Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination: Difference between revisions

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This Thrombosis Research article discusses the names:

  We believe the name “VITT” works well, for two reasons. First, the term clearly denotes the key features of the disorder, and the sequence of letters provides a useful mnemonic for disease recognition in the usual sequence of events: … Second, the term “VITT” itself need not mandate that thrombosis be present … Another term used in the United States … “TTS” … highlights the two key clinical features of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia but without denoting either preceding vaccination or alluding to its immune-mediated pathogenesis. This term has limited clinical utility, since many conditions … present with the duad of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia

• The Lancet Haematology says:

  Although initially several terms were used to describe the syndrome, such as vaccine-associated thrombosis with thrombocytopenia and vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia, the term that has gained widespread use is vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome has also been used, but it is a more general term that can be caused by other conditions, such as antiphospholipid syndrome and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

• UpToDate has a summary of the latest information: COVID-19: Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT)

  VITT antibodies bind to platelets via an eight amino acid region of PF4 on the platelet surface, located within the heparin binding site [4]. VITT antibody binding is blocked by heparin. The amino acids bound by VITT antibodies overlap with but differ from the amino acids bound by HIT antibodies, and VITT antibody binding to platelets is stronger than HIT antibody binding. … Other adenoviral vaccines have been administered to large numbers of individuals without reported cases of VITT. Examples include Ad5-based COVID-19 vaccine (CanSino Biologics), Gam-COVID-Vac/Sputnik V (Gamaleya Institute), and Ad26.ZEBOV-GP (recombinant) Ebola vaccine (Janssen Biologics).

• Article from November 2021:

  VITT is an immune-based complication of adenoviral-based vaccines used to immunize against SARS_CoV2.

• Article from November 2021:

  The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine has been shown to induce Vaccine-induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT)

— Omegatron (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Relisting. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Pharmacology has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Agree VITT is the more common term and the one used among experts. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: the article in Thrombotic Research comes to the following conclusion (they use a lot more scientific reasoning as well, that I'm omitting for copyright's sake):

We believe the name “VITT” works well, for two reasons. First, the term clearly denotes the key features of the disorder, and the sequence of letters provides a useful mnemonic for disease recognition in the usual sequence of events...Second, the term “VITT” itself need not mandate that thrombosis be present

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source. They also argue against "TTS", for not "denoting either preceding vaccination or alluding to its immune-mediated pathogenesis" and say it has "limited clinical utility, since many conditions…present with the duad of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia" — Omegatron (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is the question if Covid-19 should be removed from the title or not (and that fundamentally alters the scope of the article. There is also the question we are looking at adenovirus based vaccines or not. And article content needs to match the title. Now there is a claim the event is linked to the adenovirus. [1], (Not a MEDRS source but there may be a MEDRS source behind it). It should be noted a lot of the article relates to research back from April 2021; and relatively little from recent months has been included. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally opined as a non-profession that (Long, Bridwell & Gottliib, 2021)[2] title Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines fairly well encompasses what the article is currently about. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning oppose: The proposed name asserts a cause-and-effect relationship that is not in the current title and does not seem fully established. It also changes the scope substantially, to include non-COVID-19 vaccinations. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I was wondering about the concern raised by @

  PMID 34407607 (review article published in June in a reputable medical journal) seems to consider the connection settled, at least with respect to two of the vaccines, so perhaps that's not as important as my first thought suggested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  If future research changes the name to "Adenovirus-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia" or something like that, then we can rename the article at that time. But for now, this is the generally-accepted term for the syndrome, so the article title should reflect that. — Omegatron (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, "induced" asserts a cause-and-effect relationship. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and I think at this point the consensus of experts is that there is a cause and effect relationship with certain vaccines. A rare event, but still a cause and effect. Getting the vaccine increases your risk of having a thrombotic event. Same with the virus itself, but likely via different mechanisms. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So you're opposed to the name because you don't believe there's a cause and effect relationship? — Omegatron (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed multiple concerns. If you look a little earlier in the conversation you'll see what I said. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I believe its important to review the language the
  World Health Organisation (WHO), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and similar agencies trusted by WHO, e.g. UK MHRA who judge consensus of experts. In general I believe they are not using VIIT; certainly not in communications to the public as far as I am aware. In particular these risks are now reported on the advice leaflets with the medicines on EMA / (UK)MHRA Janssen: [3], [4][5], [6] & EMA / (UK)MHRA Vaxzevria: [7], [8], [9]. VIIT is not in the terminlogy in use. I'd also note that the relevant agencies are fully accepting some the high likihood of the specific Coivd-19 vaccinations correlating to the occurrence of some specific disorders in a small number of cases, i.e. rarely. There is also a case that these rare risks, not better quantified, can be handled within each article, whicch was not necessarily the case March/April 2021. 01:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs
  )

  What term do those organizations use, then? The links you posted just describe the problem, rather than giving it a name. "Thrombosis (formation of blood clots in the blood vessels) in combination with thrombocytopenia (low levels of blood platelets) and Guillain-Barré syndrome (a neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system damages nerve cells) may affect up to 1 in 10,000 people". In technical documents they use VITT, too: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clinical-investigation-and-management-of-covid-19-vaccine-induced-thrombosis-and-thrombocytopenia — Omegatron (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: This page is clearly about effects following
  ♔ ^♕)15:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Are there other vaccines that cause this effect? COVID vaccines and Zabdeno are the only approved adenovirus vector vaccines so far? We should be using the term most commonly used in medical literature, not inventing a new term that isn't used by any professionals. — Omegatron (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - last two words used in the new location target are not words we use every day. Include Covid-19 or similar in the title is better for everyone instead of using rarely used words. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "Embolic" and "thrombotic" are words we use every day? Or are you proposing a different article title? — Omegatron (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The consensus by the relevant experts is that this phenomenon should be labelled VITT. So far it seems to be unique in COVID-19 vaccines but that is not guaranteed, as both adenoviral and mRNA vaccines are likely to be continued to be used for other infections. JFW | T@lk 13:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am concerned with disruptions to this discussion. If I view the changes in the nomination between when I made this first comment: Special:Diff/1060950319, my oppose !vote at Special:Diff/1061163539, and a recent edit at Special:Diff/1061467924 by nominator Omegatron doing significant undated modifications such as Special:Diff/1061246417. There is a question if people have arrived here due to an undue CANVAS. Ultimately Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) (main definition of acronym?) has been subject to BLUDGEONing, and responses so far in this matter on expect consensus are somewhat VAGUEWAVE. These's money and kuos in Coivd-19 vaccines; and some excellent research in this syndrome and vaccine cost/risk/benefit; the article perhaps lagging some newer information; though discussion and improved sourcing on the article in the past few days is welcome. I have reconsidered over the past few days whether the article should be put up deletion or merger; I have moved away from those thoughts. I do accept the title is best moved from the name Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination, I think I am further moving to the view COVID-19 is probably best removed from the title. The entomology of the syndrome is interesting to say the least. I have some thoughts Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia may be the best title, but I WHO/EMA/MHRA(UK) acknowledge but seem reluctant to use VIIT, possibly for vaccine hesitancy reasons? ... seeming to prefer (Post vaccination) Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS) even in this document updated in December 2021 for example. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What's the

  WP:CANVAS concern? Advertising on wikipedia project talk pages? Or something else? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Nom. contacted a number of poeple [10] .. e.g. Special:Diff/1061321198 with the comment: "Hi, you're one of the top 10 contributors to this article" whilst linking to xtools. I have concerns some who were in the top ten on xtools at the time were no contacted, while others who were outside the xtools top ten 'at the time were. The detailed analysis of that would be tough because even xtools has multiple metrics. In practice from the point of the likely this specific move !vote outcome the deep analysis of that does not look relevant. 09:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. I agree that the current title is not the best, but the proposal is no better. We need an article COVID-19 vaccination side effects or similar. Maybe rescope this article to be the basis of that? Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: Respectfully disagree with re-scoping this article to COVID-19 vaccination side effects; basically those are covered in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Content sections of each individual vaccine. But if you do want to do that I'd suggest a clean slate TNT fresh start to a clearer less (potentially) biased overview. But it is a valid question where does the article go from here (given the rename is likely opposed currently); and after that is made certain the best plausible name is chosen. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are a general encyclopedia. All of our articles should be titled and written with the general reader in mind. Neither the current nor proposed titles are

recognisable to this audience. And that is a problem. What is your solution to it? Andrewa (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Needing to use the old

Pluralis Majestatis and a shout of all to get the argument across? To re-state idea, possibly I accept poorly put, in the section #Confirmation article scope is to remain unchanged? below, its best to confirm the current scope of this article, or any future direction of its scope, and then get changed to a new name to reflect that scope. when its confirmed what that scope is as you are certainly questioning it. Both of those things are determined by consensus, even if I don't like the consensus, I go with it. While I think an article COVID-19 vaccination side effects is not a great idea due to high risks of POV, failure to adhere to say MEDRS, monetary considerations for vaccine manufactures, or simply failing to be fit for mainspace and maintaining accuracy there is nothing to stop whatsoever one being drafted or even presented, possibly needfully via AfC for additional eyes prior to mainspace. I believe this specific move proposal likely dead at this time, but the issues behind it remain. Feel free to add to the discussion below, start an alternative discussion, or make a specific proposal, or start the article you suggest. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: Despite being listed at RM nothing's happened, this proposal is effectively dead/statement, and could be DRV'd due to irregularties by the nominator. I hope therefore a neutral can put it out of its misery. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]