The science of evaluation of adverse events associated with vaccination

From ancient remedies to modern miracles: tracing the evolution of vaccines and their impact on public health

This review traces the development of vaccines from ancient times to the present, highlighting major milestones and challenges. It covers the significant impact of vaccines on public health, including the eradication of diseases such as smallpox and the reduction of others such as polio, measles, and influenza. The review provides an in-depth look at the COVID-19 vaccines, which were developed at unprecedented speeds due to the urgent global need. The study emphasizes the ongoing potential of vaccine development to address future global health challenges, demonstrating the critical role vaccines play in disease prevention and public health. Moreover, it discusses the evolution of vaccine technology, from live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines to modern recombinant and mRNA vaccines, showcasing the advancements that have enabled rapid responses to emerging infectious diseases. The review underscores the importance of continued investment in research and development, global collaboration, and the adoption of new technologies to enhance vaccine efficacy and coverage. By exploring historical and contemporary examples, the article illustrates how vaccines have transformed medical practice and public health outcomes, providing valuable insights into future directions for vaccine innovation and deployment.

Review of Over 15 Years Postmarketing Safety Surveillance Spontaneous Data for the Human Rotavirus Vaccine (Rotarix) on Intussusception

Introduction

Rotavirus (RV) is the most common cause of acute gastroenteritis in children <5 years of age worldwide, and vaccination reduces the disease burden. Evidence from postmarketing surveillance studies suggested an increased risk of intussusception (IS) in infants post-RV vaccination. An overall positive benefit–risk balance for the human RV vaccine (HRV) Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline [GSK], Belgium) has been established and recent findings indicate an indirect effect of reduced IS over the long term.

Objective

The aim of this study was to discuss spontaneous data from the GSK worldwide safety database on IS post-Rotarix administration.

Methods

The database was reviewed for all spontaneous IS cases from 2004 to 2020. Additionally, an observed versus expected (O/E) analysis was done for adverse events attributed to IS. Data were reviewed as overall worldwide and stratified by region (Europe/USA/Japan) and dose.

Results

A male predominance of IS patients was observed, consistent with earlier reports. The most frequently reported events in confirmed IS cases (Brighton Collaboration Working Group [BCWG] level 1) with time to onset ≤ 30 days post-vaccination were vomiting (55.8%), haematochezia (47.2%), and crying (21.1%). The observations from the IS spontaneous cases review and results of the O/E analysis are consistent with the known IS safety profile of RV vaccines: a transient increased incidence of IS post-vaccination (primarily in Europe/Japan/worldwide), mostly within 7 days postdose 1.

Conclusion

Since the outcomes of early IS management are favourable over delayed management, healthcare professionals should inform parents about the importance of seeking immediate medical advice in case of unusual behaviour of the vaccinated infant. GSK continues to monitor the IS risk post-Rotarix administration through routine pharmacovigilance activities.

Graphic abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40264-021-01141-4.

Rotavirus (RV) is the most common cause of acute gastroenteritis and a major cause of death in young children worldwide. Vaccination has been instrumental in reducing the impact of RV disease. Real-world evidence suggests an increased risk of intussusception (an infrequent type of bowel obstruction) in infants following RV vaccination. We reviewed IS cases reported spontaneously worldwide in children following a two-dose vaccination with the human RV vaccine (Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline [GSK]) since its launch in 2004. We observed that (1) IS occurred more frequently 7 days after the first dose and, to a lesser extent, after the second dose; (2) boys were more frequently affected than girls (56.3%); (3) of 862 confirmed reported cases, 557 required hospitalisation; and (4) surgical intervention was required for 294 of 557 hospitalised cases. We used statistical analysis to assess whether the number of cases observed would be higher or lower than the natural occurrence of IS (irrespective of vaccination). These results were in line with the known RV vaccine safety profile. It is important to constantly monitor the real-world safety profile of RV vaccines in the postmarketing setting. Since the outcomes of early management of IS are favourable compared with delayed management, healthcare professionals should inform parents to seek immediate medical advice if they observe unusual behaviour in their vaccinated child. In conclusion, our analyses on data of a large patient pool for this rare event reinforce the favourable safety profile of human RV vaccine and the benefits of vaccination in young children.

Anaphylaxis and Coronavirus Disease 2019 vaccine: a danger relationship?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anaphylactic reactions reported after Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) RNA vaccines were expected to be more frequent in atopic subjects and attributed to its polyethylene glycol component.

RECENT FINDINGS

Anaphylaxis to SARS-CoV2 RNA vaccines is no more frequent than in any vaccine and direct proofs for the role of its polyethylene glycol component are lacking.

SUMMARY

Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are an essential global intervention to control the current pandemic situation. Anaphylactic reactions have rapidly been reported after SARS-CoV2 RNA vaccines. This risk is now measured at 2.5-11/1 000 000 in the context of vaccine safety surveillance programs and only one case was documented to be due to polyethylene glycol. Suggestions for its role are indirect. The COVID-19 vaccination is rolling out vastly and surveillance programs are key to monitor severe adverse reactions, such as anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis due to vaccine is extremely rare and specific cases should receive individualized investigation and care, highlighting the key role of allergists in the vaccination programmes.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Anaphylaxis: Recommendations of the French Allergy Community and the Montpellier World Health Organization Collaborating Center

Vaccines against COVID-19 (and its emerging variants) are an essential global intervention to control the current pandemic situation. Anaphylactic reactions have been reported after SARS-CoV2 RNA vaccines. Anaphylaxis is defined as a severe life-threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction. This risk is estimated at 1/1,000,000 in the context of vaccine safety surveillance programs. The COVID-19 vaccination is rolling-out vastly in different courtiers and surveillance programs are key to monitor severe adverse reactions, such as anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis due to vaccine is extremely rare and specific cases should receive individualized investigation and care. The here presented recommendations and follow-up from the French allergy community and the Montpellier WHO Collaborating Center in order to support the vaccination program and intends to support to healthcare professionals in their daily basis.

Primary ovarian insufficiency and human papilloma virus vaccines: a review of the current evidence

Human papilloma virus is the primary causative agent for cervical cancer, and vaccination is the primary means of preventing anogenital cancers caused by human papilloma virus infection. Despite the availability of human papilloma virus vaccines for more than a decade, coverage rates lag behind those for other vaccines. Public concerns regarding safety of human papilloma virus vaccines have been identified as an important barrier to vaccination, including concerns that the human papilloma virus vaccine may cause primary ovarian insufficiency, driven in part by isolated reports of ovarian failure following the human papilloma virus vaccine. We summarize published peer-reviewed literature on human papilloma virus vaccines and primary ovarian insufficiency, reviewing information contained in the case reports and series. Healthcare providers should address any patient concerns about primary ovarian insufficiency and the human papilloma virus vaccine by acknowledging the case reports but noting the lack of association found in a recently published epidemiologic study of approximately 60,000 female individuals. Current evidence is insufficient to suggest or to support a causal relationship between human papilloma virus vaccination and primary ovarian insufficiency.

A review of the safety of vaccines used in routine immunization in Africa

BACKGROUND

Despite the significant role played by vaccines in global health, concerns over vaccine safety have increased tremendously over the years. There have been occasions where vaccines have caused rare, adverse reactions some of which have led to hospitalizations and even death. It is therefore important to establish the safety profile of routinely used vaccines in order to allay fears pertaining to their use.

OBJECTIVES

This review was aimed at pooling together the safety data of selected vaccines used for routine immunization in Africa, a region of the world with paucity of vaccine safety data.

METHODS

Adverse Events Following Immunization safety data was searched for rotavirus, yellow fever, measles, rubella, tuberculosis (Bacillus Calmette Guerin-BCG), pneumococcal, Haemophilus Influenza type b, polio, meningococcal and the influenza A (H1N1) vaccines in PUBMED, Google Scholar, Clinical trials.gov and Cochrane controlled register of trials databases.

RESULTS

A total of twenty-four serious AEFIs and twenty-three minor AEFIs were identified from the review. The strength of association between AEFIs and vaccine was high for tuberculosis vaccine and moderate for all other vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Even though AEFIs (including mild and severe) were identified in the review, all the vaccines studied were generally well tolerated.

Special Immunization Service: A 14-year experience in Italy

Background

Concerns regarding vaccine safety are increasing along with lack of compliance to vaccination schedules. This study aimed to assess vaccination-related risks and the impact of a Special Immunization Service (SIS) at the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED) of Padua on vaccination compliance among participants.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cohort study included all children attending the SIS from January 1^st 2002 to December 31^st 2015. The Service is divided into a clinic (SIS-C) where all referred children undergo a pre-vaccination visit and an area within the Pediatric Emergency Department (SIS-PED) where children are vaccinated if indicated. During each SIS-C visit, age, gender, admission criteria and scheduled vaccinations were recorded, with any vaccine-related adverse events captured during SIS-PED visits. Follow-up was conducted to evaluate vaccination plan completion.

Results

359 children received 560 vaccine administrations (41.3% MMR/MMRV, 17.5% hexavalent) at the SIS during the 14 year study. Admission criteria were adverse events after previous vaccination (immediate, IgE/not IgE mediated, and late) in 27.2% of cases, non-anaphylactic allergies (mostly egg allergy) in 42.7% and anaphylaxis in 10.3%. After vaccination, 15/560 (2.7%) mild adverse events were observed. 96.3% of children vaccinated at least once at the SIS-PED and available for follow-up completed their vaccination plan, in contrast to 55.5% of children referred to the SIS-C who were not vaccinated in SIS-PED.

Conclusions

For children referred to SIS-C and available for follow-up, vaccination in SIS-PED was associated with more frequent completion of vaccination plans, indicating a benefit of the service to vaccine coverage. The low number and mild severity of adverse events reported after vaccination of high-risk children in SIS-PED attest to the safety of the service

Influenza vaccines: Evaluation of the safety profile

The safety of vaccines is a critical factor in maintaining public trust in national vaccination programs. Vaccines are recommended for children, adults and elderly subjects and have to meet higher safety standards, since they are administered to healthy subjects, mainly healthy children. Although vaccines are strictly monitored before authorization, the possibility of adverse events and/or rare adverse events cannot be totally eliminated. Two main types of influenza vaccines are currently available: parenteral inactivated influenza vaccines and intranasal live attenuated vaccines. Both display a good safety profile in adults and children. However, they can cause adverse events and/or rare adverse events, some of which are more prevalent in children, while others with a higher prevalence in adults. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of influenza vaccine safety according to target groups, vaccine types and production methods.

International Consensus (ICON): allergic reactions to vaccines

BACKGROUND

Routine immunization, one of the most effective public health interventions, has effectively reduced death and morbidity due to a variety of infectious diseases. However, allergic reactions to vaccines occur very rarely and can be life threatening. Given the large numbers of vaccines administered worldwide, there is a need for an international consensus regarding the evaluation and management of allergic reactions to vaccines.

METHODS

Following a review of the literature, and with the active participation of representatives from the World Allergy Organization (WAO), the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI), and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI), the final committee was formed with the purpose of having members who represented a wide-range of countries, had previously worked on vaccine safety, and included both allergist/immunologists as well as vaccinologists.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on a variety of topics, including: definition of immediate allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, approaches to distinguish association from causality, approaches to patients with a history of an allergic reaction to a previous vaccine, and approaches to patients with a history of an allergic reaction to components of vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

This document provides comprehensive and internationally accepted guidelines and access to on-line documents to help practitioners around the world identify allergic reactions following immunization. It also provides a framework for the evaluation and further management of patients who present either following an allergic reaction to a vaccine or with a history of allergy to a component of vaccines.

The safety of influenza vaccines in children: An Institute for Vaccine Safety white paper

Most influenza vaccines are generally safe, but influenza vaccines can cause rare serious adverse events. Some adverse events, such as fever and febrile seizures, are more common in children than adults. There can be differences in the safety of vaccines in different populations due to underlying differences in genetic predisposition to the adverse event. Live attenuated vaccines have not been studied adequately in children under 2 years of age to determine the risks of adverse events; more studies are needed to address this and several other priority safety issues with all influenza vaccines in children. All vaccines intended for use in children require safety testing in the target age group, especially in young children. Safety of one influenza vaccine in children should not be extrapolated to assumed safety of all influenza vaccines in children. The low rates of adverse events from influenza vaccines should not be a deterrent to the use of influenza vaccines because of the overwhelming evidence of the burden of disease due to influenza in children.

Public opinion on childhood immunisations in Iceland

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, vaccine preventable diseases such as measles and pertussis have been re-emerging in Western countries, maybe because of decreasing participation in childhood vaccination programs in some countries. There is clear evidence for vaccine efficacy and the risk of adverse effects is low. This needs to be communicated to the general public. The aim of the study was to evaluate the public opinion on childhood vaccinations in Iceland.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An internet based study was used to evaluate the opinion on childhood immunisations in Iceland. The cohort was divided in three groups: (a) general public (b) employees of the University Hospital Iceland and (c) employees (teachers and staff) of the University of Iceland. The cohorts could be stratified according to age, gender, education, household income, parenthood and residency.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 5584 individuals (53% response rate). When asked about childhood vaccinations in the first and second year of life, approximately 95% of participants were "positive" or "very positive", approximately 1% were "negative" or "very negative". When participants were asked whether they would have their child immunized according to the Icelandic childhood vaccination schedule, 96% were "positive" or "very positive", 1.2% were "negative" or "very negative". Similarly, 92% trust Icelandic Health authorities to decide on childhood vaccination schedule, 2.3% did not. In total, 9.3% "rather" or "strongly" agreed to the statement "I fear that vaccinations can cause severe adverse effects", 17.5% were undecided and 66.9% "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed". Individuals with higher education were more likely to disagree with this statement (OR=1.45, CI95=1.29-1.64, p<0.001) as did males (OR=1.22, CI95=1.087-1.379, p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study shows a very positive attitude towards vaccinations raising expectations for an ongoing success in preventing preventable communicable diseases in childhood in Iceland.

A systematic review of validated methods for identifying uveitis using administrative or claims data

PURPOSE

To review algorithms used to identify uveitis in administrative and claims databases.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE database via PubMed from 1991 to September 2012 using vocabulary and key terms related to uveitis. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Two investigators independently assessed studies against pre-determined inclusion criteria. The same two investigators independently extracted data regarding participant and algorithm characteristics and assessed a study's methodological rigor using a pre-defined approach.

RESULTS

Seven studies met inclusion criteria. Variability exists among algorithms employed in these studies for finding cases of uveitis and related conditions as well as in use and implementation of validation methods. Of the seven included studies, three involved case validation. One used a narrow algorithm in addition to text mining of electronic medical records to identify incident cases and found a positive predictive value of 52.1%. The other two, which used broader uveitis definitions and included both incident and prevalent cases, found positive predictive values of 24.8% and 52.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research, with case as well as individual code validation, is needed to determine appropriate uveitis algorithms for purposes of active surveillance in administrative data. Decisions about which algorithm to use will depend on the desired balance of sensitivity and specificity.

Gender differences in immediate hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines: a review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To examine published studies of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHS) following vaccination and to determine whether women are at an increased risk of developing IHS after vaccination.

DESIGN AND SAMPLE

PubMed was reviewed for vaccine articles reporting IHS by gender through June 2012. Data were abstracted on type of study, vaccine, hypersensitivity reaction, and statistic reported.

MEASURES

Articles were included if they described experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational or descriptive studies and IHS was reported by gender.

RESULTS

Of 847 articles found in PubMed, 11 met the inclusion criteria. In eight studies, more women than men reported IHS, in two studies more men than women reported IHS and in one study the count was even.

CONCLUSION

Limited data from these studies suggest that women may have higher rates of IHS reactions following vaccination than men. Limitations to the available data include the lack of denominator data and that the definition of IHS was not consistent across the studies. Large-scale population-based studies are indicated to determine if there are differences in rates by gender and biologic basis for these differences.

Clinical assessment of serious adverse events in children receiving 2009 H1N1 vaccination

BACKGROUND

Monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines were licensed and administered in the United States during the H1N1 influenza pandemic between 2009 and 2013.

METHODS

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System received reports of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) after H1N1 vaccination. Selected reports were referred to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment network for additional review. We assessed causality using modified World Health Organization criteria.

RESULTS

There were 3,928 reports of AEFI in children younger than age 18 years after 2009 H1N1 vaccination received by January 31, 2010. Of these, 214 (5.4%) were classified as serious nonfatal and 109 were referred to Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment for further evaluation. Ninety-nine (91%) had sufficient initial information to begin investigation and are described here. The mean age was 8 years (range, 6 months-17 years) and 38% were female. Median number of days between vaccination and symptom onset was 2 (range, -11 days to +41 days). Receipt of inactivated, live attenuated, or unknown type of 2009 H1N1 vaccines was reported by 68, 26 and 5 cases, respectively. Serious AEFI were categorized as neurologic events in 47 cases, as hypersensitivity in 15 cases and as respiratory events in 10 cases. At the time of evaluation, recovery was described as complete (61), partial (16), no improvement (1), or unknown (21). Causality assessment yielded the following likelihood of association with 2009 H1N1 vaccination: 8 definitely; 8 probably; 21 possibly; 43 unlikely; 17 unrelated; and 2 unclassifiable.

CONCLUSIONS

Most AEFI in children evaluated were not causally related to vaccine and resolved without sequelae. Detailed clinical assessment of individual serious AEFI can provide reassurance of vaccine safety.

Algorithm to assess causality after individual adverse events following immunizations

Assessing individual reports of adverse events following immunizations (AEFI) can be challenging. Most published reviews are based on expert opinions, but the methods and logic used to arrive at these opinions are neither well described nor understood by many health care providers and scientists. We developed a standardized algorithm to assist in collecting and interpreting data, and to help assess causality after individual AEFI. Key questions that should be asked during the assessment of AEFI include: Is the diagnosis of the AEFI correct? Does clinical or laboratory evidence exist that supports possible causes for the AEFI other than the vaccine in the affected individual? Is there a known causal association between the AEFI and the vaccine? Is there strong evidence against a causal association? Is there a specific laboratory test implicating the vaccine in the pathogenesis? An algorithm can assist with addressing these questions in a standardized, transparent manner which can be tracked and reassessed if additional information becomes available. Examples in this document illustrate the process of using the algorithm to determine causality. As new epidemiologic and clinical data become available, the algorithm and guidelines will need to be modified. Feedback from users of the algorithm will be invaluable in this process. We hope that this algorithm approach can assist with educational efforts to improve the collection of key information on AEFI and provide a platform for teaching about causality assessment.

Causality assessment of serious neurologic adverse events following 2009 H1N1 vaccination

BACKGROUND

Adverse events occurring after vaccination are routinely reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). We studied serious adverse events (SAEs) of a neurologic nature reported after receipt of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine during the 2009-2010 influenza season. Investigators in the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network sought to characterize these SAEs and to assess their possible causal relationship to vaccination.

METHODS

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) physicians reviewed all SAE reports (as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR§314.80) after receipt of H1N1 vaccine reported to VAERS between October 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. Non-fatal SAE reports with neurologic presentation were referred to CISA investigators, who requested and reviewed additional medical records and clinical information as available. CISA investigators assessed the causal relationship between vaccination and the event using modified WHO criteria as defined.

RESULTS

212 VAERS reports of non-fatal serious neurological events were referred for CISA review. Case reports were equally distributed by gender (50.9% female) with an age range of 6 months to 83 years (median 38 years). The most frequent diagnoses reviewed were: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (37.3%), seizures (10.8%), cranial neuropathy (5.7%), and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (3.8%). Causality assessment resulted in classification of 72 events as "possibly" related (33%), 108 as "unlikely" related (51%), and 20 as "unrelated" (9%) to H1N1 vaccination; none were classified as "probable" or "definite" and 12 were unclassifiable (6%).

CONCLUSION

The absence of a specific test to indicate whether a vaccine component contributes to the pathogenesis of an event occurring within a biologically plausible time period makes assessing causality difficult. The development of standardized protocols for providers to use in evaluation of adverse events following immunization, and rapid identification and follow-up of VAERS reports could improve causality assessment.

Understanding the role of human variation in vaccine adverse events: the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network

The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and 6 academic medical centers to provide support for immunization safety assessment and research. The CISA Network was established by the CDC in 2001 with 4 primary goals: (1) develop research protocols for clinical evaluation, diagnosis, and management of adverse events following immunization (AEFI); (2) improve the understanding of AEFI at the individual level, including determining possible genetic and other risk factors for predisposed people and subpopulations at high risk; (3) develop evidence-based algorithms for vaccination of people at risk of serious AEFI; and (4) serve as subject-matter experts for clinical vaccine-safety inquiries. CISA Network investigators bring in-depth clinical, pathophysiologic, and epidemiologic expertise to assessing causal relationships between vaccines and adverse events and to understanding the pathogenesis of AEFI. CISA Network researchers conduct expert reviews of clinically significant adverse events and determine the validity of the recorded diagnoses on the basis of clinical and laboratory criteria. They also conduct special studies to investigate the possible pathogenesis of adverse events, assess relationships between vaccines and adverse events, and maintain a centralized repository for clinical specimens. The CISA Network provides specific clinical guidance to both health care providers who administer vaccines and those who evaluate and treat patients with possible AEFI. The CISA Network plays an important role in providing critical immunization-safety data and expertise to inform vaccine policy-makers. The CISA Network serves as a unique resource for vaccine-safety monitoring efforts conducted at the CDC.

Importance of background rates of disease in assessment of vaccine safety during mass immunisation with pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccines

Because of the advent of a new influenza A H1N1 strain, many countries have begun mass immunisation programmes. Awareness of the background rates of possible adverse events will be a crucial part of assessment of possible vaccine safety concerns and will help to separate legitimate safety concerns from events that are temporally associated with but not caused by vaccination. We identified background rates of selected medical events for several countries. Rates of disease events varied by age, sex, method of ascertainment, and geography. Highly visible health conditions, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, spontaneous abortion, or even death, will occur in coincident temporal association with novel influenza vaccination. On the basis of the reviewed data, if a cohort of 10 million individuals was vaccinated in the UK, 21.5 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and 5.75 cases of sudden death would be expected to occur within 6 weeks of vaccination as coincident background cases. In female vaccinees in the USA, 86.3 cases of optic neuritis per 10 million population would be expected within 6 weeks of vaccination. 397 per 1 million vaccinated pregnant women would be predicted to have a spontaneous abortion within 1 day of vaccination.

Uncertainties and anxieties about vaccination, answering parent's concerns

Vaccination is one of the most significant public health interventions responsible for saving millions of lives and preventing significant morbidity. Despite this, there remain concerns about a number of vaccines. Although vaccines are extensively tested, there are genuine questions that many parents have about a number of vaccine-related issues. It is important that practitioners can discuss these concerns because denying or dismissing them may lead parents and patients to seek advice from uninformed sources. This article discusses some of the major concerns about vaccines, including their safety, immunogenicity, and the development of national immunization programs. It concludes that although vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, constant vigilance is required.

Serious adverse events rarely reported after trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in children 6-23 months of age

In October 2003 the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended influenza vaccination for all children ages 6-23 months. We evaluated the safety of this recommendation by querying the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) for serious adverse events (SAE) reported between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2006 in 6-23 month old infants after trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV). Cases were reviewed and the causal relationship with vaccine assessed. One hundred and four SAE were reported; median time from vaccination to SAE onset was one day. The two most commonly reported SAE disease categories were fever (N=52) and seizure (N=35). Causality assessment revealed that none of the SAE was definitely related to TIV. Although the number of SAE increased over time, the most common types of events remained unchanged with no new or unexpected safety concerns identified with expanded TIV use.

A process for sentinel case review to assess causal relationships between smallpox vaccination and adverse outcomes, 2003-2004

The US Department of Defense requested that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-Armed Forces Epidemiological Board joint Smallpox Vaccine Safety Working Group define the likelihood that smallpox vaccination played a causal role in the fatal illness of an Army reservist. Reported serious adverse events for which there was no a priori reason to discount the existence of a causal association with smallpox vaccine were reviewed to assess whether they were signals of constellations of vaccine-associated adverse events. A causal relationship between the immunization experience and the index patient's death was favored, but the implication of an individual vaccine was precluded. No new smallpox vaccine-associated clinical syndromes were identified. The data supported neutrality regarding the hypothesis that dilated cardiomyopathy was causally associated with smallpox vaccine-induced myocarditis. This review of sentinel cases augmented the ongoing safety review process and was transparent, but it shares limitations with other case-based causality-assessment methods.

Human papilloma virus immunization in adolescent and young adults: a cohort study to illustrate what events might be mistaken for adverse reactions

BACKGROUND

The large-scale implementation of human papilloma virus (HPV) immunization will be followed by cases of autoimmune diseases occurring in temporal association with immunizations. To anticipate events that might be mistakenly assumed to be caused by immunization, their prevalence was monitored before vaccine introduction.

METHOD

Cohort study carried out within a database of female adolescents (n = 214,896) and young adults (n = 221,472) followed in the pre-HPV vaccine era (2005), computing rates of emergency consultations, hospitalizations and outpatient consultations, and estimation of risks of coincident associations.

RESULTS

Immune-mediated conditions were a frequent cause (10.3%) of emergency room consultation by adolescent girls. Nonallergic immune-mediated conditions affected 86 per 100,000, diabetes ranking first. In 2005, 53 per 100,000 adolescents and 389 per 100,000 women were hospitalized for diseases of presumed autoimmune origin, thyroiditis being the most frequent diagnosis. If HPV immunization had been used with 80% coverage, 3 per 100,000 adolescents would have required emergency care for asthma/allergy within 24 hours and 2 per 100,000 for diabetes within 1 week of an injection. The risks of hospitalization in temporal association with immunization are 4 times higher for thyroiditis than for multiple sclerosis or Guillain-Barré's syndrome, and more than 20 times higher in young women than in adolescents.

CONCLUSION

The distinction between HPV vaccine-caused adverse reactions and events only observed by chance in temporal association is difficult. The prior use of population-based data allows for identification of issues of potential concern, for monitoring the impact of large-scale interventions and for addressing rapidly vaccine-safety issues that may compromise vaccine programs.

Vaccine adverse events reported in post-marketing study of the Kitasato Institute from 1994 to 2004

General physicians, pediatricians and parents realize that serious adverse events occur with an extremely rare incidence, but have no information on the incidences of vaccine-associated adverse events. A proper understanding of vaccine adverse events would be helpful in promoting an immunization strategy. Causal association can rarely be determined in adverse events through laboratory examinations. We examined the cases reported in the post-marketing surveillance of the Kitasato Institute, categorizing them into two groups: allergic reactions and severe systemic illnesses. Anaphylactic patients with gelatin allergy after immunization with live measles, rubella and mumps monovalent vaccines have been reported since 1993, but the number of reported cases with anaphylaxis dramatically decreased after 1999 when gelatin was removed from all brands of DPT. The incidence of anaphylactic reaction was estimated to be 0.63 per million for Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) vaccine, 0.95 for DPT and 0.68 for Influenza vaccine, but the causative component has not yet been specified. Among 67.2 million immunization practices, 6 cases with encephalitis or encephalopathy, 7 with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), 10 with Guillain-Barré syndrome and 12 with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) were reported. The wild-type measles virus genome was detected in a patient with encephalitis and in two of four bone marrow aspirates obtained from ITP after measles vaccination. Enterovirus infection was identified in two patients after mumps vaccination (one each with encephalitis and ADEM), one patient with encephalitis after immunization with JEV vaccine, and one with aseptic meningitis after immunization with influenza vaccine. The total estimated incidence of serious neurological illness after vaccination was 0.1-0.2 per million immunization practices. We found that enterovirus or wild-type measles virus infection was coincidentally associated with vaccination in several cases suspected of being vaccine adverse events.

Understanding vaccine safety information from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is administered by the Food and Drug Administration and CDC and is a key component of postlicensure vaccine safety surveillance. Its primary function is to detect early warning signals and generate hypotheses about possible new vaccine adverse events or changes in frequency of known ones. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that relies on physicians and others to voluntarily submit reports of illness after vaccination. Manufacturers are required to report all adverse events of which they become aware. There are a number of well-described limitations of such reporting systems. These include, for example, variability in report quality, biased reporting, underreporting and the inability to determine whether a vaccine caused the adverse event in any individual report. Strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and timely. The information in VAERS reports is not necessarily complete nor is it verified systematically. Reports are classified as serious or nonserious based on regulatory criteria. Reports are coded by VAERS in a uniform way with a limited number of terms using a terminology called COSTART. Coding is useful for search purposes but is necessarily imprecise. VAERS is useful in detecting adverse events related to vaccines and most recently was used for enhanced reporting of adverse events in the national smallpox immunization campaign. VAERS data have always been publicly available. However, it is essential for users of VAERS data to be fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the system. VAERS data contain strong biases. Incidence rates and relative risks of specific adverse events cannot be calculated. Statistical significance tests and confidence intervals should be used with great caution and not routinely. Signals detected in VAERS should be subjected to further clinical and descriptive epidemiologic analysis. Confirmation in a controlled study is usually required. An understanding of the system's defined objectives and inherent drawbacks is vital to the effective use of VAERS data in vaccine safety investigations.

Incidence of Adverse Reactions to Vaccines in a Paediatric Population

OBJECTIVE

To detect the appearance and specify the types of adverse reactions to vaccines registered in a paediatric population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A 6-month, prospective, observational, multicentre epidemiological vaccine safety study was undertaken in 2002 covering a paediatric population subject to vaccine administration. A two-phase telephone survey of all patients was conducted, comprising an initial call at 1 week and a follow-up call at 30 days after the vaccine administration date. A paediatrician was responsible for diagnosing the specific type of adverse reaction.

RESULTS

Of a total sample of 946 children, ranging in age from 0 to 14 years (50.8% girls, 49.1% boys), 191 non-serious suspected adverse reactions were detected, representing 19% of the vaccinated children. Reactions to the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis acellular and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTPa + Hib) vaccine appeared in 43.4% of cases, followed by reactions to the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) [18.4%] and adult tetanus and diphtheria (Td) [17.8%] vaccines. The most frequent types of adverse reactions to vaccines were: injection-site oedema (12.2 per 1000 doses); pain at site of inoculation (10.3 per 1000 doses); temperature not recorded but believed by parents to be very high (4.6 per 1000 doses); and measured temperature indicating fever of 39-40.5 masculineC (4.4 per 1000 doses). Fifty-five percent (n = 21) of cases of injection-site oedema were attributed to DTPa + Hib vaccine (18.8 per 1000 doses), followed by 18.4% (n = 7) attributable to Td vaccine (112 per 1000 doses). Indeed, this latter vaccine was responsible for 43.8% (n = 14; 226 per 1000 doses) of all reported pain at the site of inoculation. MMR vaccine was linked to the occurrence of fever of 39-40.5 masculineC in 52% of cases (n = 10; 29 per 1000 doses). Two children were treated by the emergency services, but there were no deaths or hospitalisations.

CONCLUSIONS

An active search for subjects with suspected adverse reactions to vaccines led to the detection of reactions that are usually not reported. Primary-care physicians and nurses must be vigilant for information on adverse reactions to vaccines in paediatric populations.