Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Landscape review of active vaccine safety surveillance activities for COVID-19 vaccines globally.
ShamaeiZadeh, Parisa A; Jaimes, Carmen Villamizar; Knoll, Maria Deloria; Espié, Emmanuelle; Chandler, Rebecca E.
Afiliação
  • ShamaeiZadeh PA; International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
  • Jaimes CV; University of Kentucky, College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, United States.
  • Knoll MD; International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
  • Espié E; International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
  • Chandler RE; Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, London, UK.
Vaccine X ; 18: 100485, 2024 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38655548
ABSTRACT

Background:

Evidence of COVID-19 vaccine safety relied upon the global vaccine monitoring infrastructure due to shortened clinical development timelines and emergency use licensure. Differences in AVSS capacity between high-income countries (HICs) versus low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were known prior to the pandemic.

Objective:

To assess the global landscape of COVID-19 vaccine AVSS activities to identify gaps in safety evidence generation across vaccine products and populations with a focus on LMICs.

Methods:

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in January 2022 on AVSS activities evaluating adverse events following immunization (AEFI). Data collected included country, targeted population, COVID-19 vaccine product(s), design of surveillance/monitoring activities or study, and AEFIs to be monitored.To supplement these findings, we conducted a literature review of COVID-19 vaccine safety activities published in PubMed through January 2023. Observational activities assessing AEFI, specifically adverse events of special interest (AESI), following routine use of COVID-19 vaccines in medical practice were included; systematic reviews, benefit/risk assessments, clinical trials, and case reports/series were excluded.

Results:

The survey, completed by 34 respondents and compiled with reviews of 7 publicly available Risk Management Plans from five vaccine manufacturers, identified 79 monitoring activities in HICs, 24 in LMICs, and 9 in multiple regions. Most activities in LMICs were planned cohort event monitoring (CEM) studies (n = 18); two multi-national hospital-based sentinel surveillance studies for AESI were ongoing. Activities in LMICs evaluated multiple COVID-19 vaccine products simultaneously and were sponsored by health authorities. The literature review identified 1245 unique citations, of which 379 met inclusion criteria. The majority evaluated vaccines primarily used in high-income countries Pfizer BioNTech (Comirnaty; n = 303), Moderna (mRNA-1273; n = 164), AstraZeneca (AZD1222; n = 126), and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S); n = 62); 14 citations assessed vaccines used exclusively in LMICs Sinovac (CoronaVac), Beijing CNBG (BBIBP-Corv), Bharat (Covaxin), SII (Covashield), and Gamaleya (Gam-Covid-Vac) vaccines.

Conclusions:

Robust safety evidence for input into benefit/risk assessments is likely unavailable for most COVID-19 vaccines used primarily in LMICs due to emphasis on cohort event monitoring methods. Goals for equitable vaccine access should be coupled with investment and support for building infrastructure and capacity for safety evidence generation to inform policy and regulatory decisions at local levels.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Vaccine X Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Vaccine X Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: Reino Unido