Search

Introduction: The Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network (CANVAS) conducted active participant-based surveillance for adverse events following immunization during the COVID-19 vaccine campaign. This study evaluated the association between COVID-19 vaccination and neurological adverse events., Methods: Participants were invited to complete online surveys to report health events that prevented daily activities and/or required medical attention within 7 days after COVID-19 vaccination or 7 days prior to the survey (unvaccinated controls); follow-up surveys were sent 7 months later. Neurological events were health events where the most severe symptom reported was ≥1 of: numbness/tingling, loss of taste or smell, vision loss, facial weakness/paralysis, seizure, weakness/paralysis of arms or legs, confusion, change in personality or behavior, or difficulty with urination or defecation. Data were extracted from the CANVAS-COVID database for analysis., Results: Completed survey responses were received from 15,273 unvaccinated controls, 758,619 dose 1 recipients, 406,884 dose 2 recipients, and 126,586 dose 3 recipients. Rates of neurological events ranged from 15.9 (95 % CI 13.6-18.4) per 10,000 dose 1 ChAdOx1 recipients to 8.4 (6.5-10.8) and 7.9 (5.7-11.0) per 10,000 dose 3 mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 recipients, respectively. Multivariable regression adjusted for age, sex, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and baseline health status showed an increased risk of neurological event among ChAdOx1 dose 1 recipients versus controls (adjusted OR 2.3, 95 % CI 1.2-4.3), but not among mRNA vaccine recipients after any dose. Risk of anaesthesia/paresthesia were increased following ChAdOx1 dose 1 (aOR 4.7, 1.7-13.1), and consistently but not statistically significantly higher following any dose of either mRNA vaccine. Risk of loss of smell/taste was decreased among recipients of any dose of either mRNA vaccine versus controls., Conclusions: The results support the safety of COVID-19 vaccines while confirming reported associations between ChAdOx1 dose 1 and neurological events. Participant-based AEFI surveillance is a useful component of post-market surveillance programs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Julie A Bettinger reports financial support was provided by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Julie A Bettinger reports financial support was provided by Public Health Agency of Canada. Manish Sadarangani reports financial support was provided by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Manish Sadarangani reports financial support was provided by Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. M Sadarangani, OG Vanderkooi, JE Isenor reports a relationship with GlaxoSmithKline Inc that includes: funding grants. M Sadarangani, OG Vanderkooi, JD Kellner reports a relationship with Merck & Co Inc that includes: funding grants. M Sadarangani, JD Kellner reports a relationship with Moderna Inc that includes: funding grants. M Sadarangani, OG Vanderkooi, JD Kellner, L Valiquette reports a relationship with Pfizer Inc that includes: funding grants. M Sadarangani, JE Isenor reports a relationship with Sanofi Pasteur Inc that includes: funding grants. OG Vanderkooi reports a relationship with Seqirus Inc that includes: funding grants. A McGeer reports a relationship with GlaxoSmithKline Inc, Merck & Co Inc, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi Pasteur Inc, Seqirus Inc that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. A McGeer reports a relationship with Moderna Inc, AstraZeneca Canada Inc, Medicago Inc that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. KA Top reports a relationship with Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations that includes: funding grants. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Bordetella pertussis, which causes a respiratory disease known as pertussis ("whooping cough") remains an important global challenge, with the incidence in pertussis cases increasing in recent years. Newborns and infants are at increased risk for severe morbidity and mortality from this bacterium. Vaccination in pregnancy has become an important strategy to both passively transfer immunity as well as prevent infection in pregnant persons, who are a major source of newborn infection, thus attempting to decrease the impact of this serious disease. It is considered safe for the pregnant person, the developing fetus, and the infant, and during the first 3 months of life it has been shown to be highly effective in preventing pertussis. There are a variety of strategies, recommendations, and adherence rates associated with pertussis vaccination in pregnancy around the world. We summarize the 2021 Global Pertussis Initiative Annual Meeting that reviewed the current global status of pertussis vaccination in pregnancy and remaining medical and scientific questions, with a focus on vaccination challenges and strategies for obstetric and gynecologic healthcare providers., (© 2024 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Importance: Seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnancy can reduce influenza illness among pregnant women and newborns. Evidence is limited on whether seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnancy is associated with adverse childhood health outcomes., Objective: To assess the association between maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy and early childhood health outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study, using a birth registry linked with health administrative data. All live births in Nova Scotia, Canada, between October 1, 2010, and March 31, 2014, were included, with follow-up until March 31, 2016. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated while controlling for maternal medical history and other potential confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting., Exposures: Seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Childhood outcomes studied were immune-related (eg, asthma, infections), non-immune-related (eg, neoplasms, sensory impairment), and nonspecific (eg, urgent or inpatient health care utilization), measured from emergency department and hospitalization databases., Results: Among 28 255 children (49% female, 92% born at ≥37 weeks' gestation), 10 227 (36.2%) were born to women who received seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy. During a mean follow-up of 3.6 years, there was no significant association between maternal influenza vaccination and childhood asthma (incidence rate, 3.0 vs 2.5 per 1000 person-years; difference, 0.53 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -0.15 to 1.21]; adjusted HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.59]), neoplasms (0.32 vs 0.26 per 1000 person-years; difference, 0.06 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -0.16 to 0.28]; adjusted HR, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.57 to 2.78]), or sensory impairment (0.80 vs 0.97 per 1000 person-years; difference, -0.17 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -0.54 to 0.21]; adjusted HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.37]). Maternal influenza vaccination in pregnancy was not significantly associated with infections in early childhood (incidence rate, 184.6 vs 179.1 per 1000 person-years; difference, 5.44 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, 0.01 to 10.9]; adjusted IRR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.15]) or with urgent and inpatient health services utilization (511.7 vs 477.8 per 1000 person-years; difference, 33.9 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, 24.9 to 42.9]; adjusted IRR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.16])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study with mean follow-up duration of 3.6 years, maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy was not significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse early childhood health outcomes.

Sentinel surveillance of acute hospitalisations in response to infectious disease emergencies such as the 2009 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic is well described, but recognition of its potential to supplement routine public health surveillance and provide scalability for emergency responses has been limited. We summarise the achievements of two national paediatric hospital surveillance networks relevant to vaccine programmes and emerging infectious diseases in Canada (Canadian Immunization Monitoring Program Active; IMPACT from 1991) and Australia (Paediatric Active Enhanced Disease Surveillance; PAEDS from 2007) and discuss opportunities and challenges in applying their model to other contexts. Both networks were established to enhance capacity to measure vaccine preventable disease burden, vaccine programme impact, and safety, with their scope occasionally being increased with emerging infectious diseases' surveillance. Their active surveillance has increased data accuracy and utility for syndromic conditions (e.g. encephalitis), pathogen-specific diseases (e.g. pertussis, rotavirus, influenza), and adverse events following immunisation (e.g. febrile seizure), enabled correlation of biological specimens with clinical context and supported responses to emerging infections (e.g. pandemic influenza, parechovirus, COVID-19). The demonstrated long-term value of continuous, rather than incident-related, operation of these networks in strengthening routine surveillance, bridging research gaps, and providing scalable public health response, supports their applicability to other countries.

BackgroundThe Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) network monitors the safety of seasonal influenza vaccines in Canada.AimTo provide enhanced surveillance for seasonal influenza and pandemic influenza vaccines.MethodsIn 2017/18 and 2018/19 influenza seasons, adults (≥ 15 years of age) and parents of children vaccinated with the seasonal influenza vaccine participated in an observational study using web-based active surveillance. Participants completed an online survey for health events occurring in the first 7 days after vaccination. Participants who received the influenza vaccine in the previous season, but had not yet been vaccinated for the current season, were unvaccinated controls.ResultsIn 2017/18, 43,751 participants and in 2018/19, 47,798 completed the online safety survey. In total, 957 of 30,173 participants vaccinated in 2017/18 (3.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.0-3.4) and 857 of 25,799 participants vaccinated in 2018/19 (3.3%; 95% CI: 3.1-3.5) reported a health problem of sufficient intensity to prevent their normal daily activities and/or cause them to seek medical care (including hospitalisation). This compared to 323 of 13,578 (2.4%; 95% CI: 2.1-2.6) and 544 of 21,999 (2.5%; 95% CI: 2.3-2.7) controls in each respective season. The event rate in vaccinated adults and children was higher than the background rate and was associated with specific influenza vaccines. The higher rate of events was associated with systemic symptoms and migraines/headaches.ConclusionIn 2017/18 and 2018/19, higher rates of events were reported following seasonal influenza vaccination than in the pre-vaccination period. This signal was associated with several seasonal influenza vaccine products.

Background: In children with epilepsy, fever and illness are known triggers for seizure; therefore, clinicians and parents could be concerned that immunization-induced inflammation and fever could also trigger seizures. We sought to estimate the risk of emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization for epilepsy/seizure and all causes after immunization in children younger than 7 years of age with epilepsy., Methods: We conducted a self-controlled case series of children diagnosed with epilepsy before their 7th birthday and immunized from 2005 to 2015 in Ontario (population 14.2 million) and Manitoba (population 1.3 million), Canada, using administrative healthcare data. We estimated the age- and season-adjusted relative incidence (aRI) of epilepsy/seizure-related and all-cause ED visits/hospitalizations during various risk periods 0-28 days after inactivated and live immunizations versus a control period 35-83 days postimmunization. Estimates from each province were analyzed separately and then combined in a random-effects meta-analysis., Results: The combined risk of epilepsy/seizure-related hospitalization/ED visit was increased 0-2 days after inactivated vaccines (aRI = 1.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-1.9) and 7-10 days after live vaccines (aRI = 1.9, 1.4-2.7). For all-cause ED visit/hospitalization, the combined aRI estimate was 0.9 (0.8-1.2) 0-2 days after inactivated vaccines and 1.3 (1.1-1.5) 7-10 days after live vaccines., Conclusions: The risk of epilepsy/seizure-related ED visit/hospitalization was modestly increased among children with epilepsy during peak periods of fever and inflammation following inactivated and live vaccines. These risks must be balanced against the risk of complications from vaccine-preventable diseases.

Background: In children with epilepsy, fever and infection can trigger seizures. Immunization can also induce inflammation and fever, which could theoretically trigger a seizure. The risk of seizure after immunization in children with pre-existing epilepsy is not known. The study objective was to determine the risk of medically attended seizure after immunization in children with epilepsy < 7 years of age., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of children < 7 years of age with epilepsy in Nova Scotia, Canada from 2010 to 2014. Hospitalizations, emergency visits, unscheduled clinic visits, and telephone calls for seizures were extracted from medical records. Immunization records were obtained from family physicians and Public Health with informed consent. We conducted a risk interval analysis to estimate the relative risk (RR) of seizure during risk periods 0-14, 0-2, and 5-14 days post-immunization versus a control period 21-83 days post-immunization., Results: There were 302 children with epilepsy who were eligible for the study. Immunization records were retrieved on 147 patients (49%), of whom 80 (54%) had one or more immunizations between the epilepsy diagnosis date and age 7 years. These 80 children had 161 immunization visits and 197 medically attended seizures. Children with immunizations had more seizures than either those with no immunizations or those with no records (mean 2.5 versus 0.7 versus 0.9, p < 0.001). The risk of medically attended seizure was not increased 0-14 days after any vaccine (RR = 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5-2.8) or 0-2 days after inactivated vaccines (RR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.1-7.1) versus 21-83 days post-immunization. No seizure events occurred 5-14 days after live vaccines., Conclusions: Children with epilepsy do not appear to be at increased risk of medically attended seizure following immunization. These findings suggest that immunization is safe in children with epilepsy, with benefits outweighing risks.

An outbreak of Neisseria meningitidis serotype B infection occurred at a small residential university; public health announced an organizational vaccination program with the 4-component Meningococcal B (4CMenB) vaccine (Bexsero(TM), Novartis/GlaxoSmithKline Inc.) several days later. Since there were limited published data on reactogenicity of 4CMenB in persons over 17years of age, this study sought to conduct rapid surveillance of health events in vaccinees and controls using an online survey. Vaccine uptake was 84.7% for dose 1 (2967/3500) and 70% (2456/3500) for dose 2; the survey response rates were 33.0% (987/2967) and 18.7% (459/2456) in dose 1 and dose 1 recipients respectively, and 12% in unvaccinated individuals (63/533). Most students were 20-29years of age (vaccinees, 64.0%; controls, 74.0). A new health problem or worsening of an existing health problem was reported by 30.0% and 30.3% of vaccine recipients after doses 1 and 2 respectively; and by 15.9% of controls. These health problems interfered with the ability to perform normal activities in most vaccinees reporting these events (74.7% post dose 1; 62.6% post dose 2), and in 60% of controls. The health problems led to a health care provider visit (including emergency room) in 12.8% and 14.4% of vaccinees post doses 1 and 2, respectively and in 40% of controls. The most common reactions in vaccinees were injection site reactions (20.6% post dose 1, 16.1% post dose 20 and non-specific systemic complaints (22.6% post dose 1, 17.6% post dose 2). No hospitalizations were reported. An online surveillance program during an emergency meningococcal B vaccine program was successfully implemented, and detected higher rates of health events in vaccinees compared to controls, and high rates of both vaccinees and controls seeking medical attention. The types of adverse events reported by young adult vaccinees were consistent with those previously., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Canadian Adverse Event Following Immunization Surveillance System (CAEFISS) receives reports via active syndromic surveillance for selected serious AEFI from the Canadian Immunization Monitoring Program Active (IMPACT) and via targeted passive surveillance from Federal/Provincial/Territorial health jurisdictions. Post-immunization seizure is a target of active and passive surveillance. Since 2009, the revised national AEFI reporting forms enable capture of terms specific to several Brighton Collaboration Case Definitions (BCCD) including generalized seizure and fever., Objective: To evaluate feasibility of applying the BCCD for generalized seizure to adverse event following immunization (AEFI) reports collected by IMPACT and targeted passive surveillance (non-IMPACT)., Methods: Reports to CAEFISS coded as seizure in children <2 years of age (vaccination dates 1998-2011) were reviewed retrospectively. A BCCD level (1-5 or unclassifiable) was assigned. The effects of reporting source (IMPACT versus non-IMPACT), seriousness [serious (e.g., hospitalized) versus non-serious], vaccination year (1998-2008 versus 2009-2011), and data submission method to CAEFISS (electronic versus paper) were assessed by stratified analysis., Results: There were 459 IMPACT and 908 non-IMPACT cases analyzed, of which 99.6% and 27%, respectively, were serious reports. The revised reporting form that captured the BCCD components (2009-2011) was associated with increased proportions of IMPACT and non-IMPACT cases meeting the BCCD for generalized seizure., Conclusions: Incorporating the BCCD components (level of consciousness, motor manifestations and fever ≥38°C) into the national reporting form and guidelines appeared to improve the feasibility of their use in AEFI surveillance. This effect was more pronounced among active syndromic surveillance compared to targeted passive surveillance reports., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Healthcare workers' (HCWs) knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding pertussis immunization were assessed and compared to the rate of vaccine uptake. A questionnaire was distributed to employees at a paediatric and maternity tertiary care centre. Respondents were then offered a dose of the tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) at a free vaccine clinic. In total, 529 out of 3051 (17%) employees completed the survey and 61 received the Tdap vaccine. Although 76% of participants were willing to be immunized, only 15% presented to the clinic. There is a widespread acceptance of pertussis immunization among paediatric HCWs. Stated intentions may be poorly predictive of behaviour. Education and institutional or public funding may improve vaccine uptake., (Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)