Search

Objectives: To estimate the incidence of adverse events of interest (AEIs) after receiving their first and second doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, and to report the safety profile differences between the different COVID-19 vaccines., Design: We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners national sentinel network. We compared the AEIs that occurred seven days before and after receiving the COVID-19 vaccinations to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021., Setting: England, UK., Participants: Individuals experiencing AEIs after receiving first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines., Main Outcome Measures: AEIs determined based on events reported in clinical trials and in primary care during post-license surveillance., Results: A total of 7,952,861 individuals were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines within the study period. Among them, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs. Within the first seven days post-vaccination, 4.85% of all the AEIs were reported. There was a 3-7% decrease in the overall RI of AEIs in the seven days after receiving both doses of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (RI = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94) and 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98), respectively) and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (RI = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98) for both doses), but a 20% increase after receiving the first dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 (RI = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44))., Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in the incidence of medically attended AEIs. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, which could contribute to reporting vaccine safety.

Objectives: We investigated SARS-CoV-2 infection trends, risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination uptake among school staff, students and their household members in Wales, UK., Design: Seven-day average of SARS-CoV-2 infections and polymerase chain reaction tests per 1000 people daily, cumulative incidence of COVID-19 vaccination uptake and multi-level Poisson models with time-varying covariates., Setting: National electronic cohort between September 2020 and May 2022 when several variants were predominant in the UK (Alpha, Delta and Omicron)., Participants: School students aged 4 to 10/11 years (primary school and younger middle school, n  = 238,163), and 11 to 15/16 years (secondary school and older middle school, n  = 182,775), school staff in Wales ( n  = 47,963) and the household members of students and staff ( n  = 697,659)., Main Outcome Measures: SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination uptake., Results: School students had a sustained period of high infection rates compared with household members after August 2021. Primary schedule vaccination uptake was highest among staff (96.3%) but lower for household members (72.2%), secondary and older middle school students (59.8%), and primary and younger middle school students (3.3%). Multi-level Poisson models showed that vaccination was associated with a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Delta variant posed a greater infection risk for students than the Alpha variant. However, Omicron was a larger risk for staff and household members., Conclusions: Public health bodies should be informed of the protection COVID-19 vaccines afford, with more research being required for younger populations. Furthermore, schools require additional support in managing new, highly transmissible variants. Further research should examine the mechanisms between child deprivation and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Since April 2021, COVID-19 vaccines have been recommended for pregnant women. Despite this, COVID-19 vaccine uptake in this group is low compared to the non-pregnant population of childbearing age. Our aim was to understand barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake among pregnant women in Northern Ireland using the COM-B framework, and so to make recommendations for public health interventions. The COM-B proposes that human behaviour is influenced by the extent to which a person has the capability, opportunity, and motivation to enact that behaviour. Understanding the factors underpinning behaviour through this lens helps discern what needs to change to change behaviour, therefore supporting the development of targeted interventions.This study consisted of eight semi-structured interviews with new/expectant mothers who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine dose while pregnant since April 2021, and a focus group with five participants who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose while pregnant. Interview and focus group data were analysed using semi-deductive reflexive thematic analysis framed by a subtle realist approach. The COM-B was used to categorise codes and subthemes were developed within each COM-B construct.Within Psychological Capability, subthemes captured the need for consistent and reliable COVID-19 vaccine information and access to balanced and jargon-free, risk-benefit information that is tailored to the pregnant individual. The behaviour/opinions of family, friends, and local healthcare providers had a powerful influence on COVID-19 vaccine decisions (Social Opportunity). Integrating the COVID-19 vaccine as part of routine antenatal pathways was believed to support access and sense of familiarity (Physical Opportunity). Participants valued health autonomy, however experienced internal conflict driven by concerns about long-term side effects for their baby (Reflective Motivation). Feelings of fear, lack of empathy from healthcare providers, and anticipated guilt commonly underpinned indecision as to whether to get the vaccine (Automatic Motivation).Our study highlighted that the choice to accept a vaccine during pregnancy generates internal conflict and worry. Several participants cited their concern was primarily around the safety for their baby. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a significant part when it comes to decision making about COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant women. HCPs and pregnant women should be involved in the development of interventions to improve the delivery and communication of information., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: From September 2021, Health Care Workers (HCWs) in Wales began receiving a COVID-19 booster vaccination. This is the first dose beyond the primary vaccination schedule. Given the emergence of new variants, vaccine waning vaccine, and increasing vaccination hesitancy, there is a need to understand booster vaccine uptake and subsequent breakthrough in this high-risk population., Methods: We conducted a prospective, national-scale, observational cohort study of HCWs in Wales using anonymised, linked data from the SAIL Databank. We analysed uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccinations from September 2021 to February 2022, with comparisons against uptake of the initial primary vaccination schedule. We also analysed booster breakthrough, in the form of PCR-confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection, comparing to the second primary dose. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate associations for vaccination uptake and breakthrough regarding staff roles, socio-demographics, household composition, and other factors., Results: We derived a cohort of 73,030 HCWs living in Wales (78% female, 60% 18-49 years old). Uptake was quickest amongst HCWs aged 60 + years old (aHR 2.54, 95%CI 2.45-2.63), compared with those aged 18-29. Asian HCWs had quicker uptake (aHR 1.18, 95%CI 1.14-1.22), whilst Black HCWs had slower uptake (aHR 0.67, 95%CI 0.61-0.74), compared to white HCWs. HCWs residing in the least deprived areas were slightly quicker to have received a booster dose (aHR 1.12, 95%CI 1.09-1.16), compared with those in the most deprived areas. Strongest associations with breakthrough infections were found for those living with children (aHR 1.52, 95%CI 1.41-1.63), compared to two-adult only households. HCWs aged 60 + years old were less likely to get breakthrough infections, compared to those aged 18-29 (aHR 0.42, 95%CI 0.38-0.47)., Conclusion: Vaccination uptake was consistently lower among black HCWs, as well as those from deprived areas. Whilst breakthrough infections were highest in households with children., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

BackgroundPost-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines.AimTo estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands.MethodsWe used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021.ResultsWithin 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3-7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28-1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.78).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety.

Background: COVID-19 data have been generated across the United Kingdom as a by-product of clinical care and public health provision, as well as numerous bespoke and repurposed research endeavors. Analysis of these data has underpinned the United Kingdom's response to the pandemic, and informed public health policies and clinical guidelines. However, these data are held by different organizations, and this fragmented landscape has presented challenges for public health agencies and researchers as they struggle to find relevant data to access and interrogate the data they need to inform the pandemic response at pace., Objective: We aimed to transform UK COVID-19 diagnostic data sets to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR)., Methods: A federated infrastructure model (COVID - Curated and Open Analysis and Research Platform [CO-CONNECT]) was rapidly built to enable the automated and reproducible mapping of health data partners' pseudonymized data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model without the need for any data to leave the data controllers' secure environments, and to support federated cohort discovery queries and meta-analysis., Results: A total of 56 data sets from 19 organizations are being connected to the federated network. The data include research cohorts and COVID-19 data collected through routine health care provision linked to longitudinal health care records and demographics. The infrastructure is live, supporting aggregate-level querying of data across the United Kingdom., Conclusions: CO-CONNECT was developed by a multidisciplinary team. It enables rapid COVID-19 data discovery and instantaneous meta-analysis across data sources, and it is researching streamlined data extraction for use in a Trusted Research Environment for research and public health analysis. CO-CONNECT has the potential to make UK health data more interconnected and better able to answer national-level research questions while maintaining patient confidentiality and local governance procedures., (©Emily Jefferson, Christian Cole, Shahzad Mumtaz, Samuel Cox, Thomas Charles Giles, Sam Adejumo, Esmond Urwin, Daniel Lea, Calum Macdonald, Joseph Best, Erum Masood, Gordon Milligan, Jenny Johnston, Scott Horban, Ipek Birced, Christopher Hall, Aaron S Jackson, Clare Collins, Sam Rising, Charlotte Dodsley, Jill Hampton, Andrew Hadfield, Roberto Santos, Simon Tarr, Vasiliki Panagi, Joseph Lavagna, Tracy Jackson, Antony Chuter, Jillian Beggs, Magdalena Martinez-Queipo, Helen Ward, Julie von Ziegenweidt, Frances Burns, Joanne Martin, Neil Sebire, Carole Morris, Declan Bradley, Rob Baxter, Anni Ahonen-Bishopp, Paul Smith, Amelia Shoemark, Ana M Valdes, Benjamin Ollivere, Charlotte Manisty, David Eyre, Stephanie Gallant, George Joy, Andrew McAuley, David Connell, Kate Northstone, Katie Jeffery, Emanuele Di Angelantonio, Amy McMahon, Mat Walker, Malcolm Gracie Semple, Jessica Mai Sims, Emma Lawrence, Bethan Davies, John Kenneth Baillie, Ming Tang, Gary Leeming, Linda Power, Thomas Breeze, Duncan Murray, Chris Orton, Iain Pierce, Ian Hall, Shamez Ladhani, Natalie Gillson, Matthew Whitaker, Laura Shallcross, David Seymour, Susheel Varma, Gerry Reilly, Andrew Morris, Susan Hopkins, Aziz Sheikh, Philip Quinlan. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 27.12.2022.)

There is a need for better understanding of the risk of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic, thromboembolic disorders following first, second and booster vaccination doses and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Self-controlled cases series analysis of 2.1 million linked patient records in Wales between 7th December 2020 and 31st December 2021. Outcomes were the first diagnosis of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic and thromboembolic events in primary or secondary care datasets, exposure was defined as 0-28 days post-vaccination or a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2. 36,136 individuals experienced either a thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic or thromboembolic event during the study period. Relative to baseline, our observations show greater risk of outcomes in the periods post-first dose of BNT162b2 for haemorrhagic (IRR 1.47, 95%CI: 1.04-2.08) and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (IRR 2.80, 95%CI: 1.21-6.49) events; post-second dose of ChAdOx1 for arterial thrombosis (IRR 1.14, 95%CI: 1.01-1.29); post-booster greater risk of venous thromboembolic (VTE) (IRR-Moderna 3.62, 95%CI: 0.99-13.17) (IRR-BNT162b2 1.39, 95%CI: 1.04-1.87) and arterial thrombosis (IRR-Moderna 3.14, 95%CI: 1.14-8.64) (IRR-BNT162b2 1.34, 95%CI: 1.15-1.58). Similarly, post SARS-CoV-2 infection the risk was increased for haemorrhagic (IRR 1.49, 95%CI: 1.15-1.92), VTE (IRR 5.63, 95%CI: 4.91, 6.4), arterial thrombosis (IRR 2.46, 95%CI: 2.22-2.71). We found that there was a measurable risk of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic, thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination and infection., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected people with mental health conditions., Aims: We investigated the association between receiving psychotropic drugs, as an indicator of mental health conditions, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake., Method: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort of the Northern Ireland adult population using national linked primary care registration, vaccination, secondary care and pharmacy dispensing data. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated the association between anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic, and hypnotic use and COVID-19 vaccination status, accounting for age, gender, deprivation and comorbidities. Receiving any COVID-19 vaccine was the primary outcome., Results: There were 1 433 814 individuals, of whom 1 166 917 received a COVID-19 vaccination. Psychotropic medications were dispensed to 267 049 people. In univariable analysis, people who received any psychotropic medication had greater odds of receiving COVID-19 vaccination: odds ratio (OR) = 1.42 (95% CI 1.41-1.44). However, after adjustment, psychotropic medication use was associated with reduced odds of vaccination (OR adj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91). People who received anxiolytics (OR adj = 0.63, 95% CI 0.61-0.65), antipsychotics (OR adj = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) and hypnotics (OR adj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.93) had reduced odds of being vaccinated. Antidepressant use was not associated with vaccination (OR adj = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03)., Conclusions: We found significantly lower odds of vaccination in people who were receiving treatment with anxiolytic and antipsychotic medications. There is an urgent need for evidence-based, tailored vaccine support for people with mental health conditions.

Background: Several countries restricted the administration of ChAdOx1 to older age groups in 2021 over safety concerns following case reports and observed versus expected analyses suggesting a possible association with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Large datasets are required to precisely estimate the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and CVST due to the extreme rarity of this event. We aimed to accomplish this by combining national data from England, Scotland, and Wales., Methods and Findings: We created data platforms consisting of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality, and virological testing data in each of England, Scotland, and Wales, with a combined cohort of 11,637,157 people and 6,808,293 person years of follow-up. The cohort start date was December 8, 2020, and the end date was June 30, 2021. The outcome measure we examined was incident CVST events recorded in either primary or secondary care records. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis of this outcome following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2. The observation period consisted of an initial 90-day reference period, followed by a 2-week prerisk period directly prior to vaccination, and a 4-week risk period following vaccination. Counts of CVST cases from each country were tallied, then expanded into a full dataset with 1 row for each individual and observation time period. There was a combined total of 201 incident CVST events in the cohorts (29.5 per million person years). There were 81 CVST events in the observation period among those who a received first dose of ChAdOx1 (approximately 16.34 per million doses) and 40 for those who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (approximately 12.60 per million doses). We fitted conditional Poisson models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Vaccination with ChAdOx1 was associated with an elevated risk of incident CVST events in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.11). We did not find an association between BNT162b2 and CVST in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.77). Our study had some limitations. The SCCS study design implicitly controls for variables that are constant over the observation period, but also assumes that outcome events are independent of exposure. This assumption may not be satisfied in the case of CVST, firstly because it is a serious adverse event, and secondly because the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom prioritised the clinically extremely vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions, which may have caused a selection effect for individuals more prone to CVST. Although we pooled data from several large datasets, there was still a low number of events, which may have caused imprecision in our estimates., Conclusions: In this study, we observed a small elevated risk of CVST events following vaccination with ChAdOx1, but not BNT162b2. Our analysis pooled information from large datasets from England, Scotland, and Wales. This evidence may be useful in risk-benefit analyses of vaccine policies and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests. AS is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s COVID-19 Advisory Group and the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats (NERVTAG) Risk Stratification Subgroup and AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 Thrombocytopenia Taskforce; all roles are remunerated to AS or his institution. AS and SS are members of the editorial board of PLOS Medicine. CRS declares funding from the MRC, NIHR, CSO and New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and Health Research Council during the conduct of this study. SVK is co-chair of the Scottish Government’s Expert Reference Group on COVID-19 and ethnicity, is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) subgroup on ethnicity and acknowledges funding from a NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship, MRC and CSO. CR is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s COVID-19 Advisory Group, SPI-M, MHRA Vaccine Benefit and Risk Working Group. HRS is an advisor to the Scottish Parliament’s COVID-19 Committee. RKO is a member of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisal Committee. DB is employed by Queen’s University Belfast, the Public Health Agency and the Department of Health (Northern Ireland). DB is a member of several Northern Ireland and UK government COVID-19 advisory boards, including the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling and the UK Vaccine Effectiveness Expert Panel, and has represented Northern Ireland on the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and its subgroups. SdeL through his University holds grants from AstraZeneca, Eli-Lilly, GSK, MSD, Sanofi and Seqirus. He has been advisory board members for Astra Zeneca, Sanofi and Seqirus. MW is a member of UK government COVID-19 advisory group, SPI-M, and a member of Scottish Government COVID-19 Advisory Group. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Background: While population estimates suggest high vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, the protection for health care workers, who are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, is less understood., Methods: We conducted a national cohort study of health care workers in Wales (UK) from 7 December 2020 to 30 September 2021. We examined uptake of any COVID-19 vaccine, and the effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) against polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We used linked and routinely collected national-scale data within the SAIL Databank. Data were available on 82,959 health care workers in Wales, with exposure extending to 26 weeks after second doses., Results: Overall vaccine uptake was high (90%), with most health care workers receiving theBNT162b2 vaccine (79%). Vaccine uptake differed by age, staff role, socioeconomic status; those aged 50-59 and 60+ years old were 1.6 times more likely to get vaccinated than those aged 16-29. Medical and dental staff, and Allied Health Practitioners were 1.5 and 1.1 times more likely to get vaccinated, compared to nursing and midwifery staff. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine was found to be strong and consistent across the characteristics considered; 52% three to six weeks after first dose, 86% from two weeks after second dose, though this declined to 53% from 22 weeks after the second dose., Conclusions: With some variation in rate of uptake, those who were vaccinated had a reduced risk of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those unvaccinated. Second dose has provided stronger protection for longer than first dose but our study is consistent with waning from seven weeks onwards., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AS is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s COVID-19 Advisory Group,the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats (NERVTAG) Risk Stratification Subgroupand amember of AstraZeneca’s Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Task Force; all roles are unremunerated.CR is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s COVID-19 Advisory Group, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling and the Medicines & Healthcare products RegulatoryAgency’s Vaccine Benefit and Risk Working Group.DTB is employed by the Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland, and the Department of Health, Northern Ireland.MP is employed by the Vaccine Preventable Disease Programme at Public Health Wales and is involved in the COVID-19 vaccine roll out for Wales.SVK is co-chair of the Scottish Government’s Expert Reference Group on COVID-19 andethnicity, is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) subgroup on ethnicity and acknowledges funding from a NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship, MRC and CSO.RF is a member of is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) Social Care Working Group (SCWG).RO is a member of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisal Committee (TAC) and has provided methodological advice outside of the submitted work toCogentiaHealthcare Consulting Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd,the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit, the University of Bristol, and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).RAL is a member of the Welsh Government COVID19 Technical Advisory Group.All other authors have declared no competinginterests., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which emerged in December 2019, has caused millions of deaths and severe illness worldwide. Numerous vaccines are currently under development of which a few have now been authorised for population-level administration by several countries. As of 20 September 2021, over 48 million people have received their first vaccine dose and over 44 million people have received their second vaccine dose across the UK. We aim to assess the uptake rates, effectiveness, and safety of all currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the UK., Methods and Analysis: We will use prospective cohort study designs to assess vaccine uptake, effectiveness and safety against clinical outcomes and deaths. Test-negative case-control study design will be used to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Self-controlled case series and retrospective cohort study designs will be carried out to assess vaccine safety against mild-to-moderate and severe adverse events, respectively. Individual-level pseudonymised data from primary care, secondary care, laboratory test and death records will be linked and analysed in secure research environments in each UK nation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models will be carried out to estimate vaccine uptake levels in relation to various population characteristics. VE estimates against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection will be generated using a generalised additive logistic model. Time-dependent Cox models will be used to estimate the VE against clinical outcomes and deaths. The safety of the vaccines will be assessed using logistic regression models with an offset for the length of the risk period. Where possible, data will be meta-analysed across the UK nations., Ethics and Dissemination: We obtained approvals from the National Research Ethics Service Committee, Southeast Scotland 02 (12/SS/0201), the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage independent Information Governance Review Panel project number 0911. Concerning English data, University of Oxford is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation and the National Health Service (NHS) Digital Data Security and Protection Policy. This is an approved study (Integrated Research Application ID 301740, Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee 21/HRA/2786). The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub meets NHS Digital's Data Security and Protection Toolkit requirements. In Northern Ireland, the project was approved by the Honest Broker Governance Board, project number 0064. Findings will be made available to national policy-makers, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AS is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s COVID-19 Advisory Group. RAL reports grants from MRC during the conduct of the study. SJS reports grants from Wellcome Trust, during the conduct of the study; grants from National Institute of Healthcare Research HTA, grants from Tommy's Charity and grants from Chief Scientist for Scotland, outside the submitted work. SdeL is Director of the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. He has received grant funding through his University from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GSK MSD, Seqirus and Takeda. He has been members of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Seqirus. DB is jointly employed by Queen’s University Belfast, the Public Health Agency and the Department of Health (Northern Ireland), and he is currently or has been a member of COVID-19 government advisory groups, including the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), its subgroups, and the UK Vaccine Effectiveness Expert Panel. All other authors report no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme has prioritised vaccination of those at the highest risk of COVID-19 mortality and hospitalisation. The programme was rolled out in Scotland during winter 2020-21, when SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were at their highest since the pandemic started, despite social distancing measures being in place. We aimed to estimate the frequency of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death in people who received at least one vaccine dose and characterise these individuals., Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) national surveillance platform, which contained linked vaccination, primary care, RT-PCR testing, hospitalisation, and mortality records for 5·4 million people (around 99% of the population) in Scotland. Individuals were followed up from receiving their first dose of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines until admission to hospital for COVID-19, death, or the end of the study period on April 18, 2021. We used a time-dependent Poisson regression model to estimate rate ratios (RRs) for demographic and clinical factors associated with COVID-19 hospitalisation or death 14 days or more after the first vaccine dose, stratified by vaccine type., Findings: Between Dec 8, 2020, and April 18, 2021, 2 572 008 individuals received their first dose of vaccine-841 090 (32·7%) received BNT162b2 and 1 730 918 (67·3%) received ChAdOx1. 1196 (<0·1%) individuals were admitted to hospital or died due to COVID-19 illness (883 hospitalised, of whom 228 died, and 313 who died due to COVID-19 without hospitalisation) 14 days or more after their first vaccine dose. These severe COVID-19 outcomes were associated with older age (≥80 years vs 18-64 years adjusted RR 4·75, 95% CI 3·85-5·87), comorbidities (five or more risk groups vs less than five risk groups 4·24, 3·34-5·39), hospitalisation in the previous 4 weeks (3·00, 2·47-3·65), high-risk occupations (ten or more previous COVID-19 tests vs less than ten previous COVID-19 tests 2·14, 1·62-2·81), care home residence (1·63, 1·32-2·02), socioeconomic deprivation (most deprived quintile vs least deprived quintile 1·57, 1·30-1·90), being male (1·27, 1·13-1·43), and being an ex-smoker (ex-smoker vs non-smoker 1·18, 1·01-1·38). A history of COVID-19 before vaccination was protective (0·40, 0·29-0·54)., Interpretation: COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths were uncommon 14 days or more after the first vaccine dose in this national analysis in the context of a high background incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and with extensive social distancing measures in place. Sociodemographic and clinical features known to increase the risk of severe disease in unvaccinated populations were also associated with severe outcomes in people receiving their first dose of vaccine and could help inform case management and future vaccine policy formulation., Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Scottish Government, and Health Data Research UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AS, JM, and CR are members of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer's COVID-19 Advisory Group. JM is a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) and AS is a member of the NERVTAG Risk Stratification Subgroup and an unfunded member of Astra-Zeneca's COVID-19 Strategic Consultancy Group: Thrombocytopenia Taskforce. JM is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) and chairs the COVID Scottish National Incident Management Team and the Scientific Committee of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control/WHO-funded IMOVE-COVID-19 group. CM reports research funding from Medical Research Council (MRC), Health Data Research UK, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and Scottish Chief Scientist Office (CSO). SJS reports research funding from Wellcome Trust, MRC, NIHR, and Scottish CSO. CRS declares funding from the MRC, NIHR, Scottish CSO, and the New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and Health Research Council during the conduct of this study. SVK is co-chair of the Scottish Government's Expert Reference Group on COVID-19 and ethnicity, is a member of the SAGE subgroup on ethnicity, and acknowledges funding from a NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship, MRC, and Scottish CSO. CR is a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Vaccine Benefit and Risk Working Group. JLKM is a member of the COVID Scottish National Incident Management Team. SdL has received funding through his University from AstraZeneca. FDRH acknowledges part support from the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford Thames Valley and the NIHR Oxford University Hospital Biomedical Research Centre. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19., Methods: We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19-EAVE II-database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1-adjusted rate ratio) following the first dose of vaccine., Findings: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85-94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28-34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75-94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72-89 at 28-34 days post-vaccination)., Interpretation: Mass roll-out of the first doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines was associated with substantial reductions in the risk of hospital admission due to COVID-19 in Scotland. There remains the possibility that some of the observed effects might have been due to residual confounding., Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AS and JMcM are members of the Scottish Government chief medical officer's COVID-19 Advisory Group. JMcM is a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) and AS is a member of the NERVTAG Risk Stratification Subgroup. JMcM is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) and chairs the COVID Scottish National Incident Management Team and the Scientific Committee of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control-funded and WHO-funded IMOVE-COVID-19 group. CRS declares funding from the Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Health Research, Chief Scientist Office, and New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and Health Research Council during the conduct of this study. SVK is co-chair of the Scottish Government's Expert Reference Group on COVID-19 and ethnicity; is a member of the SAGE subgroup on ethnicity; and acknowledges funding from a National Health Service Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship, the Medical Research Council, and Chief Scientist Office. CR is a member of the Scottish Government chief medical officer's COVID-19 Advisory Group, Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Vaccine Benefit and Risk Working Group. DB reports employment by Queen's University Belfast, Public Health Agency, and a secondment to Northern Ireland's Department of Health. SdL reports that he is the director of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre and that its principal funder is Public Health England. SdL has received funding through the University of Oxford for studies from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Seqirus, and Takeda; and has been a member of advisory boards for influenza for Seqirus and Sanofi. FDRH reports that the University of Oxford received research funding from Her Majesty's Government for the ChadOx1 vaccine trial programme and entered a partnership with AstraZeneca for the manufacture and distribution of the vaccine. FDRH was not involved in these relationships. All other authors report no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Data and Connectivity COVID-19 Vaccines Pharmacovigilance (DaC-VaP) UK-wide collaboration was created to monitor vaccine uptake and effectiveness and provide pharmacovigilance using routine clinical and administrative data. To monitor these, pooled analyses may be needed. However, variation in terminologies present a barrier as England uses the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT), while the rest of the United Kingdom uses the Read v2 terminology in primary care. The availability of data sources is not uniform across the United Kingdom. Objective: This study aims to use the concept mappings in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM) to identify common concepts recorded and to report these in a repeated cross-sectional study. We planned to do this for vaccine coverage and 2 adverse events of interest (AEIs), cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and anaphylaxis. We identified concept mappings to SNOMED CT, Read v2, the World Health Organization's International Classification of Disease Tenth Revision (ICD-10) terminology, and the UK Dictionary of Medicines and Devices (dm+d). Methods: Exposures and outcomes of interest to DaC-VaP for pharmacovigilance studies were selected. Mappings of these variables to different terminologies used across the United Kingdom's devolved nations' health services were identified from the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Automated Terminology Harmonization, Extraction, and Normalization for Analytics (ATHENA) online browser. Lead analysts from each nation then confirmed or added to the mappings identified. These mappings were then used to report AEIs in a common format. We reported rates for windows of 0-2 and 3-28 days postvaccine every 28 days. Results: We listed the mappings between Read v2, SNOMED CT, ICD-10, and dm+d. For vaccine exposure, we found clear mapping from OMOP to our clinical terminologies, though dm+d had codes not listed by OMOP at the time of searching. We found a list of CVST and anaphylaxis codes. For CVST, we had to use a broader cerebral venous thrombosis conceptual approach to include Read v2. We identified 56 SNOMED CT codes, of which we selected 47 (84%), and 15 Read v2 codes. For anaphylaxis, our refined search identified 60 SNOMED CT codes and 9 Read v2 codes, of which we selected 10 (17%) and 4 (44%), respectively, to include in our repeated cross-sectional studies. Conclusions: This approach enables the use of mappings to different terminologies within the OMOP CDM without the need to catalogue an entire database. However, Read v2 has less granular concepts than some terminologies, such as SNOMED CT. Additionally, the OMOP CDM cannot compensate for limitations in the clinical coding system. Neither Read v2 nor ICD-10 is sufficiently granular to enable CVST to be specifically flagged. Hence, any pooled analysis will have to be at the less specific level of cerebrovascular venous thrombosis. Overall, the mappings within this CDM are useful, and our method could be used for rapid collaborations where there are only a limited number of concepts to pool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]