Risk of breakthrough infection and hospitalisation after COVID-19 primary vaccination by HIV status in four Italian regions during 2021.

BACKGROUND: As of 2024, vaccination remains the main mitigation measure against COVID-19, but there are contradictory results on whether people living with HIV (PLWH) are less protected by vaccines than people living without HIV (PLWoH). In this study we compared the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation following full vaccination in PLWH and PLWoH. METHODS: We linked data from the vaccination registry, the COVID-19 surveillance system and from healthcare/pharmacological registries in four Italian regions. We identified PLWH fully vaccinated (14 days post completion of the primary cycle) and matched them at a ratio of 1:4 with PLWoH by week of vaccine administration, age, sex, region of residence and comorbidities. Follow-up started on January 24, 2021, and lasted for a maximum of 234 days. We used the Kaplan-Meier estimator to calculate the cumulative incidence of infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation in both groups, and we compared risks using risk differences and ratios taking PLWoH as the reference group. RESULTS: We matched 42,771 PLWH with 171,084 PLWoH. The overall risk of breakthrough infection was similar in both groups with a rate ratio (RR) of 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI):0.80-1.53). The absolute difference between groups at the end of the study period was 8.28 events per 10,000 person-days in the PLWH group (95%CI:-18.43-40.29). There was a non-significant increase the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation among PLWH (RR:1.90; 95%CI:0.93-3.32) which corresponds to 6.73 hospitalisations per 10,000 individuals (95%CI: -0.57 to 14.87 per 10,000). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest PLWH were not at increased risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 hospitalisation following a primary cycle of mRNA vaccination.

Safety and Efficacy of Combined Coronary and Peripheral Percutaneous Revascularization: A Proof-of-Concept Study.

Background. Lower extremity peripheral artery disease (LEPAD) frequently coexists with coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with multisite vascular disease (MVD). While percutaneous revascularization is well-established for both LEPAD and CAD, limited evidence exists for patients eligible for both procedures. Specifically, the feasibility of concomitant LEPAD and CAD percutaneous revascularization remains unknown. Objectives. To compare the efficacy and safety of concomitant coronary and lower extremity elective percutaneous revascularization. Methods. Between 2012 and 2021, we included 135 patients in an observational, retrospective single-center registry. The population was stratified into two groups: 45 patients (concomitant group) underwent simultaneous coronary and peripheral percutaneous interventions, and 90 patients (deferred group) underwent two separate procedures within one year. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at one year, while the primary safety endpoint was in-hospital contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). Results. Study groups were well-balanced in baseline characteristics. In terms of coronary features, the concomitant revascularization group more often underwent single-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while the deferred group had multivessel PCI with diffuse coronary disease. No differences were detected in the number of LEPAD lesions between groups. For the primary efficacy endpoint, the incidence of MACE at one year was 37.8% in the concomitant group vs. 34.4% in the deferred group (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.64-2.10; p = 0.61). No significant differences were found in CIN occurrence between the concomitant and deferred groups (11.1% vs. 8.9%; OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.36-4.21; p = 0.68). Conclusions. Multisite vascular disease patients eligible for CAD and LEPAD percutaneous revascularization exhibited a high cardiovascular risk profile with diffuse multivessel coronary and lower extremity disease. Our study suggests the efficacy and safety of concomitant coronary and lower extremity percutaneous revascularization based on one-year MACE incidence and in-hospital CIN. However, dedicated studies are warranted to confirm the short- and long-term outcomes of the concomitant revascularization strategy.

Ticagrelor 60 vs. 90 mg in Elderly ACS Patients undergoing PCI: a Randomized, Crossover Trial.

AIMS: Although dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitor is currently recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), its use in elderly patients remain challenging. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile of ticagrelor 60 vs. 90 mg twice daily among elderly patients (≥75 years) with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: PLINY The ELDER (NCT04739384) was a randomized, crossover trial testing the non-inferiority of a lower vs. standard dose of ticagrelor with respect to the primary endpoint of P2Y12 inhibition as determined by pre-dose P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) using the VerifyNow-P2Y12 (Accumetrics, San Diego, CA). Other pharmacodynamic tests included light transmittance aggregometry, multiple electrode aggregometry, and response to aspirin. Plasma levels of ticagrelor and its active metabolite AR-C124910XX were also evaluated. A total of 50 patients (mean age 79.6±4.0 years, females 44%) was included in the trial. Ticagrelor 60 mg was non-inferior to ticagrelor 90 mg according to VerifyNow-P2Y12 results (PRU 26.4±32.1 vs. 30.4±39.0; least squares mean difference: -4; 95% confidence interval: -16.27 to 8.06; p for non-inferiority=0.002). Other pharmacodynamic parameters were similar between the two ticagrelor doses and there were no differences in response to aspirin. Plasma levels of ticagrelor (398.29±312.36 ng/mL vs. 579.57±351.73 ng/mL, p=0.006) and its active metabolite were significantly lower during treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Although plasma concentrations were lower, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily provided a similar magnitude of platelet inhibition compared with ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily among elderly patients undergoing PCI. Clinical Trial registration: EudraCT 2019-002391-13. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04739384.

Post-marketing active surveillance of Guillain Barré Syndrome following COVID-19 vaccination in persons aged ≥12 years in Italy: A multi-database self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: Recently published studies have reported association of COVID-19 vaccine ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria) with Guillain Barré Syndrome (GBS). Less is known about the safety of other COVID-19 vaccines with respect to GBS outcome. This study investigated the association of COVID-19 vaccines with GBS in more than 15 million persons aged ≥12 years in Italy. METHODS: Study population was all individuals aged ≥12 years who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccines, admitted to emergency care/hospital for GBS from 27 December 2020-30 September 2021 in Italy. Identification of GBS cases and receipt of at least one dose of mRNA-1273 (Elasomeran), BNT162b2 (Tozinameran), ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria) and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen) through record linkage between regional health care and vaccination registries. Relative Incidence (RI) was estimated Self-controlled case series method adapted to event-dependent exposure using in the 42-day exposure risk period after each dose compared with other observation periods. RESULTS: Increased risk of GBS was found after first (RI = 6.83; 95% CI 2.14-21.85) and second dose (RI = 7.41; 2.35-23.38) of mRNA-1273 and first dose of ChAdOx1-S (RI = 6.52; 2.88-14.77). Analysis by age found an increased risk among those aged≥60 years after first (RI = 8.03; 2.08-31.03) and second dose (RI = 7.71; 2.38-24.97) of mRNA-1273. The first dose of ChAdOx1-S was associated with GBS in those aged 40-59 (RI = 4.50; 1.37-14.79) and in those aged ≥ 60 years (RI = 6.84; 2.56-18.28). CONCLUSIONS: mRNA-1273 and ChAdOx1-S vaccines were associated with an increased risk of GBS however this risk resulted in a small number of excess cases. Limitations were loss of GBS outpatient cases and imprecision of the estimates in the subgroup analysis due to a low number of events.

Acute Appendicitis After COVID-19 Vaccines in Italy: A Self-Controlled Case Series Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cases of appendicitis were identified in the pivotal randomized clinical trial on BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine and reported from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine pharmacovigilance systems. Three cohort studies and two self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies evaluating the association between mRNA vaccines and appendicitis reported discordant results. To address this uncertainty, the present study examines in a large population, with a SCCS design, the association between mRNA (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) and, for the first time, viral vector (ChAdOx1-S and Ad26.COV2-S) COVID-19 vaccines and acute appendicitis. METHODS: The SCCS study design was used to evaluate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and subsequent onset of acute appendicitis. The study was based on record linkage of health archives through TheShinISS application, a statistical tool that locally processes data from regional health care databases according to ad hoc, study-tailored and common data model. The study population included all vaccinated subjects ≥ 12 years old between 27 December 2020 and 30 September 2021. The acute appendicitis was identified through discharge diagnoses of hospital admissions or emergency department visits. Incident cases were defined as those who experienced a first event of acute appendicitis in the study period, excluding subjects with a diagnosis of appendicitis in the previous 5 years. Exposure was defined as the first or second dose of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 and ChAdOx1-S and the single dose of Ad26.COV2-S. The risk interval was defined as 42 days from the first or second vaccination dose and divided into pre-specified risk subperiods; the reference period was the observation time outside the risk interval. Relative incidences (RI) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated with the SCCS method 'modified for event-dependent exposures', through unbiased estimating equations. The seasonal component was considered as a time-dependent covariate. RESULTS: In the 42-day risk interval 1285 incident cases of acute appendicitis occurred: 727 cases after the first dose and 558 cases after the second dose. In the main analysis, no increased risks of acute appendicitis were observed in subjects vaccinated with BNT162b, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1-S and Ad26.COV2-S. The subgroup analyses by sex showed an increased risk in the 14-27 day risk interval, in males after the first dose of mRNA-1273 (RI of 1.71; 95% CI 1.08-2.70, p = 0.02) and in females after the single dose of Ad26.COV2-S (RI of 4.40; 95% CI 1.29-15.01, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of association of BNT162b, ChAdOx1-S, mRNA-1273 and Ad26.COV2-S with acute appendicitis in the general population. The results of the subgroup analyses by sex needs to be considered with caution. The multiplicity issue cannot be excluded being these hypotheses two of several hypotheses tested. In addition, relevant literature on the biological mechanism of the disease and evidence of similar effects with other vaccines or with the same vaccines are still lacking to provide strong support for a conclusion that there is an harmful effect in males and females with mRNA-1273 and Ad26.COV2-S.