences. METHODS AND RESULTS: Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis was conducted to evaluate the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding following BNT162b2 or CoronaVac in patients with AF, using the territory-wide electronic medical records from the Hospital Authority and vaccination records from the Department of Health in Hong Kong. Patients with a primary diagnosis of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism or bleeding in the inpatient setting between February 23, 2021 and March 31, 2022 were included. A nested case-control analysis was also conducted with each case randomly matched with ten controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index and date of hospital admission. Conditional Poisson regression was used in the SCCS analysis and conditional logistic regression was used in nested case-control analysis to assess the risks and all analyses were stratified by sex and type of vaccines. Among 51 158 patients with AF, we identified an increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after the first dose of BNT162b2 in SCCS analysis during 0-13 days (incidence rate ratio 6.60[95% CI 1.51-28.77]) and 14-27 days (6.53[95% CI 1.31-32.51]), and nested case-control analysis during 0-13 days (adjusted odds ratio 6.21 [95% CI 1.14-33.91]) and 14-27 days (5.52 [95% CI 1.12-27.26]) only in female patients. The increased risk in female patients following the first dose of CoronaVac was only detected during 0-13 days (3.88 [95% CI 1.67-9.03]) in the nested case-control analysis. No increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was identified in male patients and no increased risk of bleeding was detected in all patients with AF for both vaccines. An increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after COVID-19 was also observed in both females (17.42 [95% CI 5.08-59.73]) and males (6.63 [95% CI 2.02-21.79]). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after COVID-19 vaccination was only increased in female patients with AF. However, as the risk after COVID-19 was even higher, proactive uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is recommended to prevent the potential severe outcomes after infection

Comparing hybrid and regular COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity against the Omicron epidemic

Evidence on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among people who recovered from a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is warranted to inform vaccination recommendations. Using the territory-wide public healthcare and vaccination records of over 2.5 million individuals in Hong Kong, we examined the potentially differential risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and mortality between those receiving two homologous doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac versus those with a previous infection receiving only one dose amid the Omicron epidemic. Results show a single dose after a SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a lower risk of infection (BNT162b2: adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.475, 95% CI: 0.410–0.550; CoronaVac: adjusted IRR = 0.397, 95% CI: 0.309–0.511) and no significant difference was detected in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or mortality compared with a two-dose vaccination regimen. Findings support clinical recommendations that those with a previous infection could receive a single dose to gain at least similar protection as those who received two doses without a previous infection

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab: A Target Trial Emulation Study

Background: Immunocompromised individuals are at high risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and subsequent severe or fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet they have suboptimal responses to mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. The efficacy of tixagevimab–cilgavimab in reducing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was demonstrated in phase III clinical trials. Nevertheless, real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of tixagevimab–cilgavimab remain limited. Objective: The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tixagevimab–cilgavimab among immunocompromised individuals. Methods: Adults who were immunocompromised or receiving immunosuppressive therapies were included in this target trial emulation using territory-wide electronic health records in Hong Kong. A sequential trial emulation approach was adopted to compare effectiveness and safety outcomes between individuals who received tixagevimab–cilgavimab and individuals who did not. Results: A total of 746 tixagevimab–cilgavimab recipients and 2980 controls were included from 1 May 2022 to 30 November 2022. Tixagevimab–cilgavimab significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection (hazard ratio [HR] 0.708, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.527–0.951) during a median follow-up of 60 days. No significant difference was observed in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation. Zero versus eight COVID-19 mortality cases and zero versus two severe COVID-19 cases were observed in tixagevimab–cilgavimab recipients and controls, respectively. Notably, significant risk reduction in COVID-19 infection was also observed among immunocompromised individuals who had been previously vaccinated with three or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine, or had no prior COVID-19 infection history. Conclusions: Tixagevimab–cilgavimab was effective in reducing COVID-19 infection among immunocompromised patients during the Omicron wave. Findings were consistent among individuals who previously received three or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine, or had no previous history of COVID-19 infection

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in Hong Kong: A Target Trial Emulation

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the difference between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in vaccine effectiveness and safety. METHODS: This target trial emulation study included individuals aged ≥ 12 during 2022. Propensity score matching was applied to ensure group balance. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the effectiveness outcomes including COVID-19 infection, severity, 28-day hospitalization and 28-day mortality after infection. Poisson regression was used for safety outcomes including 32 adverse events of special interests between groups. RESULTS: 639,818 and 1,804,388 individuals were identified for the 2-dose and 3-dose comparison, respectively. In 2-dose and 3-dose comparison, the hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals [CI]) were 0.844 [0.833-0.856] and 0.749 [0.743-0.755] for COVID-19 infection, 0.692 [0.656-0.731] and 0.582 [0.559-0.605] for hospitalization, 0.566 [0.417-0.769] and 0.590 [0.458-0.76] for severe COVID-19, and 0.563 [0.456-0.697] and 0.457 [0.372-0.561] for mortality for BNT162b2 recipients versus CoronaVac recipients, respectively. Regarding safety, 2-dose BNT162b2 recipients had a significantly higher incidence of myocarditis (Incidence rate ratio[IRR][95% CI]: 8.999 [1.14-71.017]) versus CoronaVac recipients, but the difference was insignificant in 3-dose comparison (IRR [95% CI]: 2.000 [0.500-7.996]). CONCLUSIONS: BNT162b2 has higher effectiveness among individuals aged ≥ 12 against COVID-19-related outcomes for SARS-CoV-2 omicron compared to CoronaVac, with almost 50% lower mortality risk. (200 words)

Effectiveness of molnupiravir vs nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a target trial emulation study

BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have emerged as promising options for COVID-19 treatment, but direct comparisons of their effectiveness have been limited. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these two oral antiviral drugs in non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this target trial emulation study, we used data from a territory-wide electronic health records database on eligible patients aged ≥18 years infected with COVID-19 who were prescribed either molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within five days of infection between 16 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 in the non-hospitalised and hospitalised settings in Hong Kong. A sequence trial approach and 1:1 propensity score matching was applied based on age, sex, number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, Charlson comorbidity index, comorbidities, and drug use within past 90 days. Cox regression adjusted with patients' characteristics was used to compare the risk of effectiveness outcomes (all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or ventilatory support and hospitalisation) between groups. Subgroup analyses included age (<70; ≥70 years); sex, Charlson comorbidity index (<4; ≥4), and number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received (0-1; ≥2 doses). FINDINGS: A total of 63,522 non-hospitalised (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 31,761; molnupiravir: 31,761) and 11,784 hospitalised (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 5892; molnupiravir: 5892) patients were included. In non-hospitalised setting, 336 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 71, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 265, 0.83%), 162 events of ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 71, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 91, 0.29%), and 4890 events of hospitalisation (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 1853, 5.83%; molnupiravir: 3037, 9.56%) were observed. Lower risks of all-cause mortality (absolute risk reduction (ARR) at 28 days: 0.61%, 95% CI: 0.50-0.72; HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.56) and hospital admission (ARR at 28 days: 3.73%, 95% CI: 3.31-4.14; HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.67-0.76) were observed in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users compared to molnupiravir users. In hospitalised setting, 509 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 176, 2.99%; molnupiravir: 333, 5.65%), and 50 events of ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 26, 0.44%; molnupiravir: 24, 0.41%) were observed. Risk of all-cause mortality was lower for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users than for molnupiravir users (ARR at 28 days: 2.66%, 95% CI: 1.93-3.40; HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.71). In both settings, there was no difference in the risk of intensive care unit admission or ventilatory support between groups. The findings were consistent across all subgroup's analyses. INTERPRETATION: Our analyses suggest that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the risk of all-cause mortality in both non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients. When neither drug is contraindicated, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir may be considered the more effective option

Herpes zoster related hospitalization after inactivated (CoronaVac) and mRNA (BNT162b2) SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: A self-controlled case series and nested case-control study

BACKGROUND: Stimulation of immunity by vaccination may elicit adverse events. There is currently inconclusive evidence on the relationship between herpes zoster related hospitalization and COVID-19 vaccination. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of inactivated virus (CoronaVac, Sinovac) and mRNA (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Fosun Pharma) COVID-19 vaccine on the risk of herpes zoster related hospitalization. METHODS: Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis was conducted using the data from the electronic health records in Hospital Authority and COVID-19 vaccination records in the Department of Health in Hong Kong. We conducted the SCCS analysis including patients with a first primary diagnosis of herpes zoster in the hospital inpatient setting between February 23 and July 31, 2021. A confirmatory analysis by nested case-control method was also conducted. Each herpes zoster case was randomly matched with ten controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, and date of hospital admission. Conditional Poisson regression and logistic regression models were used to assess the potential excess rates of herpes zoster after vaccination. FINDINGS: From February 23 to July 31, 2021, a total of 16 and 27 patients were identified with a first primary hospital diagnosis of herpes zoster within 28 days after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations. The incidence of herpes zoster was 7.9 (95% Confidence interval [CI]: 5.2–11.5) for CoronaVac and 7.1 (95% CI: 4.1–11.5) for BNT162b2 per 1,000,000 doses administered. In SCCS analysis, CoronaVac vaccination was associated with significantly higher risk of herpes zoster within 14 days after first dose (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]=2.67, 95% CI: 1.08–6.59) but not in other periods afterwards compared to the baseline period. Regarding BNT162b2 vaccination, a significantly increased risk of herpes zoster was observed after first dose up to 14 days after second dose (0-13 days after first dose: aIRR=5.23, 95% CI: 1.61–17.03; 14–27 days after first dose: aIRR=5.82, 95% CI: 1.62–20.91; 0-13 days after second dose: aIRR=5.14, 95% CI: 1.29–20.47). Using these relative rates, we estimated that there has been an excess of approximately 5 and 7 cases of hospitalization as a result of herpes zoster after every 1,000,000 doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccination, respectively. The findings in the nested case control analysis showed similar results. INTERPRETATION: We identified an increased risk of herpes zoster related hospitalization after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations. However, the absolute risks of such adverse event after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations were very low. In locations where COVID-19 is prevalent, the protective effects on COVID-19 from vaccinations will greatly outweigh the potential side effects of vaccination. FUNDING: The project was funded by Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ref. No.COVID19F01). FTTL (Francisco Tsz Tsun Lai) and ICKW (Ian Chi Kei Wong)’s posts were partly funded by D(2)4H; hence this work was partly supported by AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission

Sex-based differences in risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism after BNT162b2 or CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccination in patients with atrial fibrillation: a self-controlled case series and nested case-control study

AimsPatients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism, with a greater risk for female patients. This study aims to evaluate the risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AF and the sex differences.Methods and resultsSelf-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis was conducted to evaluate the risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding following BNT162b2 or CoronaVac in patients with AF, using the territory-wide electronic medical records from the Hospital Authority and vaccination records from the Department of Health in Hong Kong. Patients with a primary diagnosis of ischaemic stroke, systemic embolism, or bleeding in the inpatient setting between 23 February 2021 and 31 March 2022 were included. A nested case-control analysis was also conducted with each case randomly matched with 10 controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, and date of hospital admission. Conditional Poisson regression was used in the SCCS analysis, and conditional logistic regression was used in the nested case-control analysis to assess the risks, and all analyses were stratified by sex and type of vaccines. Among 51 158 patients with AF, we identified an increased risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism after the first dose of BNT162b2 in SCCS analysis during 0-13 days [incidence rate ratio 6.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-28.77] and 14-27 days (6.53, 95% CI 1.31-32.51), and nested case-control analysis during 0-13 days (adjusted odds ratio 6.21, 95% CI 1.14-33.91) and 14-27 days (5.52, 95% CI 1.12-27.26) only in female patients. The increased risk in female patients following the first dose of CoronaVac was only detected during 0-13 days (3.88, 95% CI 1.67-9.03) in the nested case-control analysis. No increased risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism was identified in male patients, and no increased risk of bleeding was detected in all patients with AF for both vaccines. An increased risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism after COVID-19 was also observed in both females (17.42, 95% CI 5.08-59.73) and males (6.63, 95% CI 2.02-21.79).ConclusionsThe risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism after COVID-19 vaccination was only increased in female patients with AF. However, as the risk after COVID-19 was even higher, proactive uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is recommended to prevent the potential severe outcomes after infection

A Large Population Histology Study Showing the Lack of Association between ALT Elevation and Significant Fibrosis in Chronic Hepatitis B

OBJECTIVE: We determined the association between various clinical parameters and significant liver injury in both hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. METHODS: From 1994 to 2008, liver biopsy was performed on 319 treatment-naive CHB patients. Histologic assessment was based on the Knodell histologic activity index for necroinflammation and the Ishak fibrosis staging for fibrosis. RESULTS: 211 HBeAg-positive and 108 HBeAg-negative patients were recruited, with a median age of 31 and 46 years respectively. 9 out of 40 (22.5%) HBeAg-positive patients with normal ALT had significant histologic abnormalities (necroinflammation grading >/= 7 or fibrosis score >/= 3). There was a significant difference in fibrosis scores among HBeAg-positive patients with an ALT level within the Prati criteria (30 U/L for men, 19 U/L for women) and patients with a normal ALT but exceeding the Prati criteria (p = 0.024). Age, aspartate aminotransferase and platelet count were independent predictors of significant fibrosis in HBeAg-positive patients with an elevated ALT by multivariate analysis (p = 0.007, 0.047 and 0.045 respectively). HBV DNA and platelet count were predictors of significant fibrosis in HBeAg-negative disease (p = 0.020 and 0.015 respectively). An elevated ALT was not predictive of significant fibrosis for HBeAg-positive (p = 0.345) and -negative (p = 0.544) disease. There was no significant difference in fibrosis staging among ALT 1-2 x upper limit of normal (ULN) and > x 2 ULN for both HBeAg-positive (p = 0.098) and -negative (p = 0.838) disease. CONCLUSION: An elevated ALT does not accurately predict significant liver injury. Decisions on commencing antiviral therapy should not be heavily based on a particular ALT threshold.published_or_final_versio