Search

Observable symptoms of Bell's palsy following vaccinations may arouse concern over the safety profiles of novel COVID-19 vaccines in the general public. However, there are only a few studies on Bell's palsy following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination with inconclusive findings. This study aimed to update the previous analysis on the risk of Bell's palsy following mRNA (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccination.This study included cases aged ≥16-years-old with a new diagnosis of Bell's palsy within 28 days after BNT162b2 vaccinations from the population-based electronic health records in Hong Kong, using a nested case-control and self-controlled case series (SCCS) analyses were employed. The association between Bell's palsy and BNT162b2 was evaluated using conditional logistic and Poisson regression in nested case-control and SCCS analysis, respectively.A total of 54 individuals were newly diagnosed with Bell's palsy after BNT162b2 vaccinations. The incidence of Bell's palsy was 1.58 (95% 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 OR: 1.543, 95%CI:1.123 - 2.121), with up to 1.112 excess events per 100,000 people receiving two 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 (Adjusted OR: 2.325, 95%CI:1.414 - 3.821) and SCCS analysis (Adjusted IRR=2.44, 95%CI:1.32-4.50).There is 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.

Case reports of severe acute liver injury (ALI) following COVID-19 vaccination have recently been published. We evaluated the risks of ALI following COVID-19 vaccination (BNT162b2 or CoronaVac).We conducted a modified self-controlled case series analysis using the vaccination records in Hong Kong with data linkage to electronic medical records from a territory-wide healthcare database. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for ALI outcome in the 56-day period following first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines in comparison to the non-exposure period were estimated and compared to the ALI risk in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.Among 2,343,288 COVID-19 vaccine recipients who were at risk, 4,677 patients developed ALI for the first time between 23There was no evidence of an increased risk of ALI associated with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccination. Based on all current available evidence from previous studies and our study, the benefit of mass vaccination far outweighs the ALI risk from vaccination.There have been some recent reports that COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with acute liver injury. In our study, we found no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increased the risk of acute liver injury, which was much more common after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination. Hence, our study provides further data indicating that the benefits of mass COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the potential risks.

Case reports of carditis after BNT162b2 vaccination are accruing worldwide.To examine the association of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac (Sinovac) vaccination with carditis.Case-control study with hospital control participants.Territory-wide, public health care database with linkage to population-based vaccination records in Hong Kong.Inpatients aged 12 years or older first diagnosed with carditis were selected as case patients. All other hospitalized patients without carditis were treated as control participants. Ten control participants were randomly matched with each case patient by age, sex, and admission date.Vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac.Incident diagnosis of carditis based on the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and elevated troponin levels.A total of 160 case patients and 1533 control participants were included. Incidence of carditis per 100 000 doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 administered was estimated to be 0.31 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.66) and 0.57 (CI, 0.36 to 0.90), respectively. Multivariable analyses showed that recipients of the BNT162b2 vaccine had higher odds of carditis (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.57 [CI, 1.93 to 6.60]) than unvaccinated persons. Stratified by sex, the OR was 4.68 (CI, 2.25 to 9.71) for males and 2.22 (CI, 0.57 to 8.69) for females receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine. The ORs for adults and adolescents receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine were 2.41 (CI, 1.18 to 4.90) and 13.79 (CI, 2.86 to 110.38), respectively. Subanalysis showed an OR of 9.29 (CI, 3.94 to 21.91) for myocarditis and 1.06 (CI, 0.35 to 3.22) for pericarditis associated with BNT162b2. The risk was mainly seen after the second dose of BNT162b2 rather than the first. No association between CoronaVac and carditis with a magnitude similar to that for BNT162b2 was seen.Limited sample size, absence of electrocardiography and other clinical investigative data, and unrecorded overseas vaccination exposure.Despite a low absolute risk, there is an increased risk for carditis associated with BNT162b2 vaccination. This elevated risk should be weighed against the benefits of vaccination.Health and Medical Research Fund.

Background Safety monitoring of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is crucial during mass vaccination rollout to inform the choice of vaccines and reduce vaccine hesitancy. Considering the scant evidence directly comparing the safety profiles of mRNA and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, this territory-wide cohort study aims to compare the incidence of various adverse events of special interest (AESIs) and all-cause mortality between CoronaVac (inactivated vaccine) and BNT162b2 (mRNA-based vaccine). Our results can help vaccine recipients make an informed choice. Methods and findings A retrospective, population-based cohort of individuals who had received at least 1 dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac from 23 February to 9 September 2021 in Hong Kong, and had data linkage to the electronic medical records of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority, were included. Those who had received mixed doses were excluded. Individuals were observed from the date of vaccination (first or second dose) until mortality, second dose vaccination (for first dose analysis), 21 days after vaccination, or 30 September 2021, whichever came first. Baseline characteristics of vaccinated individuals were balanced between groups using propensity score weighting. Outcome events were AESIs and all-cause mortality recorded during 21 days of post-vaccination follow-up after each dose, except anaphylaxis, for which the observation period was restricted to 2 days after each dose. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of AESIs and mortality comparing between CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients were estimated after each dose using Poisson regression models. Among 2,333,379 vaccinated individuals aged 18 years or above, the first dose analysis included 1,308,820 BNT162b2 and 955,859 CoronaVac recipients, while the second dose analysis included 1,116,677 and 821,560 individuals, respectively. The most frequently reported AESI among CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients was thromboembolism (first dose: 431 and 290 per 100,000 person-years; second dose: 385 and 266 per 100,000 person-years). After the first dose, incidence rates of overall AESIs (IRR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.89–1.08, p = 0.703) and mortality (IRR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.63–1.48, p = 0.868) associated with CoronaVac were generally comparable to those for BNT162b2, except for Bell palsy (IRR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.12–3.41, p = 0.018), anaphylaxis (IRR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.14–0.79, p = 0.012), and sleeping disturbance or disorder (IRR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.49–0.89, p = 0.006). After the second dose, incidence rates of overall AESIs (IRR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.87–1.08, p = 0.545) and mortality (IRR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.51–1.40, p = 0.516) were comparable between CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients, with no significant differences observed for specific AESIs. The main limitations of this study include residual confounding due to its observational nature, and the possibility of its being underpowered for some AESIs with very low observed incidences. Conclusions In this study, we observed that the incidences of AESIs (cumulative incidence rate of 0.06%–0.09%) and mortality following the first and second doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccination were very low. The safety profiles of the vaccines were generally comparable, except for a significantly higher incidence rate of Bell palsy, but lower incidence rates of anaphylaxis and sleeping disturbance or disorder, following first dose CoronaVac versus BNT162b2 vaccination. Our results could help inform the choice of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines, mainly administered in low- and middle-income countries with large populations, in comparison to the safety of mRNA vaccines. Long-term surveillance on the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines should continue.

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.

BACKGROUND Contact tracing and intensive testing programs are essential for controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, conventional contact tracing is resource intensive and may not result in the tracing of all cases due to recall bias and cases not knowing the identity of some close contacts. Few studies have reported the epidemiological features of cases not identified by contact tracing (“unlinked cases”) or described their potential roles in seeding community outbreaks. OBJECTIVE For this study, we characterized the role of unlinked cases in the epidemic by comparing their epidemiological profile with the linked cases; we also estimated their transmission potential across different settings. METHODS We obtained rapid surveillance data from the government, which contained the line listing of COVID-19 confirmed cases during the first three waves in Hong Kong. We compared the demographics, history of chronic illnesses, epidemiological characteristics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of linked and unlinked cases. Transmission potentials in different settings were assessed by fitting a negative binomial distribution to the observed offspring distribution. RESULTS Time interval from illness onset to hospital admission was longer among unlinked cases than linked cases (median 5.00 days versus 3.78 days; PPP=.049). Cluster transmissions from the unlinked cases were most frequently identified in household settings, followed by eateries and workplaces, with the estimated probability of cluster transmissions being around 0.4 for households and 0.1-0.3 for the latter two settings. CONCLUSIONS The unlinked cases were positively associated with time to hospital admission, severity of infection, and epidemic size—implying a need to design and implement digital tracing methods to complement current conventional testing and tracing. To minimize the risk of cluster transmissions from unlinked cases, digital tracing approaches should be effectively applied in high-risk socioeconomic settings, and risk assessments should be conducted to review and adjust the policies.

Objectives There is increasing attention on association between eating patterns and diabetes control following global changes in eating patterns. There had been very limited research on the eating patterns of diabetic patients with employment, although working age population has seen the highest increase in diabetes incidence. This study aimed to identify workplace eating patterns in relation to glycaemic control among type 2 diabetic patients with employment. Methods This is a sequential mixed-methods study. The exploratory qualitative study involved focus group interviews with 31 type 2 diabetic patients with employment, which guided the design of a subsequent cross-sectional investigation involving 185 patients with employment. Thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data to identify workplace eating patterns most relevant to glycaemic control. Hierarchical multiple linear regression was performed to examine association between workplace eating pattern and glycaemic control, proxied by HbA1c. Results The focus group interviews identified frequency in the consumption of home-prepared meals (HPM) and meal hours as the major workplace eating patterns that affected glycaemic control. The cross-sectional study confirmed that regular consumption of HPM at workplace could explain variance of HbA1c, independent of socio-demographic factors, lifestyle factors and disease condition, with R2 = 0.146, F(14, 170) = 2.075, p = 0.015; adjusted R2 = 0.076. Patients who were female, in non-skilled occupation, on shift, with fixed work location and had break during work were more likely to consume HPM. Conclusions Consumption of HPM at workplace should be promoted to facilitate better glycaemic control by type 2 diabetic patients with employment, possibly through more practical dietary advice, and workplace accommodation in terms of space and facilities. In the context of COVID-19 pandemic, consumption of HPM also meant additional protection for diabetic patients through reducing close contact exposures in restaurants.

The objective of this study was to examine the association of receiving care from a volunteer-administered outreach program with emergency room utilization and hospitalization among older people with chronic conditions in Hong Kong.Volunteers consisting of retired healthcare professionals, university students, and openly recruited citizens received training to provide home care services to hospital-discharged older Chinese adults aged 65+ with chronic conditions who were identified as high-risk patients of hospital admission and referred by public healthcare providers. Several home visits were made to enhance the patients' self-care capacity. For comparison, a 4:1-propensity score matching based on age, sex, the month of discharge, length of stay for the index episode, and 14 common chronic conditions was conducted to select a comparison group from a territory-wide inpatient database. Poisson regression was used to compare emergency room utilization and the number of hospitalized days.In total, 775 patients were analyzed, including 155 home care recipients and 620 extracted from the inpatient database as a matched comparison with similar baseline characteristics. Regression analysis showed that home care recipients had 21% fewer overall emergency room visits [95% confidence interval (CI): 3%-35%], 22% fewer such visits which led to hospitalization (95% CI: 1%-39%) and 22% fewer overall hospitalized days (95% CI: 16%-28%). Nevertheless, the number of hospitalized days admitted through the emergency room was 10% higher among home care recipients (95% CI: 0%-20%).Volunteer-administered home care might be effective in reducing emergency room visits and non-acute hospitalization, as well as early detection of acute problems warranting tertiary care. Further randomized studies are needed to substantiate this finding.