Leslie K. Ball

A local reaction at or near injection site: Case definition and guidelines for collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data

The need for developing a case definition and guidelines for a local reaction at or near the injection site, methods for the development of the case definition and guidelines as an adverse event following immunization as well as the rationale for selected decisions about the case definition for a local reaction at or near the injection site are explained in the Preamble section. The case definition is structured in 2 levels of diagnostic certainty: level 1 includes any description of morphological or physiological change at or near the injection site that is described or identified by a healthcare provider. Level 2 is any description of morphological or physiological change at or near injection site that is described by any other person. In Guidelines section, the working group recommends to enable meaningful and standardized data collection, analysis, and presentation of information about a local reaction at or near the injection site. However, implementation of all guidelines might not be possible in all settings. The availability of information may vary depending upon resources, geographic region, and whether the source of information is a prospectively designed clinical trial, a post-marketing surveillance or epidemiologic study, or an individual report of a local reaction at injection site.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis after vaccination: reports to the vaccine adverse event reporting system.

We conducted a telephone survey of reports of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. We identified six cases of SJS or TEN after vaccination without other obvious triggers, suggesting that SJS and TEN might very rarely be caused by vaccination. Confirmation of this hypothesis will likely require controlled studies.

Vaccine Risk Perception Among Reporters of Autism After Vaccination: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System 1990–2001

OBJECTIVES We investigated vaccine risk perception among reporters of autism to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). METHODS We conducted structured interviews with 124 parents who reported autism and related disorders to VAERS from 1990 to 2001 and compared results with those of a published survey of parents in the general population. RESULTS Respondents perceived vaccine-preventable diseases as less serious than did other parents. Only 15% of respondents deemed immunization extremely important for childrens health; two thirds had withheld vaccines from their children. CONCLUSIONS Views of parents who believe vaccines injured their children differ significantly from those of the general population regarding the benefits of immunization. Understanding the factors that shape this perspective can improve communication among vaccine providers, policymakers, and parents/patients.

Central site monitoring: Results from a test of accuracy in identifying trials and sites failing Food and Drug Administration inspection

Background Site monitoring and source document verification account for 15%‒30% of clinical trial costs. An alternative is to streamline site monitoring to focus on correcting trial-specific risks identified by central data monitoring. This risk-based approach could preserve or even improve the quality of clinical trial data and human subject protection compared to site monitoring focused primarily on source document verification. Purpose To determine whether a central review by statisticians using data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by clinical trial sponsors can identify problem sites and trials that failed FDA site inspections. Methods An independent Analysis Center (AC) analyzed data from four anonymous new drug applications (NDAs) where FDA had performed site inspections overseen by FDA’s Office of Scientific Investigations (OSI). FDA team members in the OSI chose the four NDAs from among all NDAs with data in Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) format. Two of the NDAs had data that OSI had deemed unreliable in support of the application after FDA site inspections identified serious data integrity problems. The other two NDAs had clinical data that OSI deemed reliable after site inspections. At the outset, the AC knew only that the experimental design specified two NDAs with significant problems. FDA gave the AC no information about which NDAs had problems, how many sites were inspected, or how many were found to have problems until after the AC analysis was complete. The AC evaluated randomization balance, enrollment patterns, study visit scheduling, variability of reported data, and last digit reference. The AC classified sites as ‘High Concern’, ‘Moderate Concern’, ‘Mild Concern’, or ‘No Concern’. Results The AC correctly identified the two NDAs with data deemed unreliable by OSI. In addition, central data analysis correctly identified 5 of 6 (83%) sites for which FDA recommended rejection of data and 13 of 15 sites (87%) for which any regulatory deviations were identified during inspection. Of the six sites for which OSI reviewed inspections and found no deviations, the central process flagged four at the lowest level of concern, one at a moderate level, and one was not flagged. Limitations Central data monitoring during the conduct of a trial while data checking was in progress was not evaluated. Conclusion Systematic central monitoring of clinical trial data can identify problems at the same trials and sites identified during FDA site inspections. Central data monitoring in conjunction with an overall monitoring process that adapts to identify risks as a trial progresses has the potential to reduce the frequency of site visits while increasing data integrity and decreasing trial costs compared to processes that are dependent primarily on source documentation.

Thiomersal in vaccines: is removal warranted?

The mercury-based vaccine preservative thiomersal has come under scrutiny in recent months because of its presence in certain vaccines that provide the foundation of childhood immunisation schedules. Over the past decade new vaccines have been added to the recommended childhood schedule, and the relatively smaller bodyweight of infants has led to concern that the cumulative exposure of mercury from infant vaccines may exceed certain guidelines for the human consumption of mercury. In the US, government agencies and professional societies have recently recommended that thiomersal be removed altogether from vaccines. Some involved in developing vaccine policy feel that the evidence to support these safety concerns has not risen to the level required for such a response. This apparent divergence of opinion has left healthcare professionals and the public with uncertainty about the potential health effects from low level exposure to thiomersal as well as the necessity of removing thiomersal from vaccines. At present, scientific investigation has not found conclusive evidence of harm from thiomersal in vaccines. As a precautionary measure, efforts are under way to remove or replace thiomersal from vaccines and providers should anticipate the availability of more vaccine products that are thiomersal-free over the coming years.