Risk of serious adverse events after the BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines in Malaysia: A self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines is challenging for safety surveillance, especially on adverse events of special interest (AESIs) that were not identified during the pre-licensure studies. This study evaluated the risk of hospitalisations for predefined diagnoses among the vaccinated population in Malaysia. METHODS: Hospital admissions for selected diagnoses between 1 February 2021 and 30 September 2021 were linked to the national COVID-19 immunisation register. We conducted self-controlled case-series study by identifying individuals who received COVID-19 vaccine and diagnosis of thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, myocarditis/pericarditis, arrhythmia, stroke, Bell's Palsy, and convulsion/seizure. The incidence of events was assessed in risk period of 21 days postvaccination relative to the control period. We used conditional Poisson regression to calculate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with adjustment for calendar period. RESULTS: There was no increase in the risk for myocarditis/pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, stroke, and myocardial infarction in the 21 days following either dose of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. A small increased risk of venous thromboembolism (IRR 1.24; 95% CI 1.02, 1.49), arrhythmia (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07, 1.26), and convulsion/seizure (IRR 1.26; 95% CI 1.07, 1.48) was observed among BNT162b2 recipients. No association between CoronaVac vaccine was found with all events except arrhythmia (IRR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01, 1.30). ChAdOx1 vaccine was associated with an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (IRR 2.67; 95% CI 1.21, 5.89) and venous thromboembolism (IRR 2.22; 95% CI 1.17, 4.21). CONCLUSION: This study shows acceptable safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines among recipients of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. This information can be used together with effectiveness data for risk-benefit analysis of the vaccination program. Further surveillance with more data is required to assess AESIs following COVID-19 vaccination in short- and long-term.

What information and the extent of information research participants need in informed consent forms: a multi-country survey.

BACKGROUND: The use of lengthy, detailed, and complex informed consent forms (ICFs) is of paramount concern in biomedical research as it may not truly promote the rights and interests of research participants. The extent of information in ICFs has been the subject of debates for decades; however, no clear guidance is given. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the perspectives of research participants about the type and extent of information they need when they are invited to participate in biomedical research. METHODS: This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). RESULTS: Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be 'moderately important' to 'very important' for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.

Equity in access to health care in a rural population in Malaysia: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent of equity in access to health care, their determinants and reasons of unmet need of a rural population in Malaysia. DESIGN: Exploratory cross-sectional survey administered by trained interviewers among participants of a health screening program. SETTING: A rural plantation estate in the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and thirty out of 142 adults above 18 years old who attended the program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentages of respondents reporting realised access and unmet need to health care, determinants of both access indicators and reasons for unmet need. Realised access associated with need but not predisposing or enabling factors and unmet need not associated with any variables were considered equitable. RESULTS: A total of 88 (67.7%) respondents had visited a doctor (realised access) in the past 6 months and 24.8% (n = 31) experienced unmet need in the past 12 months. Using logistic regression, realised access was associated with presence of chronic disease (OR 6.97, P < 0.001), whereas unmet need was associated with low education level (OR 6.50, P < 0.05), 'poor' or 'fair' self-assessed health status (OR 6.03, P < 0.05) and highest income group (> RM 2000 per month) (OR 51.27, P < 0.05). Personal choice (67.7%) was more commonly expressed than barriers (54.8%) as reasons for unmet need. CONCLUSIONS: The study found equity in realised access and inequity in unmet need among the rural population, the latter associated with education level, subjective health status and income. Despite not being generalisable, the findings highlight the need for a national level study on equity in access before the country reforms its health system.