Safety and Immunogenicity of Accelerated Heterologous Two-dose Ebola Vaccine Regimens in Adults With and Without HIV in Africa.

BACKGROUND: Shorter prophylactic vaccine schedules may offer more rapid protection against Ebola in resource-limited settings. METHODS: This randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted in five sub-Saharan African countries included people without HIV (PWOH, n = 249) and people living with HIV (PLWH, n = 250). Adult participants received one of two accelerated Ebola vaccine regimens (MVA-BN-Filo, Ad26.ZEBOV administered 14 days apart [n = 79] or Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo administered 28 days apart [n = 322]) or saline/placebo (n = 98). The primary endpoints were safety (adverse events [AEs]) and immunogenicity (Ebola virus [EBOV] glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses). Binding antibody responders were defined as participants with a > 2.5-fold increase from baseline or the lower limit of quantification if negative at baseline. RESULTS: The mean age was 33.4 years, 52% of participants were female, and among PLWH, the median (interquartile range) CD4+ cell count was 560.0 (418.0-752.0) cells/µL. AEs were generally mild/moderate with no vaccine-related serious AEs or remarkable safety profile differences by HIV status. At 21 days post-dose 2, EBOV glycoprotein-specific binding antibody response rates in vaccine recipients were 99% for the 14-day regimen (geometric mean concentrations [GMCs]: 5168 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units (EU)/mL in PWOH; 2509 EU/mL in PLWH), and 98% for the 28-day regimen (GMCs: 6037 EU/mL in PWOH; 2939 EU/mL in PLWH). At 12 months post-dose 2, GMCs in PWOH and PLWH were 635 and 514 EU/mL, respectively, for the 14-day regimen and 331 and 360 EU/mL, respectively, for the 28-day regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated 14- and 28-day Ebola vaccine regimens were safe and immunogenic in PWOH and PLWH in Africa. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02598388.

Evaluation of Intussusception Following Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccine (RotaTeq) Administration in 5 African Countries.

BACKGROUND: A low-level risk of intussusception following rotavirus vaccination has been observed in some settings and may vary by vaccine type. We examined the association between RotaTeq vaccination and intussusception in low-income settings in a pooled analysis from 5 African countries that introduced RotaTeq into their national immunization program. METHODS: Active surveillance was conducted at 20 hospitals to identify intussusception cases. A standard case report form was completed for each enrolled child, and vaccination status was determined by review of the child's vaccination card. The pseudo-likelihood adaptation of self-controlled case-series method was used to assess the association between RotaTeq administration and intussusception in the 1-7, 8-21, and 1-21 day periods after each vaccine dose in infants aged 28-245 days. RESULTS: Data from 318 infants with confirmed rotavirus vaccination status were analyzed. No clustering of cases occurred in any of the risk windows after any of the vaccine doses. Compared with the background risk of naturally occurring intussusception, no increased risk was observed after dose 1 in the 1-7 day (relative incidence = 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47-8.03) or the 8-21 day window (relative incidence = 0.77; 95%CI = 0.0-2.69). Similarly, no increased risk of intussusception was observed in any risk window after dose 2 or 3. CONCLUSIONS: RotaTeq vaccination was not associated with increased risk of intussusception in this analysis from 5 African countries. This finding mirrors results from similar analyses with other rotavirus vaccines in low-income settings and highlights the need for vaccine-specific and setting-specific risk monitoring.

Early Mortality After the First Dose of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Target Trial Emulation.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy persists alongside concerns about the safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. We aimed to examine the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on risk of death among US veterans. METHODS: We conducted a target trial emulation to estimate and compare risk of death up to 60 days under two COVID-19 vaccination strategies: vaccination within 7 days of enrollment versus no vaccination through follow-up. The study cohort included individuals aged ≥18 years enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration system and eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccination according to guideline recommendations from 1 March 2021 through 1 July 2021. The outcomes of interest included deaths from any cause and excluding a COVID-19 diagnosis. Observations were cloned to both treatment strategies, censored, and weighted to estimate per-protocol effects. RESULTS: We included 3 158 507 veterans. Under the vaccination strategy, 364 993 received vaccine within 7 days. At 60 days, there were 156 deaths per 100 000 veterans under the vaccination strategy versus 185 deaths under the no vaccination strategy, corresponding to an absolute risk difference of -25.9 (95% confidence limit [CL], -59.5 to 2.7) and relative risk of 0.86 (95% CL, .7 to 1.0). When those with a COVID-19 infection in the first 60 days were censored, the absolute risk difference was -20.6 (95% CL, -53.4 to 16.0) with a relative risk of 0.88 (95% CL, .7 to 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a lower but not statistically significantly different risk of death in the first 60 days. These results agree with prior scientific knowledge suggesting vaccination is safe with the potential for substantial health benefits.

Novel Oral Poliovirus Vaccine 2 Safety Evaluation during Nationwide Supplemental Immunization Activity, Uganda, 2022.

Given its enhanced genetic stability, novel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 was deployed for type 2 poliovirus outbreak responses under World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing. We evaluated the safety profile of this vaccine. No safety signals were identified using a multipronged approach of passive and active surveillance.

Applying two approaches to detect unmeasured confounding due to time-varying variables in a self-controlled risk interval design evaluating COVID-19 vaccine safety signals, using myocarditis as a case example.

We test the robustness of the self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) design in a setting where time between doses may introduce time-varying confounding, using both negative control outcomes (NCOs) and quantitative bias analysis (QBA). All vaccinated cases identified from 5 European databases between 1 September 2020 and end of data availability were included. Exposures were doses 1-3 of the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines; outcomes were myocarditis and otitis externa (NCO). The SCRI used a 60-day control window and dose-specific 28-day risk windows, stratified by vaccine brand and adjusted for calendar time. The QBA included two scenarios: (i) baseline probability of the confounder was higher in the control window and (ii) vice versa. The NCO was not associated with any of the COVID-19 vaccine types or doses except Moderna dose 1 (IRR = 1.09, 95%CI 1.01-1.09). The QBA suggested even the strongest literature-reported confounder (COVID-19; RRmyocarditis = 18.3) could only explain away part of the observed effect from IRR = 3 to IRR = 1.40. The SCRI seems robust to unmeasured confounding in the COVID-19 setting, although a strong unmeasured confounder could bias the observed effect upward. Replication of our findings for other safety signals would strengthen this conclusion.

A Propensity Score Approach and a Partitioned Approach for the Self-Controlled Case Series Design to Evaluate Safety of a 2-dose Vaccine Series: Application to myocarditis/pericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

The assumption that serious adverse events (SAEs) do not affect subsequent exposure might not hold when evaluating 2-dose vaccine safety through a self-controlled case series (SCCS) design. To address this, we developed: 1) propensity score SCCS (PS-SCCS) using a propensity score model involving SAEs during the risk interval after dose 1 (${R}_1\Big)$, and 2) partitioned SCCS (P-SCCS) estimating relative incidence (RI) separately for doses 1 and 2. In simulations, both provided unbiased RIs. Conversely, standard SCCS overestimated RI after dose 2. We applied these approaches to assess myocarditis/pericarditis risks after 2-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in 12-39-year-olds. For BNT162b2, PS-SCCS yielded RIs of 1.85 (95% CI, 0.75-4.59) and 11.05 (95% CI, 6.53-18.68) 14 days after doses 1 and 2 respectively; standard SCCS provided similar RI after dose 1 and RI of 12.92 (95% CI, 7.56-22.09) after dose 2. For mRNA-1273, standard SCCS showed RIs of 1.96 (95% CI, 0.56-6.91) after dose 1 and 7.87 (95% CI, 3.33-18.57) after dose 2. As no mRNA-1273 recipients with SAEs during ${R}_1$ received dose 2, P-SCCS was used, yielding similar RI after dose 1 and RI of 6.48 (95% CI, 2.83-14.83) after dose 2. mRNA vaccines were associated with elevated myocarditis/pericarditis risks following dose 2 in 12-39-year-olds.

Uptake, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in individuals at clinical risk due to immunosuppressive drug therapy or transplantation procedures: a population-based cohort study in England.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in this population. The lack of comprehensive real-world data on vaccine uptake, effectiveness and safety in these individuals presents a critical knowledge gap, highlighting the urgency to better understand and address the unique challenges faced by immunocompromised individuals in the context of COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We analysed data from 12,274,946 people in the UK aged > 12 years from 01/12/2020 to 11/04/2022. Of these, 583,541 (4.8%) were immunocompromised due to immunosuppressive drugs, organ transplants, dialysis or chemotherapy. We undertook a cohort analysis to determine COVID-19 vaccine uptake, nested case-control analyses adjusted for comorbidities and sociodemographic characteristics to determine effectiveness of vaccination against COVID-19 hospitalisation, ICU admission and death, and a self-controlled case series assessing vaccine safety for pre-specified adverse events of interest. RESULTS: Overall, 93.7% of immunocompromised individuals received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, with 80.4% having received three or more doses. Uptake reduced with increasing deprivation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95%CI 0.77-0.79] in the most deprived quintile compared to the least deprived quintile for the first dose). Estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation 2-6 weeks after the second and third doses compared to unvaccinated was 78% (95%CI 72-83) and 91% (95%CI 88-93) in the immunocompromised population, versus 85% (95%CI 83-86) and 86% (95%CI 85-89), respectively, for the general population. Results showed COVID-19 vaccines were protective against intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death in both populations, with effectiveness of over 92% against COVID-19-related death and up to 95% in reducing ICU admissions for both populations following the third dose. COVID-19 vaccines were generally safe for immunocompromised individuals, though specific doses of ChAdOx1, mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 raised risks of specific cardiovascular/neurological conditions. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine uptake is high in immunocompromised individuals on immunosuppressive drug therapy or who have undergone transplantation procedures, with documented disparities by deprivation. Findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccines are protective against severe COVID-19 outcomes in this vulnerable population, and show a similar safety profile in immunocompromised individuals and the general population, despite some increased risk of adverse events. These results underscore the importance of ongoing vaccination prioritisation for this clinically at-risk population to maximise protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccinations for adults: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of three or four heterologous versus homologous booster regimens. METHODS: From November 3 2022 to December 21, 2023, we searched five databases for randomised clinical trials (RCT). Reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed bias risks independently with the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. We conducted meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) on our primary (all-cause mortality; laboratory confirmed symptomatic and severe COVID-19; serious adverse events [SAE]) and secondary outcomes (quality of life [QoL]; adverse events [AE] considered non-serious). We assessed the evidence with the GRADE approach. Subgroup analyses were stratified for trials before and after 2023, three or four boosters, immunocompromised status, follow-up, risk of bias, heterologous booster vaccine platforms, and valency of booster. RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs with 43 comparisons (12,538 participants). Heterologous booster regimens may not reduce the relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality (11 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.26; I2 0%; very low certainty evidence); laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 (14 trials; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; I2 0%; very low certainty); or severe COVID-19 (10 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.33; I2 0%; very low certainty). For safety outcomes, heterologous booster regimens may have no effect on SAE (27 trials; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95; I2 0%; very low certainty) but may raise AE considered non-serious (20 trials; RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; I2 64.4%; very low certainty). No data on QoL was available. Our TSAs showed that the cumulative Z curves did not reach futility for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: With our current sample sizes, we were not able to infer differences of effects for any outcomes, but heterologous booster regimens seem to cause more non-serious AE. Furthermore, more robust data are instrumental to update this review.

Uptake and safety of pneumococcal vaccination in adults with immune mediated inflammatory diseases: a UK wide observational study.

OBJECTIVE: The uptake and safety of pneumococcal vaccination in people with immune mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) is poorly understood. We investigated the UK wide pneumococcal vaccine uptake in adults with IMIDs and explored the association between vaccination and IMID flare. METHODS: Adults with IMIDs diagnosed on or before 01/09/2018, prescribed steroid-sparing drugs within the last 12 months and contributing data to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold were included. Vaccine uptake was assessed using a cross-sectional study design. Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis investigated the association between pneumococcal vaccination and IMID flare. The SCCS observation period was up-to six-month before and after pneumococcal vaccination. This was partitioned into a 14-day pre-vaccination induction, 90-days post-vaccination exposed, and the remaining unexposed periods. RESULTS: We included 32 277 patients, 14 151 with RA, 13 631 with IBD, 3,804 with axial spondyloarthritis and 691 with SLE. Overall, 57% were vaccinated against pneumococcus. Vaccine uptake was lower in those younger than 45 years (32%), with IBD (42%), and without additional indication(s) for vaccination (46%). In the vaccine-safety study, data for 1,067, 935, and 451vaccinated patients with primary-care consultations for joint pain, AIRD flare and IBD flare respectively were included. Vaccination against pneumococcal pneumonia was not associated with primary-care consultations for joint pain, AIRD flare and IBD flare in the exposed period with incidence rate ratios (95% Confidence Interval) 0.95 (0.83-1.09), 1.05 (0.92-1.19), and 0.83 (0.65-1.06) respectively. CONCLUSION: Uptake of pneumococcal vaccination in UK patients with IMIDs was suboptimal. Vaccination against pneumococcal disease was not associated with IMID flare.

COVID-19 vaccination safety and associated health care utilization among adults with inflammatory bowel disease - a population-based self-controlled case series analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is an incomplete understanding of the full safety profiles of repeated COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Among individuals with IBD, we assessed whether COVID-19 vaccines were associated with serious adverse events of special interest (AESI) and health care utilization [all-cause hospitalizations, Emergency Department (ED) visits, gastroenterology visits, IBD-related visits]. METHODS: Using comprehensive administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, adults with IBD who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine from December 2020-January 2022 were included. Self-controlled case series analyses were conducted to evaluate the relative incidence rates of AESI and health care utilization outcomes across post-vaccination risk and control periods. RESULTS: Among 88,407 IBD patients, 99.7% received mRNA vaccines and 75.9% received ≥ 3 doses. Relative to control periods, we did not detect an increase in AESI. IBD patients had fewer all-cause hospitalizations during post-vaccination risk periods. Patients experienced more all-cause ED visits after dose 2 [Relative Incidence (RI):1.08(95%CI:1.04-1.12)] but fewer visits after doses 3 [RI:0.85 (95%CI:0.81-0.90)] and 4 [RI:0.73 (95%CI:0.57-0.92)]. There was no increase in gastroenterologist visits or IBD-related health care utilization post-vaccination. There were fewer IBD-related hospitalizations after dose 1 [RI:0.84 (95%CI:0.72-0.98)] and 3 [RI:0.63 (95%CI:0.52-0.76)], fewer IBD-related ED visits after dose 3 [RI:0.81 (95%CI:0.71-0.91)] and 4 [RI:0.55 (95%CI:0.32-0.96)], and fewer outpatient visits after dose 2 [RI:0.91 (95%CI:0.90-0.93)] and 3 [RI:0.87 (95%CI:0.86-0.89)]. CONCLUSION: This population-based study did not detect increased AESI, all-cause or IBD-related health care utilization following COVID-19 vaccination, suggesting a lack of association between vaccination and increased disease activity.

Safety and immunogenicity of Zika virus vaccine: A systematic review of clinical trials.

Several phase-1 clinical trials have been performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of candidate anti-Zika vaccines. In this systematic review, we systematically evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of candidate vaccines, which would aid researchers in formulating an effective vaccination strategy for phase-2 trials based on current evidence. A literature search was conducted using the electronic databases MEDLINE through Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database for relevant studies on candidate anti-zika vaccines. Studies on animal models were excluded from our study. Healthy individuals who were administered candidate Zika vaccines to evaluate the immune response and adverse events (AEs) compared to placebo were considered. Data were extracted, tabulated, and analysed using Microsoft Excel, while the risk of bias plots were generated using tidyverse and Robvis packages in R-studio. A total of five phase-1 clinical trials were included in our analysis comprising of studies on inactivated, viral vector, and DNA vaccines. Immunogenicity ranged from 10% to 100% after vaccination with the lowest seroconversion rate (10%) and geometric mean titre (GMT) (6.3; 95% confidence interval (CI):3.7-10.8) observed among recipients of single-dose inactivated anti-zika vaccine (ZPIV). For DNA vaccines, the seroconversion rate ranged from 60% to 100% with the highest seroconversion rate (100%) and GMT (2871; 95% CI:705.3-11688) observed among recipients of three shots of high dose GLS-5700 vaccine. For viral vector vaccine (Ad26.ZIKV.001) seroconversion rate (100%) and GMT peaked after two shots with both low and high-dose vaccines. In all those studies AEs were mostly local including injection site pain, erythema, and itching. The most common systemic AEs included fever, myalgia, nausea, and fatigue. In phase-1 clinical trials, all candidate vaccines were found to be highly immunogenic and relatively safe, especially when administered in higher doses and with the help of needle-free devices.

Perinatal outcomes and sinopharm BBIBP-CorV vaccination during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: After the outbreak of COVID-19, a huge part of the health care services was dedicated to preventing and treating this disease. In case of COVID-19 infection, severe COVID-19 is reported more in pregnant individuals. Afterward, Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 became a hot topic due to known effects in preventing severe COVID-19 during pregnancy. Vaccination of pregnant individuals started in August 2021 with the Sinopharm vaccine in Iran. The aim of current study was to determine the incidence of perinatal outcomes in women who were vaccinated during pregnancy. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study included 129,488 singleton births from March 21, 2021, until March 21, 2022, in Tehran, Iran. The data was obtained from the Iranian Maternal and Neonatal (IMaN) Network and the Maternal Vaccination Registry. Adverse perinatal outcomes investigated in this study include preterm birth, extremely preterm birth, low birth weight, very low birth weight, intrauterine growth restriction, stillbirth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, congenital anomaly, neonatal death and low 5-minute Apgar score. The risk of all perinatal outcomes was evaluated using multiple logistic regression. The analysis was done using STATA version 14. RESULTS: Of all 129,488 singleton births included in this study, 17,485 (13.5%) were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (all with Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV)). The exposure to the Sinopharm vaccine during pregnancy caused a significant decrease in the incidence of preterm birth (P =0.006, OR=0.91 [95% CI, 0.85 to 0.97]), extremely preterm birth (P =<0.001,OR=0.55 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.66]), and stillbirth (P =<0.001, OR=0.60 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.76]). Exposure to vaccination during the first trimester was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (P =0.01, OR=1.27 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.55]) Maternal vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with an increased risk of other adverse perinatal outcomes included in this study. CONCLUSION: The finding of this population-based study indicated no adverse pregnancy outcome due to vaccination with the Sinopharm vaccine during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Overall risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes were lower in the vaccinated individuals compared to the unvaccinated group. Also, vaccination during the first trimester was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth.

The efficacy and safety of a quadrivalent live attenuated influenza nasal vaccine in Japanese children: A phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the primary method of preventing influenza infection and complications in young children. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single dose of MEDI3250 (intranasal, quadrivalent, live attenuated influenza vaccine) in healthy Japanese children during the 2016/17 influenza season. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study (jRCT2080223345), participants aged 2-18 years received MEDI3250 or placebo (2:1), stratified by age (2-6 years, 7-18 years). The primary and secondary endpoints were the incidence of confirmed symptomatic onset of influenza caused by a circulating wild-type strain or by a vaccine-matched strain, respectively. Safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and vaccine-related AEs. RESULTS: Overall, 910 participants received MEDI3250 (n = 608) or placebo (n = 302). For the primary endpoint (regardless of the influenza subtype), the incidence of influenza onset was 25.5 % (MEDI3250) and 35.9 % (placebo); relative risk reduction, 28.8 % (95 % confidence interval, 12.5 %-42.0 %). For the secondary endpoint (vaccine-matched strain), the incidence was 10.9 % (MEDI3250) and 17.2 % (placebo); relative risk reduction, 36.6 % (95 % confidence interval, 6.5 %-56.8 %). Solicited AEs occurred in 67.6 % (MEDI3250) and 63.6 % (placebo). Most events were mild; nasal discharge was most common (59.2 % [MEDI3250] and 52.6 % [placebo]). Unsolicited AEs occurred in 36.0 % (MEDI3250) and 33.1 % (placebo). The most common unsolicited vaccine-related AE was diarrhea (2.3 %, both groups). CONCLUSIONS: MEDI3250 had a greater preventive effect against influenza onset in Japanese children than placebo; no new safety signals were observed relative to previous clinical and post-marketing studies of MEDI3250.

A Causality Assessment Framework for COVID-19 Vaccines and Adverse Events at the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024. This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels-high, moderate, limited, or insufficient-while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as "convincingly supports" ("evidence established" in the 2024 NASEM report), "favors acceptance," "favors rejection," or "inadequate to accept or reject." The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weight-of-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-of-evidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.

Adverse Events Following Immunization With mRNA and Viral Vector Vaccines in Individuals With Previous Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection From the Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network.

BACKGROUND: Adults previously infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) develop short-term immunity and may have increased reactogenicity to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This prospective, multicenter, active-surveillance cohort study examined the short-term safety of COVID-19 vaccines in adults with a prior history of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Canadian adults vaccinated between 22 December 2020 and 27 November 2021 were sent an electronic questionnaire 7 days post-dose 1, dose 2, and dose 3 vaccination. The main outcome was health events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination that prevented daily activities, resulted in work absenteeism, or required a medical consultation, including hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 684 998 vaccinated individuals, 2.6% (18 127/684 998) reported a prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection a median of 4 (interquartile range: 2-6) months previously. After dose 1, individuals with moderate (bedridden) to severe (hospitalized) COVID-19 who received BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or ChAdox1-S vaccines had higher odds of a health event preventing daily activities, resulting in work absenteeism or requiring medical consultation (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.96 [3.67-4.28] for BNT162b2, 5.01 [4.57-5.50] for mRNA-1273, and 1.84 [1.54-2.20] for ChAdox1-S compared with no infection). Following dose 2 and 3, the greater risk associated with previous infection was also present but was attenuated compared with dose 1. For all doses, the association was lower or absent after mild or asymptomatic infection. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with moderate or severe previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to have a health event sufficient to impact routine activities or require medical assessment in the week following each vaccine dose.

Enhanced Adenovirus Vaccine Safety Surveillance in Military Setting, United States.

The US Coast Guard Academy began adenovirus vaccination of incoming cadets in 2022. Of 294 vaccine recipients, 15%-20% had mild respiratory or systemic symptoms within 10 days postvaccination but no serious adverse events after 90 days. Our findings support the continued use of adenovirus vaccines in congregate military settings.

Active Postlicensure Safety Surveillance for Recombinant Zoster Vaccine Using Electronic Health Record Data.

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) (Shingrix; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, United Kingdom) is an adjuvanted glycoprotein vaccine that was licensed in 2017 to prevent herpes zoster (shingles) and its complications in older adults. In this prospective, postlicensure Vaccine Safety Datalink study using electronic health records, we sequentially monitored a real-world population of adults aged ≥50 years who received care in multiple US Vaccine Safety Datalink health systems to identify potentially increased risks of 10 prespecified health outcomes, including stroke, anaphylaxis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Among 647,833 RZV doses administered from January 2018 through December 2019, we did not detect a sustained increased risk of any monitored outcome for RZV recipients relative to either historical (2013-2017) recipients of zoster vaccine live, a live attenuated virus vaccine (Zostavax; Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey), or contemporary non-RZV vaccine recipients who had an annual well-person visit during the 2018-2019 study period. We confirmed prelicensure trial findings of increased risks of systemic and local reactions following RZV. Our study provides additional reassurance about the overall safety of RZV. Despite a large sample, uncertainty remains regarding potential associations with GBS due to the limited number of confirmed GBS cases that were observed.

Autoimmune haemolytic anaemia and immune thrombocytopenia following SARS-CoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: 32 Years of passive surveillance data.

Autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA) and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) are two uncommon haematologic autoimmune conditions that can rarely arise secondary to vaccination. Prior studies using the US Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) have demonstrated this infrequency, but contemporary data as well as comparison with current information regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has not been assessed. In this study, we reviewed VAERS database reports from 1990 to 2022 to characterize the incidence and clinical and laboratory findings of non-SARS-CoV-2-associated AIHA and ITP and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated AIHA and ITP. We discovered a total of 863 AIHA and ITP reports following vaccination with 15 non-SARS-CoV-2 and four SARS-CoV-2 vaccines submitted to the CDC VAERS database. AIHA and ITP reporting was low for both groups, with a large proportion excluded due to a lack of clinical details. ITP was reported the most frequently in both groups and was significantly more common with measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination (p < 0.001) in the non-SARS-CoV-2 group. AIHA and ITP cases were higher in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine group, though ultimately still very infrequent. Autoimmune haematologic disease is vanishingly rare after immunization and rates are lower than in the general population according to passive reporting.

Postmarketing Safety Surveillance of a Hexavalent Vaccine in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

We assessed the safety of hexavalent vaccine diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis, inactivated poliovirus, hepatitis b, and haemophilus influenzae b conjugate vaccine in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Five hundred-one reports of adverse events (AEs) were identified; 21 (4.2%) were serious. Most frequently reported AEs were fever (10.2%) and injection site erythema (5.4%). AEs reported were consistent with findings from prelicensure studies.

Is the mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safe in Patients With a Prior History of Myocarditis?

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have reported myocarditis resulting from messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. However, to date, there have been no reports highlighting the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in children and adults with a prior history of myocarditis, which was the intent of this study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Children and adults cared for at the Cleveland Clinic were identified through the electronic health records, who had a history of myocarditis before the COVID-19 pandemic and had subsequently received at least 2 doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (n = 34). Only 1 patient in this series had recurrence of myocarditis confirmed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging after receiving the second dose. He was a White man who had his first episode of myocarditis at age 20 and was 27 years of age at the time of recurrence. He was hospitalized for 2 days with no need for cardiac support or reported arrhythmias and was stable at outpatient follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an old history of non-COVID-19 myocarditis, the risk of recurrent myocarditis after receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination is low, and when it occurs it seems to be self-limiting. Our study will be valuable to clinicians while discussing the risk-benefit ratio of vaccinations in patients with a prior history of myocarditis.