Search

Objectives: Individuals and healthcare providers may be uncertain about the safety of revaccination after an adverse event following immunization (AEFI). We identified factors associated with physician recommendation for revaccination and participant intention to be revaccinated among patients with adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) assessed in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic (SIC) Network from 2013 to 2019., Methods: This prospective observational study included patients assessed in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic Network from 2013 to 2019 for an AEFI who required additional doses of the vaccine temporally associated with their AEFI. Participants underwent standardized assessment and data collection. Physician recommendations regarding revaccination and participant intent for revaccination were recorded. AEFI impact on daily activities and need for medical attention was captured as low, moderate, high impact and serious (e.g., requiring hospitalization). Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with physician recommendation and participant intention for revaccination, controlling for province of assessment., Results: Physician recommendation was significantly associated with the type of AEFI and AEFI impact. Compared to large local reaction, physician recommendation for revaccination was reduced for immediate hypersensitivity (aOR: 0.24 [95% CI: 0.08-0.76]) and new onset autoimmune disease (aOR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.69). Compared to low impact AEFIs, physician recommendation was reduced for moderate (aOR: 0.22 [95% CI: 0.07-0.65]), high impact (aOR: 0.08 [95% CI: 0.02-0.30]), and serious AEFIs (aOR: 0.11 [95% CI: 0.03-0.37]). Participant intention for revaccination was significantly associated with AEFI impact, with reduced odds for high versus low impact AEFIs (aOR: 0.12 [95% CI: 0.04-0.42])., Conclusion: Physicians appear to use AEFI type and impact to guide recommendations while patients use primarily AEFI impact to form intentions for revaccination. The findings may help inform counselling for patients with AEFIs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Karina A Top reports financial support was provided by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Manish Sadarangani reports financial support was provided by Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. Caroline E Munoz reports financial support was provided by Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation. Karina A Top reports a relationship with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations that includes: funding grants. Honoraria for speaker fees for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck all outside of the submitted work and grants as co-investigator from GSK and Merck - CC Grants outside the submitted work from Pfizer - GDS Served on ad hoc advisory committees and received contracts for undertaking clinical trials from multiple vaccine manufacturers outside the submitted work - SAH Served on an advisory board for Pfizer and Viiv outside of the submitted work - AM co-PI on an investigator led grant from Pfizer, has served on ad hoc advisory boards for Pfizer and Sanofi Pasteur, and has received speaker’s fees from GSK, all outside of the submitted work - SKM Reports grants from MedImmune outside the submitted work - JMP Has been an investigator on projects funded by GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Moderna, Pfizer, Sanofi-Pasteur, Seqirus, Symvivo and VBI Vaccines; all funds have been paid to his institute, and he has not received any personal payments - MS Research grants from GSK, Merck and Pfizer all outside of the submitted work - BT Served on an advisory board for Sanofi outside the submitted work - WV]., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Vaccines have had a tremendous impact on reducing the burden of infectious diseases; however, they have the potential to cause adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). Prelicensure clinical trials are limited in their ability to detect rare AEFIs that may occur in less than one per thousand individuals. While postmarketing surveillance systems have shown COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to be safe, they led to the identification of rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination that were not initially detected in clinical trials. In this narrative review, we highlight concepts of vaccine pharmacovigilance during mass vaccination campaigns and compare the approaches used in the context of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination to historical examples. We describe mechanisms of passive and active surveillance, their strengths and limitations, and how they interacted to identify and characterize the safety signal of myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Articles were synthesized from a PubMed search using relevant keywords for articles published on vaccine surveillance systems and myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination, as well as the authors' collections of relevant publications and grey literature reports. The global experience around the identification and monitoring of myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination has provided important lessons for vaccine safety surveillance and highlighted its importance in maintaining public trust in mass vaccination programmes in a pandemic context., (© 2022 British Pharmacological Society.)

Objectives: To estimate the risk of recurrence of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) upon revaccination and to determine among patients with suspected vaccine allergy whether allergy skin test positivity was associated with AEFI recurrence., Study Design: This prospective observational study included patients assessed in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic Network from 2013 to 2019 with AEFIs who required revaccination with the vaccine temporally associated with their AEFI. Participants underwent standardized assessment and data collection. Special Immunization Clinic physicians used guidelines to inform their recommendations. Participants were followed up after revaccination to capture AEFI recurrences. Data were transferred to a central database for descriptive analysis., Results: Overall, 588 participants were assessed for 627 AEFIs; 570 (91%) AEFIs occurred in children <18 years of age. AEFIs included immediate hypersensitivity (130/627; 21%), large local reactions (110/627; 18%), nonurticarial rash (51/627; 8%), seizures (26/627; 4%), and thrombocytopenia (11/627; 2%). Revaccination was recommended to 513 of 588 (87%) participants. Among participants recommended and due for revaccination during the study period, 63% (299/477) were revaccinated. AEFI recurrence was 10% (31/299) overall, 31% (15/49) for large local reactions, and 7% (5/66) for immediate hypersensitivity. No recurrence was serious. Among 92 participants with suspected vaccine allergy who underwent skin testing and were revaccinated, the negative predictive value of skin testing for AEFI recurrence was 96% (95% CI 92.5%-99.5%)., Conclusions: Most individuals with AEFIs were safely revaccinated. Among those with suspected vaccine allergy, skin testing may help determine the safety of revaccination., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Post-licensure adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance is conducted to monitor vaccine safety, such as identifying batch/brand issues and rare reactions, which consequently improves community confidence. The integration of technology has been proposed to improve AEFI surveillance, however, there is an absence of description regarding which digital solutions are successfully being used and their unique characteristics., Objectives: The objectives of this scoping review were to 1) map the research landscape on digital systems used for active, participant-centred, AEFI surveillance and 2) describe their core components., Methods: We conducted a scoping review informed by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRSIMA-ScR) guideline. OVID-Medline, Embase Classic + Embase, and Medrxiv were searched by a medical librarian from January 1, 2000 to January 28th, 2021. Two independent reviewers determined which studies met inclusion based on pre-specified eligibility criteria. Data extraction was conducted using pre-made tables with specific variables by one investigator and verified by a second., Results: Twenty-seven publications met inclusion, the majority of which came from Australia (n = 15) and Canada (n = 6). The most studied active, participant-centred, digital AEFI surveillance systems were SmartVax (n = 8) (Australia), Vaxtracker (n = 7) (Australia), and Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) Network (Canada) (n = 6). The two most common methods of communicating with vaccinees reported were short-message-service (SMS) (n = 15) and e-mail (n = 14), with online questionnaires being the primary method of data collection (n = 20)., Conclusion: Active, participant-centred, digital AEFI surveillance is an area actively being researched as depicted by the literature landscape mapped by this scoping reviewWe hypothesize that the AEFI surveillance approach herein described could become a primary method of collecting self-reported subjective symptoms and reactogenicity from vaccinees, complementing existing systems. Future evaluation of identified digital solutions is necessary to bring about improvements to current vaccine surveillance systems to meet contemporary and future public health needs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Kumanan Wilson, Julie Bettinger reports financial support was provided by Canadian Immunization Research Network. Kumanan Wilson reports a relationship with CANImmunize Inc. that includes: board membership and equity or stocks. Karina Top reports a relationship with GlaxoSmithKline USA that includes: funding grants. KW is cofounder and CEO of CANImmunize; KW served as a member of the independent data safety advisory board for the COVID-19 Medicago vaccine trial., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: COVID-19 vaccines require enhanced safety monitoring after emergency approval. The Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network monitors the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and provides enhanced monitoring for healthy, auto-immune, immunocompromised, pregnant and breastfeeding populations and allows for the detection of safety signals., Methods and Analysis: Online participant reporting of health events in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals 12 years of age and older is captured in three surveys: 1 week after dose 1, 1 week after dose 2 and 7 months after dose 1. Medically attended events are followed up by telephone. The number, percentage, rate per 10 000 and incident rate ratios with 95% CIs are calculated by health event, vaccine type, sex and in 10-year age groups., Ethics and Dissemination: Each study site has Research Ethics Board approvals for the project (UBC Children's & Women's, CIUSSS de l'Estrie-CHUS, Health PEI, Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board, University of Calgary and Alberta Health Services, IWK Health, Unity Health Toronto and CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Ethics Boards). Individuals are invited to participate in this active surveillance and electronic consent is given before proceeding to each survey. Weekly reports are shared with public health and posted on the study website. At least one peer-reviewed manuscript is produced., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JAB, MPM, JDK, AMcG, JEI and KM have no competing interests. MS has been an investigator on projects funded by GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Pasteur, Seqirus, Symvivo and VBI Vaccines outside the submitted work. All funds have been paid to his institute, and he has not received any personal payments. GDS and LV report grants from Pfizer outside the submitted work. KAT reports consultancy fees from Pfizer and a grant from GSK outside the submitted work. OGV has been an investigator, coinvestigator and/or expert panellist on projects funded by GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer and Seqirus, outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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.

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: National Regulatory Authorities approve the indications for vaccine use in the product information. Occasionally, National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) make off-label recommendations for use in different age groups, populations, and dosing schedules from the product information. We sought to determine the rationale, policies and procedures for NITAG off-label recommendations., Methods: We conducted an environmental scan of Global NITAG Network members, immunization program managers and regulators in 38 high-, middle- and low-income countries. Participants completed an online survey regarding policies, procedures, and legislation governing development of off-label recommendations. A sub-sample of respondents met for a focus group and interviews which were analyzed qualitatively., Results: Thirty-four people responded from 26/38 (68%) countries surveyed; 76% of respondents were NITAG members or immunization program managers. Recommendations for off-label vaccine use were made in 14/26 (54%) countries; the NITAG made those recommendations in 8/14 (57%) countries. Reasons for off-label vaccine recommendations included response to disease outbreaks or vaccine shortages. Only one country had standard operating procedures for developing off-label recommendations while 6/14 (43%) countries had policies for implementing off-label recommendations. Nine respondents from 8 countries agreed to participate in a focus group (n = 6) or individual interviews (n = 3). Barriers to off-label recommendations included legal concerns, lack of standard definition for off-label use, and manufacturer reluctance to update product information. Facilitators included confidence in the decision-making process, and transparency of open communication among stakeholders., Conclusions: Best practice guidelines are needed that define off-label use and outline a transparent, evidence-based approach to develop off-label recommendations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [KAT has received grants from GSK and consultancy fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. All other authors report no conflicts of interest]., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Product labelling information describing the use of vaccines in pregnancy continues to contain cautionary language even after clinical and epidemiological evidence of safety becomes available. This language raises safety concerns among healthcare providers who may hesitate to recommend vaccines during pregnancy., Purpose: To develop clear evidence-based language about vaccine safety and effectiveness in pregnancy for inclusion in vaccine product labels., Methods: We conducted a three-stage consensus-methods project with stakeholders, including: healthcare providers, vaccine regulators, industry representatives, and experts in public health, communication, law, ethics, and social sciences. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we held a nominal group technique (NGT) meeting, followed by a Delphi survey, and then a consensus workshop with a subset of Delphi participants. We developed a methodological tool to analyse data for consensus., Principal Results: Stakeholders (N = 14) at the NGT meeting drafted product label statements for evaluation in the Delphi survey. Survey participants (N = 41) provided feedback on statements for five hypothetical vaccines. Workshop participants (N = 27) initiated discussions that demonstrated a lack of awareness that the regulatory purpose of product labels is to provide a scientific summary of product-specific pre-clinical and clinical trial data. Each stage of this project built on earlier stages until we achieved strong consensus on the language, structure, and types of data that stakeholders wanted to include in inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine product labels in Canada., Conclusions: The revised statements for IIV and Tdap aligned with workshop participants' goals that the product label be evidence-based, with a consistent structure and language that is easily understood by healthcare providers. Emergent methods uncovered stakeholder concerns about the regulatory purpose, content, and evidence used in product labels. Involving healthcare providers in the development and regular updating of product information could prevent interpretations of that information that contribute to vaccine hesitancy., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Maternal vaccination is an important area of research and requires appropriate and internationally comparable definitions and safety standards. The GAIA group, part of the Brighton Collaboration was created with the mandate of proposing standardised definitions applicable to maternal vaccine research. This study proposes international definitions for neonatal infections. The neonatal infections GAIA working group performed a literature review using Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane collaboration and collected definitions in use in neonatal and public health networks. The common criteria derived from the extensive search formed the basis for a consensus process that resulted in three separate definitions for neonatal blood stream infections (BSI), meningitis and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). For each definition three levels of evidence are proposed to ensure the applicability of the definitions to different settings. Recommendations about data collection, analysis and presentation are presented and harmonized with the Brighton Collaboration and GAIA format and other existing international standards for study reporting., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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.

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.)