AbstractObjectivesTo estimate the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe covid-19 at different time after vaccination.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingItaly, 27 ...December 2020 to 7 November 2021.Participants33 250 344 people aged ≥16 years who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine and did not have a previous diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Main outcome measuresSARS-CoV-2 infection and severe covid-19 (admission to hospital or death). Data were divided by weekly time intervals after vaccination. Incidence rate ratios at different time intervals were estimated by multilevel negative binomial models with robust variance estimator. Sex, age group, brand of vaccine, priority risk category, and regional weekly incidence in the general population were included as covariates. Geographic region was included as a random effect. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness was calculated as (1−IRR)×100, where IRR=incidence rate ratio, with the time interval 0-14 days after the first dose of vaccine as the reference.ResultsDuring the epidemic phase when the delta variant was the predominant strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection significantly decreased (P<0.001) from 82% (95% confidence interval 80% to 84%) at 3-4 weeks after the second dose of vaccine to 33% (27% to 39%) at 27-30 weeks after the second dose. In the same time intervals, vaccine effectiveness against severe covid-19 also decreased (P<0.001), although to a lesser extent, from 96% (95% to 97%) to 80% (76% to 83%). High risk people (vaccine effectiveness −6%, −28% to 12%), those aged ≥80 years (11%, −15% to 31%), and those aged 60-79 years (2%, −11% to 14%) did not seem to be protected against infection at 27-30 weeks after the second dose of vaccine.ConclusionsThe results support the vaccination campaigns targeting high risk people, those aged ≥60 years, and healthcare workers to receive a booster dose of vaccine six months after the primary vaccination cycle. The results also suggest that timing the booster dose earlier than six months after the primary vaccination cycle and extending the offer of the booster dose to the wider eligible population might be warranted.
Myocarditis and pericarditis following the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines administration have been reported, but their frequency is still uncertain in the younger population. This ...study investigated the association between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 and myocarditis/pericarditis in the population of vaccinated persons aged 12 to 39 years in Italy. We conducted a self-controlled case series study (SCCS) using national data on COVID-19 vaccination linked to emergency care/hospital discharge databases. The outcome was the first diagnosis of myocarditis/pericarditis between 27 December 2020 and 30 September 2021. Exposure risk period (0 to 21 days from the vaccination day, subdivided in 3 equal intervals) for first and second dose was compared with baseline period. The SCCS model, adapted to event-dependent exposures, was fitted using unbiased estimating equations to estimate relative incidences (RIs) and excess of cases (EC) per 100,000 vaccinated by dose, age, sex, and vaccine product. Calendar period was included as time-varying confounder in the model. During the study period 2,861,809 persons aged 12 to 39 years received mRNA vaccines (2,405,759 BNT162b2; 456,050 mRNA-1273); 441 participants developed myocarditis/pericarditis (346 BNT162b2; 95 mRNA-1273). Within the 21-day risk interval, 114 myocarditis/pericarditis events occurred, the RI was 1.99 (1.30 to 3.05) after second dose of BNT162b2 and 2.22 (1.00 to 4.91) and 2.63 (1.21 to 5.71) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. During the 0 to 7) days risk period, an increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was observed after first dose of mRNA-1273, with RI of 6.55 (2.73 to 15.72), and after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, with RIs of 3.39 (2.02 to 5.68) and 7.59 (3.26 to 17.65). The number of EC for second dose of mRNA-1273 was 5.5 per 100,000 vaccinated (3.0 to 7.9). The highest risk was observed in males, at 0 to 7) days after first and second dose of mRNA-1273 with RI of 12.28 (4.09 to 36.83) and RI of 11.91 (3.88 to 36.53); the number of EC after the second dose of mRNA-1273 was 8.8 (4.9 to 12.9). Among those aged 12 to 17 years, the RI was of 5.74 (1.52 to 21.72) after second dose of BNT162b2; for this age group, the number of events was insufficient for estimating RIs after mRNA-1273. Among those aged 18 to 29 years, the RIs were 7.58 (2.62 to 21.94) after first dose of mRNA-1273 and 4.02 (1.81 to 8.91) and 9.58 (3.32 to 27.58) after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273; the numbers of EC were 3.4 (1.1 to 6.0) and 8.6 (4.4 to 12.6) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. The main study limitations were that the outcome was not validated through review of clinical records, and there was an absence of information on the length of hospitalization and, thus, the severity of the outcome. This population-based study of about 3 millions of residents in Italy suggested that mRNA vaccines were associated with myocarditis/pericarditis in the population younger than 40 years. According to our results, increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was associated with the second dose of BNT162b2 and both doses of mRNA-1273. The highest risks were observed in males of 12 to 39 years and in males and females 18 to 29 years vaccinated with mRNA-1273. The public health implication of these findings should be considered in the light of the proven mRNA vaccine effectiveness in preventing serious COVID-19 disease and death.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Recently published studies have reported association of COVID-19 vaccine ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria) with Guillain Barré Syndrome (GBS). Less is known about the safety of other COVID-19 vaccines with ...respect to GBS outcome. This study investigated the association of COVID-19 vaccines with GBS in more than 15 million persons aged ≥12 years in Italy.
Study population was all individuals aged ≥12 years who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccines, admitted to emergency care/hospital for GBS from 27 December 2020-30 September 2021 in Italy. Identification of GBS cases and receipt of at least one dose of mRNA-1273 (Elasomeran), BNT162b2 (Tozinameran), ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria) and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen) through record linkage between regional health care and vaccination registries. Relative Incidence (RI) was estimated Self-controlled case series method adapted to event-dependent exposure using in the 42-day exposure risk period after each dose compared with other observation periods.
Increased risk of GBS was found after first (RI = 6.83; 95% CI 2.14-21.85) and second dose (RI = 7.41; 2.35-23.38) of mRNA-1273 and first dose of ChAdOx1-S (RI = 6.52; 2.88-14.77). Analysis by age found an increased risk among those aged≥60 years after first (RI = 8.03; 2.08-31.03) and second dose (RI = 7.71; 2.38-24.97) of mRNA-1273. The first dose of ChAdOx1-S was associated with GBS in those aged 40-59 (RI = 4.50; 1.37-14.79) and in those aged ≥ 60 years (RI = 6.84; 2.56-18.28).
mRNA-1273 and ChAdOx1-S vaccines were associated with an increased risk of GBS however this risk resulted in a small number of excess cases. Limitations were loss of GBS outpatient cases and imprecision of the estimates in the subgroup analysis due to a low number of events.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
There have been claims that health research is not satisfactorily addressing healthcare challenges. A specific area of concern is the adequacy of the mechanisms used to plan investments in health ...research. However, the way organisations within countries devise research agendas has not been systematically reviewed. This study seeks to understand the legal basis, the actors and the processes involved in setting research agendas in major public health research funding organisations. We reviewed information relating to the formulation of strategic plans by 11 public funders in nine high-income countries worldwide. Information was collected from official websites and strategic plan documents in English, French, Italian and Spanish between January 2019 and December 2019, by means of a conceptual framework and information abstraction form. We found that the formulation of a strategic plan is a common and well-established practice in shaping research agendas across international settings. Most of the organisations studied are legally required to present a multi-year strategic plan. In some cases, legal provisions may set rules for actors and processes and may establish areas of research and/or types of research to be funded. Commonly, the decision-making process involves both internal and external stakeholders, with the latter being generally government officials and experts, and few examples of the participation of civil society. The process also varies across organisations depending on whether there is a formal requirement to align to strategic priorities developed by an overarching entity at national level. We also found that, while actors and their interactions were traceable, information, sources of information, criteria and the mechanisms/tools used to shape decisions were made less explicit. A complex picture emerges in which multiple interactive entities appear to shape research plans. Given the complexity of the influences of different parties and factors, the governance of the health research sector would benefit from a traceable and standardised knowledge-based process of health research strategic planning. This would provide an opportunity to demonstrate responsible budget stewardship and, more importantly, to make efforts to remain responsive to healthcare challenges, research gaps and opportunities.
To assess whether organisations that develop health care guidelines have conflict of interest (COI) policies and to review the content of the available COI policies.
Survey and content analysis of ...COI policies available in English, French, Spanish, and Italian conducted between September 2014 and June 2015. A 24-item data abstraction instrument was created on the basis of guideline development standards.
The survey identified 29 organisations from 19 countries that met the inclusion criteria. From these organisations, 19 policies were eligible for inclusion in the content analysis. Over one-third of the policies (7/19, 37%) did not report or did not clearly report whether disclosure was a prerequisite for membership of the guideline panel. Strategies for the prevention of COI such as divestment were mentioned by only two organisations. Only 21% of policies (4/19) used criteria to determine whether an interest constitutes a COI and to assess the severity of the risk imposed.
The finding that some organisations, in contradiction of widely available standards, still do not have COI policies publicly available is concerning. Also troubling were the findings that some policies did not clearly report critical steps in obtaining, managing and communicating disclosure of relationships of interest. This in addition to the variability encountered in content and accessibility of COI policies may cause confusion and distrust among guideline users. It is in the interest of guideline users and developers to design an agreed-upon, comprehensive, clear, and accessible COI policy.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Abstract Background As of 2024, vaccination remains the main mitigation measure against COVID-19, but there are contradictory results on whether people living with HIV (PLWH) are less protected by ...vaccines than people living without HIV (PLWoH). In this study we compared the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation following full vaccination in PLWH and PLWoH. Methods We linked data from the vaccination registry, the COVID-19 surveillance system and from healthcare/pharmacological registries in four Italian regions. We identified PLWH fully vaccinated (14 days post completion of the primary cycle) and matched them at a ratio of 1:4 with PLWoH by week of vaccine administration, age, sex, region of residence and comorbidities. Follow-up started on January 24, 2021, and lasted for a maximum of 234 days. We used the Kaplan-Meier estimator to calculate the cumulative incidence of infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation in both groups, and we compared risks using risk differences and ratios taking PLWoH as the reference group. Results We matched 42,771 PLWH with 171,084 PLWoH. The overall risk of breakthrough infection was similar in both groups with a rate ratio (RR) of 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI):0.80–1.53). The absolute difference between groups at the end of the study period was 8.28 events per 10,000 person-days in the PLWH group (95%CI:-18.43-40.29). There was a non-significant increase the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation among PLWH (RR:1.90; 95%CI:0.93–3.32) which corresponds to 6.73 hospitalisations per 10,000 individuals (95%CI: -0.57 to 14.87 per 10,000). Conclusions Our findings suggest PLWH were not at increased risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 hospitalisation following a primary cycle of mRNA vaccination.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Abstract
Background
The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of health research and fostered clinical research as never before. A huge number of clinical ...trials for potential COVID-19 interventions have been launched worldwide. Therefore, the effort of monitoring and characterizing the ongoing research portfolio of COVID-19 clinical trials has become crucial in order to fill evidence gaps that can arise, define research priorities and methodological issues, and eventually, formulate valuable recommendations for investigators and sponsors. The main purpose of the present work was to analyze the landscape of COVID-19 clinical research in Italy, by mapping and describing the characteristics of planned clinical trials investigating the role of drugs and convalescent plasma for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 disease.
Methods
During an 11-month period between May 2020 and April 2021, we performed a survey of the Italian COVID-19 clinical trials on therapeutic and prophylactic drugs and convalescent plasma. Clinical trials registered in the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and
ClinicalTrials.gov
websites were regularly monitored. In the present paper, we report an analysis of study design characteristics and other trial features at 6 April 2021.
Results
Ninety-four clinical trials planned to be carried out in Italy were identified. Almost all of them (91%) had a therapeutic purpose; as for the study design, the majority of them adopted a parallel group (74%) and randomized (76%) design. Few of them were blinded (33%). Eight multiarm studies were identified, and two of them were multinational platform trials. Many therapeutic strategies were investigated, mostly following a drug repositioning therapeutic approach.
Conclusions
Our study describes the characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trials planned to be carried out in Italy over about 1 year of pandemic emergency.
High level quality clinical trials were identified, although some weaknesses in study design and replications of experimental interventions were observed, particularly in the early phase of the pandemic.
Our findings provide a critical view of the clinical research strategies adopted for COVID-19 in Italy during the early phase of the pandemic. Further actions could include monitoring and follow-up of trial results and publications and focus on non-pharmacological research areas.
The purpose of TheShinISS-Vax|Flu study is to examine the association between influenza vaccines and adverse events requiring hospital admission or emergency care during the influenza vaccination ...campaigns 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 in Italy.
This is a Self-Controlled Case Series multiregional study using linked routinely collected data from regional healthcare databases of the participating regions. Study participants will be persons aged ≥6 months, unvaccinated or who have received influenza vaccine during the influenza vaccination campaigns in the seasons 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 in Italy and who have experienced the outcome of interest for the first time during the study period (1 September 2021-30 June 2022 and 1 September 2022-30 June 2023 for the first and second vaccination campaigns, respectively). Risk periods will be specifically defined for each outcome and further subdivided into periods of 7 days. The exposures will be the first or second dose of the influenza vaccines administered during the two vaccination campaigns. Statistical analysis will be conducted separately for the data of the two campaigns. Exposure risk period will be compared with baseline risk period defined as any time of observation out of the risk periods. The modified SCCS method will be applied to handle event-dependent exposure and mortality and fitted using unbiased estimating equations to estimate relative incidences and excess of cases per 100 000 vaccinated by dose, age, sex and type of vaccine. Calendar period will be included as time-varying confounder in the model, where appropriate.
The study received the approval from the National ethics committee for clinical trials of public research bodies and other national public institutions (PRE BIO CE n.0036723, 23/09/2022). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and reports in accordance with the publication policies of the Italian National Institute of Health and of the Italian Medicines Agency.
PDF
