Progress in Immunization Safety Monitoring - Worldwide, 2020-2022.

Effective surveillance of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) primarily relies on the collaboration of two partners: national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and national expanded programs on immunization (EPIs). In December 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Advisory Committee for Vaccine Safety recommended a new case-based indicator of national capacity to monitor immunization safety: at least one serious AEFI reported per 1 million total population per year. To achieve this indicator, WHO-affiliated countries and territories (WHO countries) rely upon data generated from functional AEFI surveillance systems. This report describes 2020-2022 global, regional, and national progress in use of the newly introduced immunization safety monitoring indicator and progress on joint AEFI reporting from national EPIs and NRAs. Among WHO countries, 51 (24%) of 214 implemented the new indicator in 2020, 111 (52%) of 214 implemented it in 2021, and 92 (43%) of 215 in 2022. In 2020, 41 (19%) WHO countries reported AEFI data jointly from EPIs and NRAs; this increased to 55 (26%) in 2021 and 57 (27%) in 2022. These findings, resulting in part from the intensified support for COVID-19 vaccination, demonstrate that national AEFI surveillance systems increasingly support the timely use and sharing of case-based immunization safety data, but work is still needed to strengthen global vaccine safety monitoring.

Smartphone-based mobile applications for adverse drug reactions reporting: global status and country experience.

BACKGROUND: Smartphone technology can support paperless reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The aims of this study were to systematically assess smartphone ADR-reporting applications, understand their qualitative and quantitative impact on ADR reporting, and garner key lessons from owners and developers. METHODS: This study had three components: (1) An assessment of ADR-reporting apps, (2) an online survey on the impact of app implementation on ADR reporting and the experiences of app developers and owners, and (3) a search of VigiBase, the World Health Organization global database of individual case safety reports (ICSRs), to observe trends in the number of ADR reports targeting countries where the apps were implemented. RESULTS: Twenty-two apps were included. Eight out of the 22 apps were for countries in the WHO African region. Features observed included E2B data elements (E stands for efficacy) and functions supporting reporting and user engagement. Seventeen app developers and owners answered to the survey and reported overall positive experiences with app features, and post-launch increases in the total number of ICSRs. User type and user environment were cited as factors influencing app use: Respondents said younger people and/or those with an inclination to use technology were more likely to use apps compared to older or more technology-averse people, while respondents in countries with limited internet connectivity reported persistent difficulties in app use. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone apps for reporting ADRs offer added value compared to conventional reporting tools. Reporting tools should be selected based on interface features and factors that may influence app usage.

Collaboration within the global vaccine safety surveillance ecosystem during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learnt and key recommendations from the COVAX Vaccine Safety Working Group.

This analysis describes the successes, challenges and opportunities to improve global vaccine safety surveillance as observed by the Vaccine Safety Working Group from its role as a platform of exchange for stakeholders responsible for monitoring the safety of vaccines distributed through the COVAX mechanism. Three key elements considered to be essential for ongoing and future pandemic preparedness for vaccine developers in their interaction with other members of the vaccine safety ecosystem are (1) the availability of infrastructure and capacity for active vaccine safety surveillance in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), including the advancement of concepts of safety surveillance and risk management to vaccine developers and manufacturers from LMICs; (2) more comprehensive mechanisms to ensure timely exchange of vaccine safety data and/or knowledge gaps between public health authorities and vaccine developers and manufacturers; and (3) further implementation of the concept of regulatory reliance in pharmacovigilance. These aims would both conserve valuable resources and allow for more equitable access to vaccine safety information and for benefit/risk decision-making.

South-East Asia Regional update on measles mortality reduction and elimination, 2003-2008.

In 2005, the World Health Assembly endorsed a global goal of 90% reduction in measles mortality from 2000 to 2010. Substantial progress has been made toward achieving this goal in countries of the South-East Asia Region (SEAR). More than 120 million children received a second dose of measles-containing vaccine during supplemental immunization activities conducted from 2000 to 2008; routine first-dose measles-containing vaccine coverage increased from 63% in 2000 to 75% by 2008; and measles surveillance is supported in all countries by the Measles-Rubella Laboratory Network. Overall, the estimated number of measles deaths decreased by 46% from 2000 to 2008, and all countries with the exception of India have already achieved the 90% mortality reduction target. Sustained political and financial commitment from SEAR countries is needed to achieve regional measles mortality reduction and elimination.

Vaccine safety in the next decade: why we need new modes of trust building.

Among the realm of highly varied vaccine perceptions and concerns expressed by publics around the world, vaccine safety is the most frequently cited. While many of the safety questions raised have substantial evidence to address the concerns, vaccines do have small risks, and need vigilant and responsive systems to address them. With more and more new vaccines, combinations of vaccines and new technologies to develop and deliver them, new safety concerns will arise that need attention. Adding to this landscape is the dramatic impact which digital communication has had on how fast rumours and vaccine concerns can spread, making the task of the public health and scientific community even more pressing. One of the more recently characterised vaccine safety issues, now named 'immunisation stress-related-response,' has gained particularly high visibility given these highly globally connected social media networks. To better anticipate and address these rapidly shared vaccine safety concerns, a number of global efforts and local responses are being made. Co-created social media campaigns engaging parents and adolescents have been effective, while the WHO's Vaccine Safety Net (VSN) initiative has grown its global network to increase awareness about vaccines and contribute to building confidence in vaccines. The VSN reviews websites around the world to assess their quality and accuracy to ensure and promote access to trustworthy and science-based information on vaccine safety for internet users. These and the efforts of the multiple network partners are more crucial than ever to sustain public confidence in this evolving vaccine safety landscape.

Immunization stress-related response - Redefining immunization anxiety-related reaction as an adverse event following immunization.

The Council for the International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) and WHO working group on pharmacovigilance defines five cause specific AEFI which includes an immunization anxiety-related reaction. Historically this term has been used to describe a range of symptoms and signs that may arise after immunization that are related to "anxiety" about the immunization. However, the term "anxiety" does not adequately capture all the elements of this cause specific AEFI. In 2015, the Global Advisory Committee for Vaccine Safety convened an expert working group with the purpose of redefining, preventing and managing this particular AEFI. The term "Immunization Stress-Related Response" is proposed to replace the former terminology. We present a manual that redefines this AEFI and present a framework for prevention, diagnosis and management in both an individual and also when such events occur as clusters and affect multiple individuals. Since such mass events can result in cessation of immunization programmes and/or a loss of public confidence, a communication response is essential.

Use of a new global indicator for vaccine safety surveillance and trends in adverse events following immunization reporting 2000-2015.

Reporting of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) is a key component for functional vaccine safety monitoring system. The aim of our study is to document trends in the AEFI reporting ratio globally and across the six World Health Organization (WHO) regions. We describe the number of AEFI reports communicated each year through the World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund Joint Reporting Form on Immunization from 2000 to 2015. The AEFI reporting ratios (annual AEFI reports per 100,000 surviving infants) were calculated to identify WHO countries (n = 191 in 2000 and n = 194 by 2015) that met a minimal reporting ratio of 10, a target set by the Global Vaccine Action Plan for vaccine safety monitoring as a proxy measure for a functional AEFI reporting system. The number of countries reporting any AEFI fluctuated over time but with progress from 32 (17%) in 2000 to 124 (64%) in 2015. In 2015, the global average AEFI reporting ratio was 549 AEFI reports per 100,000 surviving infants. The number of countries with AEFI reporting ratios greater than 10 increased from 8 (4%) in 2000 to 81 (42%) in 2015. In 2015, 60% of countries in the WHO Region of the Americas reported at least 10 AEFI per 100,000 surviving infants, followed by 55% in European Region, 43% in Eastern Mediterranean Region, 33% in Western Pacific Region, 27% in South-East Asia Region and 21% in African Region. Overall, AEFI reporting has increased over the past sixteen years worldwide, but requires strengthening in a majority of low- and middle- income countries. The AEFI reporting ratio is useful for benchmarking and following trends over time; but does not provide information on the quality of the reporting system and does not guarantee capacity to detect and manage a vaccine safety problem at a national level. Additional efforts are required to ensure and improve data quality, AEFI reporting and surveillance of immunization safety in every country.

An approach to death as an adverse event following immunization.

Co-incidental death occurring proximate to vaccination may be reported as an adverse event following immunization. Such events are particularly concerning because they may raise community and health provider concerns about the safety of the specific vaccine and often the immunization programme in general. Coincidental events need to be differentiated from vaccine reactions, such as anaphylaxis, which may very rarely result in death. In 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) released an updated manual for the Causality Assessment of an AEFI. The purpose of this review is to apply the WHO causality methodology to death when this is reported as an AEFI. The causality assessment scheme recommends a four step process to enable classification of the AEFI and to differentiate events which are causally consistent from those that are inconsistent with immunization. However, for some events causality maybe indeterminate. Consistent causal reactions that may result in death are very rare and maybe related to the vaccine product (e.g. anaphylaxis, viscerotrophic disease), vaccine quality defect (e.g. an incompletely attenuated live vaccine agent) or an immunization error (e.g. vaccine vial contamination). Events that are inconsistent with immunizations are due to co-incidental conditions that may account for infant and childhood mortality. In countries with a high infant mortality rate the coincidental occurrence of death and immunization may occur not infrequently and a robust mechanism to obtain information from autopsy and perform an AEFI investigation and causality assessment is essential. Communication with the community and all stakeholders to maintain confidence in the immunization programme is critical.

Strengthening of causality assessment of adverse events following immunization in the WHO South East Asia and Western Pacific regions: Lessons from the 2014 SEAR inter-country workshop.

BACKGROUND: Poorly managed AEFI undermine immunization programs. Improved surveillance in SEAR countries means more AEFIs but management varies. SEAR brought countries together to share AEFI experiences, and learn more about causality assessment. METHODS: Three day 10 country workshop (9 SEAR; 1 WPR). Participants outlined county AEFI experiences, undertook causality assessment for 8 AEFIs using WHO methodology, critiqued the process by questionnaire and had a discussion. RESULTS: All 10 valued AEFI monitoring and causality assessment, and praised the opportunity to share experiences. Participants determined a range of AEFI and causality assessment needs in SEAR such as adapting WHO Algorithm, CIOMS/Brighton definitions, WHO verbal autopsy to fit context, requesting a practical guide--AEFI definition, time interval, rates of AEFI for different vaccines and evidence for vaccine related causes of death under 24h. CONCLUSIONS: LMIC need WHO AEFI tools adapted to better fit LMIC. Learning from each other builds capacity. Sharing AEFI experiences, case reviews help LMIC improve practices.

Assessment of causality of individual adverse events following immunization (AEFI): a WHO tool for global use.

Serious illnesses or even deaths may rarely occur after childhood vaccinations. Public health programs are faced with great challenges to establish if the events presenting after the administration of a vaccine are due to other conditions, and hence a coincidental presentation, rather than caused by the administered vaccines. Given its priority, the Global Advisory Committee for Vaccine Safety (GACVS) commissioned a group of experts to review the previously published World Health Organization (WHO) Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) causality assessment methodology and aide-memoire, and to develop a standardized and user friendly tool to assist health care personnel in the processing and interpretation of data on individual events, and to assess the causality after AEFIs. We describe a tool developed for causality assessment of individual AEFIs that includes: (a) an eligibility component for the assessment that reviews the diagnosis associated with the event and identifies the administered vaccines; (b) a checklist that systematically guides users to gather available information to feed a decision algorithm; and (c) a decision support algorithm that assists the assessors to come to a classification of the individual AEFI. Final classification generated by the process includes four categories in which the event is either: (1) consistent; (2) inconsistent; or (3) indeterminate with respect of causal association; or (4) unclassifiable. Subcategories are identified to assist assessors in resulting public health decisions that can be used for action. This proposed tool should support the classification of AEFI cases in a standardized, transparent manner and to collect essential information during AEFI investigation. The algorithm should provide countries and health officials at the global level with an instrument to respond to vaccine safety alerts, and support the education, research and policy decisions on immunization safety.

Effective vaccine safety systems in all countries: a challenge for more equitable access to immunization.

Serious vaccine-associated adverse events are rare. To further minimize their occurrence and to provide adequate care to those affected, careful monitoring of immunization programs and case management is required. Unfounded vaccine safety concerns have the potential of seriously derailing effective immunization activities. To address these issues, vaccine pharmacovigilance systems have been developed in many industrialized countries. As new vaccine products become available to prevent new diseases in various parts of the world, the demand for effective pharmacovigilance systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is increasing. To help establish such systems in all countries, WHO developed the Global Vaccine Safety Blueprint in 2011. This strategic plan is based on an in-depth analysis of the vaccine safety landscape that involved many stakeholders. This analysis reviewed existing systems and international vaccine safety activities and assessed the financial resources required to operate them. The Blueprint sets three main strategic goals to optimize the safety of vaccines through effective use of pharmacovigilance principles and methods: to ensure minimal vaccine safety capacity in all countries; to provide enhanced capacity for specific circumstances; and to establish a global support network to assist national authorities with capacity building and crisis management. In early 2012, the Global Vaccine Safety Initiative (GVSI) was launched to bring together and explore synergies among on-going vaccine safety activities. The Global Vaccine Action Plan has identified the Blueprint as its vaccine safety strategy. There is an enormous opportunity to raise awareness for vaccine safety in LMIC and to garner support from a large number of stakeholders for the GVSI between now and 2020. Synergies and resource mobilization opportunities presented by the Decade of Vaccines can enhance monitoring and response to vaccine safety issues, thereby leading to more equitable delivery of vaccines worldwide.