A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial comparing the immunogenicity and safety of two seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines in adults.

BACKGROUND: To enhance the production and availability of influenza vaccines in different regions of the world is paramount to mitigate the global burden of this disease. Instituto Butantan developed and manufactured an embryonated egg-based inactivated split-virion trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine as part of a technology transfer partnership with Sanofi Pasteur. METHODS: This is a phase IV, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter clinical trial including adults 18-60 and > 60 years recruited during the 2019 southern hemisphere influenza season. Subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive either the Sanofi Pasteur Trivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (SP-TIV) or Instituto Butantan Trivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (IB-TIV). Hemagglutinin inhibition antibody titers were assessed pre-vaccination and 21 days post-vaccination. RESULTS: 624 participants were randomized and vaccinated. In both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, non-inferiority of the SP-TIV versus IB-TIV was demonstrated for the three influenza strains. In the per-protocol analysis, the SP-GMT/IB-GMT ratios for H1N1, H3N2, and B were 0.9 (95%CI, 0.7-1.1), 1.2 (95%CI, 1.0-1.4), and 1.1 (95%CI, 0.9-1.3), respectively. Across vaccination groups, the most common adverse reactions (AR) were limited to the injection-site, including pain and tenderness. The majority of the ARs were graded 1 and/or 2 and lasted less than one day. No serious adverse reaction was observed. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of the immunogenicity of a single-dose of Instituto Butantan versus a single dose of the Sanofi Pasteur Seasonal Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in adults. Both vaccines were well tolerated and presented similar safety profiles.

A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial comparing the immunogenicity and safety of two seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines in adults

Background To enhance the production and availability of influenza vaccines in different regions of the world is paramount to mitigate the global burden of this disease. Instituto Butantan developed and manufactured an embryonated egg-based inactivated split-virion trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine as part of a technology transfer partnership with Sanofi Pasteur. Methods This is a phase IV, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter clinical trial including adults 18–60 and > 60 years recruited during the 2019 southern hemisphere influenza season. Subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive either the Sanofi Pasteur Trivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (SP-TIV) or Instituto Butantan Trivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (IB-TIV). Hemagglutinin inhibition antibody titers were assessed pre-vaccination and 21 days post-vaccination. Results 624 participants were randomized and vaccinated. In both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, non-inferiority of the SP-TIV versus IB-TIV was demonstrated for the three influenza strains. In the per-protocol analysis, the SP-GMT/IB-GMT ratios for H1N1, H3N2, and B were 0.9 (95%CI, 0.7–1.1), 1.2 (95%CI, 1.0–1.4), and 1.1 (95%CI, 0.9–1.3), respectively. Across vaccination groups, the most common adverse reactions (AR) were limited to the injection-site, including pain and tenderness. The majority of the ARs were graded 1 and/or 2 and lasted less than one day. No serious adverse reaction was observed. Conclusion This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of the immunogenicity of a single-dose of Instituto Butantan versus a single dose of the Sanofi Pasteur Seasonal Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in adults. Both vaccines were well tolerated and presented similar safety profiles.

Dose-sparing effect of two adjuvant formulations with a pandemic influenza A/H7N9 vaccine: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 clinical trial.

The emergence of potentially pandemic viruses has resulted in preparedness efforts to develop candidate vaccines and adjuvant formulations. We evaluated the dose-sparing effect and safety of two distinct squalene-based oil-in-water adjuvant emulsion formulations (IB160 and SE) with influenza A/H7N9 antigen. This phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial (NCT03330899), enrolled 432 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 59. Participants were randomly allocated to 8 groups: 1A) IB160 + 15µg H7N9, 1B) IB160 + 7.5µg H7N9, 1C) IB160 + 3.75µg H7N9, 2A) SE + 15µg H7N9, 2B) SE + 7.5µg H7N9, 2C) SE + 3.75µg H7N9, 3) unadjuvanted vaccine 15µg H7N9 and 4) placebo. Immunogenicity was evaluated through haemagglutination inhibition (HI) and microneutralization (MN) tests. Safety was evaluated by monitoring local and systemic, solicited and unsolicited adverse events (AE) and reactions (AR) 7 and 28 days after each study injection, respectively, whereas serious adverse events (SAE) were monitored up to 194 days post-second dose. A greater increase in antibody geometric mean titers (GMT) was observed in groups receiving adjuvanted vaccines. Vaccinees receiving IB160-adjuvanted formulations showed the greatest response in group 1B, which induced an HI GMT increase of 4.7 times, HI titers ≥40 in 45.2% of participants (MN titers ≥40 in 80.8%). Vaccinees receiving SE-adjuvanted vaccines showed the greatest response in group 2A, with an HI GMT increase of 2.5 times, HI titers ≥40 in 22.9% of participants (MN titers ≥40 in 65.7%). Frequencies of AE and AR were similar among groups. Pain at the administration site and headache were the most frequent local and systemic solicited ARs. The vaccine candidates were safe and the adjuvanted formulations have a potential dose-sparing effect on immunogenicity against influenza A/H7N9. The magnitude of this effect could be further explored.

Impact of antivenom administration on the evolution of cutaneous lesions in loxoscelism: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Spiders of the genus Loxosceles are distributed throughout tropical and temperate regions worldwide. Loxosceles spp. bites may evolve to necrosis, with or without intravascular hemolysis. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment to prevent necrosis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the factors associated with the development of necrosis and the impact that antivenom administration has on the evolution of cutaneous loxoscelism. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This was a prospective observational study carried out at a referral center for envenoming. Over a 6-year period, we included 146 patients with a presumptive or definitive diagnosis of loxoscelism. Depending on the symptom severity, a polyvalent anti-arachnid antivenom was administered or not-in 74 cases (50.7%) and 72 cases (49.3%), respectively. Cutaneous and systemic manifestations were assessed at admission and weekly thereafter. Adverse reactions to the antivenom were also evaluated. Cutaneous loxoscelism was observed in 141 cases (96.6%), and the spider was identified in 29 (19.9%). The mean time from bite to antivenom administration was 41.6 ± 27.4 h. After discharge, 130 patients (90.9%) were treated with corticosteroids, antihistamines and analgesics being prescribed as needed. The probability of developing necrosis was significantly lower among the patients who were admitted earlier, as well as among those who received antivenom (p = 0.0245). Among the 74 patients receiving antivenom, early and delayed adverse reactions occurred in seven (9.5%) and four (5.4%), respectively. Local infection was observed only in three (2.3%) of the 128 patients for whom that information was available. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Necrosis after a Loxosceles sp. bite appears to more common when hospital admission is delayed or when antivenom is not administered. In addition, the administration of a polyvalent anti-arachnid antivenom appears to be safe, with a relatively low rate of adverse reactions.

Dose-sparing effect of two adjuvant formulations with a pandemic influenza A/H7N9 vaccine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 clinical trial

The emergence of potentially pandemic viruses has resulted in preparedness efforts to develop candidate vaccines and adjuvant formulations. We evaluated the dose-sparing effect and safety of two distinct squalene-based oil-in-water adjuvant emulsion formulations (IB160 and SE) with influenza A/H7N9 antigen. This phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial (NCT03330899), enrolled 432 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 59. Participants were randomly allocated to 8 groups: 1A) IB160 + 15μg H7N9, 1B) IB160 + 7.5μg H7N9, 1C) IB160 + 3.75μg H7N9, 2A) SE + 15μg H7N9, 2B) SE + 7.5μg H7N9, 2C) SE + 3.75μg H7N9, 3) unadjuvanted vaccine 15μg H7N9 and 4) placebo. Immunogenicity was evaluated through haemagglutination inhibition (HI) and microneutralization (MN) tests. Safety was evaluated by monitoring local and systemic, solicited and unsolicited adverse events (AE) and reactions (AR) 7 and 28 days after each study injection, respectively, whereas serious adverse events (SAE) were monitored up to 194 days post-second dose. A greater increase in antibody geometric mean titers (GMT) was observed in groups receiving adjuvanted vaccines. Vaccinees receiving IB160-adjuvanted formulations showed the greatest response in group 1B, which induced an HI GMT increase of 4.7 times, HI titers ≥40 in 45.2% of participants (MN titers ≥40 in 80.8%). Vaccinees receiving SE-adjuvanted vaccines showed the greatest response in group 2A, with an HI GMT increase of 2.5 times, HI titers ≥40 in 22.9% of participants (MN titers ≥40 in 65.7%). Frequencies of AE and AR were similar among groups. Pain at the administration site and headache were the most frequent local and systemic solicited ARs. The vaccine candidates were safe and the adjuvanted formulations have a potential dose-sparing effect on immunogenicity against influenza A/H7N9. The magnitude of this effect could be further explored.

Impact of antivenom administration on the evolution of cutaneous lesions in loxoscelism: a prospective observational study

Background Spiders of the genus Loxosceles are distributed throughout tropical and temperate regions worldwide. Loxosceles spp. bites may evolve to necrosis, with or without intravascular hemolysis. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment to prevent necrosis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the factors associated with the development of necrosis and the impact that antivenom administration has on the evolution of cutaneous loxoscelism. Methodology/Principal findings This was a prospective observational study carried out at a referral center for envenoming. Over a 6-year period, we included 146 patients with a presumptive or definitive diagnosis of loxoscelism. Depending on the symptom severity, a polyvalent anti-arachnid antivenom was administered or not—in 74 cases (50.7%) and 72 cases (49.3%), respectively. Cutaneous and systemic manifestations were assessed at admission and weekly thereafter. Adverse reactions to the antivenom were also evaluated. Cutaneous loxoscelism was observed in 141 cases (96.6%), and the spider was identified in 29 (19.9%). The mean time from bite to antivenom administration was 41.6 ± 27.4 h. After discharge, 130 patients (90.9%) were treated with corticosteroids, antihistamines and analgesics being prescribed as needed. The probability of developing necrosis was significantly lower among the patients who were admitted earlier, as well as among those who received antivenom (p = 0.0245). Among the 74 patients receiving antivenom, early and delayed adverse reactions occurred in seven (9.5%) and four (5.4%), respectively. Local infection was observed only in three (2.3%) of the 128 patients for whom that information was available. Conclusions/Significance Necrosis after a Loxosceles sp. bite appears to more common when hospital admission is delayed or when antivenom is not administered. In addition, the administration of a polyvalent anti-arachnid antivenom appears to be safe, with a relatively low rate of adverse reactions.

Active pharmacovigilance of the seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine produced by Instituto Butantan: A prospective cohort study of five target groups.

INTRODUCTION: Active pharmacovigilance studies are pivotal to better characterize vaccine safety. METHODS: These are multicenter prospective cohort studies to evaluate the safety of the 2017 and 2018 seasonal trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs) manufactured by Instituto Butantan, by means of active pharmacovigilance practices. Elderly, children, healthcare workers, pregnant women, and women in the puerperium period were invited to participate in the study during the 2017 and 2018 Brazilian national seasonal influenza vaccination campaigns. Following immunization, participants were observed for 30 minutes and they received a participant card to register adverse events information. All safety information registered were checked at a clinical site visit 14 days after immunization and by a telephone contact 42 days after immunization for unsolicited Adverse Events (AE) and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). RESULTS: A total of 942 volunteers participated in the two studies: 305 elderly, 109 children, 108 pregnant women, 32 women in the postpartum period, and 388 health workers. Overall, the median number of AR per participant ranged from 1 to 4. The lowest median number of AR per participant was observed among healthcare workers (1 AR per participant) and the highest among pregnant women (4 AR per participant). Overall, local pain (46.6%) was the most frequent solicited local AR. The most frequent systemic ARs were: headache (22.5%) followed by fatigue (16.0%), and malaise (11.0%). The majority of solicited ARs (96%) were mild, Grades 1 or 2), only 3% were Grade 3, and 1% was Grade 4. No serious AEs, including Guillain-Barré Syndrome, were reported up to 42 days postvaccination. CONCLUSION: The results from the two studies confirmed that the 2017 and 2018 seasonal trivalent influenza vaccines produced by Instituto Butantan were safe and that active pharmacovigilance studies should be considered, when it is feasible, as an important initiative to monitor vaccine safety in the post-marketing period.

Active pharmacovigilance of the seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine produced by Instituto Butantan: a prospective cohort study of five target groups

Active pharmacovigilance studies are pivotal to better characterize vaccine safety. Methods: These are multicenter prospective cohort studies to evaluate the safety of the 2017 and 2018 seasonal trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs) manufactured by Instituto Butantan, by means of active pharmacovigilance practices. Elderly, children, healthcare workers, pregnant women, and women in the puerperium period were invited to participate in the study during the 2017 and 2018 Brazilian national seasonal influenza vaccination campaigns. Following immunization, participants were observed for 30 minutes and they received a participant card to register adverse events information. All safety information registered were checked at a clinical site visit 14 days after immunization and by a telephone contact 42 days after immunization for unsolicited Adverse Events (AE) and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). Results: A total of 942 volunteers participated in the two studies: 305 elderly, 109 children, 108 pregnant women, 32 women in the postpartum period, and 388 health workers. Overall, the median number of AR per participant ranged from 1 to 4. The lowest median number of AR per participant was observed among healthcare workers (1 AR per participant) and the highest among pregnant women (4 AR per participant). Overall, local pain (46.6%) was the most frequent solicited local AR. The most frequent systemic ARs were: headache (22.5%) followed by fatigue (16.0%), and malaise (11.0%). The majority of solicited ARs (96%) were mild, Grades 1 or 2), only 3% were Grade 3, and 1% was Grade 4. No serious AEs, including Guillain-Barré Syndrome, were reported up to 42 days postvaccination. Conclusion: The results from the two studies confirmed that the 2017 and 2018 seasonal trivalent influenza vaccines produced by Instituto Butantan were safe and that active pharmacovigilance studies should be considered, when it is feasible, as an important initiative to monitor vaccine safety in the post-marketing period.

Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of treating Healthcare Professionals with the Adsorbed COVID-19 (Inactivated) Vaccine Manufactured by Sinovac - PROFISCOV: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac in symptomatic individuals, with virological confirmation of COVID-19, two weeks after the completion of the two-dose vaccination regimen, aged 18 years or older who work as health professionals providing care to patients with possible or confirmed COVID-19. To describe the occurrence of adverse reactions associated with the administration of each of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac up to one week after vaccination in Adults (18-59 years of age) and Elderly (60 years of age or more). TRIAL DESIGN: This is a Phase III, randomized, multicenter, endpoint driven, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac. The adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac (product under investigation) will be compared to placebo. Voluntary participants will be randomized to receive two intramuscular doses of the investigational product or the placebo, in a 1: 1 ratio, stratified by age group (18 to 59 years and 60 years or more) and will be monitored for one year by active surveillance of COVID-19. Two databases will be established according to the age groups: one for adults (18-59 years) and one for the elderly (60 years of age or older). The threshold to consider the vaccine efficacious will be to reach a protection level of at least 50%, as proposed by the World Health Organization and the FDA. Success in this criterion will be defined by sequential monitoring with adjustment of the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval above 30% for the primary efficacy endpoint. PARTICIPANTS: Healthy participants and / or participants with clinically controlled disease, of both genders, 18 years of age or older, working as health professionals performing care in units specialized in direct contact with people with possible or confirmed cases of COVID-19. Participation of pregnant women and those who are breastfeeding, as well as those intending to become pregnant within three months after vaccination will not be allowed. Participants will only be included after signing the voluntary Informed Consent Form and ensuring they undergo screening evaluation and conform to all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All the clinical sites are located in Brazil. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Experimental intervention: The vaccine was manufactured by Sinovac Life Sciences (Beijing, China) and contains 3 µg/0.5 mL (equivalent to 600 SU per dose) of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus, and aluminium hydroxide as adjuvant. Control comparator: The placebo contains aluminium hydroxide in a 0.5 mL solution The schedule of both, experimental intervention and placebo is two 0.5 mL doses IM (deltoid) with a two week interval. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy endpoint is the incidence of symptomatic cases of virologically confirmed COVID-19 two weeks after the second vaccination. The virological diagnosis will be confirmed by detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in a clinical sample. The primary safety endpoint is the frequency of solicited and unsolicited local and systemic adverse reactions during the period of one week after vaccination according to age group in adult (18-59 years old) and elder (60 years of age or older) subjects. Adverse reactions are defined as adverse events that have a reasonable causal relationship to vaccination. RANDOMISATION: There will be two randomization lists, one for each age group, based on the investigational products to be administered, i.e., vaccine or placebo at a 1: 1 ratio. Each randomization list will be made to include up to 11,800 (18-59 year-old) adults, and 1,260 elderly (60 y-o and older) participants, the maximum number of participants needed per age group. An electronic central randomization system will be used to designate the investigational product that each participant must receive. BLINDING (MASKING): This trial is designed as a double-blind study to avoid introducing bias in the evaluation of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. The clinical care team, the professionals responsible for the vaccination and the participants will not know which investigational product will be administered. Only pharmacists or nurses in the study who are responsible for the randomization, separation and blinding of the investigational product will have access to unblinded information. The sponsor's operational team will also remain blind. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The total number of participants needed to evaluate efficacy, 13,060 participants, satisfies the needed sample size calculated to evaluate safety. Therefore, the total number obtained for efficacy will be the number retained for the study. Up to 13,060 participants are expected to enter the study, with up to 11,800 participants aged 18 to 59 years and 1,260 elderly participants aged 60 and over. Half of the participants of each group will receive the experimental vaccine and half of them will receive the placebo. The recruitment of participants may be modified as recommended by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee at time of the interim unblinded analysis or blind assessment of the COVID-19 attack rate during the study. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 2.0 - 24-Aug-2020. Recruitment started on July 21st, 2020. The recruitment is expected to conclude in October 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0445659 . Registry on 2 July 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Bites by Tomodon dorsatus (serpentes, dipsadidae): Clinical and epidemiological study of 86 cases.

A total of 86 proven cases of Tomodon dorsatus bites admitted to Hospital Vital Brazil (HVB) of Butantan Institute, in São Paulo, Brazil, between 1945 and 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. The cases included were those in which the snake was brought to HVB and was correctly identified. Of the 86 cases of snake bites, it was possible to describe the sex of the snake in 52 cases; 31 (59.6%) snakes were male. Only 52 snakes out of 86 could be studied because of their preservation status. The length of snakes (snout-vent length) ranged from 180 to 770 mm. Of the 86 snakes, 72 could be distinguished as adults (n = 63, 87.5%) or juveniles (n = 9, 12.5%). Most bites occurred in the spring and summer seasons (n = 57, 66.3%) and during warmer periods of the day (n = 61, 72.6%), between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. The mean (±standard deviation) age of the victims was 26.9 ±â€¯17.2 years, and 60 (69.8%) were men. Approximately 90% of the patients sought medical care within 6 h after the bite. Both upper (n = 45, 52.3%) and lower (n = 37, 43.0%) limbs were the most frequently bitten, particularly the feet and hands (n = 54, 62.8%). The local clinical manifestations were pain (n = 55, 64.0%), transitory bleeding (n = 23, 26.7%), erythema (n = 22, 25.6%), edema (n = 14, 16.3%), paresthesia (n = 9, 10.5%), and ecchymosis (n = 3, 3.5%). Only 10 (11.6%) patients reported non-specific systemic symptoms characterized by transient dizziness or mild headache, and 21 (24.4%) patients showed no evidence of envenomation. A 20 min whole blood clotting test was performed in 31 (36.0%) patients on admission and all of them had coagulable blood. Supportive treatment was offered to 38 (44.2%) patients, namely, antiseptic (n = 20, 23.3%), antihistamines (n = 12, 14.0%), and analgesics (n = 9, 10.5%). Four (4.7%) patients were inappropriately treated with Bothrops antivenom before their admission to HVB. No sequelae or relevant complications were observed in patients, and the prognosis was benign. Therefore, although T. dorsatus bites can cause mild local symptomatology, it is important that health professionals know how to make the correct diagnosis to avoid unnecessary use of antivenom.

Bites by Tomodon dorsatus (serpentes, dipsadidae): clinical and epidemiological study of 86 cases

A total of 86 proven cases ofTomodon dorsatusbites admitted to Hospital Vital Brazil (HVB) of ButantanInstitute, in São Paulo, Brazil, between 1945 and 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. The cases included werethose in which the snake was brought to HVB and was correctly identified. Of the 86 cases of snake bites, it waspossible to describe the sex of the snake in 52 cases; 31 (59.6%) snakes were male. Only 52 snakes out of 86could be studied because of their preservation status. The length of snakes (snout–vent length) ranged from 180to 770 mm. Of the 86 snakes, 72 could be distinguished as adults (n = 63, 87.5%) or juveniles (n = 9, 12.5%).Most bites occurred in the spring and summer seasons (n = 57, 66.3%) and during warmer periods of the day(n = 61, 72.6%), between 9A.M. and 3P.M. The mean ( ± standard deviation) age of the victims was 26.9 ± 17.2 years, and 60 (69.8%) were men.Approximately 90% of the patients sought medical care within 6 h after the bite. Both upper (n = 45, 52.3%)and lower (n = 37, 43.0%) limbs were the most frequently bitten, particularly the feet and hands (n = 54,62.8%). The local clinical manifestations were pain (n = 55, 64.0%), transitory bleeding (n = 23, 26.7%), er-ythema (n = 22, 25.6%), edema (n = 14, 16.3%), paresthesia (n = 9, 10.5%), and ecchymosis (n = 3, 3.5%).Only 10 (11.6%) patients reported non-specific systemic symptoms characterized by transient dizziness or mildheadache, and 21 (24.4%) patients showed no evidence of envenomation. A 20 min whole blood clotting test wasperformed in 31 (36.0%) patients on admission and all of them had coagulable blood. Supportive treatment wasoffered to 38 (44.2%) patients, namely, antiseptic (n = 20, 23.3%), antihistamines (n = 12, 14.0%), and an-algesics (n = 9, 10.5%). Four (4.7%) patients were inappropriately treated withBothropsantivenom before theiradmission to HVB. No sequelae or relevant complications were observed in patients, and the prognosis wasbenign. Therefore, althoughT. dorsatusbites can cause mild local symptomatology, it is important that healthprofessionals know how to make the correct diagnosis to avoid unnecessary use of antivenom.

Safety assessment of seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine produced by Instituto Butantan from 2013 to 2017

Vaccination has been a successful strategy in influenza prevention. However, despite the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, they can cause adverse events following immunization (AEFI). Moreover, due to the vaccination success, most of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD) have become rare, and public attention has been shifted from VPD to the AEFI associated with vaccination. This manuscript describes the safety of Instituto Butantan (IB) seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) from 2013 to 2017. AEFI data were received by the Department of Pharmacovigilance of IB (PV-IB), from January the 1st 2013 to December the 31st 2017, and were recorded in an electronic database (OpenClinica (c)). PV-IB received 1,415 Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSR) associated with the TIV; 1,253 ICSR with at least one AEFI were analyzed and 4,140 AEFI were identified. The other 162 (11.4%) cases did not present any symptom. Among the total of AEFI, 405 (9.8%) were classified as serious. AEFI with the highest incidence rates per 100,000 doses of TIV were: "local pain" (0.28), "local erythema" (0.23), "local warmth" (0.22), "local swelling" (0.20) and "fever" (0.19). PV-IB received 175 (4.2%) occurrences of SAE of special interest, of which 75 (1.8%) anaphylaxis/anaphylactic reactions, 56 (1.4%) neurological syndromes (including seven Guillain-Barre Syndrome) and 44 (1.1%) convulsion/febrile convulsion. The results of this manuscript suggested that Instituto Butantan trivalent influenza vaccine (IB-TIV) is safe, as most of the reported AEFI were classified as non-serious. AEFI described for the IB-TIV are in agreement with the ones described in the literature for similar vaccines.

Bites by Tomodon dorsatus (serpentes, dipsadidae): clinical and epidemiological study of 86 cases

A total of 86 proven cases ofTomodon dorsatusbites admitted to Hospital Vital Brazil (HVB) of ButantanInstitute, in São Paulo, Brazil, between 1945 and 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. The cases included werethose in which the snake was brought to HVB and was correctly identified. Of the 86 cases of snake bites, it waspossible to describe the sex of the snake in 52 cases; 31 (59.6%) snakes were male. Only 52 snakes out of 86could be studied because of their preservation status. The length of snakes (snout–vent length) ranged from 180to 770 mm. Of the 86 snakes, 72 could be distinguished as adults (n = 63, 87.5%) or juveniles (n = 9, 12.5%).Most bites occurred in the spring and summer seasons (n = 57, 66.3%) and during warmer periods of the day(n = 61, 72.6%), between 9A.M. and 3P.M. The mean ( ± standard deviation) age of the victims was 26.9 ± 17.2 years, and 60 (69.8%) were men.Approximately 90% of the patients sought medical care within 6 h after the bite. Both upper (n = 45, 52.3%)and lower (n = 37, 43.0%) limbs were the most frequently bitten, particularly the feet and hands (n = 54,62.8%). The local clinical manifestations were pain (n = 55, 64.0%), transitory bleeding (n = 23, 26.7%), er-ythema (n = 22, 25.6%), edema (n = 14, 16.3%), paresthesia (n = 9, 10.5%), and ecchymosis (n = 3, 3.5%).Only 10 (11.6%) patients reported non-specific systemic symptoms characterized by transient dizziness or mildheadache, and 21 (24.4%) patients showed no evidence of envenomation. A 20 min whole blood clotting test wasperformed in 31 (36.0%) patients on admission and all of them had coagulable blood. Supportive treatment wasoffered to 38 (44.2%) patients, namely, antiseptic (n = 20, 23.3%), antihistamines (n = 12, 14.0%), and an-algesics (n = 9, 10.5%). Four (4.7%) patients were inappropriately treated withBothropsantivenom before theiradmission to HVB. No sequelae or relevant complications were observed in patients, and the prognosis wasbenign. Therefore, althoughT. dorsatusbites can cause mild local symptomatology, it is important that healthprofessionals know how to make the correct diagnosis to avoid unnecessary use of antivenom.

Safety assessment of seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine produced by Instituto Butantan from 2013 to 2017

Vaccination has been a successful strategy in influenza prevention. However, despite the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, they can cause adverse events following immunization (AEFI). Moreover, due to the vaccination success, most of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD) have become rare, and public attention has been shifted from VPD to the AEFI associated with vaccination. This manuscript describes the safety of Instituto Butantan (IB) seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) from 2013 to 2017. AEFI data were received by the Department of Pharmacovigilance of IB (PV-IB), from January the 1st 2013 to December the 31st 2017, and were recorded in an electronic database (OpenClinica (c)). PV-IB received 1,415 Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSR) associated with the TIV; 1,253 ICSR with at least one AEFI were analyzed and 4,140 AEFI were identified. The other 162 (11.4%) cases did not present any symptom. Among the total of AEFI, 405 (9.8%) were classified as serious. AEFI with the highest incidence rates per 100,000 doses of TIV were: "local pain" (0.28), "local erythema" (0.23), "local warmth" (0.22), "local swelling" (0.20) and "fever" (0.19). PV-IB received 175 (4.2%) occurrences of SAE of special interest, of which 75 (1.8%) anaphylaxis/anaphylactic reactions, 56 (1.4%) neurological syndromes (including seven Guillain-Barre Syndrome) and 44 (1.1%) convulsion/febrile convulsion. The results of this manuscript suggested that Instituto Butantan trivalent influenza vaccine (IB-TIV) is safe, as most of the reported AEFI were classified as non-serious. AEFI described for the IB-TIV are in agreement with the ones described in the literature for similar vaccines.

Safety assessment of seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine produced by Instituto Butantan from 2013 to 2017.

Vaccination has been a successful strategy in influenza prevention. However, despite the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, they can cause adverse events following immunization (AEFI). Moreover, due to the vaccination success, most of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD) have become rare, and public attention has been shifted from VPD to the AEFI associated with vaccination. This manuscript describes the safety of Instituto Butantan (IB) seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) from 2013 to 2017. AEFI data were received by the Department of Pharmacovigilance of IB (PV-IB), from January the 1st 2013 to December the 31st 2017, and were recorded in an electronic database (OpenClinica©). PV-IB received 1,415 Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSR) associated with the TIV; 1,253 ICSR with at least one AEFI were analyzed and 4,140 AEFI were identified. The other 162 (11.4%) cases did not present any symptom. Among the total of AEFI, 405 (9.8%) were classified as serious. AEFI with the highest incidence rates per 100,000 doses of TIV were: "local pain" (0.28), "local erythema" (0.23), "local warmth" (0.22), "local swelling" (0.20) and "fever" (0.19). PV-IB received 175 (4.2%) occurrences of SAE of special interest, of which 75 (1.8%) anaphylaxis/anaphylactic reactions, 56 (1.4%) neurological syndromes (including seven Guillain-Barré Syndrome) and 44 (1.1%) convulsion/febrile convulsion. The results of this manuscript suggested that Instituto Butantan trivalent influenza vaccine (IB-TIV) is safe, as most of the reported AEFI were classified as non-serious. AEFI described for the IB-TIV are in agreement with the ones described in the literature for similar vaccines.

Active assessment of adverse events following yellow fever vaccination of persons aged 60 years and more.

INTRODUCTION: Older age has been associated to serious adverse events (AE) following yellow fever (YF) vaccination in passive surveillance studies, but few prospective studies involving seniors have been published. RESULTS: A total of 906 persons were evaluated; 78 were not vaccinated and 828 received the vaccine; 700 (84.7%) were interviewed after vaccination: 593 (84.7%) did not report any symptoms or signs following YF vaccine; 107 (15.3%) reported at least one AE temporally associated to YF vaccination: 97 (13.9%) had systemic AE and 17 (2.4%) reported AE at the injection site (7 had both systemic and local AE). Data regarding previous vaccination was available for 655 subjects. Statistically significant higher rates of systemic AE were observed among subjects who received the first YF vaccination (17.5%) in comparison to persons who had been previously vaccinated (9.5%). METHODS: This observational prospective study aimed to describe AE following YF vaccination in persons aged ≥ 60 y. From March 2009 to April 2010, seniors who sought YF vaccination at a reference Immunization Center in São Paulo city, Brazil, were included. Demographic and clinical data, previous YF vaccination, travel destination and the final decision regarding YF vaccination or not were collected from standardized medical records. Active AE assessment was done through telephone or electronic mail interview performed approximately 14 d after immunization. CONCLUSION: Most persons aged ≥ 60 y may be safely vaccinated against YF. Before vaccination, they must be carefully screened for conditions associated to altered immunocompetence and for risk of exposure to YF.