Discussion
Our cohort study observed 12%–16% fewer strokes in the population aged 70–79 years receiving the HZ live vaccine, using influenza vaccination as an active comparator, and adjusting for a wide range of confounders at baseline to control for measured confounders. Consistent findings were found for ischaemic stroke, TIA/stroke and MI outcomes; however, associations were weaker for haemorrhagic stroke. Associations did not vary significantly by patient characteristics examined. There was very limited evidence of associations weakening over time, alongside vaccine effectiveness waning.28 However, sensitivity analysis found baseline differences in stroke risk between zoster-vaccinated individuals and comparators, despite using influenza vaccination as an active comparator, and the association between zoster vaccination and stroke did not remain in SCCS analysis which controls by design for time-fixed individual-level confounders.
A cohort study compared US Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received Zostavax with propensity score-matched unvaccinated beneficiaries for a median of 5.1 years.48 They reported adjusted HRs (95% CI) of 0.84 (0.83 to 0.85) for all strokes, 0.83 (0.82 to 0.84) for acute ischaemic stroke and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for haemorrhagic stroke. These findings mirror our cohort study results, likely due to similar confounder adjustments. However, the researchers were unable to account for smoking and alcohol abuse, which we could in our analysis. While they reported stronger associations with stroke among younger beneficiaries, we found little evidence for this in our study, although our patient age range was relatively narrow. A study of US veterans also reported decreased stroke rates among those with HZ vaccination history in subgroup analysis restricted to the 30-day post-HZ infection.55 These studies did not, however, report findings from an SCCS analysis or examine stroke rates prevaccine.
There are several possible mechanisms for a causal relationship between HZ vaccination and decreased stroke risk. First via direct protection against HZ virus, a known risk factor for stroke, by blocking its effects in the central nervous system.56 Other possible mechanisms include excessive inflammation, triggering vasculopathy57 and viral infections increasing sympathetic activity, restricting blood flow and rupturing coronary plaques, resulting in strokes.56 57
Indirect protection may lower stroke risk through non-specific vaccine effects, reduction in pro-inflammatory cytokines and subsequent damage related to inflammation.58 Live attenuated vaccines, such as measles, BCG and oral polio vaccines, have shown larger mortality reductions then predicted through prevention of the vaccine-targeted disease.59–63 These benefits are suspected due to reprogramming of the innate immune response, leading to enhanced function or trained innate immunity, through epigenetic reprogramming, emergency granulopoiesis and heterologous T-cell immunity.64–67
There remained evidence of considerable healthy vaccinee bias when comparing stroke incidence among zoster vaccinees with influenza vaccinees as an active comparator, and this analysis produced similar results to an unvaccinated general population comparator. The UK shingles vaccine programme was designed to enable co-administration of shingles and influenza vaccines and our study population were eligible for both vaccines. Healthy initiator bias may arise through confounding by indication,34 and individuals with underlying conditions known to be risk factors for influenza (many of which are risk factors for stroke) were expected to be more likely to receive influenza vaccination. However, adjusting for influenza vaccine and stroke risk factors, comorbidities and mobility issues made minimal difference to the results.68 Healthy initiator bias may also arise when treatment is channelled away from frail or otherwise high-risk individuals.34 Although we adjusted for components of the electronic frailty index,41 this is only a proxy, and residual confounding by frailty may partly explain this finding. Our results suggest the determinants of influenza and HZ vaccine uptake are too different for influenza vaccine to be effective as an active comparator for HZ vaccination. There is evidence that individuals most at risk of shingles in the UK (eg, care home residents) are least likely to receive zoster vaccine.40 Healthcare access is also critical to vaccine uptake,69 and there is considerable variation between GP practices in how vaccine programmes are administered.70 The impact of comorbidities on vaccine uptake may also differ between the vaccines, particularly as live-attenuated zoster vaccine is contraindicated in immunosuppression.27 Practice-level vaccination efforts might also more effectively address access barriers for influenza than for zoster vaccination, due to incentivisation of influenza vaccination in the Quality Outcomes Framework.71 Finally, vaccine confidence is vaccine-specific, and so one uptake of one vaccine does not necessarily reflect the health beliefs of another.72
Strengths of this study include using a large population-representative primary care database linked to hospital admission data, allowing adjustment for a wide range of potential confounders. Furthermore, we used two comparator groups to evaluate the effect size and found comparable results. Possible misclassification in the recording of vaccination events in CPRD was limited due to strong effects on reduced HZ risk observed replicating previous findings and vaccine uptake rates similar to levels reported nationally.28 73 Recording of stroke was improved through linkage to hospital admission and mortality data.74 There is debate on whether to include ICD-10 code I62 ‘other non-traumatic intracranial haemorrhage’ in the definition of haemorrhagic stroke hospital admissions, hence we may have overestimated haemorrhagic stroke by including it.75 76 Our study was strengthened via extensive sensitivity analyses to check for and investigate residual confounding and healthy vaccinee bias. Possible residual confounding by frailty was reduced through adjustment for the main components of the electronic frailty index.41 Small misclassifications of exact age (and thus vaccine eligibility) were possible due to CPRD not releasing birth dates, but this is not expected to impact findings. Our study only evaluated the effect of live attenuated HZ vaccine on stroke risk, and further research is needed to investigate the effect of the recombinant vaccine on stroke and cardiovascular events.77
Cohort studies on vaccine safety produced important evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.78 However, healthy vaccinee bias is a well-recognised problem in observational vaccine studies.34 Causal inference methods offer much promise in addressing this, and plausible causal inference tools (such as active comparators) need to be tested for suitability. The graph of incidence rates before and after vaccination was valuable in detecting residual confounding. Despite small risks of immortal time bias in the prevaccine periods, we would recommend comparing prevaccine incidence rates for non-fatal events in vaccine safety and effectiveness cohort studies where data are available. The SCCS makes comparisons within individuals, so it intrinsically accounts for time-invariant confounding, whereas cohort studies are prone to this confounding by making comparisons between individuals.53 The SCCS is particularly valuable for vaccine studies, for which it was originally developed, due to examining the temporal association between accurately timed transient exposures and events. SCCS is best suited for short-term acute events, but even for hypothesised long-term effects, it is worth examining whether the effect starts occurring soon after vaccination.
An ‘active comparator’ of influenza vaccine did not enable a head-to-head comparison with zoster vaccination, despite both vaccines sharing the same delivery method and age eligibility criteria and extensive adjustments being made for health conditions recognised as risk factors for influenza and frailty components.41 68 Our study highlights the importance of taking a triangulation approach using multiple study designs such as the SCCS.79