An aging American population carries a high prevalence of profound sensorineural hearing loss. We examined the performance of multichannel cochlear implant recipients in a large database of adult subjects. Design: Nonconcurrent prospective study of a national cohort with multivariate regression analysis of preoperative and postoperative performance variables in multichannel cochlear implant recipients. We applied models of prediction established in previous studies to the observed results. Setting: Referral centers with active cochlear implant programs. Patients: Adolescents and adults with profound hearing loss (N=749; age range, 14-91 years). Main Outcome Measure: Postoperative monosyllabic word recognition. Results: The population 65 years and older demonstrated a clinically insignificant 4.6%-smaller postoperative word score compared with the population younger than 65 years. When duration of deafness exceeded 25 years, elderly recipients demonstrated higher word scores than their younger counterparts. A more significant factor affecting outcomes is the ratio of duration of deafness to age at implantation. Conclusions: Age at implantation carried relatively little predictive value for postoperative performance in subjects 65 years and older. Although a small decrement in mean speech recognition scores was evident, the clinical significance of this difference is questionable when all of the results observed in elderly patients are considered. A shorter percentage of life spent in severe-toprofound sensorineural hearing loss suggests a foundation of acoustic/auditory processing in the elderly cohort that may mitigate potential physiological effects associated with advanced age. This study confirms and extends previous observations that duration of profound deafness and residual speech recognition carry higher predictive value than the age at which an individual receives an implant.
Prior research using electronic health records for Covid-19 vaccine safety monitoring typically focuses on specific disease groups and excludes individuals with multimorbidity, defined as ≥2 chronic conditions. We examine the potential additional risk of adverse events 28 days after the first dose of CoronaVac or Comirnaty imposed by multimorbidity. Using a territory-wide public healthcare database with population-based vaccination records in Hong Kong, we analyze a retrospective cohort of patients with chronic conditions. Thirty adverse events of special interest according to the World Health Organization are examined. In total, 883,416 patients are included and 2,807 (0.3%) develop adverse events. Results suggest vaccinated patients have lower risks of adverse events than unvaccinated individuals, multimorbidity is associated with increased risks regardless of vaccination, and the association of vaccination with adverse events is not modified by multimorbidity. To conclude, we find no evidence that multimorbidity imposes extra risks of adverse events following Covid-19 vaccination.
Objectives Although clinical data have shown that the BNT162b2 vaccine, which is widely used in many countries, is safe and effective as a protection against the Covid-19 infection, extant research in adverse reactions using real-world data of various socio-demographic characteristics is scant. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study to compare age differences in self-reported reactogenicity of BNT162b2 in Hong Kong. A total of 1,516 participants were intensively followed up for two weeks following both doses of BNT162b2 vaccination, during which their basic demographic, health conditions, and medication information were collected. Results Results from generalized mixed model showed that compared with adults aged 18 – 59, older adults aged 60 or above had a lower risk of adverse reactions, and adolescents aged 12 – 17 had a moderately higher risk. Conclusions Results of this study should be informative to parents considering BNT162b2 vaccination for their children in that moderately increased reactogenicity compared with adults is anticipated.
Objective CoronaVac (Sinovac) Covid-19 vaccine has recently been approved for emergency use by the World Health Organization. However, data on its reactogenicity in real-world settings is scant. This study aimed to compare self-reported post-vaccination adverse reactions between CoronaVac and Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech). Methods We adopted a prospective cohort study design using online surveys from the day of first-dose vaccination with intensive follow-up through two weeks after the second dose (11 time points). The primary outcome was adverse reactions (any versus none) and secondary outcomes were the sub-categories of adverse reactions (local, systemic, and severe allergic reactions). Potential effect modification across multimorbidity status, older age, and sex was examined. Results In total, 2,098 participants who were scheduled to complete the 14th-day survey were included, with 46.2% receiving Comirnaty. Retention rate two weeks after the second dose was 81.0% for the CoronaVac group and 83.6% for the Comirnaty group. Throughout the follow-up period, 801 (82.7%) of those receiving Comirnaty and 543 (48.1%) of those receiving CoronaVac reported adverse reactions. Adjusted analysis suggested that compared with Comirnaty, CoronaVac was associated with 83%-reduced odds of any adverse reactions [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15–0.20], 92%-reduced odds of local adverse reactions (AOR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.06–0.09), and 76%-reduced odds of systemic adverse reactions (AOR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.16–0.28). No significant effect modification was identified. Conclusion This post-marketing study comparing the reactogenicity of Covid-19 vaccines suggests a lower risk of self-reported adverse reactions following vaccination with CoronaVac compared with Comirnaty.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.