This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

COVID-19 Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pharmacology Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine on 2021-04-05. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was No consensus.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.035564 JFW | T@lk 13:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The almost complete omission of necessary context regarding the benefits of vaccination throughout this page make it a piece of ammo for misinformation-based vaccine hesitancy and anti-vax disinformation, because it stresses a slight risk while holding silent on the great benefits of vaccination.

As it is, this page discusses only the risks of vaccination, and omits to mention that the risks of coagulation from pandemic COVID-19 are many-fold higher. This lack of necessary context misdirects the attention of persons needing to weigh the benefits, as well as the costs, of vaccination, by denying those who read this article and stop reading the information most salient to a vaccinate/don't vaccinate decision.

This page should, near the beginning, lay out and document the recommendation of scientific, governmental, and world health bodies regarding the desirability of vaccination.

This page should followup and explain those recommendations, and how they are based on giving due weight to the risks of non-vaccination, including hyper-coagulation, caused by COVID-19 and risked by those failing to get vaccinated. These risks should be shown as ongoing into the future for the un-vaccinated individual, as wave after wave of increasingly contagious and virulent COVID virus pass through world society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't about the vaccines as a whole. It's about the post-vaccination clotting events. Pages for the COVID-19 vaccines as a whole and the individual ones implicated are linked in the first paragraph of the lead. No matter how noble the cause of wanting everyone to get vaccinated is, we don't violate/ignore our policies and guidelines on how to craft articles to do so. You may also wish to see our rule on including "disclaimers" in articles (such as what you suggest adding to this article). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter thread, direct link. TL;DR: a mouse model shows that VITT happens if, and only if adenovirus vector enters the blood stream after an accidental intravenous injection, because then platelets and adenovirus stick together and are attacked by the immune system together. Yes, I didn't expect it be that simple either. Ain92 (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And BTW, in replies I found this video from April discussing the same thing and it seems that this hypothesis was proposed as early as mid-March in Denmark. Ain92 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination be renamed and moved to Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)). Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination → Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia – The current name makes it difficult to find the article, causes it to not show up in Google searches, and violates WP:UCRN (and WP:OR?)

We should use one of the five names used in academia/medicine, of which "Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT)" appears to be the most accurate and most commonly-used in Google Scholar searches. I think "Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS)" is more vague and so should not be used. The others are all synonymous, so we should go with whichever is most well-known.

• 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]

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 @BarrelProof. The "Vaccine-associated thrombotic thrombocytopenia" (VATT) name (mentioned in the paywalled article above) doesn't declare a cause-and-effect relationship, so I was leaning that direction. However, 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 Covid-19 vaccination, not general vaccination. Taking out Covid-19 from the title will just cause more confusion. ^{(♔ ♕)}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]