The critical role of background rates of possible adverse events in the assessment of COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Beginning in December of 2019, a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, emerged in China and is now a global pandemic with extensive morbidity and mortality. With the emergence of this threat, an unprecedented effort to develop vaccines against this virus began. As vaccines are now being introduced globally, we face the prospect of millions of people being vaccinated with multiple types of vaccines many of which use new vaccine platforms. Since medical events happen without vaccines, it will be important to know at what rate events occur in the background so that when adverse events are identified one has a frame of reference with which to compare the rates of these events so as to make an initial assessment as to whether there is a potential safety concern or not. Background rates vary over time, by geography, by sex, socioeconomic status and by age group. Here we describe two key steps for post-introduction safety evaluation of COVID-19 vaccines: Defining a dynamic list of Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) and establishing background rates for these AESI. We use multiple examples to illustrate use of rates and caveats for their use. In addition we discuss tools available from the Brighton Collaboration that facilitate case evaluation and understanding of AESI.

Consensus summary report for CEPI/BC March 12-13, 2020 meeting: Assessment of risk of disease enhancement with COVID-19 vaccines.

A novel coronavirus (CoV), Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged in late 2019 in Wuhan, China and has since spread as a global pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are thus urgently needed to reduce the significant morbidity and mortality of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease and ease the major economic impact. There has been an unprecedented rapid response by vaccine developers with now over one hundred vaccine candidates in development and at least six having reached clinical trials. However, a major challenge during rapid development is to avoid safety issues both by thoughtful vaccine design and by thorough evaluation in a timely manner. A syndrome of "disease enhancement" has been reported in the past for a few viral vaccines where those immunized suffered increased severity or death when they later encountered the virus or were found to have an increased frequency of infection. Animal models allowed scientists to determine the underlying mechanism for the former in the case of Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine and have been utilized to design and screen new RSV vaccine candidates. Because some Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and SARS-CoV-1 vaccines have shown evidence of disease enhancement in some animal models, this is a particular concern for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. To address this challenge, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the Brighton Collaboration (BC) Safety Platform for Emergency vACcines (SPEAC) convened a scientific working meeting on March 12 and 13, 2020 of experts in the field of vaccine immunology and coronaviruses to consider what vaccine designs could reduce safety concerns and how animal models and immunological assessments in early clinical trials can help to assess the risk. This report summarizes the evidence presented and provides considerations for safety assessment of COVID-19 vaccine candidates in accelerated vaccine development.

Clinical assessment of serious adverse events in children receiving 2009 H1N1 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines were licensed and administered in the United States during the H1N1 influenza pandemic between 2009 and 2013. METHODS: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System received reports of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) after H1N1 vaccination. Selected reports were referred to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment network for additional review. We assessed causality using modified World Health Organization criteria. RESULTS: There were 3,928 reports of AEFI in children younger than age 18 years after 2009 H1N1 vaccination received by January 31, 2010. Of these, 214 (5.4%) were classified as serious nonfatal and 109 were referred to Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment for further evaluation. Ninety-nine (91%) had sufficient initial information to begin investigation and are described here. The mean age was 8 years (range, 6 months-17 years) and 38% were female. Median number of days between vaccination and symptom onset was 2 (range, -11 days to +41 days). Receipt of inactivated, live attenuated, or unknown type of 2009 H1N1 vaccines was reported by 68, 26 and 5 cases, respectively. Serious AEFI were categorized as neurologic events in 47 cases, as hypersensitivity in 15 cases and as respiratory events in 10 cases. At the time of evaluation, recovery was described as complete (61), partial (16), no improvement (1), or unknown (21). Causality assessment yielded the following likelihood of association with 2009 H1N1 vaccination: 8 definitely; 8 probably; 21 possibly; 43 unlikely; 17 unrelated; and 2 unclassifiable. CONCLUSIONS: Most AEFI in children evaluated were not causally related to vaccine and resolved without sequelae. Detailed clinical assessment of individual serious AEFI can provide reassurance of vaccine safety.

Causality assessment of adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

UNLABELLED: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) reported to the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) represent true causally related events, as well as events that are temporally, but not necessarily causally related to vaccine. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if the causal relationships between the vaccine and the AEFI reported to VAERS could be assessed through expert review. DESIGN: A stratified random sample of 100 VAERS reports received in 2004 contained 13 fatal cases, 19 cases with non-fatal disabilities, 39 other serious non-fatal cases and 29 non-serious cases. Experts knowledgeable about vaccines and clinical outcomes, reviewed each VAERS report and available medical records. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Modified World Health Organization criteria were used to classify the causal relationship between vaccines and AEFI as definite, probable, possible, unlikely or unrelated. Five independent reviewers evaluated each report. If they did not reach a majority agreement on causality after initial review, the report was discussed on a telephone conference to achieve agreement. RESULTS: 108 AEFIs were identified in the selected 100 VAERS reports. After initial review majority agreement was achieved for 83% of the AEFI and 17% required further discussion. In the end, only 3 (3%) of the AEFI were classified as definitely causally related to vaccine received. Of the remaining AEFI 22 (20%) were classified as probably and 22 (20%) were classified as possibly related to vaccine received; a majority (53%) were classified as either unlikely or unrelated to a vaccine received. CONCLUSIONS: Using VAERS reports and additional documentation, causality could be assessed by expert review in the majority of VAERS reports. Assessment of VAERS reports identified that causality was thought to be probable or definite in less than one quarter of reports, and these were dominated by local reactions, allergic reactions, or symptoms known to be associated with the vaccine administered.

Causality assessment of serious neurologic adverse events following 2009 H1N1 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events occurring after vaccination are routinely reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). We studied serious adverse events (SAEs) of a neurologic nature reported after receipt of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine during the 2009-2010 influenza season. Investigators in the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network sought to characterize these SAEs and to assess their possible causal relationship to vaccination. METHODS: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) physicians reviewed all SAE reports (as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR§314.80) after receipt of H1N1 vaccine reported to VAERS between October 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. Non-fatal SAE reports with neurologic presentation were referred to CISA investigators, who requested and reviewed additional medical records and clinical information as available. CISA investigators assessed the causal relationship between vaccination and the event using modified WHO criteria as defined. RESULTS: 212 VAERS reports of non-fatal serious neurological events were referred for CISA review. Case reports were equally distributed by gender (50.9% female) with an age range of 6 months to 83 years (median 38 years). The most frequent diagnoses reviewed were: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (37.3%), seizures (10.8%), cranial neuropathy (5.7%), and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (3.8%). Causality assessment resulted in classification of 72 events as "possibly" related (33%), 108 as "unlikely" related (51%), and 20 as "unrelated" (9%) to H1N1 vaccination; none were classified as "probable" or "definite" and 12 were unclassifiable (6%). CONCLUSION: The absence of a specific test to indicate whether a vaccine component contributes to the pathogenesis of an event occurring within a biologically plausible time period makes assessing causality difficult. The development of standardized protocols for providers to use in evaluation of adverse events following immunization, and rapid identification and follow-up of VAERS reports could improve causality assessment.

Overview of the Clinical Consult Case Review of adverse events following immunization: Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network 2004-2009.

BACKGROUND: In 2004 the Clinical Consult Case Review (CCCR) working group was formed within the CDC-funded Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network to review individual cases of adverse events following immunizations (AEFI). METHODS: Cases were referred by practitioners, health departments, or CDC employees. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) searches and literature reviews for similar cases were performed prior to review. After CCCR discussion, AEFI were assessed for a causal relationship with vaccination and recommendations regarding future immunizations were relayed back to the referring physicians. In 2010, surveys were sent to referring physicians to determine the utility and effectiveness of the CCCR service. RESULTS: CISA investigators reviewed 76 cases during 68 conference calls between April 2004 and December 2009. Almost half of the cases (35/76) were neurological in nature. Similar AEFI for the specific vaccines received were discovered for 63 cases through VAERS searches and for 38 cases through PubMed searches. Causality assessment using the modified WHO criteria resulted in classifying 3 cases as definitely related to vaccine administration, 12 as probably related, 16 as possibly related, 18 as unlikely related, 10 as unrelated, and 17 had insufficient information to assign causality. The physician satisfaction survey was returned by 30 (57.7%) of those surveyed and a majority of respondents (93.3%) felt that the CCCR service was useful. CONCLUSIONS: The CCCR provides advice about AEFI to practitioners, assigns potential causality, and contributes to an improved understanding of adverse health events following immunizations.

Understanding the role of human variation in vaccine adverse events: the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network.

The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and 6 academic medical centers to provide support for immunization safety assessment and research. The CISA Network was established by the CDC in 2001 with 4 primary goals: (1) develop research protocols for clinical evaluation, diagnosis, and management of adverse events following immunization (AEFI); (2) improve the understanding of AEFI at the individual level, including determining possible genetic and other risk factors for predisposed people and subpopulations at high risk; (3) develop evidence-based algorithms for vaccination of people at risk of serious AEFI; and (4) serve as subject-matter experts for clinical vaccine-safety inquiries. CISA Network investigators bring in-depth clinical, pathophysiologic, and epidemiologic expertise to assessing causal relationships between vaccines and adverse events and to understanding the pathogenesis of AEFI. CISA Network researchers conduct expert reviews of clinically significant adverse events and determine the validity of the recorded diagnoses on the basis of clinical and laboratory criteria. They also conduct special studies to investigate the possible pathogenesis of adverse events, assess relationships between vaccines and adverse events, and maintain a centralized repository for clinical specimens. The CISA Network provides specific clinical guidance to both health care providers who administer vaccines and those who evaluate and treat patients with possible AEFI. The CISA Network plays an important role in providing critical immunization-safety data and expertise to inform vaccine policy-makers. The CISA Network serves as a unique resource for vaccine-safety monitoring efforts conducted at the CDC.