Trends in reporting embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination: A retrospective, pharmacovigilance study.

With the progression of global vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), embolic and thrombotic events (ETEs) following COVID-19 vaccination continue to be reported. To date, most reports on the type of COVID-19 vaccine and ETEs have been based on clinical trials, and other reports include a small number of cases. Further, the relationship between the type of COVID-19 vaccine and ETEs has not been clarified. It is important to elucidate trends in the development of ETEs after vaccination, which is a crucial concern for both prospective patients and healthcare providers. In this retrospective, pharmacovigilance study, we analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports from January 1, 2020 to June 18, 2021, and performed signal detection and time-to-onset analysis of adverse events by calculating the reported odds ratio (ROR) to understand ETE trends after COVID-19 vaccination based on the vaccine type. Using VAERS, we could collect data about several ETEs associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Nine adverse events associated with ETEs were reported following the administration of viral vector vaccines. The median time to ETE onset was 6 (interquartile range: 2-17) days for mRNA vaccines and 11 (interquartile range: 4-21) days for viral vector vaccines. This study suggests that VAERS aids in disequilibrium analysis to examine the association between vaccine type and ETEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, the tendency to develop ETEs and the number of days taken to develop ETEs varied depending on the type of the COVID-19 vaccine. Thus, vaccinators and healthcare providers should consider the primary diseases associated with ETEs while selecting vaccines for administration and carefully monitor patients following vaccination for potential ETEs based on the characteristics of vaccine type-specific onset period.

Introduction

The two types of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines currently used in several countries are mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2 (Comirnaty®) and mRNA-1273 (Spikevax®), and adenovirus vector-based vaccines, such as Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine®) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Vaxzevriar®). Although vaccination is being promoted worldwide to reduce the spread of COVID-19, thrombosis after viral vector vaccination has been reported [1]. The clinical manifestations of embolic and thrombotic events (ETEs), which include arterial and venous ETEs, vary depending on the site of onset and include cerebral venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and myocardial infarction. Importantly, ETEs may adversely affect prognosis. The incidence of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia following vaccination, also referred to as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) [2], after the first ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination has been reported as 15.1 cases per million doses, whereas the incidence is 1.9 cases per million doses after the second vaccination [3]. Thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination is considered by the European Medicines Agency to be rare [4], but it is an adverse event that can have a substantial impact on life expectancy. In some European countries, such as the United Kingdom and Norway, measures have been taken to restrict the administration of the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine to certain age groups. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended a moratorium on the administration of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

Owing to such adverse events, the use of adenovirus vector-based vaccines was discontinued in Japan until August 23, 2021, and only mRNA vaccines were used. Currently, the administration of an adenovirus vector-based vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) has resumed, but is limited to individuals aged >40 years. In addition, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health recommends mRNA vaccination and restricts the availability of adenovirus vector-based vaccines [5].

However, no signs of thrombosis have been reported in the clinical trials of each COVID-19 vaccine [6]. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination has been reported in patients aged 18–60 years [7, 8]. One study suggested that the development of VITT following the administration of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 could be attributed to a direct interaction between platelets and the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein produced after viral vector vaccination [9], which suggests that the risk of VITT after vaccination with adenovirus vectors may be higher with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 than with Ad26.COV2. The mechanisms and factors that contribute to the development of ETEs after COVID-19 vaccination are still being investigated. Both venous and arterial systems have been reported as the sites of thrombosis caused by TTS after vaccination, and TTS is characterized by cerebral venous thrombosis, which is more frequent and associated with hemorrhage than normal cerebral venous thrombosis. On the other hand, thrombosis after the administration of mRNA vaccines has also been reported in pharmacovigilance studies, prospective or retrospective analyses of vaccinated populations, and large prospective post-marketing studies [10]. To date, few reports have examined the relationship between the COVID-19 vaccine type and ETEs. A recent study that used a large adverse event reporting database reported that the risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was higher with the administration of mRNA vaccines than with that of adenovirus vector-based vaccines [11]. However, studies on ETEs caused by adenovirus vector-based vaccines are limited to a small number of cases. The currently approved vaccines vary across countries. However, as COVID-19 vaccination progresses, many people who are about to be vaccinated, as well as healthcare providers and caregivers, are likely to be interested in the type of vaccine they receive and in knowing the risk of ETEs after vaccination.

The relationships among drugs, adverse events, and the number of days till the development of a specific adverse event have been examined using adverse drug event reporting databases. Therefore, we hypothesized that a similar approach, using a large vaccine adverse event reporting database, could be followed in our study. This study aimed to analyze trends in the incidence of ETEs associated with specific COVID-19 vaccines based on data obtained from a large vaccine adverse event reporting database. Considering that VITT is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein produced after viral vector inoculation, we aimed to identify ETEs attributable to the type of COVID-19 vaccine because the tendency to develop ETEs may differ depending on the type of the administered vaccine. We used the reported odds ratio (ROR) method, one of the methods used in disequilibrium analysis, to assess ETEs based on the COVID-19 vaccine type. Importantly, a case report noted the development of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) two weeks after vaccination with the mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 [12]. A systematic review reported the development of VITT within 1 week (4–19 days) after the first dose of a viral vector-based vaccine [13]. Despite the small number of cases, these reports raise the possibility of a difference in the number of days until the development of ETEs depending on the type of vaccine. Therefore, we analyzed the number of days to the onset of ETEs based on the COVID-19 vaccine type using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which includes data on a large number of cases.

Materials and methods

Study design and creating a database

We conducted a retrospective, pharmacovigilance study using data from the VAERS database. VAERS is a nationwide passive surveillance system that monitors all adverse events following vaccination in the United States. The database is open to the public and can be accessed free of charge from the respective website following agreement to the terms of use. Signs and symptoms in VAERS reports are coded using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terminology recommended by the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The database consists of three data tables: VAERS DATA, VAERS Symptoms, and VAERS Vaccine. VAERS data reported between January 1, 2020 and June 18, 2021 were retrieved for use in the present study.

The flowchart of data extraction for analysis is presented in Fig 1. We excluded incomplete or inaccurately reported data, such as data on cases with unknown sex and the type of vaccine administered, and duplicate data. Additionally, we excluded data on individuals aged <18 years, given that only individuals aged ≥18 years were eligible for COVID-19 vaccination in the United States as of June 18, 2021, as stated in the VAERS data. The time-to-onset analysis table included only data collected since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials.

Fig 1

Flowchart of the database creation.

The VAERS DATA, Vaccine, and Symptoms tables were combined using the patient identification number. Data on cases aged <18 years and on those with unknown sex or unknown vaccine type were excluded, and data on cases that received the COVID-19 vaccine were extracted. Duplicate data were deleted.

Definition of embolus and thrombus

MedDRA/J ver24.0 Standard MedDRA Queries (SMQ) and System Organ Class terms were used to identify the ETEs. The term “emboli and thrombi” (SMQ: 20000081) includes “arterial emboli and thrombi” (SMQ: 20000082), “emboli and thrombi of unknown or mixed vessel type” (SMQ: 20000083), and “venous emboli and thrombi” (SMQ: 20000084). Therefore, the definition of “embolus and thrombus” (SMQ: 20000081) encompasses embolic and thrombotic symptoms regardless of the vessel type. In addition, “general disorders and administration site conditions,” which are considered as local adverse reactions associated with vaccination, were excluded from the ETEs. Further, “injury, poisoning, and procedural complications,” “surgical and medical procedures,” “social circumstances,” and “product issues,” which were unlikely to be directly related to vaccination, were also excluded from the ETEs. Therefore, in this study, ETEs were defined after considering these exclusion criteria (S1 Table).

Adverse events owing to COVID-19 vaccination and population

We obtained the demographic data of people who received COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. from the CDC; we excluded the demographic data of people aged <18 years to account for the age group eligible for COVID-19 vaccination. Using these data and the reports in the VAERS database, we examined the trends in the reporting of adverse events, including ETEs, after COVID-19 vaccination.

Relationship between COVID-19 vaccine type and ETEs

We extracted adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination by detecting signals using disequilibrium analysis in the database created for this study. RORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from a two-row and two-column contingency table (Fig 2), and Fisher’s exact test was performed. Because ROR cannot be calculated if there are zero cells in the cross tabulation table, we stabilized the parameter estimation by adding 1/2 to each cell (Haldane-Anscombe 1/2 correction) [14]. Vaccine types affecting ETE incidence were identified by creating a scatter plot (Volcano plot) with the logarithm of the ROR (lnOR) on the horizontal axis and the negative logarithm of the P-value (−log[p]) based on Fisher’s exact test on the vertical axis [15, 16]. In this study, adverse events with more than 100 reports were included in the analysis to extract credible RORs based on the precedents of large-scale spontaneous adverse drug event reporting database analyses, such as the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and the Japanese Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Database [17, 18].

Fig 2

Cross tabulations and formulas for reported odds ratios (RORs) of embolic and thrombotic events (ETEs) after coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vaccination.

(a) Number of cases of ETEs caused by viral vector vaccines. (b) Number of cases of ETEs attributed to mRNA vaccines. (c) Number of cases of other adverse events caused by viral vector vaccines. (d) Number of cases of other adverse events attributable to mRNA vaccines. ROR was calculated using the formula shown.

Time-to-onset analysis

We used the Weibull distribution for the time-to-onset analysis. The shape parameters of the Weibull distribution can be used to define the hazard without referring to a reference population [17-19]. Cases with blank or unclear onset data and vaccination dates of adverse events were excluded, and cases with an adverse event onset of ≤1 year since the vaccination were included in the analysis. Median onset, quartiles, and Weibull shape parameter (β) were used to evaluate the onset profile of adverse events.

Statistical analysis

Disequilibrium analysis was performed to detect signals of adverse events. We considered that a signal was present when the lower limit of the 95% CI of the calculated ROR was >1. The Weibull distribution method was used to analyze the time to ETE onset. JMP Pro version 15.0 (SAS) was used for all analyses, and a P-value of <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Results

Creating a database

Data were extracted from the VAERS DATA (1,196,423 records), Symptoms (1,196,163 records), and Vaccine (1,196,422 records) tables. The final cohort for data analysis included 345,779 records (S2 Table), of which 334,741 records were used for time-to-onset analysis (S3 Table).

Adverse events due to COVID-19 vaccination

A total of 7144 and 1705 ETEs were reported for mRNA and adenovirus vector-based vaccines, respectively, in the VAERS database. Among the recipients who received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the number of overall adverse events was 21.7 per 10,000 compared with 0.54 per 10,000 for ETEs (Table 1).

Table 1

Number of adverse events, including ETEs reported after COVID-19 vaccination and their trends in the United States (January 1, 2020–June 18, 2021).

		Vaccine type
	Total	mRNA [%]	Adenovirus vector[%]
Total U.S. population (2019) [18+ years]	255,369,678	-	-
People administered at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine	162,637,990	-	-
Adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination a	345,779	313,123	32,656
		[90.6]	[9.4]
ETEs after COVID-19 vaccination a	8,849	7,144	1,705
		[80.7]	[19.3]
After COVID-19 vaccination b
Number of adverse event cases (per 10,000 population)	13.1
Number of ETE cases (per 10,000 population)	0.33
After administration of at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine c
Number of adverse event cases (per 10,000)	21.7
Number of ETE cases (per 10,000)	0.54

a Number of reported adverse events/ETEs after COVID-19 vaccination in the VAERS database according to vaccine type.

b Number of reported adverse events/ETEs after COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. demographic data according to vaccine type.

c Number of reported adverse events/ETEs after COVID-19 vaccination aggregated according to each vaccine type was based on the number of people who received at least one dose of the vaccine and demographic characteristics of the population receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Between January 1, 2020 and June 18, 2021, 345,779 individuals were reported to have received COVID-19 vaccinations according to VAERS, of which 8,849 (2.6%) were reported to have thromboembolism. Fig 3 shows the volcano plot displaying the ROR and statistical significance of the relationship between the type of COVID-19 vaccine and the adverse events likely to occur after vaccination. Briefly, adverse events in the upper right corner of the scatter plot are more likely to be caused by viral vector vaccination, whereas adverse events in the upper left corner are more likely to be caused by mRNA vaccination. For the adenovirus vector-based vaccine, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ROR was >1 for nine ETEs, and a signal was detected (Table 2). In particular, CVST and superficial thrombophlebitis showed a high ROR. The adverse events signaled in this study were mostly consistent with those reported to date. In addition, mRNA vaccines showed a tendency to induce acute myocardial infarction.

Fig 3

Volcano plot of ETE according to vaccine type in the United States (January 1, 2020–June 18, 2021).

This figure shows the relationship between the type of COVID-19 vaccine and adverse events. The horizontal axis represents the logarithm of the ROR (lnOR) and the vertical axis represents the negative logarithm of the P-value (−log[p]) determined using Fisher’s exact test. The horizontal line in the figure represents the −log[p] = 1.3 (p = 0.05) reference line. The value of a + b indicates the number of adverse events reported, whereas the color change from blue to red indicates the number of reports. The higher the number of adverse events in the upper right corner of the scatter plot, the more likely they are to be induced after vaccination with the viral vector vaccine (S4 Table).

Table 2

Reported odds ratios of ETE according to vaccine type in the United States (January 1, 2020–June 18, 2021).

Adverse event	ROR	95% CI	P-value*	a + ba
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis	5.70	3.91–8.31	< .0001	111
Superficial thrombophlebitis	3.97	2.80–5.63	< .0001	143
Thrombosis	2.94	2.63–3.27	< .0001	1702
Deep vein thrombosis	2.90	2.56–3.28	< .0001	1318
Pulmonary thrombosis	2.21	1.64–2.99	< .0001	254
Pulmonary embolism	2.09	1.86–2.35	< .0001	1754
Hemiparesis	1.83	1.45–2.31	< .0001	474
Ischemic stroke	1.65	1.12–2.44	0.023	183
Cerebrovascular accident	1.30	1.13–1.50	0.001	1587
Acute myocardial infarction	0.70	0.49–1.00	0.040	419

a Indicates the number of cases in which the relevant adverse event was reported.

* Fisher’s exact test

Analysis of ETE-Onset time based on vaccine type

The time-to-onset analysis table included 305,607 records of mRNA vaccines and 29,134 records of adenovirus vector-based vaccines. The median onset times of ETEs after vaccination with the mRNA and adenovirus vector-based vaccines were 6 days (interquartile range: 2–17 days) and 11 days (interquartile range: 4–21 days), respectively. The incidence of ETEs was higher at approximately 1 and 2 weeks after administration of mRNA and adenovirus vector-based vaccines, respectively. The shape parameter (β) of the mRNA vaccines was 0.83 (0.82–0.85), indicating that ETEs tended to develop relatively early after vaccination. For the adenovirus vector-based vaccines, the β value was 1.06 (1.02–1.10), indicating that ETEs tended to occur after a certain period following vaccination (Table 3, Fig 4).

Table 3

Median time-to-onset of ETEs after COVID-19 vaccination.

	Scale parameter		Shape parameter		n	Median	Interquartile range
Vaccine type	α	95% CI	βa	95% CI		(days)	25%	75%
mRNA vaccine	12.2	11.8–12.6	0.83	0.82–0.85	6884	6	2	17
Adenovirus vector-based vaccine	15.4	14.6–16.2	1.06	1.02–1.10	1549	11	4	21

a If the shape parameter and 95% CI are <1, the hazard is estimated to be decreasing rapidly over time (initial failure type profile).

Fig 4

Histogram of the Weibull distribution in the United States (January 1, 2020–June 18, 2021).

The top of each histogram shows the median (the middle line of the box) and the 25th and 75th quartiles (the two ends of the box). The whiskers represent the farthest point from each end of the box by a factor of ±1.5 and show the largest and smallest values (excluding outliers) of the data within the range. The confidence diamond contains the mean and the 95% CI above and below the mean. The brackets outside the box indicate the shortest range where 50% of the data is dense.

If the shape parameter is or is almost equal to 1 and the 95% CI includes the value 1, the hazard is estimated to be constant over time (contingent failure profile). If the shape parameter is >1 and the 95% CI does not include the value 1, the hazard is estimated to have a maximum value at a specific time (wear-out failure profile).

Discussion

The total numbers of adverse events and ETEs reported after vaccination with adenovirus vector-based vaccines were lower than those reported after vaccination with mRNA vaccines. However, the proportion of ETEs reported after the administration of adenovirus vector-based vaccines was higher than that of all adverse events. This observation is supported by a considerable number of case reports of ETEs after adenovirus vector-based vaccination.

Currently, the mechanism of ETE development after COVID-19 vaccination is unclear. However, VITT and CVST have been reported to be associated with ETEs after viral vector vaccination [1]. The VAERS database includes spontaneous reports; therefore, the direct calculation of risk factors is not possible. However, in this study, we used signal detection index, a commonly used statistical method, to calculate ROR. The nine adverse events that were observed through signal detection in this study did not include VITT but included CVST and thrombosis, especially deep vein thrombosis.

Both the total number of adverse events and the number of ETEs were lower after adenovirus vector-based vaccine administration than those after mRNA vaccine administration. Conversely, the adverse events identified through signal detection were more likely to be induced by adenovirus vector-based vaccines. Adverse events such as thrombosis, including CVST, tended to occur more frequently after adenovirus vector-based vaccine administration than after mRNA vaccine administration; therefore, not only vaccine recipients but also healthcare providers must be aware of these adverse events after vaccination. Furthermore, the vaccine type with the least chances of adverse events and ETEs should be considered for administration to recipients with underlying cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease.

Cases of TTS and CVST have also been reported after vaccination with BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 [20, 21]. Cases of acute myocardial infarction and myocarditis/pericarditis that were reported as adverse events after the administration of mRNA vaccines are currently under continuous evaluation; however, no significant association between these adverse events and vaccines has been found [22-24]. The present study supports these findings by suggesting that there is a tendency for the development of acute myocardial infarction after mRNA vaccination. Cardiovascular adverse events, such as acute myocardial infarction, are more likely to occur after mRNA vaccination than after adenovirus vector vaccination. As acute myocardial infarction may have a substantial impact on life expectancy, the vaccine type should be considered for vaccine recipients with a current medical history of cardiovascular diseases.

Regarding adverse events related to mRNA vaccines, paroxysmal ventricular arrhythmia related to vaccine administration was reported in subjects aged ≥16 years in a clinical trial of BNT162b2, a COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech [25], and four cases of myocardial infarction were reported in subjects aged ≥18 years in the COVE trial of mRNA-1273, a COVID-19 vaccine developed by Moderna [26]. On the other hand, 11 cases of venous thromboembolism were reported in subjects aged ≥18 years in the EN-SEMBLE study of Ad26.COV2.S, an adenovirus vector-based vaccine developed by Janssen and Johnson & Johnson [27]. However, the small number of reports suggests that their validity as evidence for vaccine-related cardiovascular events is insufficient. We found a significant relationship between vaccines and ETEs based on the statistical analysis of a large-scale adverse event reporting database. We acknowledge that the comparison of RORs in spontaneous reporting databases, such as VAERS, requires careful attention owing to the presence of various biases. To avoid simple comparisons of RORs, we considered the number of reports and the results of Fisher’s exact tests together with RORs to achieve semi-quantitative analyses. This analytical approach is based on the hypothesis that a signal detection index supported by the number of reports and P-values has excellent credibility. The current study findings provide further evidence to address the cause for concern regarding the small number of cardiovascular events reported in clinical trials. However, our rationale for a greater risk of acute myocardial infarction with the mRNA vaccines compared with the adenovirus vector-based vaccines is not sufficiently robust because it is based on a borderline P-value (P = 0.04), a relatively mild ROR (ROR = 0.70 [95% CI: 0.49–1.00]), and a relatively small number of reports (n = 419). Clarification of this issue requires the accumulation of data from clinical studies evaluating the risk of vaccine-related acute myocardial infarctions.

Our analysis of the time to ETE onset based on the COVID-19 vaccine type revealed that the time to ETE onset for mRNA vaccines peaked at 6 days and lasted approximately 2 weeks. For the adenovirus vector-based vaccines, the time to ETE onset peaked at 11 days and lasted approximately 3 weeks, suggesting that the time to ETE onset varies depending on the vaccine type. The findings of the current study utilizing a large database differ from those of clinical reports. However, interpreting the trends in adverse events reported by clinical studies is challenging owing to the small number of reports. Conversely, large databases comprising a large number of reports can reveal trends in ETE-onset time based on the vaccine type as well as identify trends in the occurrence of fatal adverse events, such as ETEs.

Limitations

Thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination is a rare adverse event, and the benefits of vaccination must take precedence [28]. The highlight of this study is that individuals yet to receive the vaccine should not decline receiving it, but they should be provided a safety profile after vaccination.

There are several limitations to this study: the VAERS analysis was based on passive surveillance, and reporting bias could have occurred due to both underreporting owing to lack of awareness or compliance with reporting requirements and overreporting owing to increased awareness due to media coverage, among others [29]. Therefore, it was not possible to quantify the true risk. For example, the ROR only examines the increased risk of adverse event reporting and cannot assess the risk of developing adverse events. Therefore, caution should be exercised in interpreting the results from the VAERS database. Further studies including stratification by age and sex are expected to provide more rigorous warnings of adverse events.

Conclusions

The use of a large vaccine adverse event database was an effective method to collect data on adverse events caused by vaccines that are rarely reported in clinical practice and to evaluate the trend and time of ETE occurrence based on the COVID-19 vaccine type. This study’s methodology may complement a small number of post-vaccine adverse event reports, such as those from clinical trials, in post-vaccine adverse events that have a significant impact on patient quality of life. Our study’s findings suggest that not only should the population be vaccinated but also that the healthcare workers and caregivers should consider the current medical history of the vaccine recipient during the selection of the specific COVID-19 vaccine type. In addition, as it was suggested that the onset time of ETEs differed depending on the vaccine type, the vaccine recipients should be carefully monitored not only immediately after vaccination but also for a certain period thereafter. Further investigation, including the evaluation of ETEs stratified by age and sex, will provide more details on ETEs associated with COVID-19 vaccination. It is hoped that this will aid in taking precautions against ETEs associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

Definition of ETEs.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Data analysis table.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

Time-to-onset analysis table.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

Volcano plot.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

7 Jan 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Hammad, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please be careful to revise your manuscript based on reviewers’ feedback.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1-Please indicate the study design with acommonly used term in the title or the abstract.

2-Please state specific objectives including any prespecified hypothesis ( more details are needed)

In the inroduction last section.

3-in methods section : please present study design early in the paper,describe the setting of the study

In line 65 what is meant by nationwide in which country?

In line 66 what ICH stands for?

State the commercial names of the vaccines mentioned in the study.

For participants state clearly the inclusion and exclusion criteria in obvious point and not to be repeated in many sites in the manuscript and the case definitions as mentioned.

In lines 103&104 what meant by FEARS AND JADER.

STUDY SIZE: explain how it was arrived and the final size.

BIAS:describe efforts to address potential bias.

Statistical analysis: describe all statistical methods used to control for confounders and methods used to examine subgroups and interactions.

4-funding : give the source of funding &the role of funders for the present study.

Reviewer #2: There are clear weaknesses in the paper that the authors must particularly pay attention and handle:

• The major problem of this work is that its novelty and the theoretical contribution are so limited. So, the authors should modify it carefully and improve the novelty of this paper. Also, the authors should provide solid motivation for their work based on the existing literature.

• The abstract must summarize the performance evaluation results.

• The related work papers are only descriptive (1 or 2 sentences per paper) and there are insufficient descriptions of the pros and cons of the work that is cited.

• Figures need to be amended, where the resolution is not clear which makes it difficult to read.

• The results should be further analyzed, more details and further discussion of the simulation results is needed.

• The conclusions section should conclude that you have achieved from the study, contributions of the study to academics and practices, and recommendations of future works.

• The list of references should be reformatted and checked again to be matched with the journal requirement where a different styles and types are used. Please check some spells and typos.

• The paper is hard to read due to the language. The authors should make their manuscript proofread by a native English speaker (lot of typos are avoidable using a speller).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

23 Feb 2022

Response to Reviewer #1

Comment 1

Please indicate the study design with acommonly used term in the title or the abstract.

[Response 1]

We consider the design of this study to be a "retrospective, pharmacovigilance study".

The title has been revised as follows. (P1, L1)

“Relationship between vaccine type and embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination: a retrospective, pharmacovigilance study”

The abstract has been revised as follows. (P1, L16)

“In this retrospective, pharmacovigilance study, we analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports from January 1, 2020 to June 18, 2021 and performed signal detection and time-to-onset analysis of adverse events by calculating the odds ratio to understand ETE trends after COVID-19 vaccination based on the vaccine type.”

Comment 2

Please state specific objectives including any prespecified hypothesis ( more details are needed).

[Response 2]

In this study, we thought that by using a large database of adverse vaccine events, we would be able to analyze the trends in the occurrence of ETEs related to the COVID-19 vaccine, for which the number of cases is small in clinical trial data.

The purpose of this study has been revised in the final section of the introduction as follows. (P5, L77)

“The relationships between drugs and adverse events and the number of days till the development of a specific adverse event have been examined using adverse drug event reporting databases. Therefore, we hypothesized that a similar approach, using a large vaccine adverse event reporting database, could be followed in our study. This study aimed to analyze trends in the incidence of ETEs associated with specific COVID-19 vaccines based on data obtained from a large vaccine adverse event reporting database.”

Comment 3-1

in methods section : please present study design early in the paper,describe the setting of the study.

[Response 3-1]

A section "Study design and Creating a Database" was added to Materials and Methods, and the following information about setting up a study design was added. (P6, L96)

In addition, some additions and modifications were made to Fig. 1 to make it more detailed. (Fig1.)

“Study design and Creating a Database

We conducted a retrospective, and pharmacovigilance study using data from the VAERS database.”

Comment 3-2

In line 65 what is meant by nationwide in which country?

[Response 3-2]

VAERS is a nationwide passive surveillance system that monitors all adverse events following vaccination in the United States.

Therefore, we have made the following amendment. (P6, L98)

“VAERS is a nationwide passive surveillance system that monitors all adverse events following vaccination in the United States.”

Comment 3-3

In line 66 what ICH stands for?

[Response 3-3]

This was the abbreviated name of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Therefore, it has been revised as follows. (P6, L102)

“…the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH).”

Comment 3-4

State the commercial names of the vaccines mentioned in the study.

[Response 3-4]

The name of each vaccine has been added as follows. (P2, L33)

“The two types of COVID-19 vaccines currently used in many countries are mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2 (Comirnaty®) and mRNA-1273 (Spikevax®), and adenovirus vector-based vaccines, such as Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine®) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Vaxzevriar®).”

Comment 3-5

For participants state clearly the inclusion and exclusion criteria in obvious point and not to be repeated in many sites in the manuscript and the case definitions as mentioned.

[Response 3-5]

In the definition of ETEs addressed in this paper, System Organ Class terms that are locally or unlikely to be directly related to vaccination have been excluded from this definition.

In the "Definition of Embolus and Thrombus" section of Materials and Methods, we have included the following details regarding the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the definition of adverse events. (P7, L120)

“The term "emboli and thrombi" (SMQ: 20000081) includes "arterial emboli and thrombi" (SMQ: 20000082), "emboli and thrombi of unknown or mixed vessel type" (SMQ: 20000083), and "venous emboli and thrombi" (SMQ: 20000084). Therefore, the definition "embolus and thrombus" (SMQ: 20000081) encompasses embolic and thrombotic symptoms regardless of the vessel type. On the other hand, "general disorders and administration site conditions," which are considered as local adverse reactions associated with vaccination, were excluded from the ETEs. In addition, "injury, poisoning, and procedural complications," "surgical and medical procedures," "social circumstances," and "product issues," which were unlikely to be directly related to vaccination, were excluded from the ETEs.”

Comment 3-6

In lines 103&104 what meant by FEARS AND JADER.

[Response 3-6]

FAERS was an abbreviation for FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and JADER was an abbreviation for the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database. We would like to revise the official name. Therefore, we have made the following correction. (P8, L148)

“…, such as the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and the Japanese Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Database [17,18].”

Comment 3-7

STUDY SIZE: explain how it was arrived and the final size.

[Response 3-7]

In the Materials and Methods section, in the "Study design and Creating a Database" section, we have added details about cleaning data tables as follows. (P6, 106)

“Below is the flowchart showing the extraction of data for analysis in the present study (Fig 1). We excluded incomplete or inaccurately reported data, such as data on cases with unknown sex and type of vaccine administered, and duplicate data. Additionally, we excluded data on individuals <18 years of age, considering the age for COVID-19 vaccination in the United States as of June 18, 2021, as stated in the VAERS data. The time-to-onset analysis table included only data collected since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials.”

We have added a "Creating a Database" section at the beginning of the results and added the scale of the tables created in this study as follows. (P10, L171)

“Creating a Database

Data were extracted from the VAERS DATA (1,196,423 records), Symptoms (1,196,163 records), and Vaccine (1,196,422 records) tables. The final cohort for data analysis included 345,779 records, of which 334,741 records were used for time-to-onset analysis.”

Comment 3-8

BIAS: describe efforts to address potential bias.

[Response 3-8]

As a way to deal with reporting bias in the database, we have set up data table cleaning and definition of adverse events (ETEs).

For more information on cleaning data tables, please refer to Comments 3-7.

For the definition of ETEs, please refer to Comment 3-5.

Comment 3-9

Statistical analysis: describe all statistical methods used to control for confounders and methods used to examine subgroups and interactions.

[Response 3-9]

The statistical analysis method used in this study has been added. (P9, L165)

“Disequilibrium analysis was performed to detect signals of adverse events. We considered a signal to be present when the lower limit of the 95% CI of the calculated ROR was greater than 1. A Weibull distribution was performed to analyze the time to ETE onset. JMP pro version 15.0 (SAS) was used for all analyses, and P-value <0.05 was considered significant.”

Comment 4

funding : give the source of funding &the role of funders for the present study.

[Response 4]

No funding was received for this study. The following has been added to clarify the role of the authors. (P21, L354)

“Funding acquisition: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.”

Response to Reviewer #2

Comment 1

There are clear weaknesses in the paper that the authors must particularly pay attention and handle: The major problem of this work is that its novelty and the theoretical contribution are so limited. So, the authors should modify it carefully and improve the novelty of this paper. Also, the authors should provide solid motivation for their work based on the existing literature.

[Response 1]

We have re-examined this paper in terms of its novelty and theoretical contribution.

�  Novelty: It provides an analysis of the onset time after vaccination using a large-scale adverse event database.

�  Theoretical contribution: We proposed a vaccine-type selection method for COVID-19 vaccine-associated ETE that takes into account the expression trend and the primary disease and showed the importance of follow-up that takes into account the characteristics of the onset time.

�  Motivation for this study: Although the expression trends of ETEs reported so far have been obtained from a small number of reports, we thought that a large-scale database of adverse vaccine events would be useful to obtain a more accurate picture of the incidence trends of ETEs.

Comment 2

The abstract must summarize the performance evaluation results.

[Response 2]

The content of the abstract has been re-examined and revised to show the results of the performance evaluation. (P1, L20)

The content of the abstract has been re-examined and revised to show the performance results.

“Using VAERS, we were able to collect information on a large number of ETEs associated with COVID-19 vaccination.”

(P1, L24)

“This study suggests that VAERS may aid in a disequilibrium analysis to examine the association between vaccine type and ETEs after COVID-19 vaccination.”

Comment 3

The related work papers are only descriptive (1 or 2 sentences per paper) and there are insufficient descriptions of the pros and cons of the work that is cited.

[Response 3]

Thank you for your suggestion.

We have reviewed the research design and the strengths and weaknesses of the cited papers and revised the text.

In these cited papers, we have added the names of the vaccines and the populations of the vaccine recipients to indicate that there are restrictions on the target age groups and that there have been reports of ETEs in adenovirus vector-based vaccines. (P3, L57)

“Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination has been reported in patients aged 18–60 years [7-8]. One study suggested that the development of VITT following the administration of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 might be attributable to a direct interaction between platelets and the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein produced after viral vector vaccination [9].”

In this section, we have described the research designs and types of studies reported in the cited references and indicated the shortcomings of the small number of reports. (P4, L66)

“On the other hand, post-vaccination thrombosis has also been reported following the administration of mRNA vaccines in pharmacovigilance reports, prospective or retrospective analyses of vaccinated populations, and large prospective post-marketing studies [10].”

In these cited papers, the names of the vaccines administered were clearly indicated, and the shortcomings of both mRNA vaccines were shown, but the causal relationship is not clear at this point. (P17, L269)

“Cases of TTS and CVT have also been reported after vaccination with BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 [20,21]. On the other hand, cases of acute myocardial infarction and myocarditis/pericarditis that were reported as adverse events after the administration of mRNA vaccines are currently under continuous evaluation; however, no significant association between these adverse events and vaccines has been found [22-24].”

Comment 4

Figures need to be amended, where the resolution is not clear which makes it difficult to read.

[Response 4]

Thank you for your suggestion.

We have improved the resolution of the figures. (Fig1-4)

Comment 5

The results should be further analyzed, more details and further discussion of the simulation results is needed.

[Response 5]

In the Discussion section, we have re-examined the results obtained. We have created a section based on the results.

�  "Adverse Events and Population due to COVID-19 Vaccination" section were added to discuss trends in reporting of adverse events and ETEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Trends in reporting of adverse events and ETEs after COVID-19 vaccination was discussed. (P16, L246)

“Adverse Events due to COVID-19 Vaccination

The total number of adverse events and the number of ETEs reported after vaccination with adenovirus vector-based vaccines were lower than those reported after vaccination with mRNA vaccines. Nevertheless, a higher proportion of ETEs were reported following the administration of adenovirus vector-based vaccines compared with all adverse events. This observation is supported by a noticeable number of case reports of ETEs after adenovirus vector-based vaccination.”

�  In the "Relationship between COVID-19 Vaccine Type and ETE" section, we reviewed the results on ETE and vaccine type with previous reports and reexamined the suggestions for practice. (P17, L263)

“Adverse events such as thrombosis, including CVT, tended to occur more frequently after the administration of adenovirus vector-based vaccines than mRNA vaccines; therefore, not only recipients but healthcare providers must also be aware of these adverse events after vaccination. Furthermore, the vaccine type with the least chances of adverse events and ETEs should be considered for administration to recipients with underlying cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease.”

(P17, L273)

“The present study supports these reports by suggesting that there might be a tendency for the development of acute myocardial infarction after mRNA vaccination. Cardiovascular adverse events, such as acute myocardial infarction, may be more likely to occur after mRNA vaccination than after vaccination with adenovirus vectors. As acute myocardial infarction may have a significant impact on life expectancy, the vaccine type should be considered for vaccine recipients with a current medical history of cardiovascular diseases.”

�  The section "Analysis of ETE Onset Time by Vaccine Type" discusses the difference between the ETE onset time obtained from the big data and the ETE onset time of a small number of cases reported so far, and the usefulness of a large database. (P19, L305)

“The findings of the current study utilizing a large database differ from those of clinical reports. However, the interpretation of the trends in adverse events reported by clinical studies is challenging owing to the small number of reports. On the other hand, the large number of reports from large databases can uncover trends in ETE-onset time based on vaccine type, and a large database may be useful in identifying trends in the occurrence of fatal adverse events, such as ETEs.”

Comment 6

The conclusions section should conclude that you have achieved from the study, contributions of the study to academics and practices, and recommendations of future works.

[Response 6]

A new section on Conclusion has been added to consolidate research results and recommendations for practice and future research. (P20, L325)

“Conclusions

The use of a large vaccine adverse event database was an effective method to collect information on adverse events caused by vaccines that are rarely reported in clinical practice and to evaluate the trend and time of ETE occurrence based on the COVID-19 vaccine type. Our findings suggest that not only should the population be vaccinated but also that the healthcare workers and caregivers should consider the current medical history of the vaccine recipient during the selection of the specific COVID-19 vaccine type. In addition, the vaccine recipients should be carefully monitored not only immediately after vaccination but also for a certain period thereafter. Further investigation, including studies evaluating adverse events based on stratification by age and sex, might lead to the development of more rigorous warnings about adverse events associated with vaccination against COVID-19.”

Comment 7

The list of references should be reformatted and checked again to be matched with the journal requirement where different styles and types are used. Please check some spells and typos.

[Response 7]

Thank you for your suggestion.

The style of the references has been unified into the Vancouver style.

We also conducted a spell check.

Comment 8

The paper is hard to read due to the language. The authors should make their manuscript proofread by a native English speaker (a lot of typos are avoidable using a speller).

[Response 8]

Thank you for your suggestion.

The manuscript was proofread and spell-checked by a native English speaker.

Submitted filename: Reviewers Responses to Questions.docx

Click here for additional data file.

11 Mar 2022

7 Apr 2022

Response to Reviewer #1

Comment 1

As the results of the study were based on ROR and data were self reported this should be obviously indicated in the title to Avoid misleading so I strongly suggest changing it to start with "Trends in reporting ETE after Covid 19 vaccination ...." instead of the term relationship.

[Response]

Thank you for the suggestion.

The title has been revised as follows to avoid misleading the reader. (P1, L1)

“Trends in reporting embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination: a retrospective, pharmacovigilance study”

Response to Reviewer #2

Comment 1

The abstract must be revised again to include the main performance evaluation results regarding the previous works.

[Response]

This manuscript addresses the fact that previous studies have reported only a small number of cases of ETEs. Therefore, we have revised the beginning of the Abstract as follows: (P1, L12)

“With the progression of global vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), embolic and thrombotic events (ETEs) following COVID-19 vaccination have been reported. To date, most reports on the type of COVID-19 vaccine and ETE have been based on clinical trials, and other reports include a small numbers of cases. Further, the relationship between the type of COVID-19 vaccine and ETE has not been clarified.”

Comment 2

Please make sure that all keywords have been used in the abstract and the title.

[Response]

We considered the following keywords in this manuscript: COVID-19 vaccine, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), embolic and thrombotic events (ETEs), and reported odds ratio (ROR).

We have added "reported odds ratio (ROR)" to the abstract and confirm that the other keywords are used in the abstract or title. (P1, L18)

“In this retrospective, pharmacovigilance study, we analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports from January 1, 2020 to June 18, 2021, and performed signal detection and time-to-onset analysis of adverse events by calculating the reported odds ratio (ROR) to understand ETE trends after COVID-19 vaccination based on the vaccine type.”

Comment 3

Figures still need to be amended, where the resolution is so bad which makes it difficult to read.

[Response]

Thank you for the suggestion.

We have revised Figure 3 to make it easier to read. All figures have been revised to the appropriate size and resolution using PACE (https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/).

Comment 4

The conclusions section still need to revised to address the main contributions of the study to academics and practices, and recommendations of future works.

[Response]

We have reexamined the Conclusion section and revised it.

The following was added as a contribution to academics. (P20, L330)

“This study's methodology may complement a small number of post-vaccine adverse event reports, such as those from clinical trials, in post-vaccine adverse events that have a significant impact on patient quality of life.”

The following was added as a contribution to practice. (P20, L335)

“In addition, as it was suggested that the onset time of ETEs differed depending on the vaccine type, the vaccine recipients should be carefully monitored not only immediately after vaccination but also for a certain period thereafter.”

We have made the following revisions as recommendations for future research. (P20, L337)

“Further investigation, including the evaluation of ETEs stratified by age and sex, will provide more details on ETEs associated with COVID-19 vaccination. It is hoped that this will aid in taking precautions against ETEs associated with COVID-19 vaccination.”

Comment 5

A thorough proofreading is still required (best by a native English speaker).

[Response]

Thank you for your suggestion.

We have performed the native check again in accordance with your suggestion.

Submitted filename: Responses.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 May 2022

Trends in reporting embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination: a retrospective, pharmacovigilance study

PONE-D-21-38996R2

Dear Dr. Uesawa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The current revision of the manuscript improves the original quality of the original version. Reviewer's comments seem to be satisfactorily addressed. The suggestion is therefore for accepting the paper in the present form.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

22 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-38996R2

Trends in reporting embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination: a retrospective, pharmacovigilance study

Dear Dr. Uesawa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yoshihiro Fukumoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE