John K. Iskander

Postlicensure Safety Surveillance for Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Recombinant Vaccine

CONTEXT In June 2006, the Food and Drug Administration licensed the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) recombinant vaccine (qHPV) in the United States for use in females aged 9 to 26 years; the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices then recommended qHPV for routine vaccination of girls aged 11 to 12 years. OBJECTIVE To summarize reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following receipt of qHPV. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Review and describe adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) reported to VAERS, a national, voluntary, passive surveillance system, from June 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008. Additional analyses were performed for some AEFIs in prelicensure trials, those of unusual severity, or those that had received public attention. Statistical data mining, including proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) and empirical Bayesian geometric mean methods, were used to detect disproportionality in reporting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Numbers of reported AEFIs, reporting rates (reports per 100,000 doses of distributed vaccine or per person-years at risk), and comparisons with expected background rates. RESULTS VAERS received 12 424 reports of AEFIs following qHPV distribution, a rate of 53.9 reports per 100,000 doses distributed. A total of 772 reports (6.2% of all reports) described serious AEFIs, including 32 reports of death. The reporting rates per 100,000 qHPV doses distributed were 8.2 for syncope; 7.5 for local site reactions; 6.8 for dizziness; 5.0 for nausea; 4.1 for headache; 3.1 for hypersensitivity reactions; 2.6 for urticaria; 0.2 for venous thromboembolic events, autoimmune disorders, and Guillain-Barré syndrome; 0.1 for anaphylaxis and death; 0.04 for transverse myelitis and pancreatitis; and 0.009 for motor neuron disease. Disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events was noted with data mining methods. CONCLUSIONS Most of the AEFI rates were not greater than the background rates compared with other vaccines, but there was disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events. The significance of these findings must be tempered with the limitations (possible underreporting) of a passive reporting system.

Understanding vaccine safety information from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is administered by the Food and Drug Administration and CDC and is a key component of postlicensure vaccine safety surveillance. Its primary function is to detect early warning signals and generate hypotheses about possible new vaccine adverse events or changes in frequency of known ones. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that relies on physicians and others to voluntarily submit reports of illness after vaccination. Manufacturers are required to report all adverse events of which they become aware. There are a number of well-described limitations of such reporting systems. These include, for example, variability in report quality, biased reporting, underreporting and the inability to determine whether a vaccine caused the adverse event in any individual report. Strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and timely. The information in VAERS reports is not necessarily complete nor is it verified systematically. Reports are classified as serious or nonserious based on regulatory criteria. Reports are coded by VAERS in a uniform way with a limited number of terms using a terminology called COSTART. Coding is useful for search purposes but is necessarily imprecise. VAERS is useful in detecting adverse events related to vaccines and most recently was used for enhanced reporting of adverse events in the national smallpox immunization campaign. VAERS data have always been publicly available. However, it is essential for users of VAERS data to be fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the system. VAERS data contain strong biases. Incidence rates and relative risks of specific adverse events cannot be calculated. Statistical significance tests and confidence intervals should be used with great caution and not routinely. Signals detected in VAERS should be subjected to further clinical and descriptive epidemiologic analysis. Confirmation in a controlled study is usually required. An understanding of the systems defined objectives and inherent drawbacks is vital to the effective use of VAERS data in vaccine safety investigations.

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.

Adverse events after inactivated influenza vaccination among children less than 2 years of age: analysis of reports from the vaccine adverse event reporting system, 1990-2003

Background. In April 2002, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) encouraged providers to vaccinate healthy 6- to 23-month-old infants and children with trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). Objectives. To describe adverse events (AEs) reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after TIV vaccination among children <2 years of age and to compare reports before the ACIP guideline (January 1990 to June 2002) and after the ACIP guideline (July 2002 to June 2003). Methods. VAERS is a passive vaccine safety surveillance system begun by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1990. We reviewed reports to VAERS for children <2 years of age who received TIV, alone or in combination with other vaccines. Influenza seasons were defined as the period from July 1 of one year to June 30 of the following year. Results. Between 1990 and 2003, VAERS received 166 TIV reports for children <2 years of age. There were 62 reports (37%) after administration of TIV alone and 104 reports (63%) after administration of TIV and ≥1 other vaccine. Approximately one third of reports (N = 61) were in the post-ACIP guideline period. The 4 most frequent AE coding terms were fever (N = 59, 35%), unspecified or urticarial rash (42, 25%), seizure (28, 17%), and injection site reaction (28, 17%). The median number of days from vaccination to symptom onset, the percentage of reports that represented serious AEs, and the gender distribution were similar in the pre-ACIP guideline and post-ACIP guideline periods. The percentage of reports describing an underlying medical condition for the subject decreased from 58% before the ACIP guideline to 37% after the ACIP guideline. Nineteen of 28 seizure reports (68%) described fever with the seizure within 2 days after vaccination. Seizure was the most frequent coding term (N = 10, 7 with fever) among 23 serious reports. The annual number of TIV-related VAERS reports for children <2 years of age increased in the post-ACIP guideline period, probably at least in part because of an increase in the number of vaccinees after the ACIP announcement. The safety profiles in the pre-ACIP guideline and post-ACIP guideline periods were similar. Conclusions. In October 2003, the ACIP recommended that all healthy children 6 to 23 months of age be vaccinated with TIV, starting in the 2004–2005 influenza season. This study provides generally reassuring, although limited, data regarding the safety of TIV among children in this age range. Continued surveillance for seizures and other clinically significant AEs is warranted and will continue.

The Role of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in Monitoring Vaccine Safety

The role of the health professional in supporting the national passive surveillance system is essential, as the first hint of a potential problem usually originates with the astute clinician who reports a case to the appropriate source. The investigation that resulted in the voluntary withdrawal of rotavirus vaccine was triggered by nine reports to VAERS of intussuception, eight of which had occurred within 1 week of the first dose of this vaccine. Health professionals have access to the most complete information related to adverse events experienced by their patients. Any index of suspicion that a serious event or death may be related to vaccination is reason for the health professional to submit a VAERS report. Determination of whether an event was caused by the vaccine is not a prerequisite for filing a VAERS report. When in doubt, providers should report to VAERS. VAERS solicits reports for all events temporally related to vaccination, some of which may be coincidental and some of which may merely indicate a change in the frequency of expected events. Post-marketing surveillance relies on health professionals to report suspicious events, thus improving the quality of reported data and contributing significantly to safeguarding public health. Recommendations for healthcare professionals to report to VAERS recently have been incorporated into the Standards for Pediatric Immunization Practices, which are endorsed by multiple professional organizations. Despite the limitations of spontaneous reports, VAERS provides vital information of clinical importance. The identification of signals in adverse event surveillance may initiate further investigation of potential problems in vaccine safety or efficacy, and facilitate subsequent dissemination of safety-related information to the scientific community and the public. This process begins with voluntary submission of reports of possible vaccine-associated events to VAERS by the informed and conscientious health professional.

Myocarditis, Pericarditis, and Dilated Cardiomyopathy after Smallpox Vaccination among Civilians in the United States, January-October 2003

Myocarditis was reported after smallpox vaccination in Europe and Australia, but no association had been reported with the US vaccine. We conducted surveillance to describe and determine the frequency of myocarditis and/or pericarditis (myo/pericarditis) among civilians vaccinated during the US smallpox vaccination program between January and October 2003. We developed surveillance case definitions for myocarditis, pericarditis, and dilated cardiomyopathy after smallpox vaccination. We identified 21 myo/pericarditis cases among 37,901 vaccinees (5.5 per 10,000); 18 (86%) were revacinees, 14 (67%) were women, and the median age was 48 years (range, 25-70 years). The median time from vaccination to onset of symptoms was 11 days (range, 2-42 days). Myo/pericarditis severity was mild, with no fatalities, although 9 patients (43%) were hospitalized. Three additional vaccinees were found to have dilated cardiomyopathy, recognized within 3 months after vaccination. We describe an association between smallpox vaccination, using the US vaccinia strain, and myo/pericarditis among civilians.

Kawasaki disease after vaccination: reports to the vaccine adverse event reporting system 1990-2007.

Background: Kawasaki disease (KD) is a multisystemic vasculitis primarily affecting children <5 years. A review of RotaTeq (rotavirus vaccine live) clinical trial data revealed higher, though not statistically significantly, KD rates among RotaTeq vaccines than placebo recipients. In June 2007, the RotaTeq label was revised accordingly. Objectives: To describe and assess KD reported to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for all US licensed vaccines. Methods: We reviewed all KD reports received by VAERS from 1990 through mid-October 2007. Cases were characterized by age, gender, onset interval, and vaccine type. Proportional reporting ratio (PRR) was used to evaluate KD reporting for each vaccine compared with all others. Reporting rates were calculated using number of doses distributed as denominator. Results: Through October14, 2007, 107 KD reports were received by VAERS: 26 were categorized as classic cases, 19 atypical, 52 possible, and 10 were noncases. Of the 97 cases, 91% were children <5 years. There was no clustering of onset intervals after day 1 postvaccination. Before the RotaTeq label revision, the KD PRR was elevated only for Pediarix (DTaP, hepB, and IPV combined) but the KD reporting rate for Pediarix (0.59/100,000 person-years) was much lower than the background incidence rate (9–19/100,000 person-years) for children <5 years in the United States. After the revision, reporting of KD for RotaTeq was stimulated but the reporting rate for RotaTeq (1.47/100,000 person-years) was still much lower than the background rate. Conclusions: Our review does not suggest an elevated KD risk for RotaTeq or other vaccines. Continued postmarketing monitoring for KD is ongoing.

Data mining in the US using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is charged with vigilance for detecting vaccine-related safety issues, faces an increasingly complex immunisation environment. Since 1990, steady increases in vaccine licensing and distribution have resulted in increasing numbers of reports to VAERS. Prominent features of current reports include more routine vaccine co-administration and frequent reports of new postvaccination clinical syndromes. Data-mining methods, based on disproportionality analyses, are one strategy being pursued by VAERS researchers to increase the utility of its complex database. The types of analyses used include proportional reporting ratios, association rule discovery, and various ‘historic limits’ methods that compare observed versus expected event counts. The use of such strategies in VAERS has been primarily supplemental and retrospective. Signals for inactivated influenza, typhoid and tetanus toxoid-containing vaccines have been successfully identified. Concerns flagged through data mining should always be subject to clinical case review as a first evaluation step. Persistent issues should be subject to formal hypothesis testing in large linked databases or other controlled-study settings.Automated data-mining techniques for prospective use are currently undergoing development and evaluation within VAERS. Their use (as one signal-detection tool among many) by trained medical evaluators who are aware of system limitations is one legitimate approach to improving the ability of VAERS to generate vaccine-safety hypotheses. Such approaches are needed as more new vaccines continue to be licensed.

Serious adverse events rarely reported after trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in children 6–23 months of age

In October 2003 the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended influenza vaccination for all children ages 6-23 months. We evaluated the safety of this recommendation by querying the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) for serious adverse events (SAE) reported between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2006 in 6-23 month old infants after trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV). Cases were reviewed and the causal relationship with vaccine assessed. One hundred and four SAE were reported; median time from vaccination to SAE onset was one day. The two most commonly reported SAE disease categories were fever (N=52) and seizure (N=35). Causality assessment revealed that none of the SAE was definitely related to TIV. Although the number of SAE increased over time, the most common types of events remained unchanged with no new or unexpected safety concerns identified with expanded TIV use.

Lack of Association Between Acellular Pertussis Vaccine and Seizures in Early Childhood

OBJECTIVES: Receipt of diphtheria-tetanus-whole-cell pertussis vaccine (diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-pertussis [DTP]) is associated with seizures. Limited population-based studies have been conducted on the risk for seizures after receipt of diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine (diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis [DTaP]). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study from 1997 through 2006 by using risk-interval cohort and self-controlled case series (SCCS) analyses on automated data at 7 managed care organizations that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). Eligible children included the 1997–2006 VSD cohort of patients who were aged 6 weeks to 23 months and had not received DTP during the study period. A seizure event (febrile or afebrile) was defined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnoses assigned to an inpatient or emergency department setting. The exposed period was composed of a predefined 4 person-days after each DTaP dose. All of the remaining observation periods outside the exposed periods were categorized as unexposed. The risk-interval cohort method compared the incidence of seizures between the exposed and unexposed cohorts. In the SCCS method, the comparison was performed between the same patients exposed and unexposed period. RESULTS: We identified 7191 seizure events among 433654 children. The adjusted incidence rate ratio of seizures across all doses was 0.87 in cohort analysis and 0.91 in SCCS analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe an increased risk for seizures after DTaP vaccination among children who were aged 6 weeks to 23 months. These findings provide reassuring evidence on the safety of DTaP with respect to seizures.