Search

Abstract Several international pharmacovigilance agencies have issued warnings regarding the potential risk of myasthenia gravis (MG) following statin therapy. Our study investigated this association using population-based electronic health records in Hong Kong. We conducted a sequence of target trial emulation (TTE) for interpersonal comparison and a self-controlled case series (SCCS) study for intrapersonal comparison. In the TTE for MG onset, the incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) and adjusted HRs were 51.91(31.80, 84.74)[HR:6.11 (3.73, 10.01)] in month 1, 16.27(9.81, 26.99)[HR:1.92(1.15, 3.19) in months 2-4, and 15.27(9.05, 25.79)[HR:1.80(1.06, 3.04)] in months 5–7. For risk of exacerbation, the adjusted HRs were 10.69(5.48, 20.84) in month 1, 1.50(0.55, 4.06) in months 2–4, and 2.79(1.33, 5.84) in months 5–7. No increased risks were found during the subsequent 18 months. A similar pattern was observed in SCCS analysis. Our findings recommend a minimum monitoring period of approximately six months for MG symptoms for patients starting using statin.

Abstract Background Few studies have attempted to use clinical and laboratory parameters to stratify COVID-19 patients with severe versus non-severe initial disease and evaluate age-specific differences in developing multiple different COVID-19-associated disease outcomes. Methods A retrospective cohort included patients from the electronic health database of Hong Kong Hospital Authority between 1 January 2022 and 15 August 2022 until 15 November 2022. The cohort was divided into three cohorts by age (≤ 40, 41–64, and ≥ 65 years old). Each age cohort was stratified into four groups: (1) COVID-19 critically exposed group (ICU admission, mechanical ventilation support, CRP > 80 mg/L, or D-dimer > 2 g/mL), (2) severely exposed group (CRP 30–80 mg/L, D-dimer 0.5–2 g/mL, or CT value 40) for the disease outcomes in the acute phase of infection (e.g., mortality risk HR (aged ≤ 40): 1.0 (95%CI: 0.5,2.0), HR (aged 41–64): 2.1 (95%CI: 1.8, 2.6), HR (aged > 65): 4.8 (95%CI: 4.6, 5.1)); while in the post-acute phase, these risks were largely insignificant in those aged 65): 1.5 (95%CI: 1.5,1.6)). Fully vaccinated patients were associated with lower risks of disease outcomes than those receiving less than two doses of vaccination. Conclusions The risk of multiple different disease outcomes in both acute and post-acute phases increased significantly with the increasing severity of acute COVID-19 illness, specifically among the elderly. Moreover, future studies could improve by risk-stratifying patients based on universally accepted thresholds for clinical parameters, particularly biomarkers, using biological evidence from immunological studies.

Abstract Background Extending the dosing interval of a primary series of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination has been employed to reduce myocarditis risk in adolescents, but previous evaluation of impact on vaccine effectiveness (VE) is limited to risk after second dose. Methods We quantified the impact of the dosing interval based on case notifications and vaccination uptake in Hong Kong from January to April 2022, based on calendar-time proportional hazards models and matching approaches. Results We estimated that the hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) of infections after the second dose for extended (28 days or more) versus regular (21–27 days) dosing intervals ranged from 0.86 to 0.99 from calendar-time proportional hazards models, and from 0.85 to 0.87 from matching approaches, respectively. Adolescents in the extended dosing groups (including those who did not receive a second dose in the study period) had a higher hazard of infection than those with a regular dosing interval during the intra-dose period (HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.07, 2.59; p = 0.02) after the first dose. Conclusions Implementing an extended dosing interval should consider multiple factors including the degree of myocarditis risk, the degree of protection afforded by each dose, and the extra protection achievable using an extended dosing interval.

Abstract Background Limited research exists on the risks and spectrum of complications in post‐acute phase of COVID‐19 in cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the post‐acute effects of COVID‐19 on different types of morbidities among cancer patients across two regions with different healthcare systems and dominant variants of COVID‐19. Materials and Methods Cancer patients with COVID‐19 from the UK Biobank (UKB, n = 2230; March 16, 2020 to May 31, 2021; pre‐Omicron‐variants dominant) and electronic medical records in Hong Kong (HK cohort, n = 22,335; April 1, 2020 to October 31, 2022; Omicron‐variant dominant) were included. Each COVID‐19 case was randomly matched with up to 10 non‐COVID‐19 cancer patients based on age and sex. Follow‐up lasted until 31 August 2021 for UKB and 23 January 2023 for HK. Inverse probability treatment weighting balanced cohort characteristics. Cox regression evaluated the association of COVID‐19 with morbidities occurred 30 days post‐infection. Results Cancer patients with COVID‐19 consistently showed significantly higher risk of major cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) [UKB: hazard ratio [HR] 1.8 (95% CI 1.3, 2.5); HK: HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1, 1.8)], CVD death [UKB: HR 4.3 (95% CI 2.9, 6.2); HK: HR 1.7 (95% CI 1.3, 2.4)], and all‐cause mortality [UKB: HR 4.7 (95% CI 4.0, 5.5); HK: HR 1.6 (95% CI 1.5, 1.7)] in both cohorts despite the difference in dominant variants. Cancer patients at advanced ages or severely infected had higher all‐cause mortality risk. However, associations between COVID‐19 and CVDs became insignificant for fully vaccinated patients. Conclusion COVID‐19 infection is associated with increased risks of CVDs and mortality in cancer patients. Fully vaccination may reduce the post‐acute effects of COVID‐19 on CVDs. This information may guide effective pre‐emptive measures to reduce COVID‐19‐related morbidities and mortality in cancer patients.

BackgroundClozapine is widely regarded as a highly efficacious psychotropic drug that is largely underused worldwide. Recent disproportionality analyses and nationwide case-control studies suggested a potential association between clozapine use and hematological malignancy (HM). Nevertheless, the absolute rate difference is not well-established due to the absence of analytic cohort studies. The clinical significance of such a potential risk remains unclear.Methods and findingsWe extracted data from a territory-wide public healthcare database from January 2001 to August 2022 in Hong Kong to conduct a retrospective cohort study of anonymized patients aged 18+ years with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who used clozapine or olanzapine (drug comparator with highly similar chemical structure and pharmacological mechanisms) for 90+ days, with at least 2 prior other antipsychotic use records within both groups. Weighted by inverse probability of treatment (IPTW) based on propensity scores, Poisson regression was used to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of HM between clozapine and olanzapine users. The absolute rate difference was also estimated. In total, 9,965 patients with a median follow-up period of 6.99 years (25th to 75th percentile: 4.45 to 10.32 years) were included, among which 834 were clozapine users. After IPTW, the demographic and clinical characteristics of clozapine users were comparable to those of olanzapine users. Clozapine users had a significant weighted IRR of 2.22 (95% confidence interval (CI) [1.52, 3.34]; p < 0.001) for HM compared to olanzapine users. The absolute rate difference was estimated at 57.40 (95% CI [33.24, 81.55]) per 100,000 person-years. Findings were consistent across subgroups by age and sex. Sensitivity analyses all supported the robustness of the results and showed good specificity to HM but no other cancers. The main limitation of this observational study is the potential residual confounding effects that could have arisen from the lack of randomization in clozapine or olanzapine use.ConclusionsAbsolute rate difference in HM incidence associated with clozapine is small despite a 2-fold elevated rate. Given the rarity of HM and existing blood monitoring requirements, more restrictive indication for clozapine or special warnings may not be necessary.

Background: Approximately two-thirds of diabetes patients develop multimorbidity, which is associated with increased mortality. We aimed to examine whether, and to what extent, the time interval between pre-existing diabetes and a second chronic disease may be associated with the risk of mortality. Methods: We carried out a territory-wide nested case-control study using incidence density sampling, utilizing electronic health records from Hong Kong’s public healthcare facilities. Among 158 732 patients first diagnosed with diabetes from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012 and subsequently developed multimorbidity as of December 31, 2019, we extracted those who died before December 31, 2019 as case participants. For each participant, we randomly matched with up to 4 people of the same sex, multimorbidity age, and second chronic condition who had not died after going through the same survival period of the case participant. Multimorbidity interval was included as a continuous variable. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for mortality. Results: In total, 3508 case participants were matched with 14 032 control participants. Conditional logistic regression showed there were 19%-reduced odds of mortality following the extension of multimorbidity interval by 1 year. Similar associations were observed in men, women, people aged 64 years or younger, and older people aged 65 years or more. Conclusions: Delayed multimorbidity among patients living with diabetes may be related to a lower risk of mortality. This study suggests that we should focus on mitigating and lowering the risk of multimorbidity in clinical management of diabetes to reduce further complication and mortality.

Abstract Objective To evaluate age-specific multimorbidity patterns and morbidity burden on mortality and healthcare expenditure across age groups. Patients and Methods Retrospective observational study between January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2017 using electronic health records in Hong Kong: Individuals were stratified by age (

Objectives: To evaluate the difference between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in vaccine effectiveness and safety. Methods: This target trial emulation study included individuals aged ≥12 during 2022. Propensity score matching was applied to ensure group balance. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the effectiveness outcomes including COVID-19 infection, severity, 28-day hospitalization, and 28-day mortality after infection. Poisson regression was used for safety outcomes including 32 adverse events of special interests between groups. Results: A total of 639,818 and 1804,388 individuals were identified for the 2-dose and 3-dose comparison, respectively. In 2-dose and 3-dose comparison, the hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals [CI]) were 0.844 [0.833-0.856] and 0.749 [0.743-0.755] for COVID-19 infection, 0.692 [0.656-0.731] and 0.582 [0.559-0.605] for hospitalization, 0.566 [0.417-0.769] and 0.590 [0.458-0.76] for severe COVID-19, and 0.563 [0.456-0.697] and 0.457 [0.372-0.561] for mortality for BNT162b2 recipients versus CoronaVac recipients, respectively. Regarding safety, 2-dose BNT162b2 recipients had a significantly higher incidence of myocarditis (incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI]: 8.999 [1.14-71.017]) versus CoronaVac recipients, but the difference was insignificant in 3-dose comparison (IRR [95% CI]: 2.000 [0.500-7.996]). Conclusion: BNT162b2 has higher effectiveness among individuals aged ≥12 against COVID-19-related outcomes for SARS-CoV-2 omicron compared to CoronaVac, with almost 50% lower mortality risk.

Objectives Older individuals with multimorbidity are at an elevated risk of infection and complications from COVID-19. Effectiveness of post-COVID-19 interventions or care models in reducing subsequent adverse outcomes in these individuals have rarely been examined. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of attending general outpatient within 30 days after discharge from COVID-19 on 1-year survival among older adults aged 85 years or above with multimorbidity.Design Retrospective cohort study emulating a randomised target trial using electronic health records.Setting We used data from the Hospital Authority and the Department of Health in Hong Kong, which provided comprehensive electronic health records, COVID-19 confirmed case data, population-based vaccination records and other individual characteristics for the study.Participants Adults aged 85 years or above with multimorbidity who were discharged after hospitalisation for COVID-19 between January 2020 and August 2022.Interventions Attending a general outpatient within 30 days of last COVID-19 discharge defined the exposure, compared to no outpatient visit.Main outcome measures Primary outcome was all-cause mortality within one year. Secondary outcomes included mortality from respiratory, cardiovascular and cancer causes.Results A total of 6183 eligible COVID-19 survivors were included in the analysis. The all-cause mortality rate following COVID-19 hospitalisation was lower in the general outpatient visit group (17.1 deaths per 100 person-year) compared with non-visit group (42.8 deaths per 100 person-year). After adjustment, primary care consultations within 30 days after discharge were associated with a significantly greater 1-year survival (difference in 1-year survival: 11.2%, 95% CI 8.1% to 14.4%). We also observed significantly better survival from respiratory diseases in the general outpatient visit group (difference in 1-year survival: 6.3%, 95% CI 3.5% to 8.9%). In a sensitivity analysis for different grace period lengths, we found that the earlier participants had a general outpatient visit after COVID-19 discharge, the better the survival.Conclusions Timely primary care consultations after COVID-19 hospitalisation may improve survival following COVID-19 hospitalisation among older adults aged 85 or above with multimorbidity. Expanding primary care services and implementing follow-up mechanisms are crucial to support this vulnerable population’s recovery and well-being.

Abstract Previous studies indicate an increased carditis risk among adolescents following the two-dose messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine. Several jurisdictions have extended the interdose interval between the first and second doses to reduce the risk. However, the effectiveness of such an extension policy remains inconclusive. Using the territory-wide vaccine record-linked electronic health records in Hong Kong, we conducted a nested case–control study from February 23, 2021 to August 15, 2022. Adolescents aged between 12 and 17 who received two-dose BNT162b2 were included for comparing risks between standard interdose interval (21–27 days) versus extended interdose interval ( ≥ 56 days). The carditis cumulative incidence within 28 days following the second dose was calculated. The adjusted odds ratio was estimated from multivariable conditional logistic regression. We identified 49 adolescents with newly diagnosed carditis within 28 days following the second dose. The crude cumulative incidence is 37.41 [95% confidence interval (CI): 27.68–49.46] per million vaccinated adolescents. Compared to the standard interdose interval group, adolescents with an extended interval had a significantly lower risk of carditis [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.34 (95% CI: 0.16–0.73)]. Sensitivity analysis of carditis occurring within 14 days following the second dose yielded a similar estimate [aOR 0.30 (95% CI: 0.13–0.73)]. Extending the interdose interval of the BNT162b2 vaccine from 21 to 27 days to 56 days or longer is associated with 66% lower risk of incident carditis among adolescents. Our findings contribute towards an evidence-based vaccination strategy for a vulnerable population and potentially informs product label updates.

Abstract The persisting risk of long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the protection against such risk conferred by COVID-19 vaccination remains unclear. Here we conducted a retrospective territory-wide cohort study on 1,175,277 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection stratified by their vaccination status and non-infected controls to evaluate the risk of clinical sequelae, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality using a territory-wide public healthcare database with population-based vaccination records in Hong Kong. A progressive reduction in risk of all-cause mortality was observed over one year between patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and controls. Patients with complete vaccination or have received booster dose incurred a lower risk of health consequences including major cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality than unvaccinated or patients with incomplete vaccination 30-90 days after infection. Completely vaccinated and patients with booster dose of vaccines did not incur significant higher risk of health consequences from 271 and 91 days of infection onwards, respectively, whilst un-vaccinated and incompletely vaccinated patients continued to incur a greater risk of clinical sequelae for up to a year following SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study provided real-world evidence supporting the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the risk of long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its persistence following infection.

Summary: Multimorbidity entails a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 complications. We examined vaccine effectiveness (VE) stratified by multimorbidity using a case-control study of territory-wide electronic health records in Hong Kong. Cases of infection (testing positive), hospitalization, and mortality were identified from January to March 2022. Controls were matched by age, sex, outpatient attendance/hospitalization date, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. We demonstrated a consistently good VE among people with increased multimorbidity burden; even more so than among those with minimal such burden. There was also a significantly greater VE after a third dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac against infection. The difference in VE between those with multimorbidity and those without was less pronounced for hospitalization, and such difference for COVID-19-related mortality was negligible. In conclusion, VE of both examined vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection among people with more complex multimorbidity burden is significant. Further vaccine roll-out should prioritize people with multimorbidity.

Abstract Background Preclinical evidence suggests that certain antipsychotic medications may inhibit the development of lung cancer. This study aims to investigate the association between incident lung cancer and different cumulative exposure periods of flupentixol or any antipsychotics. Methods Using electronic health records from the Hospital Authority in Hong Kong, this nested case-control study included case participants aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed lung cancer after initiating antipsychotics between January 1, 2003, and August 31, 2022. Each case was matched to up to ten controls of the same sex and age, who were also antipsychotic users. Multivariable conditional logistic regression models were conducted to quantify the association between lung cancer and different cumulative exposure times of flupentixol (0–365 days [ref]; 366–1825 days; 1826+ days) and any antipsychotics (1–365 days [ref]; 366–1825 days; 1826+ days), separately. Results Here we show that among 6435 cases and 64,348 matched controls, 64.06% are males, and 52.98% are aged 65–84 years. Compared to patients with less than 365 days of exposure, those with 366–1825 days of exposure to flupentixol (OR = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.47–0.91]) and any antipsychotics (0.42 [0.38–0.45]) have a lower risk of lung cancer. A decreased risk is observed in patients who have 1826+ days of cumulative use of any antipsychotics (0.54 [0.47–0.60]). Conclusions A reduced risk of lung cancer is observed in patients with more than one year of exposure to flupentixol or any antipsychotics. Further research on the association between lung cancer and other antipsychotic agents is warranted.

Extending the interval between doses of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines has been linked with a reduced risk of myocarditis in children and adolescents, but impacts on vaccine effectiveness are not known. Here, the authors perform a nested case-control study using data from Hong Kong and find evidence of reduced risk of infection following a longer dosing interval.

ABSTRACTBackground: This study aims to evaluate waning effectiveness against severe and fatal COVID-19 with two to three doses of CoronaVac/BNT162b2, where data are limited. Methods: A case–control study included individuals aged ≥18 years, unvaccinated or received two to three doses of CoronaVac/BNT162b2, using electronic healthcare databases in Hong Kong. Those with first COVID-19-related hospitalization, severe complications, or mortality between 1 January and 15 August 2022 were defined as cases and matched with up-to-10 controls by age, sex, index date, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-related outcomes was estimated at different time intervals from second and third-dose vaccination (0–13 up-to 210–240 days) using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbidities and medications. Results: By 211–240 days after second dose, VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization reduced to 46.6% (40.7–51.8%) for BNT162b2 and 36.2% (28.0–43.4%) for CoronaVac, and VE against COVID-19-related mortality were 73.8% (55.9–84.4%) and 76.6% (60.8–86.0%). After third dose, VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization decreased from 91.2% (89.5–92.6%) for BNT162b2 and 76.7% (73.7–79.4%) for CoronaVac at 0–13 days, to 67.1% (60.4–72.6%) and 51.3% (44.2–57.5%) at 91–120 days. VE against COVID-19-related mortality for BNT162b2 remained high from 0–13 days [98.2% (95.0–99.3%)] to 91–120 days [94.6% (77.7–98.7%)], and for CoronaVac reduced from 0–13 days [96.7% (93.2–98.4%)] to 91–120 days [86.4% (73.3–93.1%)]. Conclusions: Significant risk reduction against COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality after CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccination was observed for >240 and >120 days after second and third doses compared to unvaccinated, despite significant waning over time. Timely administration of booster doses could provide higher levels of protection.

ABSTRACTSevere COVID-19 appears to be disproportionately more common in children and adolescents since the emergence of Omicron. More evidence regarding vaccine effectiveness (VE) is urgently needed to assist policymakers in making decisions and minimize vaccine hesitancy among the public. This was a case-control study in the pediatric population using data extracted from the electronic health records database in Hong Kong. Individuals aged 3–17 with COVID-19 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction were included in the study. Each case was matched with up to 10 controls based on age, gender, and index date (within 3 calendar days). The VE of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in preventing COVID-19, hospitalizations, and severe outcomes were estimated using conditional logistic regression adjusted by patients’ comorbidities and medication history during the outbreak from January to August 2022. A total of 36,434 COVID-19 cases, 2231 COVID-19-related hospitalizations, and 1918 severe COVID-19 cases were matched to 109,004, 21,788, and 18,823 controls, respectively. Compared to the unvaccinated group, three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac was associated with reduced risk of infection [VE: BNT162b2: 56.0% (95% CI: 49.6–61.6), CoronaVac: 39.4% (95% CI: 25.6–50.6)], hospitalization [VE: BNT162b2: 58.9% (95% CI: 36.1–73.6), CoronaVac: 51.7% (11.6–73.6)], and severe outcomes [VE: BNT162b2: 60.2% (95% CI: 33.7–76.1), CoronaVac: 42.2% (95% CI: −6.2–68.6)]. Our findings showed that three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac was effective in preventing COVID-19, hospitalizations, and severe outcomes among the pediatric population during Omicron-dominant pandemic, which was further enhanced after a booster dose.

Summary: Background: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have emerged as promising options for COVID-19 treatment, but direct comparisons of their effectiveness have been limited. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these two oral antiviral drugs in non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this target trial emulation study, we used data from a territory-wide electronic health records database on eligible patients aged ≥18 years infected with COVID-19 who were prescribed either molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within five days of infection between 16 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 in the non-hospitalised and hospitalised settings in Hong Kong. A sequence trial approach and 1:1 propensity score matching was applied based on age, sex, number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, Charlson comorbidity index, comorbidities, and drug use within past 90 days. Cox regression adjusted with patients’ characteristics was used to compare the risk of effectiveness outcomes (all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or ventilatory support and hospitalisation) between groups. Subgroup analyses included age (

Abstract Evidence on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among people who recovered from a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is warranted to inform vaccination recommendations. Using the territory-wide public healthcare and vaccination records of over 2.5 million individuals in Hong Kong, we examined the potentially differential risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and mortality between those receiving two homologous doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac versus those with a previous infection receiving only one dose amid the Omicron epidemic. Results show a single dose after a SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a lower risk of infection (BNT162b2: adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.475, 95% CI: 0.410–0.550; CoronaVac: adjusted IRR = 0.397, 95% CI: 0.309–0.511) and no significant difference was detected in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or mortality compared with a two-dose vaccination regimen. Findings support clinical recommendations that those with a previous infection could receive a single dose to gain at least similar protection as those who received two doses without a previous infection.

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.

In this study, we examined the clinical and electrophysiological outcomes of adolescents in Hong Kong who developed myocarditis or pericarditis following BNT162b2 vaccination for COVID-19, and followed-up for 60–180 days after their initial diagnosis. Clinical assessments included electrocardiogram (ECG) and echocardiogram at the initial admission and follow-up were compared. Treadmill testing was also performed in some cases. Between 14 June 2021 and 16 February 2022, 53 subjects were approached to participate in this follow-up study, of which 28 patients were followed up for >60 days with a median follow-up period of 100 days (range, 61–178 days) and were included in this study. On admission, 23 patients had ECG abnormalities but no high-grade atrioventricular block. Six patients had echocardiogram abnormalities, including reduced contractility, small rim pericardial effusions, and hyperechoic ventricular walls. All patients achieved complete recovery on follow-up. After discharge, 10 patients (35.7%) reported symptoms, including occasional chest pain, shortness of breath, reduced exercise tolerance, and recurrent vasovagal near-syncope. At follow-up, assessments, including ECGs, were almost all normal. Among the three patients with possible ECG abnormalities, all their echocardiograms or treadmill testings were normal. Sixteen patients (57.1%) underwent treadmill testing at a median of 117 days post-admission, which were also normal. However, at follow-up, there was a significant mean bodyweight increase of 1.81 kg (95%CI 0.47-3.1 kg, p = 0.01), possibly due to exercise restriction. In conclusion, most adolescents experiencing myocarditis and pericarditis following BNT162b2 vaccination achieved complete recovery. Some patients developed non-specific persistent symptoms, and bodyweight changes shall be monitored.

Accruing evidence suggests an increased risk of myocarditis in adolescents from messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines. However, other potential adverse events remain under-researched. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adolescents aged 12–18 with a territory-wide electronic healthcare database of the Hong Kong population linked with population-based vaccination records and supplemented with age- and sex-specific population numbers. Two age- and sex-matched retrospective cohorts were formed to observe 28 days following the first and second doses of BNT162b2 and estimate the age- and sex-adjusted incidence rate ratios between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Thirty AESIs adapted from the World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety were examined. Eventually, the first-dose cohort comprised 274,881 adolescents (50.25% received the first dose) and the second-dose cohort 237,964 (50.29% received the second dose). Ninety-four (34.2 per 100,000 persons) adolescents in the first-dose cohort and 130 (54.6 per 100,000 persons) in the second-dose cohort experienced ≥1 AESIs. There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of any AESI associated with BNT162b2 except myocarditis [first-dose cohort: incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 9.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14–73.16; second-dose cohort: IRR = 29.61, 95% CI 4.04–217.07] and sleeping disturbances/disorders after the second dose (IRR = 2.06, 95% CI 1.01–4.24). Sensitivity analysis showed that, with myocarditis excluded as AESIs, no significantly elevated risk of AESIs as a composite outcome associated with vaccination was observed (P = 0.195). To conclude, the overall absolute risk of AESIs was low with no evidence of an increased risk of AESIs except myocarditis and sleeping disturbances/disorders.

Abstract Background In view of accumulating case reports of thyroid dysfunction following COVID-19 vaccination, we evaluated the risks of incident thyroid dysfunction following inactivated (CoronaVac) and mRNA (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccines using a population-based dataset. Methods We identified people who received COVID-19 vaccination between 23 February and 30 September 2021 from a population-based electronic health database in Hong Kong, linked to vaccination records. Thyroid dysfunction encompassed anti-thyroid drug (ATD)/levothyroxine (LT4) initiation, biochemical picture of hyperthyroidism/hypothyroidism, incident Graves’ disease (GD), and thyroiditis. A self-controlled case series design was used to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of thyroid dysfunction in a 56-day post-vaccination period compared to the baseline period (non-exposure period) using conditional Poisson regression. Results A total of 2,288,239 people received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination (57.8% BNT162b2 recipients and 42.2% CoronaVac recipients). 94.3% of BNT162b2 recipients and 92.2% of CoronaVac recipients received the second dose. Following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination, there was no increase in the risks of ATD initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.864, 95% CI 0.670–1.114; CoronaVac: IRR 0.707, 95% CI 0.549–0.912), LT4 initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.911, 95% CI 0.716–1.159; CoronaVac: IRR 0.778, 95% CI 0.618–0.981), biochemical picture of hyperthyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 0.872, 95% CI 0.744–1.023; CoronaVac: IRR 0.830, 95% CI 0.713–0.967) or hypothyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 1.002, 95% CI 0.838–1.199; CoronaVac: IRR 0.963, 95% CI 0.807–1.149), GD, and thyroiditis. Similarly, following the second dose of COVID-19 vaccination, there was no increase in the risks of ATD initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.972, 95% CI 0.770–1.227; CoronaVac: IRR 0.879, 95%CI 0.693–1.116), LT4 initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 1.019, 95% CI 0.833–1.246; CoronaVac: IRR 0.768, 95% CI 0.613–0.962), hyperthyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 1.039, 95% CI 0.899–1.201; CoronaVac: IRR 0.911, 95% CI 0.786–1.055), hypothyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 0.935, 95% CI 0.794–1.102; CoronaVac: IRR 0.945, 95% CI 0.799–1.119), GD, and thyroiditis. Age- and sex-specific subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed consistent neutral associations between thyroid dysfunction and both types of COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions Our population-based study showed no evidence of vaccine-related increase in incident hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism with both BNT162b2 and CoronaVac.

Summary: Background: Evidence on post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) has shown inconsistent findings. This study aimed to generate coherent evidence on the post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 infection using electronic healthcare records across two regions. Methods: In this retrospective, multi-database cohort study, patients with COVID-19 aged 18 or above between April 1st 2020 and May 31st 2022 from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority (HKHA) and March 16th 2020 and May 31st 2021 from the UK Biobank (UKB) databases and their matched controls were followed for up to 28 and 17 months, respectively. Covariates between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 controls were adjusted using propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting. Cox proportional regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of clinical sequelae, cardiovascular, and all-cause mortality 21 days after COVID-19 infection. Findings: A total of 535,186 and 16,400 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 from HKHA and UKB, of whom 253,872 (47.4%) and 7613 (46.4%) were male, with a mean age (±SD) of 53.6 (17.8) years and 65.0 (8.5) years, respectively. Patients with COVID-19 incurred greater risk of heart failure (HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.65, 2.01), atrial fibrillation (1.31; 1.16, 1.48), coronary artery disease (1.32; 1.07, 1.63), deep vein thrombosis (1.74; 1.27, 2.37), chronic pulmonary disease (1.61; 1.40, 1.85), acute respiratory distress syndrome (1.89; 1.04, 3.43), interstitial lung disease (3.91; 2.36, 6.50), seizure (2.32; 1.12, 4.79), anxiety disorder (1.65; 1.29, 2.09), post-traumatic stress disorder (1.52; 1.23, 1.87), end-stage renal disease (1.76; 1.31, 2.38), acute kidney injury (2.14; 1.69, 2.71), pancreatitis (1.42; 1.10, 1.83), cardiovascular (2.86; 1.25, 6.51) and all-cause mortality (4.16; 2.11, 8.21) mortality during their post-acute phase of infection. Interpretation: The consistent greater risk of PASC highlighted the need for sustained multi-disciplinary care for COVID-19 survivors. Funding: Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Collaborative Research Fund, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and AIR@InnoHK, administered by the Innovation and Technology Commission, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Abstract 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 R 2 = 0.146, F(14, 170) = 2.075, p = 0.015; adjusted R 2 = 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.

ABSTRACT: Objectives: Although clinical data have shown that the BNT162b2 vaccine, which is widely used in many countries, is safe and effective as a protection against the SARS-CoV-2 infection, extant research in adverse reactions using real-world data of various sociodemographic characteristics is scant. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study to compare age differences in self-reported reactogenicity of BNT162b2 in Hong Kong. A total of 1,516 participants were intensively followed up for two weeks following both doses of BNT162b2 vaccination, during which their basic demographic, health conditions, and medication information were collected. Results: Results from the generalized mixed model showed that compared with adults aged 18 to 59 years, older adults aged 60 years or above had a lower risk of adverse reactions and adolescents aged 12 to 17 years had a moderately higher risk. Conclusions: Results of this study should be informative to parents considering BNT162b2 vaccination for their children in that moderately increased reactogenicity compared with adults is anticipated.

Abstract 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.

Adverse events resulting from COVID-19 vaccination are a public health concern and it is not known whether pre-existing conditions may impose an increased risk. Here, using electronic health records from Hong Kong, the authors show that adverse events are rare for all groups, and there is no evidence of risk modification due to multimorbidity.

Abstract Background Gender differences in the trend of educational inequality in diabetes have been widely observed in the Western populations, indicating the increasing importance of educational attainment as a social determinant of diabetes among women. Nonetheless, relevant evidence is scarce in developed Asian settings for comparisons. This study examined the gender-specific trends of educational inequality in diagnosed diabetes in Hong Kong between 1999 and 2014. Methods A series of eight territory-wide population-representative samples of 97,481 community-dwelling Hong Kong Chinese adults aged 45 or above were surveyed between 1999 and 2014. Regression-based Relative Index of Inequality (RII) and age-standardized Slope Index of Inequality (SII) were adopted to examine the extent and trend of gender-specific educational inequality in self-reported physician-diagnosed diabetes. Results Age-standardized prevalence of diabetes increased in both genders over time, with a steeper surge among men. In addition, educational inequalities in diabetes, in both relative and absolute terms, significantly widened among women over the study period (annual RII change = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.02–1.07, annual SII change = 0.36%; 95% CI = 0.16–0.56%), with the peak in 2011 (RII = 2.44; 95% CI = 1.83–3.24, SII = 9.21%; 95% CI = 6.47–11.96%). However, no significant widening inequality was found among men. Further adjustment for household income level did not attenuate the observed educational inequality. Conclusions Despite a greater increase in diabetes prevalence among men, disparity in diabetes substantially widened across education levels among women in the past decade in Hong Kong. The gender perspective should be taken into considerations for policy making to alleviate the prevalence surge and rising educational inequality in diabetes.

Summary: 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).

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. In a retrospective study, Carlos King Ho Wong, Kristy Tsz Kwan Lau, and colleagues study adverse events reported following COVID-19 vaccination in Hong Kong. Author summary Why was this study done? Various SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been developed for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention to reduce the risks of severe disease and death; however, vaccine hesitancy due to fear of adverse reactions remains a barrier to mass uptake. Continuous post-marketing surveillance of vaccine safety is crucial to guide informed decision-making and promote vaccine uptake in the community. There is very limited evidence directly comparing the safety profiles of mRNA-based and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. What did the researchers do and find? A territory-wide retrospective cohort study of individuals who had received at least 1 dose of BNT162b2 (mRNA-based vaccine, Comirnaty) or CoronaVac (inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine) from 23 February to 9 September 2021 in Hong Kong was conducted to compare the occurrence of selected adverse events of special interest (AESIs) and all-cause death between recipients of the 2 vaccines during 21 days of follow-up after the first and second doses. The incidence of overall AESIs was very low for both vaccines (cumulative incidence rate of 0.06%–0.09%), and 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). The incidence rates of overall AESIs and all-cause death were comparable between CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients after the first and second doses, except for a higher incidence rate of Bell palsy, and lower incidence rates of anaphylaxis and sleeping disturbance or disorder, following first dose CoronaVac versus BNT162b2 vaccination. What do these findings mean? Both vaccines had similarly acceptable safety profiles, and the risks of AESIs and all-cause death following CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccination were very low, which adds to the real-world evidence on the safety of both COVID-19 vaccines, and may help reduce vaccine hesitancy by addressing safety concerns. Our results may inform the public about the choice of COVID-19 vaccines, and governments about the allocation of healthcare resources for monitoring specific AESIs during vaccine rollout (especially for Bell palsy among first dose CoronaVac recipients, and anaphylaxis and sleeping disturbance or disorder among first dose BNT162b2 recipients). As currently done for mRNA vaccines, clinical data and observational reports of all COVID-19 vaccines should be made publicly available in a timely manner, and long-term monitoring of their safety profiles should continue.

Summary: Background: Stimulation of immunity by vaccination may elicit adverse events. There is currently inconclusive evidence on the relationship between herpes zoster related hospitalization and COVID-19 vaccination. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of inactivated virus (CoronaVac, Sinovac) and mRNA (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Fosun Pharma) COVID-19 vaccine on the risk of herpes zoster related hospitalization. Methods: Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis was conducted using the data from the electronic health records in Hospital Authority and COVID-19 vaccination records in the Department of Health in Hong Kong. We conducted the SCCS analysis including patients with a first primary diagnosis of herpes zoster in the hospital inpatient setting between February 23 and July 31, 2021. A confirmatory analysis by nested case-control method was also conducted. Each herpes zoster case was randomly matched with ten controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, and date of hospital admission. Conditional Poisson regression and logistic regression models were used to assess the potential excess rates of herpes zoster after vaccination. Findings: From February 23 to July 31, 2021, a total of 16 and 27 patients were identified with a first primary hospital diagnosis of herpes zoster within 28 days after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations. The incidence of herpes zoster was 7.9 (95% Confidence interval [CI]: 5.2–11.5) for CoronaVac and 7.1 (95% CI: 4.1–11.5) for BNT162b2 per 1,000,000 doses administered. In SCCS analysis, CoronaVac vaccination was associated with significantly higher risk of herpes zoster within 14 days after first dose (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]=2.67, 95% CI: 1.08–6.59) but not in other periods afterwards compared to the baseline period. Regarding BNT162b2 vaccination, a significantly increased risk of herpes zoster was observed after first dose up to 14 days after second dose (0-13 days after first dose: aIRR=5.23, 95% CI: 1.61–17.03; 14–27 days after first dose: aIRR=5.82, 95% CI: 1.62–20.91; 0-13 days after second dose: aIRR=5.14, 95% CI: 1.29–20.47). Using these relative rates, we estimated that there has been an excess of approximately 5 and 7 cases of hospitalization as a result of herpes zoster after every 1,000,000 doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccination, respectively. The findings in the nested case control analysis showed similar results. Interpretation: We identified an increased risk of herpes zoster related hospitalization after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations. However, the absolute risks of such adverse event after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations were very low. In locations where COVID-19 is prevalent, the protective effects on COVID-19 from vaccinations will greatly outweigh the potential side effects of vaccination. Funding: The project was funded by Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ref. No.COVID19F01). FTTL (Francisco Tsz Tsun Lai) and ICKW (Ian Chi Kei Wong)’s posts were partly funded by D24H; hence this work was partly supported by AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission.

BackgroundContact 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. ObjectiveFor 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. MethodsWe 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. ResultsTime interval from illness onset to hospital admission was longer among unlinked cases than linked cases (median 5.00 days versus 3.78 days; P