Assessing the Impact of Primary-Series Infection and Booster Vaccination on Protection against Omicron in Hong Kong: A Population-Based Observational Study.

This study aimed to assess the real-world effectiveness of vaccines and hybrid immunity in preventing infections during the Omicron prevalent period in Hong Kong. This study analyzed vaccination records and COVID-19 confirmed case records from 1 January 2022 to 28 January 2023 and included a total of 7,165,862 individuals with vaccination or infection records. This study found that an additional vaccine dose offered increased protection against Omicron BA.1/2 and BA.4 infections for individuals without prior infections in general. Hybrid immunity, acquired through vaccination and natural infection, was found to be significantly stronger than that provided by vaccines alone. The Comirnaty Original/Omicron BA.4/5 bivalent vaccine, introduced in December 2022, was associated with a lower risk of BA.4 infection when administered as a booster dose after three doses of CoronaVac. However, individuals with four doses of the CoronaVac vaccine did not exhibit a significantly lower risk of infection compared to those with three doses during the BA.4 dominant period. This study highlights the importance of promoting booster shot uptake and encouraging vaccination among those who have recovered from COVID-19 infections. The potential immune imprinting effect associated with the Comirnaty and CoronaVac vaccine underscores the need for continued surveillance and research to optimize vaccination strategies for emerging variants.

A retrospective cohort study of Paxlovid efficacy depending on treatment time in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Paxlovid, a SARS-CoV-2 antiviral, not only prevents severe illness but also curtails viral shedding, lowering transmission risks from treated patients. By fitting a mathematical model of within-host Omicron viral dynamics to electronic health records data from 208 hospitalized patients in Hong Kong, we estimate that Paxlovid can inhibit over 90% of viral replication. However, its effectiveness critically depends on the timing of treatment. If treatment is initiated three days after symptoms first appear, we estimate a 17% chance of a post-treatment viral rebound and a 12% (95% CI: 0-16%) reduction in overall infectiousness for non-rebound cases. Earlier treatment significantly elevates the risk of rebound without further reducing infectiousness, whereas starting beyond five days reduces its efficacy in curbing peak viral shedding. Among the 104 patients who received Paxlovid, 62% began treatment within an optimal three-to-five-day day window after symptoms appeared. Our findings indicate that broader global access to Paxlovid, coupled with appropriately timed treatment, can mitigate the severity and transmission of SARS-Cov-2.

Motivators and Demotivators for COVID-19 Vaccination Based on Co-Occurrence Networks of Verbal Reasons for Vaccination Acceptance and Resistance: Repetitive Cross-Sectional Surveys and Network Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is complex and multifaced. People may accept or reject a vaccine due to multiple and interconnected reasons, with some reasons being more salient in influencing vaccine acceptance or resistance and hence the most important intervention targets for addressing vaccine hesitancy. OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed at assessing the connections and relative importance of motivators and demotivators for COVID-19 vaccination in Hong Kong based on co-occurrence networks of verbal reasons for vaccination acceptance and resistance from repetitive cross-sectional surveys. METHODS: We conducted a series of random digit dialing telephone surveys to examine COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among general Hong Kong adults between March 2021 and July 2022. A total of 5559 and 982 participants provided verbal reasons for accepting and resisting (rejecting or hesitating) a COVID-19 vaccine, respectively. The verbal reasons were initially coded to generate categories of motivators and demotivators for COVID-19 vaccination using a bottom-up approach. Then, all the generated codes were mapped onto the 5C model of vaccine hesitancy. On the basis of the identified reasons, we conducted a co-occurrence network analysis to understand how motivating or demotivating reasons were comentioned to shape people's vaccination decisions. Each reason's eigenvector centrality was calculated to quantify their relative importance in the network. Analyses were also stratified by age group. RESULTS: The co-occurrence network analysis found that the perception of personal risk to the disease (egicentrality=0.80) and the social responsibility to protect others (egicentrality=0.58) were the most important comentioned reasons that motivate COVID-19 vaccination, while lack of vaccine confidence (egicentrality=0.89) and complacency (perceived low disease risk and low importance of vaccination; egicentrality=0.45) were the most important comentioned reasons that demotivate COVID-19 vaccination. For older people aged ≥65 years, protecting others was a more important motivator (egicentrality=0.57), while the concern about poor health status was a more important demotivator (egicentrality=0.42); for young people aged 18 to 24 years, recovering life normalcy (egicentrality=0.20) and vaccine mandates (egicentrality=0.26) were the more important motivators, while complacency (egicentrality=0.77) was a more important demotivator for COVID-19 vaccination uptake. CONCLUSIONS: When disease risk is perceived to be high, promoting social responsibility to protect others is more important for boosting vaccination acceptance. However, when disease risk is perceived to be low and complacency exists, fostering confidence in vaccines to address vaccine hesitancy becomes more important. Interventions for promoting vaccination acceptance and reducing vaccine hesitancy should be tailored by age.

Joint analysis of vaccination effectiveness and antiviral drug effectiveness for COVID-19: a causal inference approach.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to estimate the causal effects of oral antivirals and vaccinations in the prevention of all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19 in an integrative setting with both antivirals and vaccinations considered as interventions. METHODS: We identified hospitalized adult patients (i.e. aged 18 or above) in Hong Kong with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 16, 2022, and December 31, 2022. An inverse probability-weighted (IPW) Andersen-Gill model with time-dependent predictors was used to address immortal time bias and produce causal estimates for the protection effects of oral antivirals and vaccinations against severe COVID-19. RESULTS: Given prescription is made within 5 days of confirmed infection, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is more effective in providing protection against all-cause mortality and development into severe COVID-19 than molnupiravir. There was no significant difference between CoronaVac and Comirnaty in the effectiveness of reducing all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The use of oral antivirals and vaccinations causes lower risks of all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19 for hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 patients.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection following NVX-CoV2373 and BNT162b2 vaccinations in Korean Adults: A population-based observational study.

South Korea experienced a low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 until the emergence of the omicron in early 2022, triggering a major community epidemic. To evaluate effectiveness of NVX-CoV2373 and BNT162b2 vaccines in Korean population, we conducted an observational study utilizing individual-level case data on laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, along with vaccination record. A total of 47,078 recipients of NVX-CoV2373 vaccine and 7,561 recipients of BNT162b2 vaccine were eligible for the study. Thirty days post-second doses, COVID-19 rates were 7.9% (595 out of 7561) of NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 8.6 % (647 out of 7561) of BNT162b2 recipients experienced COVID-19. NVX-CoV2373 rates increased to 9.8 % and 11.2 % at 60 and 90 days, while BNT162b2 rates were 10.5 % and 11.3 % at the same intervals. The 22-weeks risk ratios for recipients of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine as compared with recipients of the BNT162b2 vaccine were 1.11 (95 % CI, 0.99 to 1.25) for laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Continued monitoring is essential to evaluate the duration of protection across different vaccine platforms and schedules.

Antibiotic use in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a population-based study in Hong Kong.

Background: Hong Kong experienced four epidemic waves caused by the ancestral strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2020-2021 and a large Omicron wave in 2022. Few studies have assessed antibacterial prescribing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) inpatients throughout the pandemic. Objectives: To describe inpatient antibacterial prescribing and explore factors associated with their prescription. Methods: Electronic health records of patients with COVID-19 admitted to public hospitals in Hong Kong from 21 January 2020 to 30 September 2022 were used to assess the prevalence and rates of inpatient antibacterial drug use (days of therapy/1,000 patient days [DOT/1,000 PD]). We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate potential associations between patients' baseline characteristics and disease severity and prescription of an antibacterial drug during hospital admission. Results: Among 65,810 inpatients with COVID-19, 54.0% were prescribed antibacterial drugs (550.5 DOT/1,000 PD). Compared to waves 1-2 (46.7%; 246.9 DOT/1,000 PD), the prescriptions were lowest during wave 4 (28.0%; 246.9; odds ratio (OR): 0.39, 95% CI: 0.31-0.49) and peaked in early wave 5 (64.6%; 661.2; 0.82, 0.65-1.03). Older age (≥80 years: OR 2.66, 95% CI, 2.49-2.85; 60-79 years: 1.59, 1.51-1.69, compared with 20-59 years), more severe disease (fatal: 3.64, 3.2-4.16; critical: 2.56, 2.14-3.06, compared with severe), and COVID-19 vaccine doses (two doses: 0.74, 0.69-0.78; three doses: 0.69, 0.64-0.74; four doses: 0.52, 0.44-0.62, compared with unvaccinated) were associated with inpatient antibacterial drug use. Conclusions: Antibacterial prescribing changed over time for hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 and was potentially related to patients' demographics, medical conditions, and COVID-19 vaccination status as well as healthcare capacity during epidemic waves.

Estimate of COVID-19 Deaths, China, December 2022-February 2023.

China announced a slight easing of its zero-COVID rules on November 11, 2022, and then a major relaxation on December 7, 2022. We estimate that the ensuing wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused 1.41 million deaths in China during December 2022-February 2023, substantially higher than that reported through official channels.

Add-on Rehmannia-6-Based Chinese Medicine in Type 2 Diabetes and CKD: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is the leading cause of CKD and kidney failure. We assessed the real-world effectiveness of Rehmannia-6-based Chinese medicine treatment, the most used Chinese medicine formulation, on the change in eGFR and albuminuria in patients with diabetes and CKD with severely increased albuminuria. METHODS: In this randomized, assessor-blind, standard care-controlled, parallel, multicenter trial, 148 adult patients from outpatient clinics with type 2 diabetes, an eGFR of 30-90 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , and a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of 300-5000 mg/g were randomized 1:1 to a 48-week add-on protocolized Chinese medicine treatment program (using Rehmannia-6-based formulations in the granule form taken orally) or standard care alone. Primary outcomes were the slope of change in eGFR and UACR between baseline and end point (48 weeks after randomization) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included safety and the change in biochemistry, biomarkers, and concomitant drug use. RESULTS: The mean age, eGFR, and UACR were 65 years, 56.7 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , and 753 mg/g, respectively. Ninety-five percent ( n =141) of end point primary outcome measures were retrievable. For eGFR, the estimated slope of change was -2.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.1 to -3.9) and -4.7 (95% CI, -2.9 to -6.5) ml/min per 1.73 m 2 in participants treated with add-on Chinese medicine or standard care alone, resulting in a 2.7 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per year (95% CI, 0.1 to 5.3; P = 0.04) less decline with Chinese medicine. For UACR, the estimated proportion in the slope of change was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.14) in participants treated with add-on Chinese medicine or standard care alone, respectively. The intergroup proportional difference (0.89, 11% slower increment in add-on Chinese medicine, 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.10; P = 0.28) did not reach statistical significance. Eighty-five adverse events were recorded from 50 participants (add-on Chinese medicine versus control: 22 [31%] versus 28 [36%]). CONCLUSIONS: Rehmannia-6-based Chinese medicine treatment stabilized eGFR on top of standard care alone after 48 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes, stage 2-3 CKD, and severely increased albuminuria. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: Semi-individualized Chinese Medicine Treatment as an Adjuvant Management for Diabetic Nephropathy (SCHEMATIC), NCT02488252 .

Environment- and epigenome-wide association study of obesity in 'Children of 1997' birth cohort.

Background: Increasing childhood obesity is a global issue requiring potentially local solutions to ensure it does not continue into adulthood. We systematically identified potentially modifiable targets of obesity at the onset and end of puberty in Hong Kong, the most economically developed major Chinese city. Methods: We conducted an environment-wide association study (EWAS) and an epigenome-wide association study of obesity to systematically assess associations with body mass index (BMI) and waist-hip ratio (WHR) in Hong Kong's population-representative 'Children of 1997' birth cohort. Univariable linear regression was used to select exposures related to obesity at ~11.5 years (BMI and obesity risk n ≤ 7119, WHR n = 5691) and ~17.6 years (n = 3618) at Bonferroni-corrected significance, and multivariable regression to adjust for potential confounders followed by replicated multivariable regression (n = 308) and CpG by CpG analysis (n = 286) at ~23 years. Findings were compared with evidence from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Mendelian randomization (MR) studies. Results: At ~11.5 and~17.6 years the EWAS identified 14 and 37 exposures associated with BMI, as well as 7 and 12 associated with WHR, respectively. Most exposures had directionally consistent associations at ~23 years. Maternal second-hand smoking, maternal weight, and birth weight were consistently associated with obesity. Diet (including dairy intake and artificially sweetened beverages), physical activity, snoring, binge eating, and earlier puberty were positively associated with BMI at ~17.6 years, while eating before sleep was inversely associated with BMI at ~17.6 years. Findings for birth weight, dairy intake, and binge eating are consistent with available evidence from RCTs or MR studies. We found 17 CpGs related to BMI and 17 to WHR. Conclusions: These novel insights into potentially modifiable factors associated with obesity at the outset and the end of puberty could, if causal, inform future interventions to improve population health in Hong Kong and similar Chinese settings. Funding: This study including the follow-up survey and epigenetics testing was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund Research Fellowship, Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government (#04180097). The DNA extraction of the samples used for epigenetic testing was supported by CFS-HKU1.

Epidemiology and risk factors for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae carriage in the hospital: A population-based nested case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to study the epidemiology of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in Hong Kong. METHODS: This is a longitudinal population-based study reporting monthly CPE incidence rate and a nested case-control study for identifying risk factors for CPE carriage. The cases were patients with at least one CPE-positive genotypic test, while the controls were randomly selected from the cohort with negative tests. Up to four controls per case were matched by sex, age group, and admission year-month. The independent risk factors were identified from a conditional logistic regression with potential covariates. RESULTS: From 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2019, 8588 patients received CPE genotyping tests, and 2353 had at least one positive result. Class B carbapenemase was the predominant enzyme in the samples (78.6%). The incidence rate increased from 0.04 in 2015 to 1.62 in 2019 per 10,000 person-year. In the nested case-control study, 1709 cases and 6664 controls were matched. Previous use of any beta-lactam antibiotics (odds ratio:1.37 [1.22-1.53], P < 0.001) was found as an independent risk factor for carriage of CPE. CONCLUSION: The carriage of CPE was found with an increasing trend in Hong Kong. Previous use of any beta-lactam antibiotics is a risk factor for CPE.

The effect of variation of individual infectiousness on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in households.

Quantifying variation of individual infectiousness is critical to inform disease control. Previous studies reported substantial heterogeneity in transmission of many infectious diseases including SARS-CoV-2. However, those results are difficult to interpret since the number of contacts is rarely considered in such approaches. Here, we analyze data from 17 SARS-CoV-2 household transmission studies conducted in periods dominated by ancestral strains, in which the number of contacts was known. By fitting individual-based household transmission models to these data, accounting for number of contacts and baseline transmission probabilities, the pooled estimate suggests that the 20% most infectious cases have 3.1-fold (95% confidence interval: 2.2- to 4.2-fold) higher infectiousness than average cases, which is consistent with the observed heterogeneity in viral shedding. Household data can inform the estimation of transmission heterogeneity, which is important for epidemic management.

Effectiveness of Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 : A Target Trial Emulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Whether hospitalized patients benefit from COVID-19 oral antivirals is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To examine the real-world effectiveness of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the Omicron outbreak. DESIGN: Target trial emulation study. SETTING: Electronic health databases in Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: The molnupiravir emulated trial included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 aged 18 years or older between 26 February and 18 July 2022 (n = 16 495). The nirmatrelvir-ritonavir emulated trial included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 aged 18 years or older between 16 March and 18 July 2022 (n = 7119). INTERVENTION: Initiation of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within 5 days of hospitalization with COVID-19 versus no initiation of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. MEASUREMENTS: Effectiveness against all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or use of ventilatory support within 28 days. RESULTS: The use of oral antivirals in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (molnupiravir: hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.93]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 0.77 [CI, 0.66 to 0.90]) but no significant risk reduction in terms of ICU admission (molnupiravir: HR, 1.02 [CI, 0.76 to 1.36]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 1.08 [CI, 0.58 to 2.02]) or the need for ventilatory support (molnupiravir: HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.89 to 1.30]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 1.03 [CI, 0.70 to 1.52]). There was no significant interaction between drug treatment and the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, thereby supporting the effectiveness of oral antivirals regardless of vaccination status. No significant interaction between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment and age, sex, or Charlson Comorbidity Index was observed, whereas molnupiravir tended to be more effective in older people. LIMITATION: The outcome of ICU admission or need for ventilatory support may not capture all severe COVID-19 cases; unmeasured confounders, such as obesity and health behaviors, may exist. CONCLUSION: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduced all-cause mortality in both vaccinated and unvaccinated hospitalized patients. No significant reduction in ICU admission or the need for ventilatory support was observed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Health and Medical Research Fund Research on COVID-19, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Research Grants Council, Collaborative Research Fund; and Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Messenger RNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination With BNT162b2 Increased Risk of Bell's Palsy: A Nested Case-Control and Self-Controlled Case Series Study.

BACKGROUND: Observable symptoms of Bell's palsy following vaccinations arouse concern over the safety profiles of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. However, there are only inconclusive findings on Bell's palsy following messenger (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination. This study aims to update the previous analyses on the risk of Bell's palsy following mRNA (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: This study included cases aged ≥16 years with a new diagnosis of Bell's palsy within 28 days after BNT162b2 vaccinations from the population-based electronic health records in Hong Kong. Nested case-control and self-controlled case series (SCCS) analyses were used, where the association between Bell's palsy and BNT162b2 was evaluated using conditional logistic and Poisson regression, respectively. RESULTS: Totally 54 individuals were newly diagnosed with Bell's palsy after BNT162b2 vaccinations. The incidence of Bell's palsy was 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-2.07) per 100 000 doses administered. The nested case-control analysis showed significant association between BNT162b2 vaccinations and Bell's palsy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.543; 95% CI, 1.123-2.121), with up to 1.112 excess events per 100 000 people who received 2 doses of BNT162b2. An increased risk of Bell's palsy was observed during the first 14 days after the second dose of BNT162b2 in both nested case-control (aOR, 2.325; 95% CI, 1.414-3.821) and SCCS analysis (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.32-4.50). CONCLUSIONS: There was an overall increased risk of Bell's palsy following BNT162b2 vaccination, particularly within the first 14 days after the second dose, but the absolute risk was very low.

Why Do Chinese Older Adults in Hong Kong Delay or Refuse COVID-19 Vaccination? A Qualitative Study Based on Grounded Theory.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults have been disproportionately affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While COVID-19 vaccines are effective for reducing mortality and severe complications, vaccine hesitancy remains a substantial concern particularly among older adults. This was a qualitative study to explore how Chinese older adults reached a decision to delay or refuse the COVID-19 vaccines in Hong Kong. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 27 older adults aged ≥60 years who had never received COVID-19 vaccines. The grounded theory approach guided the selection of informants, data collection, data analysis, and report writing. RESULTS: Older adults' vaccine hesitancy and resistance weaved into the context of lacking sufficient decisional support and attitude roots of negative perception of aging, fatalistic risk attitudes, present-oriented time perspectives, and negative values on western biomedicine. Attitude roots were used as the decisional anchors to further shape older adults' peripheral processing of vaccine-related information, resulting into a spectrum of vaccine-resistant and vaccine-hesitant attitudes. While participants refused or delayed COVID-19 vaccination, they engaged in alternative coping strategies to regain self-control and justify their vaccination disengagement in the pandemic. DISCUSSION: Interventions to address vaccine hesitancy in older adults should focus on addressing attitude roots and strengthening the connectivity of older adults with family, doctors, and government to engage older adults in the vaccination decision making. Risk communication should shift to provide more personal relevant information in a caring style, meet older adults' preference for peripheral information processing, and address their existing misperceptions about COVID-19 vaccines.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations against mortality and severe complications after SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 infection: a case-control study.

Data regarding protection against mortality and severe complications after Omicron BA.2 infection with CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccines remains limited. We conducted a case-control study to evaluate the risk of severe complications and mortality following 1-3 doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 using electronic health records database. Cases were adults with their first COVID-19-related mortality or severe complications between 1 January and 31 March 2022, matched with up-to 10 controls by age, sex, index date, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related mortality and severe complications by type and number of doses was estimated using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbidities and medications. Vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) against COVID-19-related mortality after two doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac were 90.7% (88.6-92.3) and 74.8% (72.5-76.9) in those aged ≥65, 87.6% (81.4-91.8) and 80.7% (72.8-86.3) in those aged 50-64, 86.6% (71.0-93.8) and 82.7% (56.5-93.1) in those aged 18-50. Vaccine effectiveness against severe complications after two doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac were 82.1% (74.6-87.3) and 58.9% (50.3-66.1) in those aged ≥65, 83.0% (69.6-90.5) and 67.1% (47.1-79.6) in those aged 50-64, 78.3% (60.8-88.0) and 77.8% (49.6-90.2) in those aged 18-50. Further risk reduction with the third dose was observed especially in those aged ≥65 years, with vaccine effectiveness of 98.0% (96.5-98.9) for BNT162b2 and 95.5% (93.7-96.8) for CoronaVac against mortality, 90.8% (83.4-94.9) and 88.0% (80.8-92.5) against severe complications. Both CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccination were effective against COVID-19-related mortality and severe complications amidst the Omicron BA.2 pandemic, and risks decreased further with the third dose.

Safety of an inactivated, whole-virion COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac) in people aged 60 years or older in Hong Kong: a modified self-controlled case series.

Background: Because evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults is scarce, we aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk of adverse events after CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech) vaccination in adults aged 60 years or older. Methods: In this modified self-controlled case series, we enrolled adults aged 60 years or older who had received at least one dose of CoronaVac in Hong Kong between Feb 23, 2021, and Jan 31, 2022. We extracted population-based, electronic health record data from the clinical management system of the Hospital Authority on adverse events of special interest (from Jan 1, 2005, to Feb 23, 2022) and patients' demographic information (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), previous diagnoses (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), medication history (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), and laboratory tests, including those for SARS-CoV-2 infection (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022). Details of vaccination status were provided by the Department of Health of the Hong Kong Government and were linked to data from the Hospital Authority with identity card numbers or passport numbers. Our outcomes were the overall incidence of any adverse event of special interest and the incidence rates of 30 adverse events of special interest, as suggested by the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, in the inpatient setting within 21 days (2 days for anaphylaxis) of either the first, second, or third CoronaVac dose compared with a baseline period. Individuals who had a history of a particular event between Jan 1, 2005, and Feb 23, 2021, were excluded from the corresponding analysis. We evaluated the risk of an adverse event of special interest using conditional Poisson regression, adjusting for seasonal effects. Findings: Of 1 253 497 individuals who received at least one dose of CoronaVac during the study period, 622 317 (49·6%) were aged at least 60 years and were included in the analysis. Our analysis sample received 1 229 423 doses of CoronaVac and had a mean age of 70·40 years (SD 8·10). 293 086 (47·1%) of 622 317 participants were men and 329 231 (52·9%) were women. The incidence of individual adverse events of interest ranged from 0·00 per 100 000 people to 57·49 per 100 000 people (thromboembolism). The first and third doses of CoronaVac were not associated with a significant excess risk of an adverse event of special interest within 21 days (or 2 days for anaphylaxis) of vaccination. After the second dose, the only significantly increased risk was for anaphylaxis (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2·61, 95% CI 1·08-6·31; risk difference per 100 000 people 0·61, 95% CI 0·03-1·81). Interpretation: Because older age is associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the benefits of CoronaVac vaccination in older adults outweigh the risks in regions where COVID-19 is prevalent. Ongoing monitoring of vaccine safety is warranted. Funding: The Food and Health Bureau of the Government, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China and AIR@InnoHK, administered by the Innovation and Technology Commission. Translation: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Thromboembolic events and hemorrhagic stroke after mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) covid-19 vaccination: A self-controlled case series study.

Background: This study aims to evaluate the association between thromboembolic events and hemorrhagic stroke following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccination. Methods: Patients with incident thromboembolic events or hemorrhagic stroke within 28 days of covid-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 positive test during 23 February to 30 September 2021 were included. The incidence per 100,000 covid-19 vaccine doses administered and SARS-CoV-2 test positive cases were estimated. A modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis using the data from the Hong Kong territory-wide electronic health and vaccination records. Seasonal effect was adjusted by month. Findings: A total of 5,526,547 doses of BNT162b2 and 3,146,741 doses of CoronaVac were administered. A total of 334 and 402 thromboembolic events, and 57 and 49 hemorrhagic stroke cases occurred within 28 days after BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccination, respectively. The crude incidence of thromboembolic events and hemorrhagic stroke per 100,000 doses administered for both covid-19 vaccines were smaller than that per 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 test positive cases. The modified SCCS detected an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke in BNT162b2 14-27 days after first dose with adjusted IRR of 2.53 (95% CI 1.48-4.34), and 0-13 days after second dose with adjusted IRR 2.69 (95% CI 1.54-4.69). No statistically significant risk was observed for thromboembolic events for both vaccines. Interpretation: We detected a possible safety signal for hemorrhagic stroke following BNT162b2 vaccination. The incidence of thromboembolic event or hemorrhagic stroke following vaccination is lower than that among SARS-CoV-2 test positive cases; therefore, vaccination against covid-19 remains an important public health intervention. Funding: This study was funded by a research grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (reference COVID19F01).

Selection for infectivity profiles in slow and fast epidemics, and the rise of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Evaluating the characteristics of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is essential to inform pandemic risk assessment. A variant may grow faster if it produces a larger number of secondary infections ("R advantage") or if the timing of secondary infections (generation time) is better. So far, assessments have largely focused on deriving the R advantage assuming the generation time was unchanged. Yet, knowledge of both is needed to anticipate the impact. Here, we develop an analytical framework to investigate the contribution of both the R advantage and generation time to the growth advantage of a variant. It is known that selection on a variant with larger R increases with levels of transmission in the community. We additionally show that variants conferring earlier transmission are more strongly favored when the historical strains have fast epidemic growth, while variants conferring later transmission are more strongly favored when historical strains have slow or negative growth. We develop these conceptual insights into a new statistical framework to infer both the R advantage and generation time of a variant. On simulated data, our framework correctly estimates both parameters when it covers time periods characterized by different epidemiological contexts. Applied to data for the Alpha and Delta variants in England and in Europe, we find that Alpha confers a+54% [95% CI, 45-63%] R advantage compared to previous strains, and Delta +140% [98-182%] compared to Alpha, and mean generation times are similar to historical strains for both variants. This work helps interpret variant frequency dynamics and will strengthen risk assessment for future variants of concern.

Mutations in genes of the SARS-CoV-2 virus have generated new variants of concern, like Alpha, Delta, and more recently Omicron. These strains contain genetic modifications that help the virus spread more easily as well as altering the severity of the illness it causes. This has led to rising numbers of infections, known as epidemic waves, in many parts of the world. Tracking new variants of concern is crucial to protecting the public. To do this, scientists monitor how many people one person with the virus can infect, also known as the number of secondary infections. They may also measure when in the course of the illness an individual may pass along the virus to others. Together, these metrics help determine how fast and large an outbreak caused by a new variant will grow. The more people the new variant infects and the quicker it spreads, the more likely it is to replace existing strains of the virus. So far, most studies have assumed that the growth rate of a new variant solely depends on the number of secondary infections, and the timing of secondary infections is often not considered. To address this, Blanquart et al. built a mathematical model that combines both these parameters to determine the growth rate of new viral strains. The model showed that variants which rapidly cause secondary infections have a larger growth advantage over existing strains when the virus is more easily transmitted between individuals and the epidemic spreads rapidly. But when there is less transmission and the epidemic is declining, variants that generate secondary infections after a longer time have an advantage. For example, when control measures like mask wearing or social distancing are in place, delayed secondary infections may be more advantageous. Blanquart et al. then applied their model to data from the Alpha and Delta variant outbreaks in the United Kingdom. They found that Alpha and Delta did not change the timing of secondary infections compared to previously circulating strains. But the Alpha variant had a 54% transmission advantage over previous strains and the Delta variant had a 140% transmission advantage over Alpha. Taken together, these findings suggest that the timing of secondary infections and transmission rates both play an important role in how quickly a virus spreads. The new mathematical model created by Blanquart et al. may help epidemiologists better predict the trajectory of new SARS-CoV-2 variants and determine how to best control their spread.

Impact of a delayed second dose of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) on risks of all-cause mortality, emergency department visit, and unscheduled hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Safety after the second dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine remains to be elucidated, especially among individuals reporting adverse events after their first dose. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a delayed second dose on all-cause mortality and emergency services. METHODS: A territory-wide, retrospective cohort of people who had completed two doses of mRNA (BNT162b2) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 (CoronaVac) vaccine between February 23 and July 3, 2021, in Hong Kong was analyzed, with linkage to electronic health records retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Vaccine recipients were classified as receiving a second dose within recommended intervals (21-28 days for BNT162b2; 14-28 days for CoronaVac) or delayed. Study outcomes were all-cause mortality, emergency department (ED) visits, and unscheduled hospitalizations within 28 days after the second dose of vaccination. RESULTS: Among 417,497 BNT162b2 and 354,283 CoronaVac second dose recipients, 3.8% and 28.5% received the second dose beyond the recommended intervals (mean 34.4 and 31.8 days), respectively. During the study period, there were < 5 daily new cases of COVID-19 infections in the community. Delaying the second dose was not associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.185, 95% CI 0.478-2.937, P = 0.714), risk of ED visit (HR = 0.966, 95% CI 0.926-1.008, P = 0.113), and risk of unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 0.956, 95% CI 0.878-1.040, P = 0.294) compared to that within the recommended interval for CoronaVac recipients. No statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality (HR = 4.438, 95% CI 0.951-20.701, P = 0.058), ED visit (HR = 1.037, 95% CI 0.951-1.130, P = 0.411), and unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 1.054, 95% CI 0.867-1.281, P = 0.597) were identified between people who received a second dose of BNT162b2 within and beyond the recommended intervals. CONCLUSIONS: No significant association between delayed second dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac and all-cause mortality, ED visit, and unscheduled hospitalization was observed in the present cohort. Regardless of the recommended or delayed schedule for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, a second dose of both vaccines should be administered to obtain better protection against infection and serious disease. The second dose should be administered within the recommended interval following the manufacturer's product information, until further studies support the benefits of delaying vaccination outweighing the risks.

Self-reported reactogenicity of CoronaVac (Sinovac) compared with Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech): A prospective cohort study with intensive monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: CoronaVac (Sinovac) Covid-19 vaccine has recently been approved for emergency use by the World Health Organization. However, data on its reactogenicity in real-world settings is scant. This study aimed to compare self-reported post-vaccination adverse reactions between CoronaVac and Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech). METHODS: We adopted a prospective cohort study design using online surveys from the day of first-dose vaccination with intensive follow-up through two weeks after the second dose (11 time points). The primary outcome was adverse reactions (any versus none) and secondary outcomes were the sub-categories of adverse reactions (local, systemic, and severe allergic reactions). Potential effect modification across multimorbidity status, older age, and sex was examined. RESULTS: In total, 2,098 participants who were scheduled to complete the 14th-day survey were included, with 46.2% receiving Comirnaty. Retention rate two weeks after the second dose was 81.0% for the CoronaVac group and 83.6% for the Comirnaty group. Throughout the follow-up period, 801 (82.7%) of those receiving Comirnaty and 543 (48.1%) of those receiving CoronaVac reported adverse reactions. Adjusted analysis suggested that compared with Comirnaty, CoronaVac was associated with 83%-reduced odds of any adverse reactions [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.20], 92%-reduced odds of local adverse reactions (AOR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.06-0.09), and 76%-reduced odds of systemic adverse reactions (AOR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.16-0.28). No significant effect modification was identified. CONCLUSION: This post-marketing study comparing the reactogenicity of Covid-19 vaccines suggests a lower risk of self-reported adverse reactions following vaccination with CoronaVac compared with Comirnaty.