1
|
Holdefer AA, Pizarro J, Saunders-Hastings P, Beers J, Sang A, Hettinger AZ, Blumenthal J, Martinez E, Jones LD, Deady M, Ezzeldin H, Anderson SA. Development of Interoperable Computable Phenotype Algorithms for Adverse Events of Special Interest to Be Used for Biologics Safety Surveillance: Validation Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2024; 10:e49811. [PMID: 39008361 PMCID: PMC11287092 DOI: 10.2196/49811] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2023] [Revised: 02/24/2024] [Accepted: 05/26/2024] [Indexed: 07/16/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adverse events associated with vaccination have been evaluated by epidemiological studies and more recently have gained additional attention with the emergency use authorization of several COVID-19 vaccines. As part of its responsibility to conduct postmarket surveillance, the US Food and Drug Administration continues to monitor several adverse events of special interest (AESIs) to ensure vaccine safety, including for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE This study is part of the Biologics Effectiveness and Safety Initiative, which aims to improve the Food and Drug Administration's postmarket surveillance capabilities while minimizing public burden. This study aimed to enhance active surveillance efforts through a rules-based, computable phenotype algorithm to identify 5 AESIs being monitored by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention for COVID-19 or other vaccines: anaphylaxis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, and febrile seizure. This study examined whether these phenotypes have sufficiently high positive predictive value (PPV) to ensure that the cases selected for surveillance are reasonably likely to be a postbiologic adverse event. This allows patient privacy, and security concerns for the data sharing of patients who had nonadverse events can be properly accounted for when evaluating the cost-benefit aspect of our approach. METHODS AESI phenotype algorithms were developed to apply to electronic health record data at health provider organizations across the country by querying for standard and interoperable codes. The codes queried in the rules represent symptoms, diagnoses, or treatments of the AESI sourced from published case definitions and input from clinicians. To validate the performance of the algorithms, we applied them to electronic health record data from a US academic health system and provided a sample of cases for clinicians to evaluate. Performance was assessed using PPV. RESULTS With a PPV of 93.3%, our anaphylaxis algorithm performed the best. The PPVs for our febrile seizure, myocarditis/pericarditis, thrombocytopenia syndrome, and Guillain-Barré syndrome algorithms were 89%, 83.5%, 70.2%, and 47.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Given our algorithm design and performance, our results support continued research into using interoperable algorithms for widespread AESI postmarket detection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Aaron Zachary Hettinger
- Center for Biostatistics, Informatics and Data Science, MedStar Health Research Institute, Columbia, MD, United States
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Joseph Blumenthal
- Center for Biostatistics, Informatics and Data Science, MedStar Health Research Institute, Columbia, MD, United States
| | | | | | | | - Hussein Ezzeldin
- Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States
| | - Steven A Anderson
- Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tsang RSM, Agrawal U, Joy M, Byford R, Robertson C, Anand SN, Hinton W, Mayor N, Kar D, Williams J, Victor W, Akbari A, Bradley DT, Murphy S, O’Reilly D, Owen RK, Chuter A, Beggs J, Howsam G, Sheikh A, Richard Hobbs FD, de Lusignan S. Adverse events after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccination in England: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study. J R Soc Med 2024; 117:134-148. [PMID: 37921538 PMCID: PMC11100448 DOI: 10.1177/01410768231205430] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2022] [Accepted: 09/17/2023] [Indexed: 11/04/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To estimate the incidence of adverse events of interest (AEIs) after receiving their first and second doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, and to report the safety profile differences between the different COVID-19 vaccines. DESIGN We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners national sentinel network. We compared the AEIs that occurred seven days before and after receiving the COVID-19 vaccinations to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021. SETTING England, UK. PARTICIPANTS Individuals experiencing AEIs after receiving first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AEIs determined based on events reported in clinical trials and in primary care during post-license surveillance. RESULTS A total of 7,952,861 individuals were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines within the study period. Among them, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs. Within the first seven days post-vaccination, 4.85% of all the AEIs were reported. There was a 3-7% decrease in the overall RI of AEIs in the seven days after receiving both doses of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (RI = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94) and 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98), respectively) and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (RI = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98) for both doses), but a 20% increase after receiving the first dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 (RI = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44)). CONCLUSIONS COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in the incidence of medically attended AEIs. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, which could contribute to reporting vaccine safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruby SM Tsang
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Utkarsh Agrawal
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Mark Joy
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Rachel Byford
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Chris Robertson
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G1 1XH, UK
- Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, G2 6QE, UK
| | - Sneha N Anand
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - William Hinton
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Nikhil Mayor
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK
| | - Debasish Kar
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - John Williams
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - William Victor
- Royal College of General Practitioners, London, NW1 2FB, UK
| | - Ashley Akbari
- Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8QA, UK
| | - Declan T Bradley
- Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK
- Public Health Agency, Belfast, BT2 8BS, UK
| | - Siobhan Murphy
- Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK
| | - Dermot O’Reilly
- Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK
| | - Rhiannon K Owen
- Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8QA, UK
| | - Antony Chuter
- BREATHE – The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health, Edinburgh, EH16 4SS, UK
| | - Jillian Beggs
- BREATHE – The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health, Edinburgh, EH16 4SS, UK
| | - Gary Howsam
- Royal College of General Practitioners, London, NW1 2FB, UK
| | - Aziz Sheikh
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH16 4SS, UK
| | - FD Richard Hobbs
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Simon de Lusignan
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G1 1XH, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
O'Leary ST, Opel DJ, Cataldi JR, Hackell JM. Strategies for Improving Vaccine Communication and Uptake. Pediatrics 2024; 153:e2023065483. [PMID: 38404211 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2023-065483] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/19/2023] [Indexed: 02/27/2024] Open
Abstract
Vaccines have led to a significant decrease in rates of vaccine-preventable diseases and have made a significant impact on the health of children. However, some parents express concerns about vaccine safety and the necessity of vaccines. The concerns of parents range from hesitancy about some immunizations to refusal of all vaccines. This clinical report provides information about the scope and impact of the problem, the facts surrounding common vaccination concerns, and the latest evidence regarding effective communication techniques for the vaccine conversation. After reading this clinical report, readers can expect to: Understand concepts and underlying determinants of vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy.Understand the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and costs of preventable medical care.Recognize and address specific concerns (eg, vaccine safety) with caregivers when hesitancy is present.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean T O'Leary
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science (ACCORDS), University of Colorado School of Medicine/Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Douglas J Opel
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics and Palliative Care, Seattle Children's Research Institute; Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - Jessica R Cataldi
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science (ACCORDS), University of Colorado School of Medicine/Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Jesse M Hackell
- Department of Pediatrics, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tsang RSM, Joy M, Byford R, Robertson C, Anand SN, Hinton W, Mayor N, Kar D, Williams J, Victor W, Akbari A, Bradley DT, Murphy S, O’Reilly D, Owen RK, Chuter A, Beggs J, Howsam G, Sheikh A, Hobbs FDR, de Lusignan S. Adverse events following first and second dose COVID-19 vaccination in England, October 2020 to September 2021: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study. Euro Surveill 2023; 28:2200195. [PMID: 36695484 PMCID: PMC9853944 DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.es.2023.28.3.2200195] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
BackgroundPost-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines.AimTo estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands.MethodsWe used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021.ResultsWithin 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3-7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28-1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.78).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruby SM Tsang
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Mark Joy
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Rachel Byford
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Chris Robertson
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom,Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, United Kingdom
| | - Sneha N Anand
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - William Hinton
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Nikhil Mayor
- Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Debasish Kar
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - John Williams
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - William Victor
- Royal College of General Practitioners, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ashley Akbari
- Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, United Kingdom
| | - Declan T Bradley
- Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom,Public Health Agency, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Siobhan Murphy
- Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Dermot O’Reilly
- Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Rhiannon K Owen
- Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, United Kingdom
| | - Antony Chuter
- BREATHE – The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Jillian Beggs
- BREATHE – The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Gary Howsam
- Royal College of General Practitioners, London, United Kingdom
| | - Aziz Sheikh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - FD Richard Hobbs
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Simon de Lusignan
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom,Royal College of General Practitioners, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|