Abstract
Introduction The aim of this study was to assess the possible extent of bias due to violation of a core assumption (event-dependent exposures) when using self-controlled designs to analyse the association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis.
Methods We used data from five European databases (Spain: BIFAP, FISABIO VID, and SIDIAP; Italy: ARS-Tuscany; England: CPRD Aurum) converted to the ConcePTION Common Data Model. Individuals who experienced both myocarditis and were vaccinated against COVID-19 between 1 September 2020 and the end of data availability in each country were included. We compared a self-controlled risk interval study (SCRI) using a pre-vaccination control window, an SCRI using a post-vaccination control window, a standard SCCS and an extension of the SCCS designed to handle violations of the assumption of event-dependent exposures.
Results We included 1,757 cases of myocarditis. In unadjusted analyses, agreement between study designs varied by vaccine brand. There was good agreement between all designs for AstraZeneca and Pfizer, but for Moderna we found harmful incidence rate ratios (IRR) using the standard and extended SCCS (standard SCCS: IRR = 3.12, 95%CI = 1.53 – 6.40; extended SCCS: IRR = 2.43, 95%CI = 1.11 – 5.33) compared with no association with the SCRIs (SCRI-pre: IRR = 0.60, 95%CI = 0.27 – 1.33; SCRI-post: IRR = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.34 – 2.19), although confidence intervals were wide. There was very good agreement between all designs for the unadjusted second dose analyses, confirming the known harmful association between the second dose of Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and myocarditis.
Conclusions In the context of the known association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis, we have demonstrated that two forms of SCRI and two forms of SCCS led to largely comparable results, possibly because of limited violation of the assumption of event-dependent exposures.
Competing Interest Statement
Conflicts of Interest AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK. ID owns shares in and reports research grants from GSK, and research grants from AstraZeneca, both unrelated to the current work. FR is an employee of TEAMIT Institute, a research management organisation that participates in financially supported studies for the European Medicines Agency and related healthcare authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and the European Union. Felipe Villalobos, Meritxell Palleja-Millan, Carlo Alberto Bissacco and Elena Segundo are salaried employees at Fundacio Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l'Atencio Primaria de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol), which receives institutional research funding from public and private partners, pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies, administered by IDIAPJGol. MS is head of a department that conducts studies for the European Medicines Agency, the European Commission and medicine manufacturers, all according to the ENCePP code of conduct. MS does not hold personal financial relations with the companies. Carlos E. Duran (CED) is salaried employee by University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, which receives institutional research funding from pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies. CED is involved only in research projects funded by regulatory authorities. RG and DM are employees of ARS Tuscany, which reports funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative, RTI, PHARMO, University of Southern Denmark, University of Utrecht, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Galapagos, and LeoPharma, for studies unrelated to the current work, and conducted in compliance with the ENCePP code of conduct.
Funding Statement
The research leading to these results was conducted as part of the activities of the EU PE&PV (Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance) Research Network which is a public academic partnership coordinated by the Utrecht University, The Netherlands. . Scientific work for this project was coordinated by the University Medical Center Utrecht in collaboration with the Vaccine Monitoring Collaboration for Europe network (VAC4EU). The project has received support from the European Medicines Agency under the Framework service contract nr EMA/2018/23/PE. The content of this paper expresses the opinion of the authors and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the European Medicines Agency or one of its committees or working parties
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This work was conducted as part of a larger programme of work, and this specific methodological sub-study was approved by the LSHTM ethics committee (ref 28222). The larger programme of work had ethics approval from each contributing DAP, as shown below. The protocol was pre-registered on ENCEPP (EUPAS42467). DAPEC approval number ARSNone required FISABIOPI 90/2021 SIDIAP21/199-PCV BIFAPAprobacion (22-07-21, acta CEIm 14/21) CPRD/UU21_000643
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclaimer: The research leading to these results was conducted as part of the activities of the EU PE&PV (Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance) Research Network which is a public academic partnership coordinated by the Utrecht University, The Netherlands. . Scientific work for this project was coordinated by the University Medical Center Utrecht in collaboration with the Vaccine Monitoring Collaboration for Europe network (VAC4EU). The project has received support from the European Medicines Agency under the Framework service contract nr EMA/2018/23/PE. The content of this paper expresses the opinion of the authors and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the European Medicines Agency or one of its committees or working parties
1 These plots are “centred” on vaccination, that is, the time of vaccination is subtracted from each event time and the histogram therefore displays the event times relative to each vaccination date. Time zero is the time of each vaccination, a positive time represents an event occurring after vaccination, and a negative time an event occurring before vaccination.
Data Availability
The datasets used in these study contain confidential patient information and cannot be shared. Code for preparing the data is available here: https://github.com/VAC4EU/CVM. The code for running these specific analyses will be made available on Github (note: link to be made public on paper acceptance; peer-reviewers or interested parties can be given earlier access on request).
