Safety of routine childhood vaccine coadministration versus separate vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: As new vaccines are developed more vaccine coadministrations vaccines are being offered to make delivery more practical for health systems and patients. We compared the safety of coadministered vaccines with separate vaccination for 20 coadministrations by considering nine types of adverse events following immunisation (AEFI). METHODS: Real-life immunisation and adverse event data for this observational cohort study were extracted from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre for children registered in the database between 2008 and 2018. We applied the self-controlled case series method to calculate relative incidence ratios (RIR) for AEFI. These RIRs compare the RI of AEFI following coadministration with the RI following separate administration of the same vaccines. RESULTS: We assessed 3 518 047 adverse events and included 5 993 290 vaccine doses given to 958 591 children. 17% of AEFI occurred less and 11% more frequently following coadministration than would have been expected based on the RIs following separate vaccinations, while there was no significant difference for 72% of AEFI. We found amplifying interaction effects for AEFI after five coadministrations comprising three vaccines: for fever (RIR 1.93 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.29)), rash (RIR 1.49 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.74)), gastrointestinal events (RIR 1.31 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.49)) and respiratory events (RIR 1.27 (1.17-1.38)) following DTaP/IPV/Hib+MenC+ PCV; gastrointestinal events (RIR 1.65 (95% CI 1.35 to 2.02)) following DTaP/IPV/Hib+MenC+ RV; fever (RIR 1.44 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.90)) and respiratory events (RIR 1.40 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.57)) following DTaP/IPV/Hib+PCV+ RV; gastrointestinal (RIR 1.48 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.82)) and respiratory events (RIR 1.43 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.63)) following MMR+Hib/MenC+PCV; gastrointestinal events (RIR 1.68 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.64)) and general symptoms (RIR 11.83 (95% CI 1.28 to 109.01)) following MMR+MenC+PCV. Coadministration of MMR+PCV led to more fever (RIR 1.91 (95% CI 1.83 to 1.99)), neurological events (RIR 2.04 (95% CI 1.67 to 2.49)) and rash (RIR 1.06 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.11)) compared with separate administration, DTaP/IPV/Hib+MMR to more musculoskeletal events (RIR 3.56 (95% CI 1.21 to 10.50)) and MMR+MenC to more fever (RIR 1.58 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.82)). There was no indication that unscheduled coadministrations are less safe than scheduled coadministrations. CONCLUSION: Real-life RIRs of AEFI justify coadministering routine childhood vaccines according to the immunisation schedule. Further research into the severity of AEFI following coadministration is required for a complete understanding of the burden of these AEFI.

Adherence to the paediatric immunisation schedule in England.

Both adequate coverage and adherence to paediatric immunisation schedules are required for optimal protection against vaccine preventable diseases. We studied the timeliness of routine paediatric vaccinations according to the NHS's immunisation schedule and potential factors of schedule adherence. Immunisation data was obtained from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). We collected vaccine types, doses, and dates for all routine paediatric vaccines between 2008 and 2018: DTaP/IPV/Hib/HepB, DTaP/IPV/Hib, DTaP/IPV, dTaP/IPV, Td/IPV, MMR, PCV, MenB, MenC, MenACWY, Hib/MenC, RV, HPV. Adherence to the immunisation schedule was calculated for each vaccine and dose. Differences in adherence between genders, NHS regions, and IMD quintiles were analysed. Our study included 6'257'828 vaccinations in 1'005'827 children. Seventy-five percent of first doses were administered within one (for vaccines scheduled in the first year of life) or two months (for vaccines scheduled later in life) following the recommended age, 19% too late and 6% too early. About half of the subsequent doses were given timely. The time between first and second doses was too short for 36% of vaccinations while 13% of second doses were administered too long after the first dose. Third doses were administered timely for 45%, too short for 37%, and too long for 18% of vaccinations. Differences in immunisation schedule adherence between girls and boys were negligible, except for HPV, and differences between the four main NHS regions were small. Overall, immunisation schedule adherence improved slightly with decreasing deprivation according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Efforts are required to improve the timeliness of paediatric vaccinations and to assure adequate protection against vaccine preventable diseases. We propose developing a compound measure combining coverage and adherence to provide a better indication of the protection against vaccine preventable diseases in a community.

Co-administration of routine paediatric vaccines in England often deviates from the immunisation schedule.

Vaccine co-administration can facilitate the introduction of new vaccines in immunisation schedules and improve coverage. We analysed real life data to quantify the extent of routine paediatric vaccine co-administrations as recommended and as never recommended in the immunisation schedule in England, and assessed factors for recommended and never recommended vaccine co-administrations. Immunisation data for all scheduled routine paediatric vaccines between 2008 and 2018 was obtained from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). We included 6'257'828 doses administered to 1'005'827 children. Twenty-one percent of vaccines were given separately, 79% were co-administered. Sixty-four percent of vaccines scheduled for co-administration were co-administered as recommended while 15% were administered separately. Among all vaccine co-administrations, 75% happened as recommended in the schedule, 4% were never recommended, while 21% deviated from the schedule. Vaccine co-administration according to the schedule varied greatly between vaccines. Forty-eight percent of English children received at least one of their vaccine co-administrations not as recommended in the immunisation schedule, with 19% of children receiving none of their co-administered vaccines as recommended. Late administration of one or more vaccines increased the odds for deviated co-administrations (OR 1.60) and strongly increased the odds for never recommended co-administrations (OR 5.34). Differences between genders, NHS regions, and IMD quintiles were statistically significant but small. Suboptimal co-administration rates for routine paediatric vaccines are a missed opportunity and should be optimised by concerted public health action.

COVID-19 Surveillance in a Primary Care Sentinel Network: In-Pandemic Development of an Application Ontology.

BACKGROUND: Creating an ontology for COVID-19 surveillance should help ensure transparency and consistency. Ontologies formalize conceptualizations at either the domain or application level. Application ontologies cross domains and are specified through testable use cases. Our use case was an extension of the role of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) to monitor the current pandemic and become an in-pandemic research platform. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop an application ontology for COVID-19 that can be deployed across the various use-case domains of the RCGP RSC research and surveillance activities. METHODS: We described our domain-specific use case. The actor was the RCGP RSC sentinel network, the system was the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the outcomes were the spread and effect of mitigation measures. We used our established 3-step method to develop the ontology, separating ontological concept development from code mapping and data extract validation. We developed a coding system-independent COVID-19 case identification algorithm. As there were no gold-standard pandemic surveillance ontologies, we conducted a rapid Delphi consensus exercise through the International Medical Informatics Association Primary Health Care Informatics working group and extended networks. RESULTS: Our use-case domains included primary care, public health, virology, clinical research, and clinical informatics. Our ontology supported (1) case identification, microbiological sampling, and health outcomes at an individual practice and at the national level; (2) feedback through a dashboard; (3) a national observatory; (4) regular updates for Public Health England; and (5) transformation of a sentinel network into a trial platform. We have identified a total of 19,115 people with a definite COVID-19 status, 5226 probable cases, and 74,293 people with possible COVID-19, within the RCGP RSC network (N=5,370,225). CONCLUSIONS: The underpinning structure of our ontological approach has coped with multiple clinical coding challenges. At a time when there is uncertainty about international comparisons, clarity about the basis on which case definitions and outcomes are made from routine data is essential.

Quantifying outcome misclassification in multi-database studies: The case study of pertussis in the ADVANCE project.

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 European healthcare databases. Event misclassification can result in biased estimates. Using different algorithms for identifying cases of Bordetella pertussis (BorPer) infection as a test case, we aimed to describe a strategy to quantify event misclassification, when manual chart review is not feasible. METHODS: Four participating databases retrieved data from primary care (PC) setting: BIFAP: (Spain), THIN and RCGP RSC (UK) and PEDIANET (Italy); SIDIAP (Spain) retrieved data from both PC and hospital settings. BorPer algorithms were defined by healthcare setting, data domain (diagnoses, drugs, or laboratory tests) and concept sets (specific or unspecified pertussis). Algorithm- and database-specific BorPer incidence rates (IRs) were estimated in children aged 0-14 years enrolled in 2012 and 2014 and followed up until the end of each calendar year and compared with IRs of confirmed pertussis from the ECDC surveillance system (TESSy). Novel formulas were used to approximate validity indices, based on a small set of assumptions. They were applied to approximately estimate positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity in SIDIAP. RESULTS: The number of cases and the estimated BorPer IRs per 100,000 person-years in PC, using data representing 3,173,268 person-years, were 0 (IR = 0.0), 21 (IR = 4.3), 21 (IR = 5.1), 79 (IR = 5.7), and 2 (IR = 2.3) in BIFAP, SIDIAP, THIN, RCGP RSC and PEDIANET respectively. The IRs for combined specific/unspecified pertussis were higher than TESSy, suggesting that some false positives had been included. In SIDIAP the estimated IR was 45.0 when discharge diagnoses were included. The sensitivity and PPV of combined PC specific and unspecific diagnoses for BorPer cases in SIDIAP were approximately 85% and 72%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Retrieving BorPer cases using only specific concepts has low sensitivity in PC databases, while including cases retrieved by unspecified concepts introduces false positives, which were approximately estimated to be 28% in one database. The share of cases that cannot be retrieved from a PC database because they are only seen in hospital was approximately estimated to be 15% in one database. This study demonstrated that quantifying the impact of different event-finding algorithms across databases and benchmarking with disease surveillance data can provide approximate estimates of algorithm validity.

ADVANCE system testing: Can coverage of pertussis vaccination be estimated in European countries using electronic healthcare databases: An example.

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 healthcare databases in Europe. The objective of this paper was to assess the feasibility of using electronic healthcare databases to estimate dose-specific acellular pertussis (aP) and whole cell pertussis (wP) vaccine coverage. METHODS: Seven electronic healthcare databases in four European countries (Denmark (n = 2), UK (n = 2), Spain (n = 2) and Italy (n = 1)) participated in this study. Children were included from birth and followed up to age six years. Vaccination exposure was obtained from the databases and classified by type (aP or wP), and dose 1, 2 or 3. Coverage was estimated using period prevalence. For the 2006 birth cohort, two estimation methods for pertussis vaccine coverage, period prevalence and cumulative incidence were compared for each database. RESULTS: The majority of the 2,575,576 children included had been vaccinated at the country-specific recommended ages. Overall, the estimated dose 3 coverage was 88-97% in Denmark (birth cohorts from 2003 to 2014), 96-100% in the UK (2003-2014), 95-98% in Spain (2004-2014) and 94% in Italy (2006-2007). The estimated dose 3 coverage per birth cohort in Denmark and the UK differed by 1-6% compared with national estimates, with our estimates mostly higher. The estimated dose 3 coverage in Spain differed by 0-2% with no consistent over- or underestimation. In Italy, the estimates were 3% lower compared with the national estimates. Except for Italy, for which the two coverage estimation methods generated the same results, the estimated cumulative incidence coverages were consistently 1-10% lower than period prevalence estimates. CONCLUSION: This study showed that it was possible to provide consistent estimates of pertussis immunisation coverage from the electronic healthcare databases included, and that the estimates were comparable with the national estimates.

Safety of Co-Administration Versus Separate Administration of the Same Vaccines in Children: A Systematic Literature Review.

The growing number of available vaccines that can be potentially co-administered makes the assessment of the safety of vaccine co-administration increasingly relevant but complex. We aimed to synthesize the available scientific evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children by performing a systematic literature review of studies assessing the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children between 1999 and 2019, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Fifty studies compared co-administered vaccines versus the same vaccines administered separately. The most frequently studied vaccines included quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY) vaccine, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) or tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed, hepatitis B, inactivated poliovirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate (DTaP-HepB-IPV/Hib) vaccine, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and pneumococcal conjugate 7-valent (PCV7) or 13-valent (PCV13) vaccines. Of this, 16% (n = 8) of the studies reported significantly more adverse events following immunization (AEFI) while in 10% (n = 5) significantly fewer adverse events were found in the co-administration groups. Statistically significant differences between co-administration and separate administration were found for 16 adverse events, for 11 different vaccine co-administrations. In general, studies briefly described safety and one-third of studies lacked any statistical assessment of AEFI. Overall, the evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations compared to separate vaccine administrations is inconclusive and there is a paucity of large post-licensure studies addressing this issue.

Vaccine Update: Recent Progress With Novel Vaccines, and New Approaches to Safety Monitoring and Vaccine Shortage.

Vaccines are increasingly based on new constructs, new technologies, and new compounds. Novel immunization programs are rapidly implemented globally. In this article, we highlight selected hot topics of this highly dynamic and broad field of scientific and public health development. The first section focuses on novel vaccines including malaria, dengue, serogroup B meningococcal, and respiratory syncytial virus vaccines and antibodies. The second section is addressing emerging strategies and programmatic challenges including maternal immunization, integrated mother-child safety monitoring, and finally coping strategies with vaccine shortages.

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.

Immunization in pregnancy clinical research in low- and middle-income countries - Study design, regulatory and safety considerations.

Immunization of pregnant women is a promising public health strategy to reduce morbidity and mortality among both the mothers and their infants. Establishing safety and efficacy of vaccines generally uses a hybrid design between a conventional interventional study and an observational study that requires enrolling thousands of study participants to detect an unknown number of uncommon events. Historically, enrollment of pregnant women in clinical research studies encountered many barriers based on risk aversion, lack of knowledge, and regulatory ambiguity. Conducting research enrolling pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries can have additional factors to address such as limited availability of baseline epidemiologic data on disease burden and maternal and neonatal outcomes during and after pregnancy; challenges in recruiting and retaining pregnant women in research studies, variability in applying and interpreting assessment methods, and variability in locally acceptable and available infrastructure. Some measures to address these challenges include adjustment of study design, tailoring recruitment, consent process, retention strategies, operational and logistical processes, and the use of definitions and data collection methods that will align with efforts globally.

Global alignment of immunization safety assessment in pregnancy - The GAIA project.

Immunization in pregnancy provides a promising contribution to globally reducing neonatal and under-five childhood mortality and morbidity. Thorough assessment of benefits and risks for the primarily healthy pregnant women and their unborn babies is required. The GAIA project was formed in response to the call of the World Health Organization for a globally concerted approach to actively monitor the safety of vaccines and immunization in pregnancy programs. GAIA aims to improve the quality of outcome data from clinical vaccine trials in pregnant women with a specific focus on the needs and requirements for safety monitoring in LMIC. In the first year of the project, a large and functional network of experts was created. The first outputs include a guidance document for clinical trials of immunization in pregnancy, a basic data collection guide, ten case definitions of key obstetric and neonatal health outcomes, an ontology of key terms and a map of pertinent disease codes. The GAIA Network is designed as an open and growing forum for professionals sharing the GAIA vision and aim. Based on the initial achievements, tools and services are developed to support investigators and strengthen immunization in pregnancy programs with specific focus on LMIC.

Guideline for collection, analysis and presentation of safety data in clinical trials of vaccines in pregnant women.

Vaccination during pregnancy is increasingly being used as an effective approach for protecting both young infants and their mothers from serious infections. Drawing conclusions from published studies in this area can be difficult because of the inability to compare vaccine trial results across different studies and settings due to the heterogeneity in the definitions of terms used to assess the safety of vaccines in pregnancy and the data collected in such studies. The guidelines proposed in this document have been developed to harmonize safety data collection in all phases of clinical trials of vaccines in pregnant women and apply to data from the mother, fetus and infant. Guidelines on the prioritization of the data to be collected is also provided to allow applicability in various geographic, cultural and resource settings, including high, middle and low-income countries.

Key terms for the assessment of the safety of vaccines in pregnancy: Results of a global consultative process to initiate harmonization of adverse event definitions.

BACKGROUND: The variability of terms and definitions of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) represents a missed opportunity for optimal monitoring of safety of immunization in pregnancy. In 2014, the Brighton Collaboration Foundation and the World Health Organization (WHO) collaborated to address this gap. METHODS: Two Brighton Collaboration interdisciplinary taskforces were formed. A landscape analysis included: (1) a systematic literature review of adverse event definitions used in vaccine studies during pregnancy; (2) a worldwide stakeholder survey of available terms and definitions; (3) and a series of taskforce meetings. Based on available evidence, taskforces proposed key terms and concept definitions to be refined, prioritized, and endorsed by a global expert consultation convened by WHO in Geneva, Switzerland in July 2014. RESULTS: Using pre-specified criteria, 45 maternal and 62 fetal/neonatal events were prioritized, and key terms and concept definitions were endorsed. In addition recommendations to further improve safety monitoring of immunization in pregnancy programs were specified. This includes elaboration of disease concepts into standardized case definitions with sufficient applicability and positive predictive value to be of use for monitoring the safety of immunization in pregnancy globally, as well as the development of guidance, tools, and datasets in support of a globally concerted approach. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to improve the safety monitoring of immunization in pregnancy programs. A consensus list of terms and concept definitions of key events for monitoring immunization in pregnancy is available. Immediate actions to further strengthen monitoring of immunization in pregnancy programs are identified and recommended.