Robert T. Chen

The Guillain–Barré Syndrome and the 1992–1993 and 1993–1994 Influenza Vaccines

BACKGROUND The number of reports of influenza-vaccine-associated Guillain-Barré syndrome to the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System increased from 37 in 1992-1993 to 74 in 1993-1994, arousing concern about a possible increase in vaccine-associated risk. METHODS Patients given a diagnosis of the Guillain-Barré syndrome in the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 influenza-vaccination seasons were identified in the hospital-discharge data bases of four states. Vaccination histories were obtained by telephone interviews during 1995-1996 and were confirmed by the vaccine providers. Disease with an onset within six weeks after vaccination was defined as vaccine-associated. Vaccine coverage in the population was measured through a random-digit-dialing telephone survey. RESULTS We interviewed 180 of 273 adults with the Guillain-Barré syndrome; 15 declined to participate, and the remaining 78 could not be contacted. The vaccine providers confirmed influenza vaccination in the six weeks before the onset of Guillain-Barré syndrome for 19 patients. The relative risk of the Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with vaccination, adjusted for age, sex, and vaccine season, was 1.7 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.0 to 2.8; P=0.04). The adjusted relative risks were 2.0 for the 1992-1993 season (95 percent confidence interval, 1.0 to 4.3) and 1.5 for the 1993-1994 season (95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 2.9). In 9 of the 19 vaccine-associated cases, the onset was in the second week after vaccination, all between day 9 and day 12. CONCLUSIONS There was no increase in the risk of vaccine-associated Guillain-Barré syndrome from 1992-1993 to 1993-1994. For the two seasons combined, the adjusted relative risk of 1.7 suggests slightly more than one additional case of Guillain-Barré syndrome per million persons vaccinated against influenza.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Immunizations against most vaccine-preventable diseases will be needed indefinitely unless the disease is eradicated. Public acceptance of immunizations may be threatened as vaccine coverage increases and disease decreases, however, due to the increase in both causally and coincidentally related vaccine adverse events. The post-marketing surveillance for such events in the USA in response to the mandatory reporting requirements of the National Childhood Injury Act of 1986. While VAERS has many methodological limitations intrinsic to such systems, it can play an important role in helping to monitor vaccine safety and maintain public confidence in immunizations.

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.

Population-based study of rotavirus vaccination and intussusception

Background. During the first year that the rhesus rotavirus tetravalent vaccine (RRV-TV) was licensed, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System received several reports of intussusception after vaccination. To evaluate the risk of intussusception, we conducted a retrospective cohort study in ten managed care organizations. Methods. Cases of intussusception were identified by searching electronic databases for diagnoses of intussusception (ICD-9 Code 560.0) in infants 1 to 11 months of age and confirmed by medical chart review. Vaccination and enrollment data were obtained from administrative databases. Incidence rate ratios (RR) of intussusception were computed by dividing incidence rates in prespecified risk intervals after vaccination by the background rate of intussusception and adjusted for age by Poisson regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate risk by vaccine dose. Results. Of 463 277 children 56 253 had been vaccinated with a total of 91 371 doses of RRV-TV. The incidence rate of intussusception was 25/100 000 person years among unexposed infants and 340/100 000 person years 3 to 7 days postvaccination. In the interval 3 to 7 days after vaccination, the age-adjusted RR was 16.0 (95% confidence interval, 5.5 to 46.7) for all doses combined and 30.4 (95% confidence interval, 8.8 to 104.9) after the first dose. RRs for the 8- to 14- and 15- to 21-day risk intervals were >1.0, but the confidence intervals substantially overlapped 1.0. The attributable risk was one case of intussusception per 11 073 children vaccinated. Conclusions. RRV-TV is associated with an increased risk of intussusception. The risk is greatest 3 to 7 days after the first vaccination dose.

The Vaccine Safety Datalink: immunization research in health maintenance organizations in the USA

The Vaccine Safety Datalink is a collaborative project involving the National Immunization Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several large health maintenance organizations in the USA. The project began in 1990 with the primary purpose of rigorously evaluating concerns about the safety of vaccines. Computerized data on vaccination, medical outcome (e.g. outpatient visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and deaths) and covariates (e.g. birth certificates, census data) are prospectively collected and linked under joint protocol at multiple health maintenance organizations for analysis. Approximately 6 million persons (2% of the population of the USA) are now members of health maintenance organizations participating in the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which has proved to be a valuable resource providing important information on a number of vaccine safety issues. The databases and infrastructure created for the Vaccine Safety Datalink have also provided opportunities to address vaccination coverage, cost-effectiveness and other matters connected with immunization as well as matters outside this field.

An overview of the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) as a surveillance system

We evaluated the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the spontaneous reporting system for vaccine-associated adverse events in the United States, as a public health surveillance system, using evaluation guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We found that VAERS is simple for reporters to use, flexible by design and its data are available in a timely fashion. The predictive value positive for one severe event is known to be high, but for most events is unknown. The acceptability, sensitivity and representativeness of VAERS are unknown. The study of vaccine safety is complicated by underreporting, erroneous reporting, frequent multiple exposures and multiple outcomes.

Active surveillance of vaccine safety : A system to detect early signs of adverse events

Background: There currently are no population-based systems in the United States to rapidly detect adverse events after newly introduced vaccines. To evaluate the feasibility of developing such systems, we used 5 years of data from 4 health maintenance organizations within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Safety Datalink. Methods: Within every year, each weeks vaccinated children were followed for 4 weeks, and rates of adverse events were compared with rates among children of similar ages before the introduction of the new vaccine. We assessed risks for intussusception after rotavirus vaccination and risks for fever, seizures, and other neurologic adverse events after the change from whole cell diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTPw) to acellular DTP vaccine (DTPa). We used sequential probability ratio testing, adjusted for age, sex, calendar time, season, and HMO, and with a stopping value based on the probability of an adverse event under the null hypothesis and under a preset alternative hypothesis. Results: We detected an increase in intussusception after 2589 vaccine doses of rotavirus vaccine, about the same time initial reports of intussusception were made to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Decreases in risk for fever, seizures, and other abnormal neurologic events became detectable within 12 weeks, 42 weeks, and 18 months, respectively, after the change from DTPw to DTPa. Conclusions: We conclude that it is feasible to develop systems for rapid and routine population-based assessments of new vaccine safety.

Influenza vaccination in children with asthma in Health Maintenance Organizations

We assessed vaccination coverage and predictors of influenza vaccination in asthmatic children in four large Health Maintenance Organizations. We studied 68,839 children with asthma at four Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in the 1995-1996 influenza season and 34,032 children at two HMOs in the 1996-1997 influenza season. In both seasons only 9-10% were vaccinated against influenza. Children who were hospitalized, had an emergency department visit for asthma or a prescription for a beta-agonist prior to the influenza season, were more likely to be vaccinated. Overall, 61% of the unvaccinated asthmatic children had made an outpatient clinic visit during months when influenza vaccination would have been appropriate. Vaccination coverage could be increased by taking advantage of all opportunities to vaccinate children with asthma whenever they make clinic visits in the fall and early winter.

Vaccine risks: real, perceived and unknown.

As immunizations successfully reduce the incidence of their target diseases, the vaccine community needs to evolve and recognize the increased relative prominence of vaccine safety. Just as the aviation community maintained public confidence by its continuous investment in a safety infrastructure as it evolved from propeller to jet and jumbo planes, modernization of the vaccine safety infrastructure commensurate with the current investment in vaccine development will be needed if the full promise of new vaccines made possible by the biotechnology revolution are likely to be fulfilled.

Safety and immunogenicity of varying dosages of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine administered by needle-free jet injectors

To evaluate the perceived pain, other adverse events, and immunogenicity of influenza virus vaccine administered by needle-free jet injector (JI) compared with that of vaccine administered by needle and syringe (N&S), we randomly assigned 304 healthy young adults to receive one of three dosages (0.5, 0.3, or 0.2 ml) of the 1998-1999 season vaccine administered by either of two JI devices or by N&S. In multivariate analysis, female gender and JI administration were associated with higher levels of pain reported at the time of vaccination as well as with the occurrence of local injection site reactions following vaccination. Immune response did not vary significantly by dosage but administration by one JI device was associated with higher post-vaccination H1N1 antibody titers.