Fatal outcomes following immunization errors as reported to the EudraVigilance: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Serious adverse reactions after immunization are rare but do occur. In very rare instances, cases with fatal outcome have been reported. These reports can have a huge impact and even more so when due to an immunization error. The aim of this study is to systematically review immunization errors with fatal outcomes in EudraVigilance. METHODS: This was a case-series analysis of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) reporting immunization errors and a fatal outcome. To determine the level of certainty of a causal association between the immunization errors and fatal outcomes two independent reviewers assessed all ICSRs using the WHO tool "Causality assessment of an Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI)". In accordance with the tool, the ICSRs were classified as consistent, indeterminate, inconsistent/coincidental, or unclassifiable. In addition, we estimated the contribution of reported errors to the fatal outcomes as large, moderate, small, none, or unclassifiable using a classification developed for this study. RESULTS: A total of 154 ICSRs met the inclusion criteria. Vaccines reported most frequently were pneumococcal (33), rabies (27) and influenza vaccines (24). Most frequently reported errors were non-compliance with recommended schedules of immunization (63). The most frequently reported vaccine-error combination was rabies vaccines and non-compliance with a recommended schedule of immunization (23). Twelve cases were classified as consistent with causal association and had a large error contribution. These cases concerned a cluster of six cases reporting incorrect handling of multi-dose vials containing measles vaccine and six cases reporting administration of live-attenuated vaccines to immunocompromised patients. DISCUSSION: In this study, we showed that fatal outcomes following immunization errors are very rare. Four key issues were the importance of: (1) quality control of multi-dose vaccines, (2) screening patients for immunocompromising factors, (3) education on the importance of adherence, and (4) measures to improve distinction between vaccines and medicines.

Spontaneous reports of vaccination errors in the European regulatory database EudraVigilance: A descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Among all post-marketing medication error reports submitted to EudraVigilance, vaccines are the most frequently reported medicinal products. This study aims to describe the characteristics of vaccination errors submitted to Eudravigilance between 2001 and 2016. METHODS: EudraVigilance is a spontaneous reporting database for adverse events maintained by the European Medicines Agency. We extracted Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) submitted to EudraVigilance between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2016. Reports were included for analysis if a vaccine was reported as interacting or suspect drug and at least one medication error term was listed as an adverse reaction. ICSRs were stratified by age and gender, by year of reporting, region of origin, reporter profession, seriousness of outcome, ATC, and type of error. RESULTS: In total, 7097 ICSRs were included in the study. We observed a yearly increase in the reporting of vaccination errors, with the proportion to all vaccine ICSRs increasing from 0.4% to 4.0% between 2001 and 2016. The majority of reports was classified as serious (4248, 59.9%), but non-serious reports were increasingly reported since 2012. The mean age of patients was 24.1 years. The most frequently reported vaccines were influenza (13.5%), bacterial and viral combined (12.3%), and hepatitis vaccines (11.8%). A total of 8167 medication error terms were reported. The most frequently reported terms were "Inappropriate schedule of drug administration" (27.2%), "Incorrect route of drug administration" (12.5%) and "Drug administered to patient of inappropriate age" (10.0%). For infants and children, the error "Drug administered to patient of inappropriate age" was reported more often than for all other age categories. DISCUSSION: Vaccination errors are increasingly submitted to EudraVigilance. Errors related to the schedule are the most common errors reported with vaccines. However, consequences of vaccination errors appear to be relatively mild.

EudraVigilance Medicines Safety Database: Publicly Accessible Data for Research and Public Health Protection.

The analysis of safety data from spontaneous reporting systems has a proven value for the detection and analysis of the risks of medicines following their placement on the market and use in medical practice. EudraVigilance is the pharmacovigilance database to manage the collection and analysis of suspected adverse reactions to medicines authorised in the European Economic Area. EudraVigilance first operated in December 2001, with access to the database being governed by the EudraVigilance access policy. We performed a literature search including data up to December 2016 to demonstrate how the data from EudraVigilance has been used in scientific publications. We describe the results, including by type of publication, research topics and drugs involved. In 50% of the publications, the data are used to describe safety issues, in 44% to analyse methodologies used in pharmacovigilance activities and in 6% to support clinical perspectives. We also outline a description of the use of the database by the European Union regulatory network. Driven by the full implementation of the 2010 pharmacovigilance legislation, EudraVigilance has undergone further enhancements together with a major revision of its access policy, taking into account the use of the new individual case safety report standard developed by the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use and the International Organization for Standardization. The aim of the broadened access is to facilitate more effective safety monitoring of authorised medicines, to make more data available for research and to provide better access to information on suspected adverse reactions for healthcare professionals and patients. In November 2017, the new full functionalities of EudraVigilance were launched, including the extensive web access to data on suspected adverse drug reactions and the possibilities for academic research institutions to request a more extensive dataset for the purposes of health research. The main objective of this article is to describe the new access to the database together with the opportunities that this new access can bring for research. It is intended to promote an appropriate use of the data to support the safe and effective use of medicines.

A description of signals during the first 18 months of the EMA pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: New pharmacovigilance legislation in the European Union has underlined the importance of signal management, giving the European Medicines Agency's newly established Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) the mandate to oversee all aspects of the use of medicinal products including detection, assessment, minimization, and communication relating to the risk of adverse reactions. In this study, we describe the signals as brought to the PRAC during the first 18 months of its operation and the ensuing regulatory actions. METHODS: Data were collected from publicly available sources, for the period July 2012-December 2013, classified according to predefined rules, and described using the appropriate descriptive statistics. Suspected adverse drug reactions were categorized into the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Affairs and drug names were mapped to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes. RESULTS: During the study period, 125 signals concerning 96 medicinal products were discussed by the PRAC. The majority of signals were triggered by spontaneous reports (62%) and the median drug age (since marketing authorization) for drugs that prompted a signal was 12 years, significantly less compared with drugs that had no signal within the same period (20 years). The mean time until a decision was reached by the PRAC was 75 days (median 30 days, range 0-273) with 43% of all decisions taken during the first meeting. The decisions to start a referral and to send a direct healthcare professional communication took the least amount of time [54 days (median 27 days, range 0-186) and 51 days (median 0 days, range 0-153)]. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of spontaneous reporting in signal detection and monitoring of safety issues throughout the entire life cycle of a medicinal product is confirmed in this study. The amount of time a drug has been on the market is correlated with the number of signals detected. The PRAC decision-making process seems efficient particularly with respect to serious concerns; its role in improving signal prioritization and real-time signal management will be further clarified in its subsequent years of operation.