Search

This scoping review examines the role of digital solutions in active, participant-centered surveillance of adverse events following initial release of COVID-19 vaccines. The goals of this paper were to examine the existing literature surrounding digital solutions and technology used for active, participant centered, AEFI surveillance of novel COVID-19 vaccines approved by WHO. This paper also aimed to identify gaps in literature surrounding digital, active, participant centered AEFI surveillance systems and to identify and describe the core components of active, participant centered, digital surveillance systems being used for post-market AEFI surveillance of WHO approved COVID-19 vaccines, with a focus on the digital solutions and technology being used, the type of AEFI detected, and the populations under surveillance. The findings highlight the need for customized surveillance systems based on local contexts and the lessons learned to improve future vaccine monitoring and pandemic preparedness.

Kawasaki disease (KD) is an acute systemic vasculitis primarily affecting children younger than 5 y of age that has been reported as an adverse event following immunization (AEFI). The Canadian Immunization Monitoring Program ACTive (IMPACT) conducts active surveillance for KD following immunization across Canada. We characterized KD cases reported to IMPACT between 2013 and 2018. Cases admitted to an IMPACT hospital with a physician diagnosis of complete or incomplete KD with onset 0-42 d following vaccination were reviewed. Cases meeting the Brighton Collaboration case definition (BCCD) levels of diagnostic certainty levels 1 a/b, 2a/b or 3a-e were defined as KD cases. Demographic and vaccination characteristics were compared between KD cases and non-cases. Of 84 cases reviewed, 58 met the BCCD: 47 (81%) cases met level 1a (Complete KD), 8 (14%) met level 1b (Incomplete KD), 2 (3%) met level 2a, and 1 (2%) met level 2c (Probable KD). Median age at admission was 13 months (interquartile range 7-26 months). A median of 9.5 cases were reported per year (range 4-14). Thirty-one (53%) KD cases were temporally associated with diphtheria-tetanus acellular pertussis containing vaccinations, followed by 21 (36%) cases with pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. Symptom onset was 0-14 d after vaccination in 32 (55%) cases. Echocardiogram results were available for 43 (74%) cases with 22 reported as abnormal. Age, sex, interval to symptom onset, and vaccines received were similar between KD cases and non-cases. No safety signals were detected in these data.

Exclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women from the pivotal randomized controlled trials for COVID-19 vaccines that led to emergency regulatory approval created gaps in data needed for vaccine policy, healthcare provider recommendations, and women's decisions about vaccination. We argue that such knowledge gaps increase potential for vaccine hesitancy and misinformation relating to the health of women and infants, and that these gaps in evidence are avoidable. Over several decades, ethical and scientific guidance, scholarship, and advocacy in favor of pregnant and breastfeeding women's participation in clinical development of vaccines has accumulated. Guidance on how to include pregnant and breastfeeding women in vaccine trials ethically and safely predates the COVID-19 pandemic but has yet to be routinely incorporated in vaccine development. We highlight the important role regulatory authorities could play in requiring that pregnant and breastfeeding women be eligible as volunteer participants in prelicensure vaccine trials for products that are expected to be used in this population. Inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding populations in clinical trials leading to market approval or emergency use authorization should be undertaken early or concurrently at the time of trials in the general population.

Despite ample evidence of the safety and efficacy of the influenza vaccine and the tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during pregnancy, two-thirds of pregnant women do not receive these vaccines. Providers have a significant role in increasing prenatal vaccine uptake. It is important to understand how different sources of vaccine prescribing information, such as Food and Drug Administration package inserts, influence provider recommendations. We aimed to examine the role of vaccine package inserts in provider recommendations and perceptions of safety and effectiveness of vaccines during pregnancy. A cross-sectional survey was mailed to a random, weighted sample of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Fellows living in the United States in March 2019. Providers were asked about their attitudes toward package inserts, and to evaluate sample package insert statements following two different labeling rules. Their evaluations of each rule were then compared. Of the 321 respondents, the majority (90%, 288/321) recommended and/or administered maternal vaccinations. Few respondents (7.8%, 25/321) read package inserts for information regarding vaccination. Respondents were less likely to recommend sample vaccines with Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule-complying inserts (46.1%, 148/321) than vaccines with Pregnancy Category inserts (87.5%, 282/321). Although most providers did not actively utilize vaccine package inserts to inform recommendations, the previous Pregnancy Categories rule was preferred compared to the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule. Collaborative efforts to update inserts with current clinical practices for pregnancy would be valuable in reducing apprehensiveness around package inserts to generate safer and more cogent recommendations for pregnant women.

Strengthening antenatal care as a platform for maternal immunization is a priority of the World Health Organization (WHO). Systematic surveillance for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) in pregnancy is needed to identify vaccine safety events. We sought to identify active and passive AEFI surveillance systems for pregnant women and infants. Representatives from all National Pharmacovigilance Centers and a convenience sample of vaccine safety experts were invited to complete a 14-item online survey in English, French or Spanish. The survey captured maternal immunization policies, and active and passive AEFI surveillance systems for pregnant women and infants in respondents' countries. The analysis was descriptive. We received responses from 51/185 (28%) invited persons from 47/148 (32%) countries representing all WHO regions, and low, middle and high-income countries. Thirty countries had national immunization policies targeting pregnant women. Eleven countries had active surveillance systems to detect serious AEFI in pregnant women and/or their infants, including six low and middle-income countries (LMIC). Thirty-nine countries had passive surveillance systems, including 23 LMIC. These active and passive surveillance programs cover approximately 8% and 56% of the worldwide annual birth cohort, respectively. Data from one active and four passive systems have been published. We identified 50 active and passive AEFI surveillance systems for pregnant women and infants, but few have published their findings. AEFI surveillance appears to be feasible in low and high resource settings. Further expansion of AEFI surveillance for pregnant women and sharing of vaccine safety information will provide additional evidence in support of maternal immunization policies.

There are no Canadian immunization guidelines for children treated for malignancy. Guidelines do exist for patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), but they provide broad timeframes for initiating vaccination; there is no standard schedule. The optimal approach to immunization in these populations is unclear. We sought to describe immunization practices at Canadian Pediatric Hematology/Oncology centers. A 43-item online questionnaire was distributed to the 16 programs in the C(17) research network of pediatric hematology/oncology centers to capture information on timing and criteria for immunization of patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) and those who have undergone HSCT. At each center, 1-2 physicians or pharmacists completed the survey to reflect center-wide immunization practices. Responses were received from 11/16 (69%) programs; 11 respondents reported on practices for patients with ALL and 9 reported on practices for patients who are post-HSCT. In 5/11 ALL programs (45%) re-immunization is recommended routinely after chemotherapy, starting 3-6 months post-chemotherapy. In HSCT programs, timing of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination (PCV) varied from 3 months post-HSCT (4 programs) to 12 months post-HSCT (4 programs). Live vaccines were administered 24 months post-HSCT in 8/9 programs. All HSCT programs considered graft-versus-host-disease and 7 considered discontinuation of immunosuppression in immunization decisions. Pediatric hematology/oncology programs were divided in regards to re-immunization of patients with ALL post-chemotherapy. After HSCT, timing of PCV administration varied, with 4 programs initiating immunization later than Canadian guidelines recommend (3-9 months post-HSCT). These findings suggest a need to standardize immunization practices in these populations.