Skip to main content
PLOS Medicine logoLink to PLOS Medicine
. 2022 Feb 22;19(2):e1003927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003927

First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: A pooled self-controlled case series study of 11.6 million individuals in England, Scotland, and Wales

Steven Kerr 1,*, Mark Joy 2, Fatemeh Torabi 3, Stuart Bedston 3, Ashley Akbari 3, Utkarsh Agrawal 4, Jillian Beggs 5, Declan Bradley 6,7, Antony Chuter 5, Annemarie B Docherty 1, David Ford 3, Richard Hobbs 2, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi 8, Emily Lowthian 3, Simon de Lusignan 2, Ronan Lyons 2, James Marple 9, Colin McCowan 4, Dylan McGagh 2, Jim McMenamin 10, Emily Moore 10, Josephine-L K Murray 10, Rhiannon K Owen 2, Jiafeng Pan 11, Lewis Ritchie 12, Syed Ahmar Shah 1, Ting Shi 1, Sarah Stock 1, Ruby S M Tsang 2, Eleftheria Vasileiou 1, Mark Woolhouse 1, Colin R Simpson 1,13, Chris Robertson 10,11, Aziz Sheikh 1
Editor: Suzanne C Cannegieter14
PMCID: PMC8863261  PMID: 35192598

Abstract

Background

Several countries restricted the administration of ChAdOx1 to older age groups in 2021 over safety concerns following case reports and observed versus expected analyses suggesting a possible association with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Large datasets are required to precisely estimate the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and CVST due to the extreme rarity of this event. We aimed to accomplish this by combining national data from England, Scotland, and Wales.

Methods and findings

We created data platforms consisting of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality, and virological testing data in each of England, Scotland, and Wales, with a combined cohort of 11,637,157 people and 6,808,293 person years of follow-up. The cohort start date was December 8, 2020, and the end date was June 30, 2021. The outcome measure we examined was incident CVST events recorded in either primary or secondary care records. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis of this outcome following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2. The observation period consisted of an initial 90-day reference period, followed by a 2-week prerisk period directly prior to vaccination, and a 4-week risk period following vaccination. Counts of CVST cases from each country were tallied, then expanded into a full dataset with 1 row for each individual and observation time period. There was a combined total of 201 incident CVST events in the cohorts (29.5 per million person years). There were 81 CVST events in the observation period among those who a received first dose of ChAdOx1 (approximately 16.34 per million doses) and 40 for those who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (approximately 12.60 per million doses). We fitted conditional Poisson models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Vaccination with ChAdOx1 was associated with an elevated risk of incident CVST events in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.11). We did not find an association between BNT162b2 and CVST in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.77). Our study had some limitations. The SCCS study design implicitly controls for variables that are constant over the observation period, but also assumes that outcome events are independent of exposure. This assumption may not be satisfied in the case of CVST, firstly because it is a serious adverse event, and secondly because the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom prioritised the clinically extremely vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions, which may have caused a selection effect for individuals more prone to CVST. Although we pooled data from several large datasets, there was still a low number of events, which may have caused imprecision in our estimates.

Conclusions

In this study, we observed a small elevated risk of CVST events following vaccination with ChAdOx1, but not BNT162b2. Our analysis pooled information from large datasets from England, Scotland, and Wales. This evidence may be useful in risk–benefit analyses of vaccine policies and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public.


In a pooled self-controlled case series study, Steven Kerr and colleagues assess the association between first dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in England, Scotland and Wales.

Author summary

Why was this study done?

  • There have been indications of a possible association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines—in particular, Oxford/AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1)—and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), which is a rare type of blood clot in the brain.

  • Further evidence on this topic is required in order to inform vaccine policy deliberations.

What did the researchers do and find?

  • We estimated the rate of CVST events in the 4 weeks following first dose vaccination compared with a 90-day period prior to vaccination.

  • The rate of CVST events in the 4 weeks following vaccination with Oxford/AstraZeneca was approximately twice as high compared to the baseline rate, implying an additional 0.25 events on average in this period per million people vaccinated.

  • We did not find an association between Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and CVST.

What do these findings mean?

  • We found evidence of a slight increased risk of CVST following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1, but not BNT162b2.

  • Public health authorities may wish to take this evidence into account when communicating the benefits and risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines to the general public.

  • Our study had some limitations. Although the cohort was large, CVST is an extremely rare event, and this may have caused some imprecision in our estimates. In addition, there is a possibility that our model assumptions were not satisfied.

Introduction

There have been concerns over possible associations between some Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and hematological and vascular adverse events, including, in particular, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca; henceforth ChAdOx1). A number of case reports and case series of CVST following adenovirus vector COVID-19 vaccination have been published [15]. A potential link between ChAdOx1 was initially noted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in a safety update on March 29, 2021 [6]. On April 8, 2021, the EMA issued an analysis of pharmacovigilance data covering the European Economic Area that found a safety signal for CVST following ChAdOx1 vaccination, risk ratio = 7.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.35 to 10.80) [7]. An observed versus expected analysis using data from the Mayo Clinic Health System in the United States found a relative risk of 1.50 (95% CI 0.28 to 7.10) of CVST in a combined analysis of COVID-19 vaccines [8]. An observed versus expected analysis in Denmark and Norway found a standardised morbidity ratio of 20.25 (95% CI 8.14 to 41.73) for cerebral venous thrombosis following ChAdOx1 vaccination [9]. A self-controlled case series (SCCS) using the QResearch database in England found incidence rate ratio (IRR) in the 8 to 28 days following vaccination of 2.37 (95% CI 1.34 to 4.21) for ChAdOx1 and 1.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 4.28) for BNT162b2 [10]. Several countries suspended ChAdOx1 or restricted its use to older age groups due to these and other safety concerns [11]. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), an independent UK-wide body that advises the government on vaccine approval, has recommended that adults under the age of 40 should be offered an alternative to the ChAdOx1 vaccine, if available [12,13].

At the time of writing, 3 vaccines are being administered in the UK: ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). They have all shown high levels of efficacy in Phase II and III clinical trials [1416]. ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 have also shown high levels of “real-world effectiveness” against COVID-19 hospitalisation and death [17,18]. Vaccine rollout in the UK started with BNT162b2 on December 8, 2020, followed by ChAdOx1 on January 4, 2021 and mRNA-1273 on April 7, 2021. Guidance from the JCVI included a list of priority groups with the elderly, frontline social and health care workers, and the clinically extremely vulnerable at the highest levels of priority (S2 File). Relatively few people in our cohort were vaccinated with mRNA-1273, so this study focused on BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 only.

The aim of this study was to investigate possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and CVST. We carried out a SCCS study of CVST events following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2. The data platform used in this study consisted of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality and virological testing data stored in secure trusted research environments (TREs) in each of England, Scotland, and Wales. CVST is an extremely rare event, with an estimated incidence of 3 to 4 per million person years in adults [19]. In our previous analysis exploring COVID-19 vaccine associations with thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic, and hemorrhagic events using Scottish national data, there were insufficient CVST events to undertake a statistical analysis [20]. We were not able to reliably estimate the association between COVID-19 vaccines and CVST with any individual country-specific dataset due to the low number of events. In order to address this, we pooled incident CVST cases from each of the datasets and carried out a SCCS analysis to estimate IRRs for CVST in those who received a first dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 vaccines.

Methods

Study design and population

We followed a prespecified statistical analysis plan (S3 File). The datasets consisted of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality, and virological testing data stored in secure TREs in each of England, Scotland, and Wales (Fig 1). These data were deterministically linked using unique patient identifiers—NHS number in England and Community Health Index (CHI) number in Scotland. In Wales, a combination of deterministic linkage based on NHS number and probabilistic linkage based personal identifiers was used. Anyone under the age of 16 at the date of event was excluded. A case was defined as anyone in our cohorts with a CVST event following the start of the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the UK. An incident case was defined as the first such event in the cohort time period. The cohort start date was December 8, 2020, and the end date was June 30, 2021.

Fig 1. Data linkage diagram.

Fig 1

ADDD, Annual District Death Daily; ADDE, Annual District Death Extract; CCDS, Critical Care Dataset; CDDS, Consolidated Death Data Source; ConCov, Controlling COVID-19 through enhanced population surveilance and intervention; CVVD, COVID-19 Vaccine Data; EAVE, Early Assessment of Vaccine and antiviral Effectiveness; ECOSS, Electronic Communication of Surveillance in Scotland; EDDS, Emergency Department Dataset; GP, general practices; HES, Hospital Episode Statistics; ICCD, ICNARC – Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (COVID only admissions); ICNC, Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre; NHS, National Health Service; NIMS, National Immunisation Management System; NRS, National Records of Scotland; ONS, Office for National Statistics; PATD, Pathology data COVID-19 Daily; PEDW, Patient Episode Database for Wales; PHS, Publish Health Scotland; RCGP RSC, Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre; SICSAG, Scottish Intensive Care Society Audit Group; SMR01, Scottish Morbidity Records 01; SUS, Secondary Users Service; TVMT, Turas Vaccine Management Tool; WDSD, Welsh Demographic Service Dataset; WLGP, Welsh Longitudinal General Practice Dataset.

In accordance with our statistical analysis plan, we initially sought to carry out a meta-analysis of estimates from each country. However, there were too few events in each country for this to be feasible. As a result, we undertook a pooled analyses of aggregate count data from each country. We sought to carry out both a SCCS study and a case–control study using pooled data. However, the case–control study would have required sharing of individual-level information, which was not permitted under the data governance rules implemented by each country’s TREs. Therefore, we focused on the pooled SCCS study.

The observation period for the SCCS started 104 days before first dose vaccination and ended 28 days after first dose vaccination (Fig 2). The reference period was defined as the first 90 days of the observation period. The prerisk period was defined as the 14-day period prior to first dose vaccination. The risk period was defined as 0 to 28 days post–first dose vaccination. No individual was censored because we examined incident cases only. We pooled data across the 3 nations on incident cases during the observation period around first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 (Fig 3). Each stratum consisted of an incident case during the reference, prerisk, and risk periods.

Fig 2. SCCS study design.

Fig 2

SCCS, self-controlled case series.

Fig 3. Selection procedure.

Fig 3

CVST, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.

Exposure

We defined an individual as exposed from the day they were administered their first dose of either the BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 vaccines.

Outcomes

The outcome of interest was incident CVST cases in the observation period. SNOMED codes were used to identify CVST events recorded in primary care electronic health records in England, and Read Codes (Version 2) were used in Scotland and Wales (S4 File). International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify CVST events in hospital admission records (S4 File). SNOMED and Read Codes have hierarchies that enable thromboembolic events to be grouped by their location. These enable recording of the diagnosis of an event of interest—for example, a thromboembolic event could be recorded as intracranial, with further subdivisions into CVST, intracranial thrombophlebitis, and thrombosis of cerebral veins, within the SNOMED hierarchy. The code lists used in this study were drawn up by the Early Assessment of Vaccine and antiviral Effectiveness (EAVE) II clinical team and validated by experts in neurology and hematology.

Statistical analysis

The data governance procedure of the TREs in each country did not allow for individual level data to be shared. However, we obtained permissions to confidentially share counts of individuals stratified by categories, on the understanding that these would be combined in a pooled count. For a SCCS study of the rate ratios (RRs) of incident events in the observation time periods that does not include any covariates, the only information that is required to estimate the conditional Poisson model is event counts in the reference, prerisk, and risk periods. Analysts in each country had full access to their country’s data. Counts of incident cases in the reference, prerisk, and risk periods stratified by vaccine type received were collated in each nation. These were then gathered in the Scottish TRE and expanded into a full dataset with 1 row per individual and observation time period. Synthetic IDs were generated in order to distinguish distinct incident cases in the count data from each other and to label the strata in the model. The process of pooling the data is explained in more detail in the Supporting information (S5 File). IRRs and their 95% CIs were estimated using a conditional Poisson model, with cases during the reference, prerisk, and risk periods as the strata and an offset for the length of each time period. The reference period was taken as the baseline period for calculating IRRs. Conditional Poisson models have a likelihood function that is identical to the corresponding conditional logistic model [21]. Furthermore, incident events can occur at most once. Thus, we used the clogit function for conditional logistic regression from the survival package in R to fit the model. Following a suggestion from one of the reviewers, we undertook 2 post hoc sensitivity analyses: The first excluded any cases who died within 90 days of their event in order to explore the SCCS assumption of event-dependent exposure, and the second focused only on CVST cases identified in secondary care records.

Ethics and permission

In England, approvals were obtained from the Health Research Authority, London Central (reference number 21/HRA/2786). In Scotland, data approvals were obtained from the National Research Ethics Service Committee, Southeast Scotland 02 (reference number: 12/SS/0201), and Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care (reference number: 1920–0279). In Wales, approval was provided by SAIL independent Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP) (Project 0911).

Reporting

This study is reported in accordance with the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data (RECORD) guidelines (S1 File) [22,23].

Results

The cohorts started on December 8, 2020 and ended on June 30, 2021. Tables 13 show the marginal distributions of a number of characteristics in each country’s cohort. Clinical risk groups in these tables were derived from the QCovid algorithm [24]. Among the approximately 4.95 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, there were 45 incident cases of CVST during the 90-day reference period and 27 incident cases of CVST during the 28-day postvaccine risk period. We found an IRR of 1.93 (95% CI 1.20 to 3.11) in the risk period following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and an IRR of 0.78 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.77) in the risk period following first dose vaccination with BNT162b2 (Table 4). Assuming a baseline incidence of 3 to 4 cases of CVST per million people per year outside of the risk period, our estimates imply an absolute risk of 0.44 to 0.59 incident CVST cases per million people in the 4-week risk period following vaccination with ChAdOx1.

Table 1. Cohort summary statistics, England.

Characteristic Level Unvaccinated One-dose ChAdOx1 One-dose BNT162b2
Total 1,322,305 2,247,155 1,629,360
Person years of follow-up 745,303 1,269,229 927,224
Incident CVST cases 27 49 30
Deaths 16,369 (1.2%) 11,327 (0.5%) 8,066 (0.5%)
Sex Female 649,546 (49.1%) 1,176,988 (52.4%) 924,283 (56.7%)
Male 672,759 (50.9%) 1,070,167 (47.6%) 705,077 (43.3%)
Age (years) Mean (SD) 38.58 (15.54) 56.49 (14.77) 52.56 (21.67)
Age group (years) 18 to 64 1,222,023 (92.4%) 1,576,834 (70.2%) 1,067,807 (65.5%)
65 to 79 69,637 (5.3%) 558,596 (24.9%) 318,241 (19.5%)
80+ 30,645 (2.3%) 111,725 (5.0%) 243,312 (14.9%)
Deprivation status 1 (high) 303,447 (22.9%) 323,925 (14.4%) 232,356 (14.3%)
2 295,143 (22.3%) 381,384 (17.0%) 290,696 (17.8%)
3 253,275 (19.2%) 451,355 (20.1%) 333,697 (20.5%)
4 239,858 (18.1%) 512,133 (22.8%) 368,663 (22.6%)
5 (low) 229,464 (17.4%) 576,815 (25.7%) 402,905 (24.7%)
Unknown 1,118 (0.1%) 1,543 (0.1%) 1,043 (0.1%)
Urban/rural index Rural town and fringe 324,138 (14.4%) 221,355 (13.6%) 106,384 (8.0%)
Rural town and fringe in a sparse setting 32,629 (1.5%) 21,147 (1.3%) 8,133 (0.6%)
Rural village and dispersed 51,315 (2.3%) 34,761 (2.1%) 19,813 (1.5%)
Rural village and dispersed in a sparse setting 8,122 (0.4%) 5,633 (0.3%) 4,225 (0.3%)
Urban city and town 1,116,335 (49.7%) 783,133 (48.1%) 591,421 (44.7%)
Urban city and town in a sparse setting 10,593 (0.5%) 6,858 (0.4%) 3,384 (0.3%)
Urban major conurbation 614,524 (27.3%) 494,346 (30.3%) 549,592 (41.6%)
Urban minor conurbation 81,632 (3.6%) 56,723 (3.5%) 35,933 (2.7%)
Unknown 7,867 (0.4%) 5,404 (0.3%) 3,420 (0.3%)
Number of risk groups 0 908,219 (68.7%) 1,165,109 (51.8%) 807,851 (49.6%)
1 304,222 (23.0%) 661,515 (29.4%) 475,206 (29.2%)
2 76,147 (5.8%) 255,007 (11.3%) 199,650 (12.3%)
3 19,985 (1.5%) 96,980 (4.3%) 83,191 (5.1%)
4 7,719 (0.6%) 40,388 (1.8%) 36,949 (2.3%)
5+ 6,013 (0.5%) 28,156 (1.3%) 26,513 (1.6%)
Number of previous tests§ 0 1,147,503 (86.8%) 1,889,412 (84.1%) 1,350,615 (82.9%)
1 119,612 (9.0%) 235.388 (10.5%) 183.933 (11.3%)
2 34,089 (2.6%) 66,502 (3.0%) 53,012 (3.3%)
3 10,610 (0.8%) 23,322 (1.0%) 17,770 (1.1%)
4 to 9 10,442 (0.8%) 32,427 (1.4%) 23,953 (1.5%)
10+ 49 (0.0%) 104 (0.0%) 77 (0.0%)
Average household age Mean (SD) 32.6 (17.5) 47.07 (21.61) 45.91 (24.88)
Number of people in household 1 338,168 (25.6%) 556,975 (24.8%) 429,940 (26.4%)
2 261,989 (19.8%) 698,293 (31.1%) 499,565 (30.7%)
3 to 5 551,966 (41.7%) 859,932 (38.3%) 602,873 (37.0%)
6 to 10 129,832 (9.8%) 100,041 (4.5%) 75,591 (4.6%)
11 to 30 18,660 (1.4%) 17,587 (0.8%) 9,650 (0.6%)
31 to 100 6,485 (0.5%) 12,837 (0.6%) 6,950 (0.4%)
101+ 15,205 (1.1%) 1,490 (0.1%) 4,791 (0.3%)
BMI Underweight 115,851 (8.8%) 46,480 (2.1%) 75,842 (4.7%)
Normal weight 626,235 (47.4%) 757,023 (33.7%) 636,389 (39.1%)
Overweight 359,299 (27.2%) 809,120 (36.0%) 527,780 (32.4%)
Obese 220,920 (16.7%) 634,532 (28.2%) 389,349 (23.9%)
Smoking status Ex-smoker 308,038 (23.3%) 657,234 (29.2%) 438,683 (26.9%)
Nonsmoker 241,142 (18.2%) 1,241,281 (55.2%) 952,839 (58.5%)
Smoker 714,755 (54.1%) 338,007 (15.0%) 209,358 (12.8%)
Unknown 58,370 (4.4%) 10,633 (0.5%) 28,480 (1.7%)
Atrial fibrillation 11,713 (0.9%) 68,860 (3.1%) 74,990 (4.6%)
Asthma 180,744 (13.7%) 342,874 (15.3%) 264,060 (16.2%)
Blood cancer 4,066 (0.3%) 20,228 (0.9%) 18,117 (1.1%)
Heart failure 8,217 (0.6%) 40,231 (1.8%) 39,508 (2.4%)
Cerebral palsy 724 (0.1%) 3,326 (0.1%) 1,442 (0.1%)
Coronary heart disease 17,102 (1.3%) 100,989 (4.5%) 99,116 (6.1%)
Cirrhosis 1,678 (0.1%) 6,829 (0.3%) 4,598 (0.3%)
Congenital heart disease 4,399 (0.3%) 15,787 (0.7%) 10,637 (0.7%)
COPD 12,266 (0.9%) 69,891 (3.1%) 57,883 (3.6%)
Dementia 7,468 (0.6%) 29,271 (1.3%) 23,567 (1.4%)
Diabetes type 1 16,158 (0.7%) 16,158 (0.7%) 11,773 (0.7%)
Diabetes type 2 34,079 (2.6%) 185,353 (8.2%) 153,568 (9.4%)
Epilepsy 22,824 (1.7%) 52,820 (2.4%) 33,655 (2.1%)
Fracture 35,154 (2.7%) 89,439 (4.0%) 73,717 (4.5%)
Neurological disorder 1,964 (0.1%) 9,885 (0.4%) 6,276 (0.4%)
Parkinson disease 1,483 (0.1%) 8,338 (0.4%) 6,571 (0.4%)
Pulmonary hypertension 1,751 (0.1%) 8,106 (0.4%) 8,079 (0.5%)
Pulmonary rare 2,635 (0.2%) 16,128 (0.7%) 14,666 (0.9%)
Peripheral vascular disease 3,856 (0.3%) 20,518 (0.9%) 18,554 (1.1%)
Rheumatoid arthritis or SLE 7,909 (0.6%) 39,102 (1.7%) 27,449 (1.7%)
Respiratory cancer 1,891 (0.1%) 7,224 (0.3%) 5,814 (0.4%)
Severe mental illness 157,557 (11.9%) 387,974 (17.3%) 236,108 (14.5%)
Sickle cell disease 794 (0.1%) 1,731 (0.1%) 1,236 (0.1%)
Stroke/TIA 12,140 (0.9%) 64,068 (2.9%) 60,588 (3.7%)
Thrombosis or pulmonary embolus 5,219 (0.4%) 23,610 (1.1%) 18,864 (1.2%)
Care housing category Care home 5,168 (0.4%) 21,534 (1.0%) 10,419 (0.6%)
Homeless 5,026 (0.4%) 3,585 (0.2%) 1,563 (0.1%)
Learning disability or Down syndrome Learning disability 15,620 (1.2%) 39,679 (1.8%) 23,426 (1.4%)
Down syndrome 271 (0.0%) 1,857 (0.1%) 714 (0.0%)
Kidney disease CKD5 without dialysis or transplant 18,609 (1.4%) 105,376 (4.7%) 121,038 (7.4%)
CKD5 with dialysis 238 (0.0%) 928 (0.0%) 812 (0.0%)
CKD5 with transplant 225 (0.0%) 1,530 (0.1%) 1,132 (0.1%)

Deprivation status: quintiles of UK IMD (2000).

Number of risk groups: count of QCovid risk groups.

§Number of previous tests: proxy for working in a high-risk occupation (e.g., healthcare worker).

BMI, body mass index; CKD, chronic kidney disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVST, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis; IMD, index of multiple deprivation; SD, standard deviation; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; TIA, transient ischemic attack.

Table 3. Cohort summary statistics, Wales.

Characteristic Levels Unvaccinated One-dose ChAdOx1 One-dose BNT162b2
Total 346,683 964,494 717,224
Person years of follow-up 205,886 541,057 402,723
Incident CVST cases 6 24 9
Deaths 7,741 (2.2%) 6,876 (0.7%) 1,388 (0.2%)
Sex Male 197,387 (56.9%) 476,300 (49.4%) 329,736 (46.0%)
Female 149,296 (43.1%) 488,194 (50.6%) 387,488 (54.0%)
Age (years) Mean (SD) 36.27 (17.10) 58.49 (15.94) 44.82 (19.60)
Age group (years) 18 to 64 274,386 (91.3%) 636,502 (66.0%) 538,559 (75.9%)
65 to 79 17,389 (5.8%) 209,653 (21.7%) 158,915 (22.4%)
80+ 8,739 (2.9%) 117,968 (12.2%) 12,278 (1.7%)
Deprivation status 1 (most deprived) 94,765 (27.3%) 183,424 (19.0%) 143,271 (20.0%)
2 74,747 (21.6%) 195,260 (20.2%) 146,938 (20.5%)
3 69,401 (20.0%) 190,358 (19.7%) 131,847 (18.4%)
4 53,523 (15.4%) 191,504 (19.9%) 131,130 (18.3%)
5 (least deprived) 54,247 (15.6%) 203,948 (21.1%) 164,038 (22.9%)
Number of risk groups 1 129,012 (37.2%) 181,916 (18.9%) 211,942 (29.6%)
2 122,262 (35.3%) 305,529 (31.7%) 256,138 (35.7%)
3 60,691 (17.5%) 239,308 (24.8%) 150,040 (20.9%)
4 22,745 (6.6%) 129,906 (13.5%) 61,613 (8.6%)
5+ 11,973 (3.5%) 107,835 (11.2%) 37,491 (5.2%)
Number of previous tests§ 0 289,816 (83.6%) 787,529 (81.7%) 525,062 (73.2%)
1 39,404 (11.4%) 122,007 (12.6%) 123,853 (17.3%)
2 9,074 (2.6%) 28,177 (2.9%) 32,648 (4.6%)
3 2,676 (0.8%) 9,090 (0.9%) 9,544 (1.3%)
4 to 9 3,371 (1.0%) 11,425 (1.2%) 10,037 (1.4%)
Average household age Mean (SD) 36.12 (15.09) 52.28 (18.83) 42.83 (18.64)
Number of people in household 1 35,087 (10.1%) 164,573 (17.1%) 77,093 (10.8%)
2 59,280 (17.1%) 322,717 (33.5%) 190,182 (26.5%)
3 to 5 191,646 (55.4%) 413,605 (42.9%) 389,868 (54.4%)
6 to 10 52,028 (15.0%) 47,698 (4.9%) 53,992 (7.5%)
11 to 30 5,817 (1.7%) 10,467 (1.1%) 4,431 (0.6%)
31 to 100 1,164 (0.3%) 4,356 (0.5%) 882 (0.1%)
101+ 830 (0.2%) 183 (0.0%) 408 (0.1%)
BMI Normal weight 137,044 (39.8%) 238,075 (24.7%) 214,268 (29.9%)
Obese 75,615 (21.9%) 374,711 (38.9%) 237,832 (33.2%)
Overweight 103,442 (30.0%) 325,633 (33.8%) 237,648 (33.2%)
Underweight 28,634 (8.3%) 25,261 (2.6%) 26,418 (3.7%)
Smoking status Ex-smoker 37,314 (10.8%) 231,039 (24.0%) 127,107 (17.7%)
Nonsmoker 140,892 (40.6%) 512,280 (53.1%) 402,210 (56.1%)
Smoker 98,437 (28.4%) 201,499 (20.9%) 136,068 (19.0%)
Unknown 70,040 (20.2%) 19,676 (2.0%) 51,839 (7.2%)
Atrial fibrillation 3,005 (0.9%) 43,976 (4.6%) 15,274 (2.1%)
Asthma 45,591 (13.2%) 147,572 (15.3%) 110,270 (15.4%)
Blood cancer 699 (0.2%) 7,116 (0.7%) 2,886 (0.4%)
Heart failure 1,816 (0.5%) 22,248 (2.3%) 6,879 (1.0%)
Cirrhosis 586 (0.2%) 4,903 (0.5%) 1,889 (0.3%)
Congestive heart disease 4,482 (1.3%) 61,338 (6.4%) 22,283 (3.1%)
COPD 3,794 (1.1%) 44,984 (4.7%) 16,158 (2.3%)
Dementia 1,438 (0.4%) 13,155 (1.4%) 2,540 (0.4%)
Diabetes type I 714 (0.2%) 6,034 (0.6%) 1,628 (0.2%)
Diabetes type II 8,081 (2.3%) 108,610 (11.3%) 36,764 (5.1%)
Epilepsy 3,295 (1.0%) 18,776 (1.9%) 5,136 (0.7%)
Fracture 11,205 (3.2%) 40,808 (4.2%) 26,066 (3.6%)
Neurological disorder 439 (0.1%) 4,260 (0.4%) 1,154 (0.2%)
Parkinson disease 313 (0.1%) 3,845 (0.4%) 1,312 (0.2%)
Pulmonary hypertension 254 (0.1%) 2,550 (0.3%) 904 (0.1%)
Pulmonary rare 528 (0.2%) 6,287 (0.7%) 2,755 (0.4%)
Peripheral vascular disease 1,107 (0.3%) 12,368 (1.3%) 4,547 (0.6%)
Rheumatoid arthritis 1,376 (0.4%) 14,754 (1.5%) 6,454 (0.9%)
Respiratory cancer 495 (0.1%) 3,620 (0.4%) 1,621 (0.2%)
Severe mental illness 42,890 (12.4%) 153,083 (15.9%) 87,343 (12.2%)
Stroke 3,175 (0.9%) 39,032 (4.0%) 12,706 (1.8%)
Thrombosis or pulmonary embolus 3,468 (1.0%) 30,726 (3.2%) 10,296 (1.4%)
Care housing category Care home 1,150 (0.3%) 7,729 (0.8%) 1,375 (0.2%)
Homeless 2,308 (0.7%) 2,431 (0.3%) 1,230 (0.2%)
Learning disability or Down syndrome Learning disability 7,232 (2.1%) 16,250 (1.7%) 9,397 (1.3%)
Down syndrome 25 (0.0%) 195 (0.0%) 74 (0.0%)
Kidney disease CKD5 without dialysis or transplant 277 (0.1%) 2,711 (0.3%) 802 (0.1%)
CKD5 with transplant 69 (0.0%) 921 (0.1%) 364 (0.1%)
CKD5 with dialysis 47 (0.0%) 304 (0.0%) 61 (0.0%)

Deprivation status: WIMD 2020.

Number of risk groups: Individual QCovid.

§Number of previous tests: Proxy for working in a high-risk occupation (e.g., healthcare worker).

BMI, body mass index; CKD, chronic kidney disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVST, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis; SD, standard deviation; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; TIA, transient ischemic attack; WIMD, Welsh index of multiple deprivation.

Table 4. Number of events and IRRs for CVST following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2.

Time period Number of events IRR (95% CI)
ChAdOx1
Reference 45 1
Prerisk 9 1.29 (0.63 to 2.63)
Risk 27 1.93 (1.20 to 3.11)
BNT162b2
Reference 29 1
Prerisk <5 0.89 (0.31 to 2.52)
Risk 7 0.78 (0.34 to 1.77)

Event counts of <5 have been suppressed in accordance with disclosure control principles implemented by the data controllers. With the day of vaccination as day 0, the reference period was day −104 to day −14. The prerisk period was day −14 to day 0. The risk period was day 0 to day 28.

CI, confidence interval; CVST, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

Table 2. Cohort summary statistics, Scotland.

Characteristic Levels Unvaccinated One-dose ChAdOx1 One-dose BNT162b2
Total 1,837,555 1,743,343 829,038
Person years of follow-up 627,935 1,136,652 952,284
Incident CVST cases 9 34 13
Deaths 14,792 (0.80%) 12,485 (0.72%) 6,554 (0.79%)
Sex Female 847,192 (46.1%) 900,591 (51.7%) 519,423 (62.7%)
Male 990,363 (53.9%) 842,752 (48.3%) 309,615 (37.3%)
Age (years) Mean (SD) 35.8 (13.6) 59 (15.3) 57.4 (16.6)
Age group (years) 18 to 64 1,756,236 (95.6%) 1,178,096 (67.6%) 462,906 (55.8%)
65 to 79 47,113 (2.6%) 380,175 (21.8%) 329,739 (39.8%)
80+ 34,206 (1.9%) 185,072 (10.6%) 36,393 (4.4%)
Deprivation status 1 (high) 393,735 (21.4%) 315,337 (18.1%) 152,365 (18.4%)
2 363,509 (19.8%) 340,417 (19.5%) 164,078 (19.8%)
3 345,606 (18.8%) 361,645 (20.7%) 166,194 (20.0%)
4 345,959 (18.8%) 362,057 (20.8%) 176,278 (21.3%)
5 (low) 364,644 (19.8%) 355,356 (20.4%) 165,303 (19.9%)
Unknown 24,101 (1.3%) 8,531 (0.5%) 4,820 (0.6%)
Urban/rural index 1—large urban areas 779,728 (42.4%) 527,068 (30.2%) 246,393 (29.7%)
2—other urban areas 592,533 (32.2%) 652,571 (37.4%) 334,968 (40.4%)
3—accessible small towns 148,961 (8.1%) 178,437 (10.2%) 80,831 (9.7%)
4—remote small towns 72,218 (3.9%) 98,686 (5.7%) 42,336 (5.1%)
5—accessible rural 147,110 (8.0%) 179,672 (10.3%) 71,206 (8.6%)
6—remote rural 72,905 (4.0%) 98,378 (5.6%) 48,484 (5.8%)
Unknown 24,101 (1.3%) 8,531 (0.5%) 4,820 (0.6%)
Number of risk group 0 1,380,273 (75.1%) 812,869 (46.6%) 411,082 (49.6%)
1 370,157 (20.1%) 519,923 (29.8%) 241,381 (29.1%)
2 65,651 (3.6%) 238,303 (13.7%) 103,522 (12.5%)
3 13,232 (0.7%) 100,913 (5.8%) 42,747 (5.2%)
4 4,740 (0.3%) 43,232 (2.5%) 18,217 (2.2%)
5+ 3,502 (0.2%) 28,103 (1.6%) 12,089 (1.5%)
Number of previous tests§ 0 1,521,965 (82.8%) 1,450,847 (83.2%) 599,480 (72.3%)
1 237,779 (12.9%) 204,180 (11.7%) 114,003 (13.8%)
2 46,071 (2.5%) 46,784 (2.7%) 33,299 (4.0%)
3 11,350 (0.6%) 15,396 (0.9%) 14,173 (1.7%)
4 to 9 11,842 (0.6%) 18,816 (1.1%) 27,847 (3.4%)
10+ 8,548 (0.5%) 7,320 (0.4%) 40,236 (4.9%)
Average household age Mean (SD) 34.4 (13.8) 54.8 (17.8) 53.7 (18.5)
Number of people in household 1 545,823 (29.7%) 613,519 (35.2%) 259,370 (31.3%)
2 404,714 (22.0%) 603,417 (34.6%) 298,158 (36.0%)
3 to 5 784,498 (42.7%) 493,935 (28.3%) 236,711 (28.6%)
6 to 10 82,513 (4.5%) 30,138 (1.7%) 15,493 (1.9%)
11 to 30 8,569 (0.5%) 1,532 (0.1%) 6,669 (0.8%)
31 to 100 6,255 (0.3%) 600 (0.0%) 10,967 (1.3%)
101+ 5,182 (0.3%) 202 (0.0%) 1,670 (0.2%)
BMI Underweight 23,875 (1.3%) 17,726 (1.0%) 7,908 (1.0%)
Normal weight 234,944 (12.8%) 214,888 (12.3%) 108,885 (13.1%)
Overweight 1,422,006 (77.4%) 1,108,478 (63.6%) 519,249 (62.6%)
Obese 156,730 (8.5%) 402,251 (23.1%) 192,996 (23.3%)
Smoking status Ex-smoker 143,236 (7.8%) 297,503 (17.1%) 138,702 (16.7%)
Nonsmoker 700,880 (38.1%) 669,699 (38.4%) 328,683 (39.6%)
Smoker 299,528 (16.3%) 430,035 (24.7%) 192,753 (23.3%)
Unknown 693,910 (37.8%) 346,106 (19.9%) 168,900 (20.4%)
Atrial fibrillation 6,353 (0.3%) 73,050 (4.2%) 29,466 (3.6%)
Asthma 224,636 (12.2%) 243,888 (14.0%) 109,010 (13.1%)
Blood cancer 1,772 (0.1%) 14,751 (0.8%) 5,541 (0.7%)
Heart failure 3,448 (0.2%) 33,261 (1.9%) 12,293 (1.5%)
Cerebral palsy 664 (0.0%) 4,334 (0.2%) 1,072 (0.1%)
Coronary heart disease 11,859 (0.6%) 133,205 (7.6%) 60,514 (7.3%)
Cirrhosis 3,483 (0.2%) 14,263 (0.8%) 6,204 (0.7%)
Congenital heart disease 3,586 (0.2%) 24,379 (1.4%) 10,277 (1.2%)
COPD 9,670 (0.5%) 90,514 (5.2%) 35,037 (4.2%)
Dementia 3,276 (0.2%) 17,779 (1.0%) 17,286 (2.1%)
Diabetes type 1 2,005 (0.1%) 14,889 (0.9%) 5,589 (0.7%)
Diabetes type 2 16,641 (0.9%) 167,766 (9.6%) 79,735 (9.6%)
Epilepsy 9,160 (0.5%) 43,185 (2.5%) 12,989 (1.6%)
Fracture 55,777 (3.0%) 97,098 (5.6%) 43,284 (5.2%)
Neurological disorder 1,433 (0.1%) 12,562 (0.7%) 4,561 (0.6%)
Parkinson disease 626 (0.0%) 6,061 (0.3%) 3,093 (0.4%)
Pulmonary hypertension 709 (0.0%) 6,523 (0.4%) 1,722 (0.2%)
Pulmonary rare 1,399 (0.1%) 16,060 (0.9%) 5,849 (0.7%)
Peripheral vascular disease 3,441 (0.2%) 28,820 (1.7%) 12,450 (1.5%)
Rheumatoid arthritis or SLE 3,414 (0.2%) 31,267 (1.8%) 12,947 (1.6%)
Respiratory cancer 1,218 (0.1%) 7,243 (0.4%) 2,552 (0.3%)
Severe mental illness 161,104 (8.8%) 263,637 (15.1%) 119,114 (14.4%)
Sickle cell disease 388 (0.0%) 1,905 (0.1%) 762 (0.1%)
Stroke/TIA 7,931 (0.4%) 80,030 (4.6%) 35,481 (4.3%)
Thrombosis or pulmonary embolus 8,086 (0.4%) 50,760 (2.9%) 18,625 (2.2%)
Care housing category Care home 2,277 (0.1%) 2,806 (0.2%) 16,583 (2.0%)
Homeless 2,271 (0.1%) 1,360 (0.1%) 342 (0.0%)
Learning disability or Down syndrome Learning disability 24,695 (1.3%) 34,031 (2.0%) 9,551 (1.2%)
Down syndrome 116 (0.0%) 1,193 (0.1%) 391 (0.0%)
Kidney disease CKD5 without dialysis or transplant 7,558 (0.4%) 103,725 (5.9%) 41,568 (5.0%)
CKD5 with dialysis 546 (0.0%) 4,335 (0.2%) 1,394 (0.2%)
CKD5 with transplant 370 (0.0%) 3,107 (0.2%) 1,279 (0.2%)

Deprivation status: quintiles of SIMD 2020.

Number of risk groups: count of QCovid risk groups.

§Number of previous tests: proxy for working in a high-risk occupation (e.g., healthcare worker).

Household information taken from September 2020.

BMI, body mass index; CKD, chronic kidney disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVST, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis; SD, standard deviation; SIMD, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; TIA, transient ischemic attack.

We sought to carry out a post hoc sensitivity analysis focusing on CVST events identified in secondary care records only; however, there were too few events to permit useful estimation of IRRs. We carried out a post hoc sensitivity analysis excluding anyone who died within 90 days of their CVST event. The only estimate that changed from our main analysis was that for the risk period following vaccination with ChAdOx1, the IRR was 1.79 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.91) (S6 File).

Within each nation, we plotted histograms of event counts in the observation period in order to explore the suitability of the prerisk period to account for event-dependent exposure to vaccination. There appeared to be a reduction in events in the 2-week prerisk period, but no obvious reduction outside of that time period. We are unable to share these histograms due to the statistical disclosure principles enacted by the TREs that hosted this analysis.

Discussion

Our pooled SCCS analysis of national datasets from England, Scotland, and Wales found an elevated risk of CVST in the 4-week period following vaccination with ChAdOx1. We did not find an association between BNT162b2 and CVST.

There have hitherto been few population-based studies estimating the association between COVID-19 vaccines and CVST. Such analyses are made challenging by the extreme rarity of CVST. Our study corroborates previous observed–expected analyses from the EMA [7], the Mayo Clinic Health System [8], a population-based study in Denmark and Norway [9], and a SCCS using the QResearch database in England [10]. Our results are broadly consistent with the latter study [10], as would be expected due to the similar study design and population. Our estimated RRs are, however, notably smaller than risk ratios reported in [79]. This is likely due to the fact that we conducted a SCCS that implicitly controls for variables that are constant over the observation period, as opposed to an observed–expected analysis.

A limitation in the SCCS analysis is the assumption that occurrence of an event does not affect subsequent exposure [25]. CVST is a serious adverse event that can be life threatening. Therefore, the assumption of event-independent exposure may not have been satisfied. This could have caused a selection effect where individuals who were more likely to have a CVST event were less likely to be vaccinated and thus less likely to be included in our analysis. A large multinational study of prognosis for CVST found a death rate of 4.3% and a death or dependency rate of 18.9% at hospital discharge, where dependency was defined as a score of >2 on the modified Rankin scale [26]. On the other hand, among the JCVI priority groups for vaccination are “clinically extremely vulnerable individuals” (group 4), and “all individuals aged 16 to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality” (group 6) (S2 File). It is possible that the vaccination programme created a selection effect for vaccination of people more prone to CVST events.

In order to explore the validity of the assumption of event-independent exposure, we carried out a sensitivity analysis excluding those who died within 90 days of their event. This had a small effect on the IRR for the risk period following vaccination with ChAdOx1, with all other estimates unchanged. We also included a prerisk period in the SCCS study design to account for the possibility that occurrence of a CVST event affected subsequent vaccination and plotted histograms of event counts over time in order to assess its suitability. Our statistical analysis plan included a case–control analysis, which may have been useful to further explore this assumption. However, this would have required sharing more detailed data between TREs, which was not possible under the permissions in place.

We estimated IRRs as opposed to RRs. Estimating RRs with pooled data across the 3 nations could be achieved if we were able to share individual-level data. However, this was not permitted under the statistical disclosure rules implemented by the data controllers. We do not believe that the estimates for RRs and IRRs would be significantly different because of the rarity of CVST events.

We plan to extend our analysis to mRNA-1273 and to second and booster dose vaccinations. To date, there have been very few studies that have estimated the association between COVID-19 vaccine and CVST events using large-scale nationally representative datasets [79]. Although we had access to a large, combined cohort, there were still relatively few events. Further evidence corroborating our results is required.

In conclusion, we found an increased risk of CVST following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1. We did not find an increased risk following first dose vaccination with BNT162b2. This evidence may be useful in risk–benefit evaluations for vaccine-related policies and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public.

Supporting information

S1 File. STROBE and RECORD checklists.

RECORD, REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data; STROBE, STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Vaccine priority groups.

Context of vaccine roll-out in the UK: JCVI COVID-19 vaccination priority group list. COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease 2019; JCVI, Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

(DOCX)

S3 File. Statistical analysis plan.

(DOCX)

S4 File. Code lists.

Read Codes and SNOMED CT codes for CVST. CVST, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.

(DOCX)

S5 File. Data pooling procedure.

(DOCX)

S6 File. Sensitivity analysis.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Dave Kelly from Albasoft for his support with making primary care data available and James Pickett, Wendy Inglis-Humphrey, Vicky Hammersley, Maria Georgiou, and Laura Gonzalez Rienda for their support with project management and administration. Our thanks to J. Quint, R. Al-Shahi Salman, and Q. Hill for reviewing code lists. This work uses data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. We would also like to acknowledge all data providers who make anonymised data available for research. We wish to acknowledge the collaborative partnership that enabled acquisition and access to the deidentified data in Wales, which led to this output. The collaboration was led by the Swansea University Health Data Research UK team under the direction of the Welsh Government Technical Advisory Cell and includes the following groups and organisations: the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank, Administrative Data Research Wales, NHS Wales Informatics Service, Public Health Wales, NHS Shared Services Partnership, and the Welsh Ambulance Service Trust. All research conducted has been completed under the permission and approval of the SAIL independent IGRP (project number: 0911).

Abbreviations

CHI

Community Health Index

CI

confidence interval

COVID-19

Coronavirus Disease 2019

CVST

cerebral venous sinus thrombosis

EAVE

Early Assessment of Vaccine and antiviral Effectiveness

EMA

European Medicines Agency

ICD-10

International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision

IGRP

Information Governance Review Panel

IRR

incidence rate ratio

JCVI

Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

RECORD

REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data

RR

rate ratio

SCCS

self-controlled case series

TRE

trusted research environment

Data Availability

The data used in this study cannot be shared publicly because they are based on de-identified national clinical records. The English data is stored in the ORCHID TRE. Access to data can be requested via https://orchid.phc.ox.ac.uk/index.php/orchid-data/. The Scottish data is stored in the Public Health Scotland TRE. To access these individual-level, confidential healthcare data, researchers will need to apply to HSC-PBPP (https://www.informationgovernance.scot.nhs.uk/pbpphsc/). The Welsh data are available in the SAIL Databank at Swansea University, Swansea, UK. All proposals to use SAIL data are subject to review by an independent Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP). Before any data can be accessed, approval must be given by the IGRP. The IGRP gives careful consideration to each project to ensure proper and appropriate use of SAIL data. When access has been granted, it is gained through a privacy protecting safe haven and remote access system referred to as the SAIL Gateway. SAIL has established an application process to be followed by anyone who would like to access data via SAIL at https://www.saildatabank.com/application-process.

Funding Statement

This research is part of the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant ref MC_PC_20029, AS). EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (https://mrc.ukri.org/) (UKRI MC_PC 19075, AS) with the support of BREATHE, The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004, AS), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. This work was supported by the Con-COV team funded by the Medical Research Council (grant number: MR/V028367/1, RL). This work was supported by Health Data Research UK, which receives its funding from HDR UK Ltd (HDR-9006, RL) funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation (BHF) and the Wellcome Trust. This work was supported by the ADR Wales programme of work (https://www.adruk.org/). The ADR Wales programme of work is aligned to the priority themes as identified in the Welsh Government’s national strategy: Prosperity for All. ADR Wales brings together data science experts at Swansea University Medical School, staff from the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods (WISERD) at Cardiff University and specialist teams within the Welsh Government to develop new evidence which supports Prosperity for All by using the SAIL Databank at Swansea University, to link and analyse anonymised data. ADR Wales is part of the Economic and Social Research Council (part of UK Research and Innovation) funded ADR UK (grant ES/S007393/1, RL). SVK acknowledges funding from NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02, SVK), the MRC (MC_UU_00022/2, SVK), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17, SVK). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Schultz NH, Sørvoll IH, Michelsen AE, Munthe LA, Lund-Johansen F, Ahlen MT, et al. Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 3;384(22):2124–2130. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104882 Epub 2021 Apr 9. ; PMCID: PMC8112568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Greinacher A, Thiele T, Warkentin TE, Weisser K, Kyrle PA, Eichinger S. Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2021. Jun 3;384(22):2092–2101. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104840 Epub 2021 Apr 9. ; PMCID: PMC8095372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.See I, Su JR, Lale A, Woo EJ, Guh AY, Shimabukuro TT, et al. US Case Reports of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis With Thrombocytopenia After Ad26.COV2.S Vaccination, March 2 to April 21, 2021. JAMA. 2021;325(24):2448–56. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.7517 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schultz NH, Sørvoll IH, Michelsen AE, Munthe LA, Lund-Johansen F, Ahlen MT, et al. Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104882 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Scully M, Singh D, Lown R, Poles A, Solomon T, Levi M, et al. Pathologic antibodies to platelet factor 4 after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2021. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2105385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.European Medicines Agency, COVID-19 vaccine safety update, 29 March 2021. [cited 2021 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/covid-19-vaccine-safety-update/covid-19-vaccine-safety-update-vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-29-march-2021_en.pdf
  • 7.European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC). Signal assessment report on embolic and thrombotic events (SMQ) with COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant])–Vaxzevria (previously COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca) (Other viral vaccines). 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/prac-recommendation/signal-assessment-report-embolic-thrombotic-events-smq-covid-19-vaccine-chadox1-s-recombinant_en.pdf
  • 8.Pawlowski C, Rincón-Hekking J, Awasthi S, Pandey V, Lenehan P, Venkatakrishnan AV, et al. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) is not significantly linked to COVID-19 vaccines or non-COVID vaccines in a large multi-state US health system. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2021.105923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pottegård A, Lund LC, Karlstad DJ, Andersen M, Hallas J, et al. Arterial events, venous thromboembolism, thrombocytopenia, and bleeding after vaccination with Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S in Denmark and Norway: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2021;373(n1114). doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hippisley-Cox J, Patone M, Mei XW, Saatci D, Dixon S, Khunti K, et al. Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study. BMJ. 2021;374(n1931). doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wise J. Covid-19: European countries suspend use of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine after reports of blood clots. BMJ. 2021;372:n699. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n699 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.GOV.UK. JCVI statement on use of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, 7 April 2021. [cited 2021 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/use-of-the-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-jcvi-statement/jcvi-statement-on-use-of-the-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-7-april-2021
  • 13.GOV.UK. JCVI advises on COVID-19 vaccine for people aged under 40, 7 May 2021. [cited 2021 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-advises-on-covid-19-vaccine-for-people-aged-under-40
  • 14.Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, Absalon J, Gurtman A, Lockhart, et al. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(27):2603–15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Voysey M, Clemens SAC, Madhi SA, Weckx LY, Folegatti PM, Aley PK, et al. Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet. 2021;397(10269):99–111. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32661-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Baden LR, El Sahly HM, Essink B, Kotloff K, Frey S, Novak R et al. Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021. Feb 4;384(5):403–416. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035389 Epub 2020 Dec 30. ; PMCID: PMC7787219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bernal JL, Andrews N, Gower C, Stowe J, Robertson C, Tessier E, et al. Early effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine and ChAdOx1 adenovirus vector vaccine on symptomatic disease, hospitalisations and mortality in older adults in England. medRxiv. 2021. doi: 10.1101/2021.03.01.21252652 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Vasileiou E, Simpson CR, Shi T, Kerr S, Agrawal U, Akbari A, et al. Interim findings from first dose mass COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and COVID-19 hospitalisations in Scotland: National prospective cohort study of 5.4 million people. Lancet. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Filippidis A, Kapsalaki E, Patramani G, Fountas KN. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: review of the demographics, pathophysiology, current diagnosis, and treatment. J Neurosurg. 2009. Nov;27(5):E3. doi: 10.3171/2009.8.FOCUS09167 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Simpson CR, Shi T, Vasileiou E, Katikireddi SV, Kerr S, et al. First-dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events in Scotland. Nat Med. 2021;27:1290–7. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01408-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hausman JA, Hall BH, Griliches Z. Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica. 1984;52,4:909–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE). [cited 2021 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.strobe-statement.org
  • 23.Reporting of studies using observational routinely-collected data (RECORD). [cited 2021 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.record-statement.org
  • 24.Clift AK, Coupland CAC, Keogh RH, Diaz-Ordaz K, Williamson E, Harrison EM, et al. Living risk prediction algorithm (QCOVID) for risk of hospital admission and mortality from coronavirus 19 in adults: national derivation and validation cohort study. BMJ. 2020;371:m3731. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Petersen I, Douglas I, Whitaker H. Self controlled case series methods: an alternative to standard epidemiological study designs. BMJ. 2016. Sep 12;354:i4515. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4515 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ferro JM, Canhão P, Stam J, Bousser MG, Barinagarrementeria F, ISCVT Investigators. Prognosis of cerebral vein and dural sinus thrombosis: results of the International Study on Cerebral Vein and Dural Sinus Thrombosis (ISCVT). Stroke. 2004. Mar;35(3):664–70. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000117571.76197.26 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Louise Gaynor-Brook

23 Aug 2021

Dear Dr Kerr,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: pooled self-controlled case series of UK datasets" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by .

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosmedicine@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Medicine

Decision Letter 1

Louise Gaynor-Brook

22 Sep 2021

Dear Dr. Kerr,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: pooled self-controlled case series of UK datasets" (PMEDICINE-D-21-03598R1) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was evaluated by three independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer, and was discussed among all the editors here and with an academic editor with relevant expertise. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, I am afraid that we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments. Obviously we cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we plan to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript by Oct 13 2021 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

General comments:

Throughout the paper, please adapt reference call-outs to the following style: "... ChAdOx1 vaccine, if available [11,12]." (noting the absence of spaces within the square brackets).

Title: Please revise your title according to PLOS Medicine's style. We suggest “First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: A pooled self-controlled case series study of 12 million individuals in England, Scotland and Wales” or similar

Abstract:

Abstract Background: Please specify which COVID-19 vaccines were restricted. “England, Scotland and Wales” would be preferable to “Great Britain”

Abstract Methods and Findings:

Please provide brief demographic details of the study population (e.g. sex, age, ethnicity, etc)

Please provide the exact number of participants, population, the dates between which the study took place, length of follow up, and main outcome measures.

If possible, please provide the actual incidence of CVST in the study population in addition to IRRs

Line 62 - Please revise to “Vaccination with ChAdOx1 was associated with an elevated risk…”

In the last sentence of the Abstract Methods and Findings section, please describe 2-3 of the main limitations of the study's methodology.

Abstract Conclusions:

Please begin your Abstract Conclusions with "In this study, we observed ..." or similar, to summarize the main findings from your study, without overstating your conclusions. Please emphasize what is new and address the specific implications of your study, being careful to avoid assertions of primacy and general statements such as "these results have implications for policy".

Author Summary:

At this stage, we ask that you include a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract. Please see our author guidelines for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary

In the final bullet point of ‘What Do These Findings Mean?’, please describe the main limitations of the study in non-technical language.

Methods:

Please state that your study had a prospective statistical analysis plan early in the Methods section, and please include the relevant prospectively written document with your revised manuscript as a Supporting Information file to be published alongside your study, and cite it in the Methods section. A legend for this file should be included at the end of your manuscript. Changes in the analysis-- including those made in response to peer review comments-- should be identified as such in the Methods section of the paper, with rationale. If a reported analysis was performed based on an interesting but unanticipated pattern in the data, please be clear that the analysis was data-driven.

Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data (RECORD) guideline (S1 Checklist)."

Line 153 - sentence appears incomplete

Results:

Please provide a table showing the baseline characteristics of the study population as Table 1.

Please replace ~ with approximately

Line 184 - please revise to ‘incident cases of CVST’

Please report the dates between which the study took place

Discussion:

Please present and organize the Discussion as follows: a short, clear summary of the article's findings; what the study adds to existing research and where and why the results may differ from previous research; strengths and limitations of the study; implications and next steps for research, clinical practice, and/or public policy; one-paragraph conclusion.

Line 202 - please temper assertions of primacy by adding ‘to the best of our knowledge’ or similar. “England, Scotland and Wales” would be preferable to “Great Britain”

Tables:

Please define all abbreviations used in the table legend of each table.

References:

Please ensure that journal name abbreviations match those found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases, and are appropriately formatted and capitalised.

Please also see https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references for further details on reference formatting, e.g. six authors are names prior to ‘et al’.

Where websites are cited, please specify the date of access

Supplementary files:

Please see https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/supporting-information for our supporting information guidelines.

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: "First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: pooled self-controlled case series of UK datasets" is a concise self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis on incident cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) events, on over 12 million individuals from England, Scotland and Wales. The extremely low incidences for CVST (<50 for 4.33 million ChAdOx1 doses, <15 for 2.32 million BNT162b2 doses) has made any conclusive determination of increased risk challenging. With the SCCS design that implicitly controls for time-invariant variables (by effectively comparing every individual against himself before [including a clearance period] and after dosing), a 2.66 (1.48-4.79) incidence rate ratio (IRR) was found for ChAdOx1, against 1.07 (0.22-5.31) for BNT162b2 (Table 2).

While the study framework appears to allow for the analysis of other potential side effects in addition to CVST, this submission remains a timely addition to the literature, with further work on mRNA-1273 and further doses already proposed (Line 236). Still, a few issues might be considered:

1. While the description of the data compilation is relatively comprehensive (Figure 1), the detailed selection of the cohort might stand to be defined in greater detail. For example, the starting point (all individual given at least one dose of either the ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 vaccine?) and any exclusions (e.g. missing data) might be presented in a flowchart.

2. While simple cohort demographics are provided in Table 1, it appears relevant to also present other demographic variables (e.g. age, gender, ethnicity, etc.) stratified by vaccine received, which would moreover help to give an idea of whether the demographics for each vaccine are comparable (all the more as their administration appears non-random from S1 Table).

Moreover, it appears possible that the underlying demographics may remain important in the analysis of IRR (related to the selection bias raised in Line 218), despite the SCCS study design. For example, assume that a rare disease has effectively zero incidence below a certain age (e.g. 50 years). Then, if Treatment A were provided mostly to those below that age, and Treatment B mostly to those above that age, then the potential for incidence would appear biased towards Treatment B (before considerations on whether increased disease incidence due to vaccine dosing is itself affected by age and other variables). Notably, from Table 2, given the 25 pre-risk events for ChAdOx1 (4.33 million doses), about 13 pre-risk events would be expected for BNT162b2 (2.32 million doses). However, only 6 pre-risk events were observed for BNT162b2 in reality. A fuller evaluation of the demographics for each vaccine group might therefore be warranted.

3. Data coverage would seem to remain somewhat of a concern, especially for the English data (~10% GP coverage, from Figure 1). In particular, the validity of SCCS would seem to assume individuals remaining "in system" throughout, i.e. if CVST were to occur for an individual, this CVST incidence would be expected to be recorded whether in the pre-risk, clearance or risk period. Would this be a reasonable expectation, or is it possible that CVST be treated at a venue that is not included in the databases used (e.g. the ~90% of GP practices not covered, for England)?

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript on a matter of importance to public health.

Major comments:

1. 34 authors? Please elaborate.

2. Overall, the manuscript appears rushed and needs more attention. See e.g. line 153?

3. I do not understand the statistical approach. It is unclear what aggregation in each country and then expansion with so-called synthetic ID's is. If this means that you have first aggregated the true events and then tried to reconstruct synthetic events I am concerned. Please provide more detail and references that this is a valid approach. Alternatively, please estimate the association in each country and combine the three using e.g. inverse variance weighting.

4. Please provide sensitivity analyses supporting that the assumptions of the SCCS analysis is not violated.

5. Please provide a figure with two panels: each panel showing a histogram of the timing of event compared to date of vaccination with the two vaccines.

6. You need to convince the reader that the many SNOMED and READ codes you have included accurately reflect CVST. Have these been validated?

7. Are you including GP information? Can you please provide a sensitivity analysis of only cases identified in a hospital setting.

8. What are you using laboratory data for?

9. You need to discuss your results in more detail in comparison to other studies. You report a <1 CVST case per 1 mil vaccinated. This is much less than what others have reported.

10. You conclude "Public health officials should take account of this evidence in designing policies on vaccination." What do you mean? Elaborate please?

Minor comments:

11. incidence rate ratio instead of incident rate ratio

12. I am confused by the Sup table 1 mentioning Scotland only?

13. In SCCS terminology, a pre-risk period is your clearance period and the reference period is your pre-risk period.

Reviewer #3: This is a straightforward analysis and methodological sound. However, I fail to see the novelty of the data as the association between CVT and vaccination has already been reported. Nonetheless, the study provides estimates for the British population.

Some important data is missing and could add relevant information. Please provide data on mortality, demographic differences, or association with coagulation disorders.

You might consider presenting you findings as a brief report or as a letter.

The figure legends are somewhat misplaced in the text.

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 2

Louise Gaynor-Brook

1 Dec 2021

Dear Dr. Kerr,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: A pooled self-controlled case series study of 11.6 million individuals in England, Scotland and Wales" (PMEDICINE-D-21-03598R2) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was re-reviewed by three reviewers and discussed among all the editors here. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of the statistical re-review, I am afraid that we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments. Obviously we cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we plan to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript by Dec 22 2021 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

It is of concern that the results of your analysis appear to have changed substantially during your revision (Table 4) - in particular, the differences in numbers of events. Please provide clarification as to how the revised results were generated, including changes in the data used and methodology. This may be subject to statistical re-review.

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: Figure 2 defining the pre-risk, clearance and risk periods appears unchanged from the previous revision (R1). However Table 4 for reference/pre-risk/risk events/incidence rate ratios appears wholly different from Table 2 from the previous revision (R1). This might be clarified, since it appears the core of the analysis.

Reviewer #2: The authors have satisfactorily addressed my comments. Thank you.

Reviewer #3: all well addressed

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 3

Louise Gaynor-Brook

14 Jan 2022

Dear Dr. Kerr,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: A pooled self-controlled case series study of 11.6 million individuals in England, Scotland and Wales" (PMEDICINE-D-21-03598R3) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor. I am pleased to say that provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.  

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by Jan 21 2022 11:59PM.   

Sincerely,

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Editors:

Abstract Methods and Findings:

Please revise to “6,808,293 person years of follow-up”

If possible, please provide a brief demographic summary of the study population(s) (e.g. % female, mean age (SD), etc)

Please specifically use the term ‘limitations’ in section beginning “The self-controlled case series study design…”

Author Summary:

Please revise to “following first dose vaccination with either ChAdOx1 or Pfizer BioNTech (BNT162b2)”, or similar

Please separate the text under ‘What Do These Findings Mean?’ into two separate bullet points.

Please add a final bullet point to ‘What Do These Findings Mean?’ to describe the main limitations of the study in non-technical language.

Introduction:

Please revise to “...United States found a relative risk of 1.50 (95% CI 0.28-7.10) of CVST …”

Methods

Please provide your STROBE/RECORD checklist as (S1 Checklist)

Results:

Please revise “4.95 million people total vaccinated”

PLOS does not permit ‘data not shown’; please provide the results generated in your sensitivity analysis (perhaps in a supplementary file)

Tables:

Please define all abbreviations used in the table legend of each table e.g. COPD, BMI, CVST and so on.

Table 1 - please clarify what is meant by ‘Age (years%)’; please clarify whether mean(SD) and Median(IQR) are presented and whether % signs are appropriate for Age and Average Household Age

Table 2 - please clarify what is meant by ‘Age (years%)’

Table 4 - please provide a reminder in the table legend as to what the different time periods represent (i.e. reference, pre-risk, risk)

References:

Please try to be consistent in reference formatting - a DOI number for the full-text article is acceptable as an alternative to or in addition to traditional volume and page numbers.

Please remove italicised text e.g. ref 11 and report journal names as found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/journals e.g. Lancet (ref 15), N Engl J Med (refs 1, 2, etc)

Please see https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references for further details on reference formatting.

Supplementary files:

Please provide your STROBE/RECORD checklist as (S1 Checklist)

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 4

Louise Gaynor-Brook

21 Jan 2022

Dear Dr Kerr, 

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Prof. Suzanne Cannegieter, I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: A pooled self-controlled case series study of 11.6 million individuals in England, Scotland and Wales" (PMEDICINE-D-21-03598R4) in PLOS Medicine.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process. 

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper. 

Sincerely, 

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD 

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. STROBE and RECORD checklists.

    RECORD, REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data; STROBE, STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Vaccine priority groups.

    Context of vaccine roll-out in the UK: JCVI COVID-19 vaccination priority group list. COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease 2019; JCVI, Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File. Statistical analysis plan.

    (DOCX)

    S4 File. Code lists.

    Read Codes and SNOMED CT codes for CVST. CVST, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.

    (DOCX)

    S5 File. Data pooling procedure.

    (DOCX)

    S6 File. Sensitivity analysis.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter 2.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter 3.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data used in this study cannot be shared publicly because they are based on de-identified national clinical records. The English data is stored in the ORCHID TRE. Access to data can be requested via https://orchid.phc.ox.ac.uk/index.php/orchid-data/. The Scottish data is stored in the Public Health Scotland TRE. To access these individual-level, confidential healthcare data, researchers will need to apply to HSC-PBPP (https://www.informationgovernance.scot.nhs.uk/pbpphsc/). The Welsh data are available in the SAIL Databank at Swansea University, Swansea, UK. All proposals to use SAIL data are subject to review by an independent Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP). Before any data can be accessed, approval must be given by the IGRP. The IGRP gives careful consideration to each project to ensure proper and appropriate use of SAIL data. When access has been granted, it is gained through a privacy protecting safe haven and remote access system referred to as the SAIL Gateway. SAIL has established an application process to be followed by anyone who would like to access data via SAIL at https://www.saildatabank.com/application-process.


    Articles from PLoS Medicine are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES