James Baggs

The Vaccine Safety Datalink: A Model for Monitoring Immunization Safety

The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) project is a collaborative project between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 8 managed care organizations (MCOs) in the United States. Established in 1990 to conduct postmarketing evaluations of vaccine safety, the project has created an infrastructure that allows for high-quality research and surveillance. The 8 participating MCOs comprise a large population of 8.8 million members annually (3% of the US population), which enables researchers to conduct studies that assess adverse events after immunization. Each MCO prepares computerized data files by using a standardized data dictionary containing demographic and medical information on its members, such as age and gender, health plan enrollment, vaccinations, hospitalizations, outpatient clinic visits, emergency department visits, urgent care visits, and mortality data, as well as additional birth information (eg, birth weight) when available. Other information sources, such as medical chart review, member surveys, and pharmacy, laboratory, and radiology data, are often used in VSD studies to validate outcomes and vaccination data. Since 2000, the VSD has undergone significant changes including an increase in the number of participating MCOs and enrolled population, changes in data-collection procedures, the creation of near real-time data files, and the development of near real-time postmarketing surveillance for newly licensed vaccines or changes in vaccine recommendations. Recognized as an important resource in vaccine safety, the VSD is working toward increasing transparency through data-sharing and external input. With its recent enhancements, the VSD provides scientific expertise, continues to develop innovative approaches for vaccine-safety research, and may serve as a model for other patient safety collaborative research projects.

Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Varicella Combination Vaccine and the Risk of Febrile Seizures

OBJECTIVE: In February 2008, we alerted the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to preliminary evidence of a twofold increased risk of febrile seizures after the combination measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine when compared with separate measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and varicella vaccines. Now with data on twice as many vaccine recipients, our goal was to reexamine seizure risk after MMRV vaccine. METHODS: Using 2000–2008 Vaccine Safety Datalink data, we assessed seizures and fever visits among children aged 12 to 23 months after MMRV and separate MMR + varicella vaccines. We compared seizure risk after MMRV vaccine to that after MMR + varicella vaccines by using Poisson regression as well as with supplementary regressions that incorporated chart-review results and self-controlled analyses. RESULTS: MMRV vaccine recipients (83 107) were compared with recipients of MMR + varicella vaccines (376 354). Seizure and fever significantly clustered 7 to 10 days after vaccination with all measles-containing vaccines but not after varicella vaccination alone. Seizure risk during days 7 to 10 was higher after MMRV than after MMR + varicella vaccination (relative risk: 1.98 [95% confidence interval: 1.43–2.73]). Supplementary analyses yielded similar results. The excess risk for febrile seizures 7 to 10 days after MMRV compared with separate MMR + varicella vaccination was 4.3 per 10 000 doses (95% confidence interval: 2.6–5.6). CONCLUSIONS: Among 12- to 23-month-olds who received their first dose of measles-containing vaccine, fever and seizure were elevated 7 to 10 days after vaccination. Vaccination with MMRV results in 1 additional febrile seizure for every 2300 doses given instead of separate MMR + varicella vaccines. Providers who recommend MMRV should communicate to parents that it increases the risk of fever and seizure over that already associated with measles-containing vaccines.

Monitoring the safety of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine: findings from the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

BACKGROUND In 7 large managed care organizations (MCOs), we performed a post-licensure safety assessment of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV4) among 9-26 year-old female vaccine recipients between August 2006 and October 2009. METHODS Sequential analyses were conducted weekly to detect associations between HPV4 exposure and pre-specified outcomes. The pre-specified outcomes identified by ICD-9 codes using computerized data at the participating MCOs included: Guillan-Barré Syndrome (GBS), stroke, venous thromboembolism (VTE), appendicitis, seizures, syncope, allergic reactions, and anaphylaxis. For rare outcomes, historical background rates were used as the comparison group. For more common outcomes, a concurrent unexposed comparison group was utilized. A standardized review of medical records was conducted for all cases of GBS, VTE, and anaphylaxis. RESULTS A total of 600,558 HPV4 doses were administered during the study period. We found no statistically significant increased risk for the outcomes studied. However, a non-statistically significant relative risk (RR) for VTE ICD-9 codes following HPV4 vaccination of 1.98 was detected among females age 9-17 years. Medical record review of all 8 vaccinated potential VTE cases in this age group revealed that 5 met the standard case definition for VTE. All 5 confirmed cases had known risk factors for VTE (oral contraceptive use, coagulation disorders, smoking, obesity or prolonged hospitalization). CONCLUSIONS In a study of over 600,000 HPV4 vaccine doses administered, no statistically significant increased risk for any of the pre-specified adverse events after vaccination was detected. Further study of a possible association with VTE following HPV4 vaccination is warranted.

Real-time surveillance to assess risk of intussusception and other adverse events after pentavalent, bovine-derived rotavirus vaccine.

Background: A pentavalent, bovine-derived rotavirus vaccine (RotaTeq, Merck) was licensed in 2006 for use in infants. A previously licensed rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn due to elevated risk of intussusception. We prospectively evaluated the risk of intussusception and other pre-specified adverse events among RotaTeq recipients in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Methods: The exposed population included children from age 4 to 48 weeks who received RotaTeq between May 2006 and May 2008. Adverse events over the subsequent 30 days were ascertained from inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department files; cases of intussusception were validated by medical record review. An adaptation of sequential probability ratio testing was employed to compare the cumulative number of observed and expected adverse events on a weekly basis, and a “signal” was generated if the log-likelihood ratio reached a predetermined threshold. This allowed near real-time monitoring to detect selected adverse events. The expected number of cases of intussusception was determined from historical rates in the VSD population. Results: There were 207,621 doses of RotaTeq administered to the study population; 42% were first doses. Five children had computerized diagnosis codes for intussusception, and 6.75 cases were expected based on historical rates (relative risk = 0.74). No elevation in risk was identified for intussusception or any other adverse event. Two of five children with suspected intussusception based on diagnosis codes met the case criteria after medical record review. Conclusions: This study illustrates the feasibility of rapid vaccine safety assessment and provides additional evidence that RotaTeq is not associated with an increased risk of intussusception.

Risk of Intussusception after Monovalent Rotavirus Vaccination

BACKGROUND Although current rotavirus vaccines were not associated with an increased risk of intussusception in large trials before licensure, recent postlicensure data from international settings suggest the possibility of a small increase in risk of intussusception after monovalent rotavirus vaccination. We examined this risk in a population in the United States. METHODS Participants were infants between the ages of 4 and 34 weeks who were enrolled in six integrated health care organizations in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) project. We reviewed medical records and visits for intussusception within 7 days after monovalent rotavirus vaccination from April 2008 through March 2013. Using sequential analyses, we then compared the risk of intussusception among children receiving monovalent rotavirus vaccine with historical background rates. We further compared the risk after monovalent rotavirus vaccination with the risk in a concurrent cohort of infants who received the pentavalent rotavirus vaccine. RESULTS During the study period, 207,955 doses of monovalent rotavirus vaccine (including 115,908 first doses and 92,047 second doses) were administered in the VSD population. We identified 6 cases of intussusception within 7 days after the administration of either dose of vaccine. For the two doses combined, the expected number of intussusception cases was 0.72, resulting in a significant relative risk of 8.4. For the pentavalent rotavirus vaccine, 1,301,810 doses were administered during the study period, with 8 observed intussusception cases (7.11 expected), for a nonsignificant relative risk of 1.1. The relative risk of chart-confirmed intussusception within 7 days after monovalent rotavirus vaccination, as compared with the risk after pentavalent rotavirus vaccination, was 9.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 103.8). The attributable risk of intussusception after the administration of two doses of monovalent rotavirus vaccine was estimated to be 5.3 per 100,000 infants vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS In this prospective postlicensure study of more than 200,000 doses of monovalent rotavirus vaccine, we observed a significant increase in the rate of intussusception after vaccination, a risk that must be weighed against the benefits of preventing rotavirus-associated illness. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Risk of Intussusception Following Administration of a Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccine in US Infants

CONTEXT Current rotavirus vaccines were not associated with intussusception in large prelicensure trials. However, recent postlicensure data from international settings suggest the possibility of a low-level elevated risk, primarily in the first week after the first vaccine dose. OBJECTIVE To examine the risk of intussusception following pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5) in US infants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS This cohort study included infants 4 to 34 weeks of age, enrolled in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) who received RV5 from May 2006-February 2010. We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), relative risks (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals for the association between intussusception and RV5 by comparing the rates of intussusception in infants who had received RV5 with the rates of intussusception in infants who received other recommended vaccines without concomitant RV5 during the concurrent period and with the expected number of intussusception visits based on background rates assessed prior to US licensure of the RV5 (2001-2005). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Intussusception occurring in the 1- to 7-day and 1- to 30-day risk windows following RV5 vaccination. RESULTS During the study period, 786,725 total RV5 doses, which included 309,844 first doses, were administered. We did not observe a statistically significant increased risk of intussusception with RV5 for either comparison group following any dose in either the 1- to 7-day or 1- to 30-day risk window. For the 1- to 30-day window following all RV5 doses, we observed 21 cases of intussusception compared with 20.9 expected cases (SIR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.54); following dose 1, we observed 7 cases compared with 5.7 expected cases (SIR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.5-2.54). For the 1- to 7-day window following all RV5 doses, we observed 4 cases compared with 4.3 expected cases (SIR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.25-2.36); for dose 1, we observed 1 case compared with 0.8 expected case (SIR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.03-6.75). The upper 95% CI limit of the SIR (6.75) from the historical comparison translates to an upper limit for the attributable risk of 1 intussusception case per 65,287 RV5 dose-1 recipients. CONCLUSION Among US infants aged 4 to 34 weeks who received RV5, the risk of intussusception was not increased compared with infants who did not receive the rotavirus vaccine.

Postlicensure Monitoring of Intussusception After RotaTeq Vaccination in the United States, February 1, 2006, to September 25, 2007

BACKGROUND. In 1999, a previous rotavirus vaccine (RotaShield; Wyeth Laboratories, Marietta, PA) was withdrawn from the US market after postlicensure monitoring identified an association with intussusception. Although the new rotavirus vaccine (RotaTeq; Merck, West Point, PA) introduced in 2006 was not associated with intussusception in prelicensure trials, additional monitoring is important to ensure a complete safety profile. METHODS. We assessed intussusception reports after RotaTeq vaccination by using data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a cohort of children enrolled in managed care. Observed versus expected rate ratios were determined by using vaccine dose distribution data and Vaccine Safety Datalink background intussusception rates. RESULTS. Between February 1, 2006, and September 25, 2007, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System received 160 intussusception reports after RotaTeq vaccination. With the assumptions that reporting completeness was 75% and that 75% of the distributed doses of RotaTeq were administered, the observed versus expected rate ratios were 0.53 and 0.91 for the 1–21 and 1–7 day interval after vaccination, respectively. In the Vaccine Safety Datalink, 3 intussusception cases occurred within 30 days after 111521 RotaTeq vaccinations, compared with 6 cases after 186722 non–RotaTeq vaccinations during the same period. If, like RotaShield, RotaTeq had a 37-fold increased risk of intussusception within 3 to 7 days after vaccination, then 8 intussusception cases would be expected within 3 to 7 days among the ∼84000 infants vaccinated with the first dose of RotaTeq in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (N = 49902) and the prelicensure trial (N = 34035) combined, whereas no cases have been observed. CONCLUSIONS. Available data do not indicate that RotaTeq is associated with intussusception. Although an intussusception risk similar in magnitude to that of RotaShield can be excluded, continued monitoring is necessary for complete assessment of the safety profile of RotaTeq.

Active Surveillance for Adverse Events: The Experience of the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project

OBJECTIVE: To describe the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) projects experience with population-based, active surveillance for vaccine safety and draw lessons that may be useful for similar efforts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The VSD comprises a population of 9.2 million people annually in 8 geographically diverse US health care organizations. Data on vaccinations and diagnoses are updated and extracted weekly. The safety of 5 vaccines was monitored, each with 5 to 7 prespecified outcomes. With sequential analytic methods, the number of cases of each outcome was compared with the number of cases observed in a comparison group or the number expected on the basis of background rates. If the test statistic exceeded a threshold, it was a signal of a possible vaccine-safety problem. Signals were investigated by using temporal scan statistics and analyses such as logistic regression. RESULTS: Ten signals appeared over 3 years of surveillance: 1 signal was reported to external stakeholders and ultimately led to a change in national vaccination policy, and 9 signals were found to be spurious after rigorous internal investigation. Causes of spurious signals included imprecision in estimated background rates, changes in true incidence or coding over time, other confounding, inappropriate comparison groups, miscoding of outcomes in electronic medical records, and chance. In the absence of signals, estimates of adverse-event rates, relative risks, and attributable risks from up-to-date VSD data have provided rapid assessment of vaccine safety to policy-makers when concerns about a specific vaccine have arisen elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Care with data quality, outcome definitions, comparison groups, and length of surveillance are required to enable detection of true safety problems while minimizing false signals. Some causes of false signals in the VSD system were preventable and have been corrected, whereas others will be unavoidable in any active surveillance system. Temporal scan statistics, analyses to control for confounding, and chart review are indispensable tools in signal investigation. The VSDs experience may inform new systems for active safety surveillance.

H1N1 and Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Safety in the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project

BACKGROUND The emergence of pandemic H1N1 influenza virus in early 2009 prompted the rapid licensure and use of H1N1 monovalent inactivated (MIV) and live, attenuated (LAMV) vaccines separate from seasonal trivalent inactivated (TIV) and live, attenuated (LAIV) influenza vaccines. A robust influenza immunization program in the U.S. requires ongoing monitoring of potential adverse events associated with vaccination. PURPOSE To prospectively conduct safety monitoring of H1N1 and seasonal influenza vaccines during the 2009-2010 season. METHODS The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Project monitors ∼9.2 million members in eight U.S. medical care organizations. Electronic data on vaccines and pre-specified adverse events were updated and analyzed weekly for signal detection from November 2009 to April 2010 using either a self-controlled design or a current versus historical comparison. Statistical signals were further evaluated using alternative approaches to identify temporal clusters and to control for time-varying confounders. RESULTS As of May 1, 2010, a total of 1,345,663 MIV, 267,715 LAMV, 2,741,150 TIV, and 157,838 LAIV doses were administered in VSD. No significant associations were noted during sequential analyses for Guillain-Barré syndrome, most other neurologic outcomes, and allergic and cardiac events. For MIV, a statistical signal was observed for Bells palsy for adults aged ≥25 years on March 31, 2010, using the self-controlled approach. Subsequent analyses revealed no significant temporal cluster. Case-centered logistic regression adjusting for seasonality demonstrated an OR for Bells palsy of 1.26 (95% CI=0.97, 1.63). CONCLUSIONS No major safety problems following H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccines were detected in the 2009-2010 season in weekly sequential analyses. Seasonality likely contributed to the Bells palsy signal following MIV. Prospective safety monitoring followed by rigorous signal refinement is critical to inform decision-making by regulatory and public health agencies.

Intussusception After Rotavirus Vaccines Reported to US VAERS, 2006–2012

BACKGROUND: In 2006 and 2008, 2 new rotavirus vaccines (RotaTeq [RV5] and Rotarix [RV1]) were introduced in the United States. METHODS: We assessed intussusception events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System from February 2006 through April 2012 for RV5 and from April 2008 through April 2012 for RV1. For RV5, we conducted a self-controlled risk interval analysis using Poisson regression to estimate the daily reporting ratio (DRR) of intussusception comparing average daily reports 3 to 6 versus 0 to 2 days after vaccination. We calculated reporting rate differences based on DRRs and background rates of intussusception. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess effects of differential reporting completeness and inaccuracy of baseline rates. Few reports were submitted after RV1, allowing only a descriptive analysis. RESULTS: The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System received 584 confirmed intussusception reports after RV5 and 52 after RV1, with clustering 3 to 6 days after both vaccines. The DRR comparing the 3- to 6-day and the 0- to 2-day periods after RV5 dose 1 was 3.75 (95% confidence interval = 1.90 to 7.39). There was no significant increase in reporting after dose 2 or dose 3. Over all 3 doses, the excess risk of intussusception was 0.79 events (95% confidence interval = –0.04 to 1.62) per 100 000 vaccinations. From the sensitivity analyses, we conclude that under a worst-case scenario, the DRR could be 5.00 and excess risk per 100 000 doses could be 1.36. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a persistent clustering of reported intussusception events 3 to 6 days after the first dose of RV5 vaccination. This clustering could translate to a small increased risk of intussusception, which is outweighed by the benefits of rotavirus vaccination.