Abstract
Importance The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced in January 2023 that they were investigating a potential connection between administration of the Pfizer novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) bivalent vaccine booster and ischemic stroke (IS).
Objective To explore the relationship between Pfizer bivalent booster administration and IS in older patients in the United States and compare it to other COVID-19 vaccines.
Design A retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare hazard of IS among patients aged 65 years or over who received the Pfizer bivalent, Moderna bivalent, or Pfizer/Moderna monovalent COVID-19 booster vaccine 1-21 and 22-42 days after vaccination.
Setting Patient data were collected from TriNetX, a cloud-based analytics platform that includes electronic health record data from over 90 million unique patients in the United States.
Participants Patients in the United States aged 65 years or over at the time of administration of a Pfizer bivalent (n = 43,216), Moderna bivalent (n = 4,267), or Pfizer/Moderna monovalent (n = 100,583) booster were included for analysis. Cohorts were propensity-score matched by demographic factors and risk factors for IS and severe COVID-19.
Exposures Pfizer bivalent, Moderna bivalent, or Pfizer/Moderna monovalent COVID-19 booster administration.
Main outcomes The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for IS in the cohorts at 1-21 and 22-42 days after administration.
Results After matching, the Pfizer bivalent cohort included 4,267 patients, with an average age of 73.7 years (44.43% male, 76.59% white). The Moderna bivalent cohort included 4,267 patients, with an average age of 74.0 years (44.08% male, 77.39% white). There was no significant difference in the hazard of IS encounters between the Pfizer bivalent versus Moderna bivalent cohorts at 1-21- or 22-42-days post-administration: HR = 0.59 (0.31, 1.11), 0.73 (0.33, 1.60). The hazard for IS was lower in the Pfizer bivalent cohort than in the Pfizer/Moderna monovalent cohort at both timepoints: HR = 0.24 (0.19, 0.29), 0.25 (0.20, 0.31).
Conclusions and relevance Older adults administered the Pfizer bivalent booster had similar hazard for IS encounters compared to those administered the Moderna bivalent booster vaccine, but lower hazard than those administered the Pfizer/Moderna monovalent boosters.
Question What is the comparative hazard of ischemic stroke in American patients ages 65 years and over after administration of the Pfizer bivalent, Moderna bivalent, or Pfizer/Moderna monovalent COVID-19 booster vaccine?
Findings A retrospective cohort study was conducted. There was no significant difference in the hazard of ischemic stroke encounters between the Pfizer bivalent versus Moderna bivalent cohorts, but lower hazard for the Pfizer bivalent than the monovalent boosters at 1-21 or 22-42 days post-administration.
Meaning There is no evidence from these results that the Pfizer bivalent booster is associated with increased hazard for ischemic stroke.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
National Institute on Aging (grants nos. AG057557, AG061388, AG062272), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (grant no. AA029831), the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) of Cleveland (grant no. TR002548)
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:
TriNetX is compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the US federal law which protects the privacy and security of healthcare data. TriNetX is certified to the ISO 27001:2013 standard and maintains an Information Security Management System (ISMS) to ensure the protection of the healthcare data it has access to and to meet the requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule. Any data displayed on the TriNetX Platform in aggregate form, or any patient level data provided in a data set generated by the TriNetX Platform, only contains de-identified data as per the de-identification standard defined in Section 164.514(a) of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. The process by which the data is de-identified is attested to through a formal determination by a qualified expert as defined in Section 164.514(b)(1) of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. This formal determination by a qualified expert, refreshed in December 2020, supersedes the need for TriNetX's previous waiver from the Western Institutional Review Board (IRB). Because we only used de-identified data, we did not seek nor did we obtain Institutional Board Approval for this research. All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived. We have another TriNetX study published through medRxiv. It can be found at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.29.22282887v1. 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. Studies using TriNetX in this way have been determined to be IRB exempt by the MetroHealth System IRB (Cleveland Ohio).
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript