Abstract
Aims To examine whether individuals vaccinated with three doses of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have an altered incidence of medical complaints compared to individuals not vaccinated with three doses.
Methods Using longitudinal exact 1:1 matching on days since 2nd dose, calendar month and a set of covariates, we obtained a matched sample with 138 581 individuals aged 18-70 years that had the 3rd dose at 20-30 weeks after the 2nd dose and an equally large control group that did not. Main outcomes were medical records of common complaints seen in primary care for up to 90 days after the treatment.
Results Depending on type of complaint, the estimated 90-day cumulative incidence varied between 70 and 5000 per 100 000 individuals. Among individuals aged 18-44 years, the number of medical complaints was lower for individuals with three doses: Fatigue: 662, 95% confidence interval=473-850, shortness of breath: 160 (90-230) and brain fog: 65 (22-108) fewer per 100 000 vaccinated. No decrease in incidence was observed for musculoskeletal pain, cough or heart palpitations. When individuals where censored from the analysis from the date of positive SARS-CoV-2 test, these absolute differences were smaller. Similar analyses gave higher estimates among individuals aged 45-70 years, yet more ambiguous results when censored at positive test.
Conclusion Individuals vaccinated with dose 3 had reduced incidence of complaints compared to matched controls with only 2 doses. Analyses with vs without censoring at positive test implied that this reduction might be explained by a reduced COVID-19 incidence among the 3-dose-vaccinated.
Background
Fatigue and respiratory complaints like cough and shortness of breath are the most common persistent complaints after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection, typically defined as the post-covid condition.1-3 We recently reported that such complaints are equally common after omicron infection as after delta infection.2 The effect of mRNA vaccination on such post-covid complaints is unclear. It is also not known whether vaccine reactogenicity can lead to similar complaints in the short and long term.4
A recent rapid review reported that individuals vaccinated with 1 or 2 doses were less likely to develop symptoms of long-covid.5 However, most of the reviewed studies conditioned on positive SARS-CoV-2 test after vaccination, hence the effect of vaccination on reduced incidence of COVID-19 was not accounted for. In this way, no total effect estimate exists to shed light on whether post-covid complaints can be prevented in a general population.5 Rather, current effect estimates likely underestimate the incidence of complaints like fatigue and cough in the vaccinated individuals, and are affected by collider bias.6-7 Indeed, the largest study to date, which was conditioned on individuals with COVID-19 reported lower vaccine effects on post-covid complaints than expected.8 Existing studies also do not consider that vaccination against COVID-19 may give side effects, which may be similar as the complaints typically regarded as post-covid complaints.
Improved knowledge of the total effects of 3rd dose vaccination on medical complaints is needed to understand its consequences for the health services. Any observed health service consequences may be used in public health decisions of whether a 4th dose should be offered, for example during fall 2022, when a half year has passed since most of the population received the 3rd dose. In most western countries, the 3rd dose was recommended for almost all adults. Around 50% of the adult population in Norway had received the 3rd dose around five to six months after the 2nd dose.9 The National Immunization Program of Norway initially recommend a minimum of 24 weeks to pass between the 2nd and 3rd dose, later changed to 20 weeks, yet a large part of the population had their 3rd dose as late as 30 weeks after the 2nd dose.9
We had two objectives: 1) to examine whether individuals vaccinated with three doses of mRNA vaccines between 20 and 30 weeks after 2nd dose vaccination have an altered risk of medical complaints up to 90 days after their vaccination compared to individuals who were not, and 2) to examine whether any altered incidence is likely due to a different COVID-19 incidence between groups. Our objectives covered men and women in their working age, in two groups: aged 18-44 years and aged 45-70 years.
Methods
Using data from the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness Register 10 in a prospective cohort study, we studied individuals who were aged 18 to 70 years and living in Norway on January 1st, 2021. The register includes data from all vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus from the Norwegian Immunization Registry (SYSVAK); all testing for SARS-CoV-2 (polymerase chain reaction tests - PCR) as registered in the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases Laboratory Database (MSIS-Lab) from the beginning of the pandemic; and all medical records from primary care (used here: general practitioners and emergency wards) from the Norwegian Register of Primary Health Care (KPR) and specialist care from the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR). It also includes data on background characteristics such as age, sex and country of birth from the National Population Register (FREG), education level from Statistics Norway and cause-specific deaths from the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry. The Ethics Committee of South-East Norway confirmed (June 4th 2020, #153204) that external ethical board review was not required.
Participants
Our inclusion criteria were all individuals aged 18-70 years living in Norway and who had at least 2 doses with mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection, from January 1st to August 16th, 2021. Individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 (positive PCR test) and/or who were registered with one or more of the main outcome measures within one year prior to the date of their 2nd dose of vaccination were excluded as it may have influenced the probability of having the 3rd dose. Similarly, individuals who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test after their 2nd dose but before 20-30 weeks after their 2nd dose (i.e. their date of possible inclusion), individuals who were hospitalized (inpatient or outpatient), died or emigrated as well as individuals who had one or more of the main outcome measures after their 2nd dose but before their inclusion date were excluded from the pool of eligible individuals from the date of their event and onwards, whichever came first. By updating the pool of eligible individuals on a day-by-day basis, we aimed to minimize potential selection bias arising from individuals being less likely to have 3rd dose due to the experience of side effects from the 1st and/or 2nd dose, or due to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. By excluding individuals with already prevalent complaints (our outcome measures), we could ensure that we studied incident complaints.
Treatment groups
Our treatment comparison of interest was having vs not having a third dose of mRNA vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus at a minimum of 20 weeks and a maximum of 30 weeks after the 2nd dose of mRNA vaccine against the virus (with the latest possible date of vaccination being January 31st 2022). The eligibility criteria implied a varying number of eligible individuals on each day of the 20-to-30-week period as described above. To mimic, as close as possible, the situation of a randomized controlled trial where individuals were randomized to either receiving the 3rd dose or not at the time when the 3rd dose was made available to them, we used longitudinal matching, day-by-day, i.e. with the time scale for matching being the number of days passed since dose 2.11 Thus, to obtain treatment and control groups that were similar on the selected set of background characteristics, we used exact 1:1 matching, day-by-day, based on the following set of possible confounders: the calendar month of the second dose, age (by year), sex (male/female), education level (missing or no education; primary school; upper secondary school; >1 year college/university), birth country (Norway/abroad), previous all-cause primary healthcare use (2017-2019), numbers of hospital admissions (since 2020), and number of comorbidities (0, 1, 2, or 3 or more). Day 0 was set to the date of 3rd dose vaccination registered in the Norwegian Immunization Registry. Controls having no such record were assigned the same date as their matched case, and we regarded this date as the controls’ day 0, on which they chose not to have a 3rd dose of mRNA vaccine. Treatment comparisons were stratified in groups of individuals aged 18-44 years and aged 45-70 years.
Outcome measures
Our main outcome measures were the most common complaints that are reported to be typical post-covid complaints and that also may be considered as mild side effects of mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 (Table 1). Outcomes were recorded at the general practitioner or emergency ward in medical records12 from day 0 (vaccine date or hypothetical vaccine date) and up to 90 days after day 0: fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, cough, heart palpitations, shortness of breath and brain fog. We allowed for having multiple types of complaints. If an individual had multiple records with the same complaint within the follow-up period of interest (or combination of diagnostic codes indicative of the complaint, as categorized in Table 1), we chose the first one.
To shed light on potential mechanisms explaining our findings, we also studied the following secondary outcomes: 1) fractures of the lower leg or lower arm (International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 codes S92 and S52), as a negative control outcome with an assumed similar incidence in treated and untreated, 2) positive SARS-CoV-2 test (usually mild disease), 3) hospitalization with COVID-19, measured as being hospitalized from -2 to +14 days from the date with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (usually severe disease) and 4) all-cause mortality, again counting days from day 0 and up to 90 days after day 0.
Medical recording to the National registries is mandated by law in Norway, ensuring no missing data or outcome data in our study. Norwegian health register data have been demonstrated to have high validity and reliability in a small comparative study of medical journal notes and medical records12, i.e. they may be used for studying patterns of health care use and complaints leading to health care use.
Statistical analyses
Construction of matched sample
We had two time scales of importance for construction of our matched sample and intervention period: 1) the calendar month of receiving the 2nd dose, and 2) the number of weeks or days passed since receiving the 2nd dose (20-30 weeks, translating to 140-210 days) (S-Figure 1). The two time scales were aligned in the construction of the matched sample and intervention period, ensuring that for each possible day of being vaccinated with a third dose in the intervention period, we selected the eligible individuals who received the third dose on that day and all eligible controls that day. Second, the selected individuals with three doses were exactly matched to one control in the pool of eligible individuals who had not yet received a third dose on that given day. If no exact match existed, the selected individual with three doses was excluded. When repeating the matching for the following day of a possible day for 3rd dose vaccination, we excluded the already matched controls from the eligibility pool to ensure that no controls were included several times. The similar time passed since 2nd dose vaccination for a case and control in a pair, as well as the inclusion of calendar month of receiving the 2nd dose as a matching covariate made the treatment and outcomes independent of periodical- or seasonal variations in vaccination and healthcare use. Further, our matching approach ensured that the individuals to be compared were similar on all other selected characteristics except for the vaccination status on any given date or day falling between 20 and 30 weeks (day 0) after the 2nd dose of mRNA vaccination.
Main analyses of matched sample
The time scale used in the analyses of the matched sample was the number of days from the vaccination, with individuals followed up to a maximum of 90 days. Time 0 was set to the date of (hypothetical) third dose of vaccination. The construction of the matched sample was assessed using difference in bone fractures during the 90 days of follow-up as a negative control outcome. We also assessed immediate behavioral responses to treatment and/or potential residual confounding by studying incidence curves for positive SARS-CoV-2 tests the first 7 days, i.e. when no vaccine effect is to be expected due to build-up of immunity.
To assess the effect of vaccination on the incidence of medical complaints in primary care, we structured our analyses of the main outcome measures to mimic an intervention study with two arms. We constructed cumulative incidence curves using the Kaplan-Meier estimator with having 3 vaccine doses (three-dose group) vs not having 3 vaccine doses (control group) as treatment variable and estimated the difference in cumulative incidence at 90 days after vaccination, in the number of individuals per 100 000 individuals (with 95% confidence interval (CI) and in relative percent change. If a matched control had a 3rd dose after the matching (day 0), he or she was censored from the date of the control’s 3rd dose vaccination and onwards, together with the treated case. The pairwise censoring was performed to avoid that censoring is dependent on treatment; an approach that has also been used in other studies with similar design13-16 (see also Iwagami et al.17 for a discussion of joint censoring of matched pairs). Besides the pairwise censoring if the control had the 3rd dose mRNA vaccine after the date of matching (day 0) as described above, observations were censored from the date of death or emigration, whichever came first.
Individuals who had one of the main outcome measures in question, for example cough, were allowed to have any of the other main outcome measures in question, for example fatigue, both prior to and after the cough if both occurred after day 0. In this way, the intervention studied captured the effects of mRNA vaccination with three doses and no waning of vaccine effects vs not having three doses (and having between 20 and 30 weeks of waning effect of the second doses) on the incidence of our main outcome measures for up to 90 days after the third dose, assuming no competing risk between outcome events.
Sub-analyses of matched sample
Finally, to explore potential mechanisms explaining our findings, we performed two sub-analyses. First, after assessing the 90-day incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 test, we repeated the main analyses with censoring of observations from the date of positive SARS-CoV-2 test. These analyses were assumed to isolate any side effects resulting in health care use, of 3 dose vaccination vs no 3 dose vaccinations. To account for changes in test criteria from January 24th, 2022, when only individuals with 2 doses were required to have a PCR test9 if they suspected COVID-19, cases and controls were only followed until January 24th, 2022 in these analyses and were censored from this date and onwards (if January 24th fell within an individual’s 90-day follow-up period).
Second, we performed an assessment of healthy vaccinee bias by studying group differences in COVID-19 related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. If healthy vaccinee bias is present, we would expect group differences before there should be any group differences in vaccine studies, typically up to day 7. Group differences in all-cause mortality might indicate healthy vaccinee bias in vaccine effectiveness studies based on observational data.18
All analyses were run in STATA SE v.16.
Results
Of all 3,722,969 individuals aged 18-70 years living in Norway on January 1st, 2021, 1,228,554 individuals met our inclusion criteria at 20 weeks after the 2nd dose of mRNA vaccination. In total, 924,284 individuals received their 3rd dose of mRNA vaccine on one of the days between 20 and 30 weeks after their 2nd dose and met the inclusion criteria. The pool of eligible controls amounted to 304 284 individuals at 20 weeks after the 2nd dose and gradually decreased up to 30 weeks. By 30 weeks, 138,581 (15%) of individuals vaccinated with 3 doses and fulfilling the inclusion criteria were successfully 1:1 matched to an individual fulfilling the inclusion criteria who was not (yet) vaccinated with 3 doses (N=138,581, 46% of all eligible controls). Thus, our study sample consisted of 277,162 individuals equally distributed across the three-dose group and the control group (Figure 1). In total 60,603 (44%) individuals in the control group had their 3rd vaccine dose after inclusion. These and the treated case to whom they were matched were censored from the vaccination date and onwards if the date fell inside the 90-day follow-up period.
Note: “Excluded: Non-eligible persons” include individuals with 0, 1, or 4 vaccine doses; vaccinated with 2nd dose after 16th of August; less than 140 days between 2nd and 3rd dose; testing positive before the date of (hypothetical) 3rd dose; experiencing any of the outcomes before the date of (hypothetical) 3rd dose; having any hospital contact between 2nd and (hypothetical) 3rd dose; or dying or migration before (hypothetical) 3rd dose.
The treated cases and untreated controls were similar on all measured characteristics (Table 2) and there were no group differences in the incidence of an outcome (bone fractures) that should be randomly distributed across the treated and untreated (S-Figure 2). Incidence curves for positive SARS-CoV-2 test the first 7 days (i.e. prior to expected vaccine effectiveness) were different by treatment group (Figure 2, Figure 3), suggesting there might be (age-dependent) behavioral responses to the treatment and/or residual confounding.
Note: Figure shows the cumulative incidence of visiting the general practitioner or emergency ward with common complaints for up to 90 days after a (hypothetical) date of third dose of mRNA vaccines, per 100 000 individuals for individuals under the age of 45. Red curve shows individuals with three doses (treatment group) and green curve shows the control group consisting of individuals without three doses. Shaded areas show 95% confidence intervals. Risk table shows the number available in each group at 0, 30, 60, and 90 days, with the numbers of failures between each time interval in parentheses.
Note: Figure shows the cumulative incidence of visiting the general practitioner or emergency ward with common complaints for up to 90 days after a (hypothetical) date of third dose of mRNA vaccines, per 100 000 individuals for individuals 45 years or older. Red curve shows individuals with three doses (treatment group) and green curve shows the control group consisting of individuals without three doses. Shaded areas show 95% confidence intervals. Risk table shows the number available in each group at 0, 30, 60, and 90 days, with the numbers of failures between each time interval in parentheses.
Main analyses: Effects of vaccination on medical complaints
Depending on outcome, the 90-day incidence of complaints was ∼70 to ∼5000 per 100 000 individuals, and generally lower in the treated group than in the control group (Figure 2, Table 3).
Per 100 000 individuals aged 18-44 years vaccinated with three doses, there were 662, 95% CI=473-850 fewer individuals with fatigue, 160 (90-230) fewer individuals with shortness of breath, and 65 (22-108) fewer individuals with brain fog, all measured at up to 90 days after day 0 and compared to 100 000 individuals not vaccinated with three doses (Table 3). There were no group differences in musculoskeletal pain, cough, or heart palpitations (Figure 2, Table 3). These estimates reflect that the risk of fatigue, shortness of breath and brain fog is around 20% to 40% lower in individuals vaccinated with 3 doses vs individuals not vaccinated with 3 doses (and who have 20-30 weeks waning effects of the second vaccine dose) (Table 3).
Corresponding estimates for individuals aged 45-70 years were similar or somewhat higher for outcomes fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain fog (Table 3). In addition, there were important group differences for cough, with 433 (311-554) fewer individuals per 100 000 vaccinated than per 100 000 unvaccinated (Table 3, Figure 3).
Sub-analyses: Assessment of altered COVID-19 incidence
In individuals aged 18-44 years, the 90-day incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 test was 17 896 (15 490-20 400) per 100 000 among controls and 9708 (8190-11 490) per 100 000 among treated cases, implying 8088 (5139-11 036) fewer infections per 100 000 individuals vaccinated with three doses compared to individuals not vaccinated with three doses (Figure 2). The corresponding numbers for 45-70-year-olds were 10 273 (9030-11 680) vs 3747 (2650-5280) per 100 000, i.e. a difference of 6 526 (4678-8372) (Figure 3).
No group differences were observed for any of our main outcome measures in analyses with censoring of observations from the date of positive SARS-CoV-2 test and onwards, in individuals aged 18-44 years (limited to January 24th to account for changing test criteria) (S-Figure 3). For individuals aged 45-70 years, these analyses resulted in similar or somewhat higher estimates than in analyses without censoring (Table 3, S-Figure 4)).
Sub-analyses: Assessment of potential healthy vaccinee bias
Among individuals aged 18-44 years, the COVID-19 hospitalization rates were similar for the vaccinated and unvaccinated the first 7 days, and all-cause mortality was similar across groups throughout the follow-up period (Figure 2), suggesting no healthy vaccinee bias. Group differences in COVID-19 related hospitalization were only evident from around day 50 to day 90 after treatment (Figure 2).
In contrast, among individuals aged 45-70 years, there were group differences in both outcomes, both prior to, and after days 7 (Figure 3), suggesting that individuals who were already ill refrained from having the vaccine, potentially leading to bias in the analyses of the oldest age group.
Discussion
In this observational study of vaccine effects on medical complaints seen in primary care in 277 162 individuals aged 18 to 70 years, we found that individuals vaccinated with three doses at 20 to 30 weeks after the second dose had 20% to 40% lower risks of fatigue, cough, shortness of breath and/or brain fog, for up to 90 days after the date of vaccination when compared to individuals who were not. When individuals aged 18-44 years where censored from the analysis from the date of positive SARS-CoV-2 test, these absolute differences were smaller, indicating that the differences in complaints were partly due to difference in COVID-19 incidence. Similar analyses gave more ambiguous results for individuals aged 45-70 years, potentially due to healthy vaccinee bias.
Comparison to previous studies
To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore whether 3rd dose mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 affects complaints as seen in primary care. Our findings of no immediate increase in any outcome immediately after 3rd dose vaccination are consistent with recent studies reporting no excess risk of fatal events except for myocarditis.19 Further, we shed new light on recent studies of mRNA vaccination with 1 or 2 doses reporting lower prevalence of post-covid complaints following vaccination compared to no vaccination.6, 20 For example, a retrospective study reported incidences of respiratory failures of around 15% for vaccinated vs 10% for unvaccinated 6 months after all participants had a positive test.21 An important limitation of these and other studies8 is that only participants with confirmed COVID-19 were included, implying that the effect of vaccination on reduced incidence of COVID-19 was not accounted for, likely underestimating vaccine effectiveness.5-7 Other issues preventing an effective comparison of findings to previous studies are differences in inclusion criteria/methodology (retrospective sampling vs longitudinal matching) as well as differences in measurement methods of main outcome measures (patient-reported vs medical records). Medical records, as used in the current study, might be hypothesized to be less sensitive to changes in health than patient-reported measures, yet they are well suited to capture the symptoms’ burden on health services.
Our study sheds new light to previous findings of post-covid complaints8,20,21 by providing an effect that for the first time is not conditioned on previous or later SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our estimates imply that around 65 to 650 fewer individuals per 100 000 vaccinated would experience complaints following vaccination with a 3rd dose than following no vaccination with a 3rd dose. These estimates were lowered in analyses with censoring of observations from the date of positive SARS-CoV-2 test (at least for the youngest age group, 0 for most outcomes), suggesting that the reduced incidence of complaints may be explained by a lower COVID-19 incidence among the vaccinated individuals. Our findings of effect on complaints seen in primary care confirm the recent reports of vaccine effectiveness on severe complaints. Using similar methodology as in the current study (longitudinal matching based on observational data), several studies have reported an effect of mRNA vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 related outcomes.13-16
Interpretation and relevance
None of our analyses indicated any immediate increase in incident outcomes immediately after 3rd dose mRNA vaccination, suggesting that potential side effects may not burden primary care services. Our observations provide some important public health messages, at least in waves of transmission dominated by the omicron variant2; In countries with a lower or similar vaccine coverage as Norway, our findings may be of relevance in questions of whether a 3rd or 4th dose should be implemented. A new wave of SARS-CoV-2 transmission may be hypothesized to hit during fall 2022, approximately six months after the majority received the 3rd dose, with a potentially high burden on the primary care services. If the effect of the 3rd dose on the primary care services is waning to the same extent as may be the case with the 2nd dose, as shown over half a year in the current analyses, there may be reasons for authorities to recommend a 4th dose.
In that regard, our study was based on an already implemented intervention, with some important implications for the interpretation of our effects estimates. For example, we had the uncommon situation of fewer controls than cases, i.e. a higher proportion of controls than cases were selected into our sample. Because of the matching procedure, where cases were selected only if they had a control and vice versa, our estimate is not an average treatment effect. Rather, our effect estimates are closer to the treatment effect in the non-vaccinated than to the average treatment effect.22 That is, our estimates convey the effect of vaccination in those who did not receive it, which is still a useful estimate when it comes to relevance to the health services and policy makers in how to handle e.g. a new wave of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
Some of our findings should be interpreted with care. For example, estimates for 18-44-year-olds may imply that the lower incidence of post-vaccine complaints in the three-dose group could be explained by the lower COVID-19 incidence in this group. However, there were few observations towards the end of follow-up (as a result of censoring of events from January 24th and onwards, when test criteria changed). Another reason for a cautious interpretation is the possibility of differences in test patterns, disease duration and severity across comparison groups, which could not be captured with routinely collected register data.
Strengths and limitations
Important strengths of our study were a population-based study sample, the use of longitudinal methods for sampling and estimation and the systematic approach attempting to identify all potential sources of bias. Our results can be generalized to western countries with similar healthcare systems like Norway, i.e. with free access to healthcare.
We also had several limitations. First, healthy vaccinee bias or confounding by indication may explain our findings for the oldest age group, which was demonstrated in the analyses of (age-specific) all-cause mortality.18 For example, individuals with a history of bleeding episodes and individuals who were medicated with beta blockers where recommended to consult a physician prior to vaccination.23 Thus, we cannot rule out that particularly older and comorbid individuals in the control group refrained from having the third dose due to poor underlying health, and, accordingly, had a higher level of healthcare use in general. This potential bias seemed not to be an issue among individuals aged 18-44 years. However, although we excluded individuals with confirmed ongoing SARS-CoV-2 infection from the eligibility pool on a day-by-day basis, we cannot rule out that there may have been more suspected COVID-19 in the control group around day 0 in this age group. Immediate behavioral responses to treatment or residual confounding might explain the high incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests seen up to day 7 in Figures 2-3.
A second limitation is that strict selection criteria led to the exclusion of 85% of the eligible individuals who received three doses, raising questions regarding representativity of findings. We excluded individuals with prevalent complaints recorded in primary care, implying we might have studied a sample of very healthy people. A third limitation was the changing test criteria throughout the follow-up period, giving small and imprecise estimates from 60 to 90 days after the date of vaccination in the analyses with censoring of events from the date of positive test and onwards. Finally, we might have too rough outcome measures to detect vaccine effects.
Conclusion
Individuals vaccinated with a 3rd dose mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 at 20 to 30 weeks after their 2nd dose had lower incidence of COVID-19 and post-covid complaints than their matched controls, which might, at least partly, be explained by differences in COVID-19 incidences. These findings may be of relevance in public health questions of when and whether a 4th dose mRNA vaccine should be offered.
Data Availability
The dataset of this study was the Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19 (Beredt C19), which is a property of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health that was provided to the researchers through a restricted-access agreement that prevents sharing the dataset with a third party or publicly. Individual-level data of patients included in this paper after de-identification are considered sensitive and will not be shared. However, the individual-level data in the registries compiled in Beredt C19 are accessible to authorized researchers after ethical approval and application to "helsedata.no/en" administered by the Norwegian Directorate of eHealth. Data requests may be sent to "service@helsedata.no".
Funding
The study was funded internally by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication. No external funding was received.
Competing interests
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Data availability statement
The dataset of this study was the Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19 (Beredt C19), which is a property of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health that was provided to the researchers through a restricted-access agreement that prevents sharing the dataset with a third party or publicly. Individual-level data of patients included in this paper after de-identification are considered sensitive and will not be shared. However, the individual-level data in the registries compiled in Beredt C19 are accessible to authorized researchers after ethical approval and application to “helsedata.no/en” administered by the Norwegian Directorate of eHealth. Data requests may be sent to “service{at}helsedata.no“.
Code availability
All computer codes used to analyze the data relevant in this study were written and run in STATA SE v. 16. The custom codes developed to reproduce the results are available upon request.
Inclusion & ethics
The Ethics Committee of South-East Norway confirmed (June 4th 2020, #153204) that external ethical board review was not required. The data sources (The emergency preparedness register for COVID-19 (Beredt C19)) and methods used were regarded by the ethical committee to respond to research aims not falling within the Law of Health Research §§ 2 and 4a. Their resolution was also based on the fact that the data sources were established and handled in accordance with the Health Preparedness Act §2-4 (11), enabling a quick and responsive way for the Norwegian government to access knowledge of how to handle the pandemic. No informed consent from participants was required since our study was based on routinely collected register data covering the entire Norwegian population. Data from the different registers included in the study were linked by the responsible researchers using an encrypted personal ID-variable. The researchers responsible for the data linkage and analyses had no access to the unencrypted ID-numbers. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. To protect participants privacy and security of personal data, all data were handled under strict confidentiality and access control as described in the Norwegian Institute of Public Health’s internal documentation.
Supplementary file for the paper
Distribution of 3rd dose over days after 2nd dose
Note: Figure shows a histogram over the number of days between 2nd dose and 3rd doses for all persons aged 18 to 70 in Norway. Lower panel focuses on 20 weeks (140 days) to 30 weeks (210 days).
Fractures of lower leg or lower arm.
Note: The cumulative incidence per 100 000 of lower arm or lower leg fractures for up to 90 days after (hypothetical) date of third dose of mRNA vaccines for those under 45 years old (left panel) and those over 45 years old (right panel). Red curve shows persons with three doses (treatment group) and green curve shows the control group consisting of persons without three doses.
Shaded areas show 95% confidence intervals.
< 45 years old censored with positive test.
Note: Cumulative incidence of visiting the general practitioner or emergency ward with common complaints for up to 90 days of (hypothetical) date of third dose of mRNA vaccines, and prior to January 24th 2022 when test criteria for COVID-19 were changed, per 100 000 individuals. Red curve shows individuals with three doses (treatment group) and green curve shows the control group consisting of individuals without three doses. Shaded areas show 95% confidence intervals.
≥ 45 years old censored with positive test.
Note: Cumulative incidence of visiting the general practitioner or emergency ward with common complaints for up to 90 days of (hypothetical) date of third dose of mRNA vaccines, and prior to January 24th 2022 when test criteria for COVID-19 were changed, per 100 000 individuals. Red curve shows individuals with three doses (treatment group) and green curve shows the control group consisting of individuals without three doses. Shaded areas show 95% confidence intervals.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Norwegian Directorate of Health, in particular Director for Health Registries Olav Isak Sjøflot and his department, for excellent cooperation in establishing the emergency preparedness register. We would also like to thank Gutorm Høgåsen, Ragnhild Valen, and Anja Elsrud Schou Lindman for their invaluable efforts in the work on the register. The interpretation and reporting of the data are the sole responsibility of the authors, and no endorsement by the register is intended or should be inferred. We would also like to thank everyone at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health who has been part of the outbreak investigation and response team.
