The Brighton collaboration standardized module for vaccine benefit-risk assessment.

Vaccine Benefit-Risk (B-R) assessment consists of evaluating the benefits and risks of a vaccine and making a judgment whether the expected key benefits outweigh the potential key risks associated with its expected use. B-R supports regulatory and public health decision-making throughout the vaccine's lifecycle. In August 2021, the Brighton Collaboration's Benefit-Risk Assessment of VAccines by TechnolOgy (BRAVATO) Benefit-Risk Assessment Module working group was established to develop a standard module to support the planning, conduct and evaluation of structured B-R assessments for vaccines from different platforms, based on data from clinical trials, post-marketing studies and real-world evidence. It enables sharing of relevant information via value trees, effects tables and graphical depictions of B-R trade-offs. It is intended to support vaccine developers, funders, regulators and policy makers in high-, middle- or low-income countries to help inform decision-making and facilitate transparent communication concerning development, licensure, deployment and other lifecycle decisions.

Real-World Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines: An Industry Expert View on the Successes, Challenges, and Future Opportunities.

Pharmacovigilance leaders from major vaccine developers describe the learnings from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the area of pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology. The authors aim to raise awareness of the co-operation among vaccine developers, highlight common challenges, advocate for solutions, and propose recommendations for the future in the areas of real-world safety and effectiveness, safety reporting and evaluation, and regulatory submissions. To enable timely evaluation of real-world safety and effectiveness, multi-sponsor study platforms were implemented, resulting in quicker recruitment over wide geographical areas. Future gains could be derived by developing geographically flexible, common protocols and/or joint company-sponsored studies for multiple vaccines and a collective strategy to build low/middle-income country (LMIC) sentinel sites. Safety reporting, signal detection and evaluation was particularly challenging given the unprecedented number of adverse events reported. New methods were required to manage increased report volume while maintaining the ability to quickly identify and respond to new data that could impact the benefit-risk profile of each vaccine. Worldwide health authority submissions, requests for information and differing regulatory requirements imposed significant burden on regulators and industry. Industry consensus on the safety reporting requirements and joint meetings with regulatory authorities markedly reduced this burden for all stakeholders. The most impactful innovations should be undertaken rapidly and expanded to other vaccines and therapeutics, with a multi-stakeholder approach. The authors of this paper make future recommendations and have launched an initiative named BeCOME (Beyond COVID Monitoring Excellence) with a focus on actions in each of the highlighted areas.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Vaccines. Part I: A Systematic Review to Identify and Describe Studies About Quantitative Benefit-Risk Models Applied to Vaccines.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the balance between the benefits and risks of vaccination is essential to ensure informed and adequate public health decision making. Quantitative benefit-risk models (qBRm) represent useful tools to help decision makers with supporting benefit-risk assessment throughout the lifecycle of a medical product. However, few initiatives have been launched to harmonise qBRm approaches, specifically for vaccines. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper was to identify publications about qBRm applied to vaccines through a systematic literature review, and to describe their characteristics. METHODS: Medline, Scopus and Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge databases were searched to identify articles in English, published from database inceptions up to December 2019. The search strategy included the combination of three key concepts: 'benefit-risk', 'modelling' and 'vaccines'. Data extracted included the modelling context and the methodological approaches used. RESULTS: Of 3172 publications screened, 48 original publications were included. Most of the selected studies were published over the past decade and focused on rotavirus (15), dengue (10) and influenza (6) vaccines. The majority (30) of studies reported analyses related to high-income countries. The methodology of the studies differed, particularly in modelling techniques, benefit-risk measures, and sensitivity analyses. The present work also pointed out a high level of variability in the quality of reporting across studies, with particular regard to input parameters and methodological approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an extensive list of qBRm applied to vaccines. Discrepancies across studies were identified during our review. While the number of published qBRm studies is increasing, no reporting guidance for qBRm applied to vaccines is currently available. This may affect decision makers' confidence in the results and their benefit-risk assessment(s); therefore, the development of such reporting guidance is highly needed.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Vaccines. Part II: Proposal Towards Consolidated Standards of Reporting Quantitative Benefit-Risk Models Applied to Vaccines (BRIVAC).

INTRODUCTION: Quantitative benefit-risk models (qBRm) applied to vaccines are increasingly used by public health authorities and pharmaceutical companies as an important tool to help decision makers with supporting benefit-risk assessment (BRA). However, many publications on vaccine qBRm provide insufficient details on the methodological approaches used. Incomplete and/or inadequate qBRm reporting may affect result interpretation and confidence in BRA, highlighting a need for the development of standard reporting guidance. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to provide an operational checklist for improved reporting of vaccine qBRm. METHODS: The consolidated standards of reporting quantitative Benefit-RIsk models applied to VACcines (BRIVAC) were designed as a checklist of key information to report in qBRm scientific publications regarding the assessed vaccines, the methodological considerations and the results and their interpretation. RESULTS: In total, 22 items and accompanying definitions, recommendations, explanations and examples were provided and divided into six main sections corresponding to the classic subdivisions of a scientific publication: title and abstract (items 1-2), introduction (items 3-4), methods (items 5-15), results (items 16-17), discussion (items 18-20) and other (items 21-22). CONCLUSIONS: The BRIVAC checklist is the first initiative providing an operational checklist for improved reporting of qBRm applied to vaccines in scientific articles. It is intended to assist authors, peer-reviewers, editors and readers in their critical appraisal. Future initiatives are needed to provide methodological guidance to perform qBRm while taking into account the vaccine specificities.

ADVANCE system testing: Can safety studies be conducted using electronic healthcare data? An example using pertussis vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: The Accelerated Development of Vaccine benefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) public-private collaboration, aimed to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk monitoring of vaccines using healthcare databases in Europe. The objective of this proof-of-concept (POC) study was to test the feasibility of the ADVANCE system to generate incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 person-years and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for risks associated with whole cell- (wP) and acellular- (aP) pertussis vaccines, occurring in event-specific risk windows in children prior to their pre-school-entry booster. METHODS: The study population comprised almost 5.1 million children aged 1 month to <6 years vaccinated with wP or aP vaccines during the study period from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2015. Data from two Danish hospital (H) databases (AUH and SSI) and five primary care (PC) databases from, UK (THIN and RCGP RSC), Spain (SIDIAP and BIFAP) and Italy (Pedianet) were analysed. Database-specific IRRs between risk vs. non-risk periods were estimated in a self-controlled case series study and pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: The overall IRs were: fever, 58.2 (95% CI: 58.1; 58.3), 96.9 (96.7; 97.1) for PC DBs and 8.56 (8.5; 8.6) for H DBs; convulsions, 7.6 (95% CI: 7.6; 7.7), 3.55 (3.5; 3.6) for PC and 12.87 (12.8; 13) for H; persistent crying, 3.9 (95% CI: 3.8; 3.9) for PC, injection-site reactions, 2.2 (95% CI 2.1; 2.2) for PC, hypotonic hypo-responsive episode (HHE), 0.4 (95% CI: 0.4; 0.4), 0.6 (0.6; 0.6) for PC and 0.2 (0.2; 0.3) for H; and somnolence: 0.3 (95% CI: 0.3; 0.3) for PC. The pooled IRRs for persistent crying, fever, and ISR, adjusted for age and healthy vaccinee period were higher after wP vs. aP vaccination, and lower for convulsions, for all doses. The IRR for HHE was slightly lower for wP than aP, while wP was associated with somnolence only for dose 1 and dose 3 compared with aP. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated IRs and IRRs were comparable with published data, therefore demonstrating that the ADVANCE system was able to combine several European healthcare databases to assess vaccine safety data for wP and aP vaccination.

ADVANCE system testing: Benefit-risk analysis of a marketed vaccine using multi-criteria decision analysis and individual-level state transition modelling.

BACKGROUND: The Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public-private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk (B/R) monitoring of vaccines using electronic health record (eHR) databases in Europe. Proof-of-concept studies were designed to assess the proposed processes and system for generating the required evidence to perform B/R assessment and near-real time monitoring of vaccines. We aimed to test B/R methodologies for vaccines, using the comparison of the B/R profiles of whole-cell (wP) and acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine formulations in children as an example. METHODS: We used multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to structure the B/R assessment combined with individual-level state transition modelling to build the B/R effects table. In the state transition model, we simulated the number of events in two hypothetical cohorts of 1 million children followed from first pertussis dose till pre-school-entry booster (or six years of age, whichever occurred first), with one cohort receiving wP, and the other aP. The benefits were reductions in pertussis incidence and complications. The risks were increased incidences of febrile convulsions, fever, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes, injection-site reactions and persistent crying. Most model parameters were informed by estimates (coverage, background incidences, relative risks) from eHR databases from Denmark (SSI), Spain (BIFAP and SIDIAP), Italy (Pedianet) and the UK (RCGP-RSC and THIN). Preferences were elicited from clinical and epidemiological experts. RESULTS: Using state transition modelling to build the B/R effects table facilitated the comparison of different vaccine effects (e.g. immediate vaccine risks vs long-term vaccine benefits). Estimates from eHR databases could be used to inform the simulation model. The model results could be easily combined with preference weights to obtain B/R scores. CONCLUSION: Existing B/R methodology, modelling and estimates from eHR databases can be successfully used for B/R assessment of vaccines.

ADVANCE: Towards near real-time monitoring of vaccination coverage, benefits and risks using European electronic health record databases.

BACKGROUND: The Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public-private partnership aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk (B/R) monitoring of vaccines using European electronic health record (eHR) databases. This proof-of-concept study aimed to test the feasibility of near real-time (NRT) monitoring of vaccination coverage, benefits and risks based on multiple European eHR databases, using acellular pertussis vaccination in children aged <6 years as test case. METHODS: A qualitative feasibility assessment on NRT monitoring was carried out using a survey and face-to-face discussion with ADVANCE data partners. Subsequently, a dynamic cohort study was conducted containing two distinct observation periods: a first period to establish a baseline (Jan 2014 to Mar 2018) and a subsequent 3-month period to test the actual feasibility of weekly NRT monitoring, based on which data latencies were calculated. An interactive web-application was additionally developed to facilitate the visual monitoring of vaccination coverage, the vaccine preventable disease incidence rates (benefits) and the incidence rates of adverse events (risks). RESULTS: Nine databases from four countries (Denmark, Italy, Spain and UK) participated in the qualitative feasibility assessment. Of them, five databases took part in the dynamic cohort study, with 5 databases providing baseline data and 3 databases participating to the NRT monitoring, providing data extractions on an almost weekly basis. The median data latency (time between event date and data release date) was between 1 and 2 weeks except for the benefit and risk events in one of the databases (latency 16 weeks). CONCLUSION: Three European eHR databases successfully demonstrated the feasibility of providing data for weekly NRT monitoring, with short data latencies of 1-2 weeks for most events.

Why we need more collaboration in Europe to enhance post-marketing surveillance of vaccines.

The influenza A/H1N1 pandemic in 2009 taught us that the monitoring of vaccine benefits and risks in Europe had potential for improvement if different public and private stakeholders would collaborate better (public health institutes (PHIs), regulatory authorities, research institutes, vaccine manufacturers). The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) subsequently issued a competitive call to establish a public-private partnership to build and test a novel system for monitoring vaccine benefits and risks in Europe. The ADVANCE project (Accelerated Development of Vaccine benefit-risk Collaboration in Europe) was created as a result. The objective of this paper is to describe the perspectives of key stakeholder groups of the ADVANCE consortium for vaccine benefit-risk monitoring and their views on how to build a European system addressing the needs and challenges of such monitoring. These perspectives and needs were assessed at the start of the ADVANCE project by the European Medicines Agency together with representatives of the main stakeholders in the field of vaccines within and outside the ADVANCE consortium (i.e. research institutes, public health institutes, medicines regulatory authorities, vaccine manufacturers, patient associations). Although all stakeholder representatives stated they conduct vaccine benefit-risk monitoring according to their own remit, needs and obligations, they are faced with similar challenges and needs for improved collaboration. A robust, rapid system yielding high-quality information on the benefits and risks of vaccines would therefore support their decision making. ADVANCE has developed such a system and has tested its performance in a series of proof of concept (POC) studies. The system, how it was used and the results from the POC studies are described in the papers in this supplementary issue.

Estimation of vaccination coverage from electronic healthcare records; methods performance evaluation - A contribution of the ADVANCE-project.

INTRODUCTION: The Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk (B/R) monitoring of vaccines, using existing electronic healthcare record (eHR) databases in Europe. Part of the data in such sources is missing due to incomplete follow-up hampering the accurate estimation of vaccination coverage. We compared different methods for coverage estimation from eHR databases; naïve period prevalence, complete case period prevalence, period prevalence adjusted for follow-up time, Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis and (adjusted) inverse probability weighing (IPW). METHODS: We created simulation scenarios with different proportions of completeness of follow-up. Both completeness independent and dependent from vaccination date and status were considered. The root mean squared error (RMSE) and relative difference between the estimated and true coverage were used to assess the performance of the different methods for each of the scenarios. We included data examples on the vaccination coverage of human papilloma virus and pertussis component containing vaccines from the Spanish BIFAP database. RESULTS: Under completeness independent from vaccination date or status, several methods provided estimates with bias close to zero. However, when dependence between completeness of follow-up and vaccination date or status was present, all methods generated biased estimates. The IPW/CDF methods were generally the least biased. Preference for a specific method should be based on the type of censoring and type of dependence between completeness of follow-up and vaccination. Additional insights into these aspects, might be gained by applying several methods.

Guidance for the governance of public-private collaborations in vaccine post-marketing settings in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: The 2009 influenza pandemic highlighted challenges for vaccine post-marketing monitoring in Europe, particularly the need to have appropriate infrastructures to strengthen public-private collaborations (PPCs) with suitable processes to improve stakeholder interactions and collection and analysis of safety and effectiveness data. The ADVANCE consortium comprises public and private stakeholders who have worked together to build and test new system components for vaccine post-marketing projects, one component being a governance framework for efficient, transparent and trustworthy PPCs. METHODS: Based on the results of a landscape analysis and screening of formalised existing governance structures, we identified the elements of a governance framework and developed recommendations to support stakeholders willing and able to implement collaborative projects. These proposals and their implementation were discussed by 70 experts during a workshop to gain from their experience. RESULTS: We identified core governance principles and defined five fundamental functions (decision-making, scientific advice, quality control and audit, implementation and management, and financial administration) that can be attributed to individual partner organisations or to a committee with representatives from more than one partner organisation. We propose a generic governance model with options for its adaptation to specific contexts and projects. The advantages and disadvantages of PPCs were also examined. Stakeholders' concerns (e.g. scientific integrity and public trust) were addressed through recommendations about transparent decision-making rules and conflict of interest management. CONCLUSIONS: No one-size-fits-all solution for PPC governance exists but our recommendations could be used to set-up a tailored-made and fully transparent governance structure supporting collaborative projects in the European vaccine post-marketing environment. To allow the rapid establishment of robust projects, the next steps will involve this guidance being used by real-world collaborations to assess what works and what does not work and what added-value can be obtained from these collaborations.

Safety of AS03-adjuvanted influenza vaccines: A review of the evidence.

Clinical and post-licensure data have demonstrated that AS03-adjuvanted inactivated split virion vaccines, many with reduced antigen content, are effective against influenza infection. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the safety of trivalent seasonal, monovalent pre-pandemic and pandemic AS03-adjuvanted influenza vaccines, based on non-clinical, clinical and post-licensure data in various populations. Non-clinical studies on local tolerance, toxicology and safety pharmacology did not raise any safety concerns with AS03 administered alone or combined with various influenza antigens. Data from clinical trials with over 55,000 vaccinated subjects showed that AS03-adjuvanted influenza vaccines were generally well tolerated and displayed an acceptable safety profile, although the power to detect rare events was limited. Approximately 90 million doses of A/H1N1pdm09 pandemic influenza vaccines (Pandemrix and Arepanrix H1N1) were administered worldwide, which contributed post-licensure data to the collective safety data for AS03-adjuvanted influenza vaccines. An association between Pandemrix and narcolepsy was observed during the A/H1N1pdm09 pandemic, for which a role of a CD4 T cell mimicry sequence in the haemagglutinin protein of A/H1N1pdm09 cannot be excluded. Provided that future AS03-adjuvanted influenza vaccines do not contain this putative mimicry sequence, this extensive safety experience supports the further development and use of AS03-adjuvanted inactivated split virion candidate vaccines against seasonal and pandemic influenza infections.

Tree-based scan statistic - Application in manufacturing-related safety signal detection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Over the last decades, medicinal regulations have been put into place and have considerably improved manufacturing practices. Nevertheless, safety issues may still arise. Using the simulation described in this manuscript, our aim is to develop adequate detection methods for manufacturing-related safety signals, especially in the context of biological products. METHODS: Pharmaceutical companies record the entire batch genealogies, from seed batches over intermediates to final product (FP) batches. We constructed a hierarchical tree based on this genealogy information and linked it to the spontaneous safety data available for the FP batch numbers. The tree-based scan statistic (TBSS) was used on simulated data as a proof of concept to locate the source that may have subsequently generated an excess of specific adverse events (AEs) within the manufacturing steps, and to evaluate the method's adjustment for multiple testing. All calculations were performed with a customized program in SAS v9.2. RESULTS: The TBSS generated a close to expected number of false positive signals, demonstrating that it adjusted for multiple testing. Overall, the method detected 71% of the simulated signals at the correct production step when a 6-fold increase in reports with AEs of interest (AEOI) was applied, and 31% when a 2-fold increase was applied. The relatively low detection performance may be attributed to the higher granularity associated with the lower levels of the hierarchy, leading to a lack of power and the stringent definition criteria that were applied for a true positive result. CONCLUSION: As a data-mining method for manufacturing-related safety signal detection, the TBSS may provide advantages over other disproportionality analyses (using batch information) but may benefit from complementary methods (not relaying on batch information). While the method warrants further refinement, it may improve safety signal detection and contribute to improvements in the quality of manufacturing processes.

Methodology for computing the burden of disease of adverse events following immunization.

PURPOSE: Composite disease burden measures such as disability-adjusted life-years (DALY) have been widely used to quantify the population-level health impact of disease or injury, but application has been limited for the estimation of the burden of adverse events following immunization. Our objective was to assess the feasibility of adapting the DALY approach for estimating adverse event burden. METHODS: We developed a practical methodological framework, explicitly describing all steps involved: acquisition of relative or absolute risks and background event incidence rates, selection of disability weights and durations, and computation of the years lived with disability (YLD) measure, with appropriate estimation of uncertainty. We present a worked example, in which YLD is computed for 3 recognized adverse reactions following 3 childhood vaccination types, based on background incidence rates and relative/absolute risks retrieved from the literature. RESULTS: YLD provided extra insight into the health impact of an adverse event over presentation of incidence rates only, as severity and duration are additionally incorporated. As well as providing guidance for the deployment of DALY methodology in the context of adverse events associated with vaccination, we also identified where data limitations potentially occur. CONCLUSIONS: Burden of disease methodology can be applied to estimate the health burden of adverse events following vaccination in a systematic way. As with all burden of disease studies, interpretation of the estimates must consider the quality and accuracy of the data sources contributing to the DALY computation.

Benefit-Risk Monitoring of Vaccines Using an Interactive Dashboard: A Methodological Proposal from the ADVANCE Project.

INTRODUCTION: New vaccines are launched based on their benefit-risk (B/R) profile anticipated from clinical development. Proactive post-marketing surveillance is necessary to assess whether the vaccination uptake and the B/R profile are as expected and, ultimately, whether further public health or regulatory actions are needed. There are several, typically not integrated, facets of post-marketing vaccine surveillance: the surveillance of vaccination coverage, vaccine safety, effectiveness and impact. OBJECTIVE: With this work, we aim to assess the feasibility and added value of using an interactive dashboard as a potential methodology for near real-time monitoring of vaccine coverage and pre-specified health benefits and risks of vaccines. METHODS: We developed a web application with an interactive dashboard for B/R monitoring. The dashboard is demonstrated using simulated electronic healthcare record data mimicking the introduction of rotavirus vaccination in the UK. The interactive dashboard allows end users to select certain parameters, including expected vaccine effectiveness, age groups, and time periods and allows calculation of the incremental net health benefit (INHB) as well as the incremental benefit-risk ratio (IBRR) for different sets of preference weights. We assessed the potential added value of the dashboard by user testing amongst a range of stakeholders experienced in the post-marketing monitoring of vaccines. RESULTS: The dashboard was successfully implemented and demonstrated. The feedback from the potential end users was generally positive, although reluctance to using composite B/R measures was expressed. CONCLUSION: The use of interactive dashboards for B/R monitoring is promising and received support from various stakeholders. In future research, the use of such an interactive dashboard will be further tested with real-life data as opposed to simulated data.

Challenges in conducting post-authorisation safety studies (PASS): A vaccine manufacturer's view.

Post-authorisation safety studies (PASS) of vaccines assess or quantify the risk of adverse events following immunisation that were not identified or could not be estimated pre-licensure. The aim of this perspective paper is to describe the authors' experience in the design and conduct of twelve PASS that contributed to the evaluation of the benefit-risk of vaccines in real-world settings. We describe challenges and learnings from selected PASS of rotavirus, malaria, influenza, human papillomavirus and measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccines that assessed or identified potential or theoretical risks, which may lead to changes to risk management plans and/or to label updates. Study settings include the use of large healthcare databases and de novo data collection. PASS methodology is influenced by the background incidence of the outcome of interest, vaccine uptake, availability and quality of data sources, identification of the at-risk population and of suitable comparators, availability of validated case definitions, and the frequent need for case ascertainment in large databases. Challenges include the requirement for valid exposure and outcome data, identification of, and access to, adequate data sources, and mitigating limitations including bias and confounding. Assessing feasibility is becoming a key step to confirm that study objectives can be met in a timely manner. PASS provide critical information for regulators, public health agencies, vaccine manufacturers and ultimately, individuals. Collaborative approaches and synergistic efforts between vaccine manufacturers and key stakeholders, such as regulatory and public health agencies, are needed to facilitate access to data, and to drive optimal study design and implementation, with the aim of generating robust evidence.

Adjuvanted (AS03) A/H1N1 2009 Pandemic Influenza Vaccines and Solid Organ Transplant Rejection: Systematic Signal Evaluation and Lessons Learnt.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated a signal of solid organ transplant (SOT) rejection after immunisation with (AS03) A/H1N1 2009 pandemic influenza vaccines. METHODS: Potential immunological mechanisms were reviewed and quantitative analyses were conducted. The feasibility of pharmacoepidemiological studies was explored. RESULTS: Overall results, including data from a pharmacoepidemiological study, support the safety of adjuvanted (AS03) pandemic influenza vaccination in SOT recipients. The regulatory commitment to evaluate the signal through a stepwise investigation was closed in 2014. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned highlight the importance of investigating plausible biological mechanisms between vaccines and potentially associated adverse outcomes, and the importance of selecting appropriate study settings and designs for safety signal investigations.

The ADVANCE Code of Conduct for collaborative vaccine studies.

Lessons learnt from the 2009 (H1N1) flu pandemic highlighted factors limiting the capacity to collect European data on vaccine exposure, safety and effectiveness, including lack of rapid access to available data sources or expertise, difficulties to establish efficient interactions between multiple parties, lack of confidence between private and public sectors, concerns about possible or actual conflicts of interest (or perceptions thereof) and inadequate funding mechanisms. The Innovative Medicines Initiative's Accelerated Development of VAccine benefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) consortium was established to create an efficient and sustainable infrastructure for rapid and integrated monitoring of post-approval benefit-risk of vaccines, including a code of conduct and governance principles for collaborative studies. The development of the code of conduct was guided by three core and common values (best science, strengthening public health, transparency) and a review of existing guidance and relevant published articles. The ADVANCE Code of Conduct includes 45 recommendations in 10 topics (Scientific integrity, Scientific independence, Transparency, Conflicts of interest, Study protocol, Study report, Publication, Subject privacy, Sharing of study data, Research contract). Each topic includes a definition, a set of recommendations and a list of additional reading. The concept of the study team is introduced as a key component of the ADVANCE Code of Conduct with a core set of roles and responsibilities. It is hoped that adoption of the ADVANCE Code of Conduct by all partners involved in a study will facilitate and speed-up its initiation, design, conduct and reporting. Adoption of the ADVANCE Code of Conduct should be stated in the study protocol, study report and publications and journal editors are encouraged to use it as an indication that good principles of public health, science and transparency were followed throughout the study.

Application of Probabilistic Multiple-Bias Analyses to a Cohort- and a Case-Control Study on the Association between Pandemrix™ and Narcolepsy.

BACKGROUND: An increase in narcolepsy cases was observed in Finland and Sweden towards the end of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Preliminary observational studies suggested a temporal link with the pandemic influenza vaccine Pandemrix™, leading to a number of additional studies across Europe. Given the public health urgency, these studies used readily available retrospective data from various sources. The potential for bias in such settings was generally acknowledged. Although generally advocated by key opinion leaders and international health authorities, no systematic quantitative assessment of the potential joint impact of biases was undertaken in any of these studies. METHODS: We applied bias-level multiple-bias analyses to two of the published narcolepsy studies: a pediatric cohort study from Finland and a case-control study from France. In particular, we developed Monte Carlo simulation models to evaluate a potential cascade of biases, including confounding by age, by indication and by natural H1N1 infection, selection bias, disease- and exposure misclassification. All bias parameters were evidence-based to the extent possible. RESULTS: Given the assumptions used for confounding, selection bias and misclassification, the Finnish rate ratio of 13.78 (95% CI: 5.72-28.11) reduced to a median value of 6.06 (2.5th- 97.5th percentile: 2.49-15.1) and the French odds ratio of 5.43 (95% CI: 2.6-10.08) to 1.85 (2.5th-97.5th percentile: 0.85-4.08). CONCLUSION: We illustrate multiple-bias analyses using two studies on the Pandemrix™-narcolepsy association and advocate their use to better understand the robustness of study findings. Based on our multiple-bias models, the observed Pandemrix™-narcolepsy association consistently persists in the Finnish study. For the French study, the results of our multiple-bias models were inconclusive.