RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo quantify in absolute and relative terms how population-level COVID-19 death rates have changed in demographic and clinical subgroups. DesignRetrospective cohort study on behalf of NHS England. SettingLinked primary care and death registry data from the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, covering the first three pandemic waves in England (wave 1: March 23 to May 30, 2020; wave 2: September 7, 2020 to April 24, 2021; and wave 3, delta: May 28 to December 14, 2021). ParticipantsIn total, 18.7, 18.8, and 18.7 million adults were included for waves 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Main outcome measuresCOVID-19-related mortality based on linked death registry records. ResultsThe crude absolute COVID-19-related death rate per 1,000 person-years decreased from 4.48 in wave 1 (95%CI 4.41;4.55), to 2.70 in wave 2 (95%CI 2.67;2.73), to 0.64 in wave 3 (95%CI 0.63;0.66). The absolute death rate decreased by 90% between waves 1 and 3 in patients aged 80+, but by only 20% in patients aged 18-39. This higher proportional reduction in age- and sex-standardised death rates was also seen for other groups, such as neurological disease, learning disability and severe mental illness. Conversely, standardised death rates in transplant recipients stayed constant across successive waves at 10 per 1,000 person-years. There was also only a small decrease in death rates between waves in people with kidney disease, haematological malignancies or conditions associated with immunosuppression. Consequently, the relative hazard of COVID-19-related death decreased over time for some variables (e.g. age), remained similar for some (e.g. sex, ethnicity), and increased for others (e.g. transplant). ConclusionsCOVID-19 death rates decreased over the first three pandemic waves. An especially large decrease was seen in older age groups and people with neurological disease, learning disability or severe mental illness. Some demographic inequalities in death rates persisted over time. Groups more likely to experience impaired vaccine effectiveness did not see the same benefit in COVID-19 mortality reduction.
RESUMEN
IntroductionThe COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England used both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines. Direct comparisons of the effectiveness against severe COVID-19 of these two vaccines for boosting have not been made in trials or observational data. MethodsOn behalf of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database to match adult recipients of each vaccine type on date of vaccination, primary vaccine course, age, and other characteristics. Recipients were eligible if boosted between 29 October 2021 and 31 January 2022, and followed up for 12 weeks. Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death. We estimated the cumulative incidence of each outcome, and quantified comparative effectiveness using risk differences (RD) and hazard ratios (HRs). Results1,528,431 people were matched in each group, contributing a total 23,150,504 person-weeks of follow-up. The 12-week risks per 1,000 people of positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 103.2 (95%CI 102.4 to 104.0) for BNT162b2 and 96.0 (95.2 to 96.8) for mRNA-1273: the HR comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.92 (95%CI 0.91 to 0.92). For COVID-19 hospitalisations the 12-week risks per 1,000 were 0.65 (95%CI 0.56 to 0.75) and 0.44 (0.36 to 0.54): HR 0.67 (95%CI 0.58 to 0.78). COVID-19 deaths were rare: the 12-week risks per 1,000 were 0.03 (95%CI 0.02 to 0.06) and 0.01 (0.01 to 0.02): HR 1.23 (95%CI 0.59 to 2.56). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups defined by the primary course vaccine brand, age, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and clinical vulnerability. ConclusionBooster vaccination with mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine was more effective than BNT162b2 in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation during the first 12 weeks after vaccination, during a period of Delta followed by Omicron variant dominance.
RESUMEN
BackgroundPregnant women with COVID-19 are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness as well as adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Many countries are vaccinating or considering vaccinating pregnant women with limited available data about the safety of this strategy. Early identification of safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components, or their technological platforms is therefore urgently needed. MethodsWe conducted a rapid systematic review, as the first phase of an ongoing full systematic review, to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women, including their components, and their technological platforms (whole virus, protein, viral vector or nucleic acid) used in other vaccines, following the Cochrane methods and the PRISMA statement for reporting (PROSPERO-CRD42021234185). We searched literature databases, COVID-19 and pregnancy registries from inception February 2021 without time or language restriction and explored the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews retrieved. We selected studies of any methodological design that included at least 50 pregnant women or pregnant animals exposed to the vaccines that were selected for review by the COVAX MIWG in August 2020 or their components or platforms included in the COVID-19 vaccines, and evaluated adverse events during pregnancy and the neonatal period. Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies through the COVIDENCE web software and performed the data extraction through a previously piloted online extraction form. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. ResultsWe identified 6768 records, 256 potentially eligible studies were assessed by full-text, and 37 clinical and non-clinical studies (38 reports, involving 2,397,715 pregnant women and 56 pregnant animals) and 12 pregnancy registries were included. Most studies (89%) were conducted in high-income countries. The most frequent study design was cohort studies (n=21), followed by surveillance studies, randomized controlled trials, and registry analyses. Most studies (76%) allowed comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women (n=25) or animals (n=3) and reported exposures during the three trimesters of pregnancy. The most frequent exposure was to AS03 adjuvant in the context of A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccines (n=24), followed by aluminum-based adjuvants (n=11). Aluminum phosphate was used in Respiratory Syncytial Virus Fusion candidate vaccines (n=3) and Tdap vaccines (n=3). Different aluminum-based adjuvants were used in hepatitis vaccines. The replication-deficient simian adenovirus ChAdOx1 was used for a Rift Valley fever vaccine. Only one study reported exposure to messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines that also used lipid nanoparticles. Except for one preliminary report about A/H1N1 influenza vaccination (adjuvant AS03) - corrected by the authors in a more thorough analysis, all studies concluded that there were no safety concerns. ConclusionThis rapid review found no evidence of pregnancy-associated safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines that were selected for review by the COVAX MIWG or of their components or platforms when used in other vaccines. However, the need for further data on several vaccine platforms and components is warranted given their novelty. Our findings support current WHO guidelines recommending that pregnant women may consider receiving COVID-19 vaccines, particularly if they are at high risk of exposure or have comorbidities that enhance the risk of severe disease.