MyMedR

Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Risk of serious adverse events after the BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines in Malaysia: A self-controlled case series study

Ab Rahman N, Lim MT, Lee FY, Lee SC, Ramli A, Saharudin SN, et al.

Vaccine, 2022 Jul 30;40(32):4394-4402.
PMID: 35667917 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.05.075

BACKGROUND: Rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines is challenging for safety surveillance, especially on adverse events of special interest (AESIs) that were not identified during the pre-licensure studies. This study evaluated the risk of hospitalisations for predefined diagnoses among the vaccinated population in Malaysia.
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.

Matched MeSH terms: Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology
A systematic review of thromboembolic complications and outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients

Othman HY, Zaki IAH, Isa MR, Ming LC, Zulkifly HH

BMC Infect Dis, 2024 May 10;24(1):484.
PMID: 38730292 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-024-09374-1

Thromboembolic (TE) complications [myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE)] are common causes of mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Therefore, this review was undertaken to explore the incidence of TE complications and mortality associated with TE complications in hospitalised COVID-19 patients from different studies. A literature search was performed using ScienceDirect and PubMed databases using the MeSH term search strategy of "COVID-19", "thromboembolic complication", "venous thromboembolism", "arterial thromboembolism", "deep vein thrombosis", "pulmonary embolism", "myocardial infarction", "stroke", and "mortality". There were 33 studies included in this review. Studies have revealed that COVID-19 patients tend to develop venous thromboembolism (PE:1.0-40.0% and DVT:0.4-84%) compared to arterial thromboembolism (stroke:0.5-15.2% and MI:0.8-8.7%). Lastly, the all-cause mortality of COVID-19 patients ranged from 4.8 to 63%, whereas the incidence of mortality associated with TE complications was between 5% and 48%. A wide range of incidences of TE complications and mortality associated with TE complications can be seen among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Therefore, every patient should be assessed for the risk of thromboembolic complications and provided with an appropriate thromboprophylaxis management plan tailored to their individual needs.

Matched MeSH terms: Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology
Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, Carson AP, et al.

Circulation, 2019 03 05;139(10):e56-e528.
PMID: 30700139 DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000659
Matched MeSH terms: Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology
Fulltext Venous thromboembolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hasan SS, Radford S, Kow CS, Zaidi STR

J Thromb Thrombolysis, 2020 Nov;50(4):814-821.
PMID: 32748122 DOI: 10.1007/s11239-020-02235-z

Many aspects of care such as management of hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 patients, especially those admitted to intensive care units is challenging in the rapidly evolving pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We seek to systematically review the available evidence regarding the anticoagulation approach to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting venous thromboembolic events in patients admitted to the intensive care unit receiving any type of anticoagulation (prophylactic or therapeutic). The pooled prevalence (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) of VTE among patients receiving anticoagulant were calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup pooled analyses were performed with studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and with studies reported mixed prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. We included twelve studies (8 Europe; 2 UK; 1 each from the US and China) in our systematic review and meta-analysis. All studies utilized LMWH or unfractionated heparin as their pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, either prophylactic doses or therapeutic doses. Seven studies reported on the proportion of patients with the previous history of VTE (range 0-10%). The pooled prevalence of VTE among ICU patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation across all studies was 31% (95% CI 20-43%). Subgroup pooled analysis limited to studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and mixed (therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation) reported pooled prevalences of VTE of 38% (95% CI 10-70%) and 27% (95% CI 17-40%) respectively. With a high prevalence of thromboprophylaxis failure among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units, individualised rather than protocolised VTE thromboprophylaxis would appear prudent at interim.

Matched MeSH terms: Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology
Profile of Patients Diagnosed With Acute Venous Thromboembolism in Routine Clinical Practice: The RE-COVERY DVT/PE™ Study

Goldhaber SZ, Ageno W, Casella IB, Chee KH, Schellong S, Singer DE, et al.

Am J Med, 2020 08;133(8):936-945.
PMID: 32325043 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.03.036

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been established in randomized controlled trials, but limited data are available on their use in clinical practice across geographical regions.
METHODS: In the international RE-COVERY DVT/PE observational study (enrollment January 2016 to May 2017), we sought to characterize the patient population and describe the prescribed anticoagulant. Patient characteristics and anticoagulants administered after objective diagnosis of VTE were recorded at the baseline visit and again at hospital discharge or at 14 days after the diagnosis, whichever was later.
RESULTS: A total of 6095 patients were included, 50.2% were male, and the mean age was 61.5 years. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35%), diabetes mellitus (11%), cancer (11%), prior VTE(11%), and trauma/surgery (7%). Overall, 77% of patients received oral anticoagulants, with 54% on NOACs and 23% on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs); 20% received parenteral anticoagulation only. NOACs comprised about 60% of anticoagulant treatment in Europe and Asia but substantially less in Latin America (29%) and the Middle East (21%). For NOAC therapies, the distribution (as a percentage of the total cohort) was rivaroxaban 25.6%, dabigatran 15.5%, apixaban 11.3%, and edoxaban 1.7%. Treatment with NOACs was less frequent in patients who had cancer, chronic renal disease, heart failure, or stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings enhance our understanding of baseline characteristics and the initial management of patients with VTE in routine practice.

Matched MeSH terms: Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology