Lessons learned from a cluster of immunization errors in newborns

Background

Vaccines are safe and effective, but adverse reactions can occur. Immunization errors (IEs) are one of the types of adverse events following immunization. The Moroccan Pharmacovigilance Centre (MPC) received a cluster of IEs from a maternity university hospital (MUH) regarding six newborns who were inadvertently administered rocuronium instead of hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine. The newborns experienced respiratory distress and one had a fatal outcome.

Objectives

The study aimed to describe the investigation findings, the underlying causes, and contributing factors of the IEs cluster, and proposed risk minimization actions.

Design

We carried out a descriptive analysis of the cluster of IEs related to the HepB vaccine reported to the MPC.

Methods

An investigation was conducted by the Ministry of Health according to the World Health Organization guidance. The root cause analysis was performed to identify underlying causes and contributing factors that lead to IE occurrence.

Results

The cluster analysis showed that the main contributing factors were the look-alike rocuronium and HepB vaccine packaging, the first-time running HepB vaccination for newborns in the MUH, the lack of a full-time pharmacist, and the unsafe storage of rocuronium and vaccines. The administration of Sugammadex to the newborns followed by their transfer to the neonatal care unit resulted in the recovery of five of the six newborns. Proposed recommendations included (1) raising awareness of healthcare professionals to the risk related to look-alike medications, (2) training nurses to ensure vaccination to implement procedures related to immunization practices, (3) nomination of a full-time pharmacist, (4) reassessment of the safety of drug storage and dispensing at the hospital pharmacy, particularly for high-alert medications.

Conclusion

Reporting IEs, particularly serious ones, allows us to identify causes and contributing factors that led to their occurrence. Lessons learned from errors are key to take risk minimization actions to improve vaccine safety worldwide.

Adverse drug reactions to chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin in COVID-19 in-patients: data from intensive pharmacovigilance in Morocco, 2020

In Morocco, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin have been used off-label for COVID-19 treatment. This study aimed to describe the distribution, nature and seriousness of the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with the two drug combinations in COVID-19 in-patients. We conducted a prospective observational study based on intensive pharmacovigilance in national COVID-19 patients' management facilities from April 1 to June 12, 2020. Hospitalized patients treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin and who experienced ADRs during their hospital stay were included in the study. The causality and seriousness of the ADRs were assessed using the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre method and the agreed criteria in the ICH guideline (E2A) respectively. A total of 237 (51.7%) and 221 (48.3%) COVID-19 in-patients treated respectively with chloroquine + azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin experienced 946 ADRs. Serious ADRs occurred in 54 patients (11.8%). Gastrointestinal system was most affected both in patients taking chloroquine + azithromycin (49.8%) or hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (54.2%), followed by nervous system and psychiatric. Eye disorders were more frequent in patients receiving chloroquine + azithromycin (10.3%) than those receiving hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (1.2%). Cardiac ADRs accounted for 6.4% and 5.1% respectively. Chloroquine + azithromycin caused more ADRs by patients than hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (2.6 versus 1.5 ADRs/patient). Causality assessment was possible for 75.7% of the ADRs. Diabetes was identified as a risk factor for serious ADRs (ORa 3.56; IC: 95% 1.5-8.6). The off-label use of the two drug combinations in COVID-19 in-patients according to the national therapeutic protocol seems to be safe and tolerable. ADRs were mainly expected. However, precaution should be taken in using the drugs in diabetic patients to prevent the risk of serious ADRs.

Monitoring the safety of influenza A/H1N1 pandemic and seasonal vaccines in Morocco

Background:

A vaccination campaign against pandemic influenza A/H1N1 was implemented in Morocco between November 2009 and April 2010. Overall, 705,883 subjects were vaccinated by Pandemrix, Arepanrix, and Panenza. The adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) data comparison was made with the 2014/2015 seasonal influenza vaccination campaign that was specifically investigated.

Aim:

To evaluate the safety of the 2009 pandemic influenza A/H1N1 vaccine and to compare it to that of 2014 seasonal influenza vaccine.

Methods:

During the pandemic vaccination campaign, the Morocco Pharmacovigilance Centre reinforced passive AEFI surveillance with an active and prospective monitoring programme of 1000 immunized people over 6 months at 10 randomly selected vaccination centres. For the 2014/2015 seasonal vaccination campaign, AEFI data were collected from spontaneous notifications.

Results:

Active monitoring of 2009 pandemic collected 771 AEFI reports, corresponding to an AEFI incidence rate of 77.1% with vaccination by either Pandemrix or Arepanrix vaccine in 95% of cases. Reported AEFI were most frequently local (37.7%), general (29.5%), and neurological reactions (20.3%). Most of the AEFI (95.5%) were observed during the first 48 hours after vaccination, and the remainder within 2 weeks. None of the reported AEFI were serious case. The highest rate of notification was documented for health professionals, followed by patients with diabetes or chronic respiratory diseases. Concerning passive surveillance, the AEFI notification rate was significantly higher for the 2009/2010 pandemic vaccine (3.1 vs 1.2 per 10,000). However, there was no significant difference between pandemic and seasonal vaccination with regards to the serious adverse events (SAE) notification rate (0.3 vs 0.2 per 10,000).

Conclusion:

Data analysis indicates that the vaccines used against 2009 pandemic influenza in Morocco have a satisfactory safety profile, similar to the seasonal influenza vaccine with the exception of local reactions as observed previously in other countries.

Materiovigilance in health centers: The role of notifiers to ensure safer use of medical devices

BACKGROUND

The implementation of efficient health and vigilance strategy is one of the essential aspects of the health policy of public and private health establishments, in order to reduce the risk of incidents due to medical devices.

AIM

The objective of this study is to demonstrate the importance of user notification and to recognize the role of nursing staff in the materiovigilance process.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of materiovigilance cases notified for three years (2016, 2017, and 2018) at the National Institute of Oncology. The evaluation of the incidents was carried out with the aim of taking the necessary measures to prevent and minimize risk.

RESULTS

Seven thousand three hundred and eight cases of materiovigilance during the 3 years were collected. A spontaneous collection of reports was predominant (70%). The distribution of the number of incidents by the profile of notifiers shows that reports come from surgeons and much more from nurses. The surgical block (35.7%) and medical oncology services (14.3%) were the services that reported more; the majority of the observed adverse events were attributed to infusion sets (n=7105). Four serious cases of materiovigilance. reported during these 3 years at the level of the vigilance unit considered the most relevant were detailed with examples of immediate actions taken and risk minimization actions.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the characteristics of incidents reported. The role of the nursing staff and the strong presence of nurses in the vigilance system has been well demonstrated, thus reducing the risk of side effects due to medical devices.

First line anti-tuberculosis induced hepatotoxicity: incidence and risk factors

In our days, tuberculosis, whet ever its localization, became a curable disease. The cornerstone is a 6 month course of isoniazid, rifampicine and pyrazinamide. All of the three first line antituberculosis drugs may induce hepatic damage which may have negative consequences for treatment outcome. Several risk factors were associated with the development of antituberculosis- drug-induced hepatotoxicity (ATDH). A retrospective study was conducted from July 2014 to March 2015 regarding all therapeutic drug-monitoring requests sent to the Laboratory of Poison Control and Pharmacovigilance Centre of Morocco. 142 patients diagnosed with active tuberculosis were included in study. Plasma peak levels of isoniazid, rifampicin and pyrazinamide were analyzed in plasma samples after 2 to 3 hours of administration of anti-tuberculosis treatment. Logistic regression was used to identify the ATDH risk factors. The incidence of ATDH was found 24.6% (35 patients out of 142). Intergroup differences in the plasma levels were statistically significant for isoniazid (p=0.036). ATDH was found to be associated with combined form of anti-TB drugs (p=0.002, COR=13.1, AOR= 13.5) and plasma concentration of INH superior to 2mg/l (p=0.045, COR=1.3, AOR= 1.4).age, gender, alcohol intake and smoking status were not significantly associated with ATDH. The finding of 24.6% incidence of hepatotoxicity is extremely high. Many factors can be associated with the development of ATDH such as genetic factors, combined forms of treatment and plasma peak levels.