4.8 Article

Multimorbidity and adverse events of special interest associated with Covid-19 vaccines in Hong Kong

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-28068-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Food and Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China [COVID19F01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study, using electronic health records from Hong Kong, found that adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination are rare for all groups, and there is no evidence of risk modification due to multimorbidity.
Prior research using electronic health records for Covid-19 vaccine safety monitoring typically focuses on specific disease groups and excludes individuals with multimorbidity, defined as >= 2 chronic conditions. We examine the potential additional risk of adverse events 28 days after the first dose of CoronaVac or Comirnaty imposed by multimorbidity. Using a territory-wide public healthcare database with population-based vaccination records in Hong Kong, we analyze a retrospective cohort of patients with chronic conditions. Thirty adverse events of special interest according to the World Health Organization are examined. In total, 883,416 patients are included and 2,807 (0.3%) develop adverse events. Results suggest vaccinated patients have lower risks of adverse events than unvaccinated individuals, multimorbidity is associated with increased risks regardless of vaccination, and the association of vaccination with adverse events is not modified by multimorbidity. To conclude, we find no evidence that multimorbidity imposes extra risks of adverse events following Covid-19 vaccination. 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据