A comparison of four self-controlled study designs in an analysis of COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis using five European databases

Anna Schultze*, Ivonne Martin, Davide Messina, Sophie Bots, Svetlana Belitser, Juan José Carreras-Martínez, Elisa Correcher-Martinez, Arantxa Urchueguía-Fornes, Mar Martín-Pérez, Patricia García-Poza, Felipe Villalobos, Meritxell Pallejà-Millán, Carlo Alberto Bissacco, Elena Segundo, Patrick Souverein, Fabio Riefolo, Carlos E. Durán, Rosa Gini, Miriam Sturkenboom, Olaf KlungelIan Douglas

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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. For analyses of the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, to which all databases contributed information, we found results consistent with a null effect in both of the SCRI and extended SCCS, but some indication of a harmful effect in a standard SCCS. For the second dose, we found evidence of a harmful association for all study designs, with relatively similar effect sizes (SCRI pre = 1.99, 1.40 – 2.82; SCRI post 2.13, 95 %CI – 1.43, 3.18; standard SCCS 1.79, 95 %CI 1.31 – 2.44, extended SCCS 1.52, 95 %CI = 1.08 – 2.15). Adjustment for calendar time did not change these conclusions. Findings using all designs were also consistent with a harmful effect following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine. 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3039-3048
Number of pages10
JournalVaccine
Volume42
Issue number12
Early online date5 Apr 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Apr 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors

Funding

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.

FundersFunder number
European Medicines AgencyEMA/2018/23/PE
European Medicines Agency

    Keywords

    • (MeSH): Vaccines
    • Electronic Health Records
    • Meta-analysis
    • Myocarditis
    • Pharmacoepidemiology
    • Self-controlled Case Series
    • Self-controlled Risk Interval

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of four self-controlled study designs in an analysis of COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis using five European databases'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this