METHODS: This self-controlled case series study used nationwide health database from Malaysia. The study included individuals aged ≥18 years who were hospitalised between 24 February 2021 and 30 June 2022. Outcomes were composite of MACCE: stroke, acute ischaemic heart disease, and cardiovascular death. Exposures were COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risk period was day 1 to day 21 following exposure. Conditional Poisson regression model was used to estimate the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) comparing the outcomes in the risk and control periods.
RESULTS: The risk of MACCE within 21 days after vaccination per 100,000 doses administered were 12.0 (95% CI 11.9-12.1) (BNT162b2), 9.2 (95% CI 9.1-9.3) (CoronaVac), and 6.8 (95% CI 6.6-7.0) (ChAdOx1). The incidence rate ratios showed no increased risk of MACCE associated with the first, second, or third doses of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines for individuals without prior cardiovascular disease (CVD). This finding was consistent for individuals with CVD. Vaccine booster dose, whether in a homologous or heterologous schedule, did not show increased risk of MACCE. Analysis by ethnic groups detected a slightly elevated risk of MACCE in Indian after the first dose of ChAdOx1 (IRR 1.64; 95% CI 1.08-2.48) in those without CVD. No significant association were observed in other subgroup analyses. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with significantly increased risk of MACCE in individuals without CVD (IRR 3.54; 95% CI 3.32-3.76) and with CVD (IRR 1.98; 95% CI 1.61-2.34).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the favourable safety profile of these COVID-19 vaccines and indicate that the overall benefit-risk ratio of the COVID-19 vaccines remains positive.
METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included 75 older adults who were at least 3 months poststroke and 50 age-matched healthy controls. Depressive symptoms were quantified using the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief version (WHOQoL-BREF). Physical function was examined using Functional Ambulation Category, grip strength, 5 times Sit-to-Stand test, and Box and Block tests. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment and visual-manual reaction time were used to index cognitive function. Depressive symptom was quantified using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. The Barthel Index and Fatigue Severity Scale were used to quantify activity limitation. Social participation and environmental participation were assessed using the Assessment of Life Habit and Craig Hospital Inventory of Environment Factors, respectively. Linear stepwise regression models were used to determine explanators for WHOQoL-BREF domain scores.
RESULTS: Individuals with stroke demonstrated significantly worse QoL on all WHOQoL-BREF domains compared with healthy controls. Stroke was a strong determinant for QoL and explained 16% to 43% of variances. Adding other outcome measures significantly improved the robustness of the models (R change = 12%-32%). The physical, psychological, social, and environmental domains of WHOQoL-BREF were all explained by the LIFE-H scores (β = -10.58, -3.37, 4.24, -5.35, respectively), while psychological, social, and environmental domains were explained by Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores (β = .47, 0.78, 0.54, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Social participation and cognition were strong determinants of QoL among urban-dwelling older adults with stroke. Social and recreational activities and cognitive rehabilitation should therefore be evaluated as potential strategies to improve the well-being of older adults affected by stroke.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish the interrater reliability between multiple telephone interviewers when assessing long-term stroke outcomes.
METHODS: Patients alive at discharge selected in a retrospective cohort stroke project were recruited in this study. Their contact numbers were obtained from the medical record unit. The patients and/or proxies were interviewed based on a standardized script in Malay or English. Stroke outcomes assessed were modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and Barthel Index (BI) at 1-year post discharge. Fully crossed design was applied and 3 assessors collected the data simultaneously. Data was analysed using the software R version 3.4.4.
RESULTS: Out of 207 subjects recruited, 132 stroke survivors at the time of interview were analysed. We found a significant excellent interrater reliability between telephone interviewers assessing BI, with intraclass correlation coefficient at 0.996 (95% CI 0.995-0.997). Whereas substantial agreement between the telephone interviewers was revealed in assessing mRS, with Fleiss', Conger's and Light's Kappa statistics reporting 0.719 and the Nelson's model-based κm kappa statistic reporting 0.689 (95% CI 0.667-0.711).
CONCLUSION: It is reliable to get multiple raters in assessing mRS and BI using the telephone system. It is worthwhile to make use of a telephone interview to update clinicians on their acute clinical management towards long-term stroke prognosis.
AIMS: This study aims to examine sex-related differences in stroke metrics across Southeast Asia in 2015. Furthermore, relative changes between sexes are compared from 1990 to 2015.
METHODS: Data were sourced from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Incidence and mortality from ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes were explored with the following statistics derived: (1) women-to-men incidence/mortality ratio and (2) relative percentage change in rate.
RESULTS: Women had lower incidence and mortality from stroke compared to men. Notable findings include higher ischemic stroke incidence for women at 30-34 years in high-income countries (women-to-men ratio: 1.3, 95% CI: 0.1, 16.2 in Brunei and 1.3, 95% CI: 0.5, 3.2 in Singapore) and the largest difference between sexes for ischemic stroke mortality in Vietnam and Myanmar across most ages. Within the last 25 years, greater reductions for ischemic stroke metrics were observed among women compared to men. Nevertheless, women below 40 years in some countries showed an increase in ischemic stroke incidence between 0.5% and 11.4%, whereas in men, a decline from -4.2% to -44.2%. Indonesia reported the largest difference between sexes for ischemic stroke mortality; a reduction for women whereas an increase in men. For hemorrhagic stroke, findings were similar: higher incidence among young women in high-income countries and greater reductions for stroke metrics in women than men over the last 25 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Distinct sex-specific differences observed across Southeast Asia should be accounted in future stroke preventive guidelines.
METHODS: We used a matched case-control design using the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA). Cases were patients who had an acute coronary syndrome, recurrent stroke or transient ischaemic attack within 90 days post-stroke and were matched for age ± 10 years and sex with up to four controls. Antiplatelet use was categorized as persistent (used for >3 days and continued up to day 90), early cessation (used antiplatelet <3 days) or stopped/interrupted users (used for >3 days but stopped prior to day 90). These categories were compared in cases and controls using a conditional logistic regression model that adjusted for potential confounders.
RESULTS: A total of 970 patients were included, of whom 194 were cases and 776 were matched controls. At 90 days, 10 cases (5.2%) and 58 controls (7.5%) stopped/interrupted their antiplatelet. The risk of cardiovascular event was not different in stopped/interrupted users (adjusted odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.33, 1.48; P = 0.352) and early cessations (adjusted odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.62, 1.74; P = 0.876) when compared to persistent users.
CONCLUSION: We found no increased risk in patients who stopped and interrupted antiplatelets early after stroke but the study was limited by a small sample size and further research is needed.
METHODS: 10 010 high-risk noncardiac surgical patients were randomized aspirin or placebo and clonidine or placebo. Neuraxial block was defined as intraoperative spinal anaesthesia, or thoracic or lumbar epidural anaesthesia. Postoperative epidural analgesia was defined as postoperative epidural local anaesthetic and/or opioid administration. We used logistic regression with weighting using estimated propensity scores.
RESULTS: Neuraxial block was not associated with the primary outcome [7.5% vs 6.5%; odds ratio (OR), 0.89; 95% CI (confidence interval), 0.73-1.08; P=0.24], death (1.0% vs 1.4%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.53-1.35; P=0.48), myocardial infarction (6.9% vs 5.5%; OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74-1.12; P=0.36) or stroke (0.3% vs 0.4%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.44-2.49; P=0.91). Neuraxial block was associated with less clinically important hypotension (39% vs 46%; OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00; P=0.04). Postoperative epidural analgesia was not associated with the primary outcome (11.8% vs 6.2%; OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.89-2.48; P=0.13), death (1.3% vs 0.8%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.35-1.99; P=0.68], myocardial infarction (11.0% vs 5.7%; OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.90-2.61; P=0.11], stroke (0.4% vs 0.4%; OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.18-2.32; P=0.50] or clinically important hypotension (63% vs 36%; OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95-2.09; P=0.09).
CONCLUSIONS: Neuraxial block and postoperative epidural analgesia were not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes among POISE-2 subjects.
METHODS: Hospital admissions for selected diagnoses between 1 February 2021 and 30 September 2021 were linked to the national COVID-19 immunisation register. We conducted self-controlled case-series study by identifying individuals who received COVID-19 vaccine and diagnosis of thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, myocarditis/pericarditis, arrhythmia, stroke, Bell's Palsy, and convulsion/seizure. The incidence of events was assessed in risk period of 21 days postvaccination relative to the control period. We used conditional Poisson regression to calculate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with adjustment for calendar period.
RESULTS: There was no increase in the risk for myocarditis/pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, stroke, and myocardial infarction in the 21 days following either dose of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. A small increased risk of venous thromboembolism (IRR 1.24; 95% CI 1.02, 1.49), arrhythmia (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07, 1.26), and convulsion/seizure (IRR 1.26; 95% CI 1.07, 1.48) was observed among BNT162b2 recipients. No association between CoronaVac vaccine was found with all events except arrhythmia (IRR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01, 1.30). ChAdOx1 vaccine was associated with an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (IRR 2.67; 95% CI 1.21, 5.89) and venous thromboembolism (IRR 2.22; 95% CI 1.17, 4.21).
CONCLUSION: This study shows acceptable safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines among recipients of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. This information can be used together with effectiveness data for risk-benefit analysis of the vaccination program. Further surveillance with more data is required to assess AESIs following COVID-19 vaccination in short- and long-term.