Safety and Immunogenicity of Accelerated Heterologous Two-dose Ebola Vaccine Regimens in Adults With and Without HIV in Africa.

BACKGROUND: Shorter prophylactic vaccine schedules may offer more rapid protection against Ebola in resource-limited settings. METHODS: This randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted in five sub-Saharan African countries included people without HIV (PWOH, n = 249) and people living with HIV (PLWH, n = 250). Adult participants received one of two accelerated Ebola vaccine regimens (MVA-BN-Filo, Ad26.ZEBOV administered 14 days apart [n = 79] or Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo administered 28 days apart [n = 322]) or saline/placebo (n = 98). The primary endpoints were safety (adverse events [AEs]) and immunogenicity (Ebola virus [EBOV] glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses). Binding antibody responders were defined as participants with a > 2.5-fold increase from baseline or the lower limit of quantification if negative at baseline. RESULTS: The mean age was 33.4 years, 52% of participants were female, and among PLWH, the median (interquartile range) CD4+ cell count was 560.0 (418.0-752.0) cells/µL. AEs were generally mild/moderate with no vaccine-related serious AEs or remarkable safety profile differences by HIV status. At 21 days post-dose 2, EBOV glycoprotein-specific binding antibody response rates in vaccine recipients were 99% for the 14-day regimen (geometric mean concentrations [GMCs]: 5168 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units (EU)/mL in PWOH; 2509 EU/mL in PLWH), and 98% for the 28-day regimen (GMCs: 6037 EU/mL in PWOH; 2939 EU/mL in PLWH). At 12 months post-dose 2, GMCs in PWOH and PLWH were 635 and 514 EU/mL, respectively, for the 14-day regimen and 331 and 360 EU/mL, respectively, for the 28-day regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated 14- and 28-day Ebola vaccine regimens were safe and immunogenic in PWOH and PLWH in Africa. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02598388.

Early Mortality After the First Dose of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Target Trial Emulation.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy persists alongside concerns about the safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. We aimed to examine the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on risk of death among US veterans. METHODS: We conducted a target trial emulation to estimate and compare risk of death up to 60 days under two COVID-19 vaccination strategies: vaccination within 7 days of enrollment versus no vaccination through follow-up. The study cohort included individuals aged ≥18 years enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration system and eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccination according to guideline recommendations from 1 March 2021 through 1 July 2021. The outcomes of interest included deaths from any cause and excluding a COVID-19 diagnosis. Observations were cloned to both treatment strategies, censored, and weighted to estimate per-protocol effects. RESULTS: We included 3 158 507 veterans. Under the vaccination strategy, 364 993 received vaccine within 7 days. At 60 days, there were 156 deaths per 100 000 veterans under the vaccination strategy versus 185 deaths under the no vaccination strategy, corresponding to an absolute risk difference of -25.9 (95% confidence limit [CL], -59.5 to 2.7) and relative risk of 0.86 (95% CL, .7 to 1.0). When those with a COVID-19 infection in the first 60 days were censored, the absolute risk difference was -20.6 (95% CL, -53.4 to 16.0) with a relative risk of 0.88 (95% CL, .7 to 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a lower but not statistically significantly different risk of death in the first 60 days. These results agree with prior scientific knowledge suggesting vaccination is safe with the potential for substantial health benefits.

Novel Oral Poliovirus Vaccine 2 Safety Evaluation during Nationwide Supplemental Immunization Activity, Uganda, 2022.

Given its enhanced genetic stability, novel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 was deployed for type 2 poliovirus outbreak responses under World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing. We evaluated the safety profile of this vaccine. No safety signals were identified using a multipronged approach of passive and active surveillance.

Applying two approaches to detect unmeasured confounding due to time-varying variables in a self-controlled risk interval design evaluating COVID-19 vaccine safety signals, using myocarditis as a case example.

We test the robustness of the self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) design in a setting where time between doses may introduce time-varying confounding, using both negative control outcomes (NCOs) and quantitative bias analysis (QBA). All vaccinated cases identified from 5 European databases between 1 September 2020 and end of data availability were included. Exposures were doses 1-3 of the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines; outcomes were myocarditis and otitis externa (NCO). The SCRI used a 60-day control window and dose-specific 28-day risk windows, stratified by vaccine brand and adjusted for calendar time. The QBA included two scenarios: (i) baseline probability of the confounder was higher in the control window and (ii) vice versa. The NCO was not associated with any of the COVID-19 vaccine types or doses except Moderna dose 1 (IRR = 1.09, 95%CI 1.01-1.09). The QBA suggested even the strongest literature-reported confounder (COVID-19; RRmyocarditis = 18.3) could only explain away part of the observed effect from IRR = 3 to IRR = 1.40. The SCRI seems robust to unmeasured confounding in the COVID-19 setting, although a strong unmeasured confounder could bias the observed effect upward. Replication of our findings for other safety signals would strengthen this conclusion.

A Propensity Score Approach and a Partitioned Approach for the Self-Controlled Case Series Design to Evaluate Safety of a 2-dose Vaccine Series: Application to myocarditis/pericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

The assumption that serious adverse events (SAEs) do not affect subsequent exposure might not hold when evaluating 2-dose vaccine safety through a self-controlled case series (SCCS) design. To address this, we developed: 1) propensity score SCCS (PS-SCCS) using a propensity score model involving SAEs during the risk interval after dose 1 (${R}_1\Big)$, and 2) partitioned SCCS (P-SCCS) estimating relative incidence (RI) separately for doses 1 and 2. In simulations, both provided unbiased RIs. Conversely, standard SCCS overestimated RI after dose 2. We applied these approaches to assess myocarditis/pericarditis risks after 2-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in 12-39-year-olds. For BNT162b2, PS-SCCS yielded RIs of 1.85 (95% CI, 0.75-4.59) and 11.05 (95% CI, 6.53-18.68) 14 days after doses 1 and 2 respectively; standard SCCS provided similar RI after dose 1 and RI of 12.92 (95% CI, 7.56-22.09) after dose 2. For mRNA-1273, standard SCCS showed RIs of 1.96 (95% CI, 0.56-6.91) after dose 1 and 7.87 (95% CI, 3.33-18.57) after dose 2. As no mRNA-1273 recipients with SAEs during ${R}_1$ received dose 2, P-SCCS was used, yielding similar RI after dose 1 and RI of 6.48 (95% CI, 2.83-14.83) after dose 2. mRNA vaccines were associated with elevated myocarditis/pericarditis risks following dose 2 in 12-39-year-olds.

Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccinations for adults: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of three or four heterologous versus homologous booster regimens. METHODS: From November 3 2022 to December 21, 2023, we searched five databases for randomised clinical trials (RCT). Reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed bias risks independently with the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. We conducted meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) on our primary (all-cause mortality; laboratory confirmed symptomatic and severe COVID-19; serious adverse events [SAE]) and secondary outcomes (quality of life [QoL]; adverse events [AE] considered non-serious). We assessed the evidence with the GRADE approach. Subgroup analyses were stratified for trials before and after 2023, three or four boosters, immunocompromised status, follow-up, risk of bias, heterologous booster vaccine platforms, and valency of booster. RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs with 43 comparisons (12,538 participants). Heterologous booster regimens may not reduce the relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality (11 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.26; I2 0%; very low certainty evidence); laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 (14 trials; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; I2 0%; very low certainty); or severe COVID-19 (10 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.33; I2 0%; very low certainty). For safety outcomes, heterologous booster regimens may have no effect on SAE (27 trials; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95; I2 0%; very low certainty) but may raise AE considered non-serious (20 trials; RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; I2 64.4%; very low certainty). No data on QoL was available. Our TSAs showed that the cumulative Z curves did not reach futility for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: With our current sample sizes, we were not able to infer differences of effects for any outcomes, but heterologous booster regimens seem to cause more non-serious AE. Furthermore, more robust data are instrumental to update this review.

Uptake, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in individuals at clinical risk due to immunosuppressive drug therapy or transplantation procedures: a population-based cohort study in England.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in this population. The lack of comprehensive real-world data on vaccine uptake, effectiveness and safety in these individuals presents a critical knowledge gap, highlighting the urgency to better understand and address the unique challenges faced by immunocompromised individuals in the context of COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We analysed data from 12,274,946 people in the UK aged > 12 years from 01/12/2020 to 11/04/2022. Of these, 583,541 (4.8%) were immunocompromised due to immunosuppressive drugs, organ transplants, dialysis or chemotherapy. We undertook a cohort analysis to determine COVID-19 vaccine uptake, nested case-control analyses adjusted for comorbidities and sociodemographic characteristics to determine effectiveness of vaccination against COVID-19 hospitalisation, ICU admission and death, and a self-controlled case series assessing vaccine safety for pre-specified adverse events of interest. RESULTS: Overall, 93.7% of immunocompromised individuals received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, with 80.4% having received three or more doses. Uptake reduced with increasing deprivation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95%CI 0.77-0.79] in the most deprived quintile compared to the least deprived quintile for the first dose). Estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation 2-6 weeks after the second and third doses compared to unvaccinated was 78% (95%CI 72-83) and 91% (95%CI 88-93) in the immunocompromised population, versus 85% (95%CI 83-86) and 86% (95%CI 85-89), respectively, for the general population. Results showed COVID-19 vaccines were protective against intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death in both populations, with effectiveness of over 92% against COVID-19-related death and up to 95% in reducing ICU admissions for both populations following the third dose. COVID-19 vaccines were generally safe for immunocompromised individuals, though specific doses of ChAdOx1, mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 raised risks of specific cardiovascular/neurological conditions. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine uptake is high in immunocompromised individuals on immunosuppressive drug therapy or who have undergone transplantation procedures, with documented disparities by deprivation. Findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccines are protective against severe COVID-19 outcomes in this vulnerable population, and show a similar safety profile in immunocompromised individuals and the general population, despite some increased risk of adverse events. These results underscore the importance of ongoing vaccination prioritisation for this clinically at-risk population to maximise protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Uptake and safety of pneumococcal vaccination in adults with immune mediated inflammatory diseases: a UK wide observational study.

OBJECTIVE: The uptake and safety of pneumococcal vaccination in people with immune mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) is poorly understood. We investigated the UK wide pneumococcal vaccine uptake in adults with IMIDs and explored the association between vaccination and IMID flare. METHODS: Adults with IMIDs diagnosed on or before 01/09/2018, prescribed steroid-sparing drugs within the last 12 months and contributing data to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold were included. Vaccine uptake was assessed using a cross-sectional study design. Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis investigated the association between pneumococcal vaccination and IMID flare. The SCCS observation period was up-to six-month before and after pneumococcal vaccination. This was partitioned into a 14-day pre-vaccination induction, 90-days post-vaccination exposed, and the remaining unexposed periods. RESULTS: We included 32 277 patients, 14 151 with RA, 13 631 with IBD, 3,804 with axial spondyloarthritis and 691 with SLE. Overall, 57% were vaccinated against pneumococcus. Vaccine uptake was lower in those younger than 45 years (32%), with IBD (42%), and without additional indication(s) for vaccination (46%). In the vaccine-safety study, data for 1,067, 935, and 451vaccinated patients with primary-care consultations for joint pain, AIRD flare and IBD flare respectively were included. Vaccination against pneumococcal pneumonia was not associated with primary-care consultations for joint pain, AIRD flare and IBD flare in the exposed period with incidence rate ratios (95% Confidence Interval) 0.95 (0.83-1.09), 1.05 (0.92-1.19), and 0.83 (0.65-1.06) respectively. CONCLUSION: Uptake of pneumococcal vaccination in UK patients with IMIDs was suboptimal. Vaccination against pneumococcal disease was not associated with IMID flare.

COVID-19 vaccination safety and associated health care utilization among adults with inflammatory bowel disease - a population-based self-controlled case series analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is an incomplete understanding of the full safety profiles of repeated COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Among individuals with IBD, we assessed whether COVID-19 vaccines were associated with serious adverse events of special interest (AESI) and health care utilization [all-cause hospitalizations, Emergency Department (ED) visits, gastroenterology visits, IBD-related visits]. METHODS: Using comprehensive administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, adults with IBD who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine from December 2020-January 2022 were included. Self-controlled case series analyses were conducted to evaluate the relative incidence rates of AESI and health care utilization outcomes across post-vaccination risk and control periods. RESULTS: Among 88,407 IBD patients, 99.7% received mRNA vaccines and 75.9% received ≥ 3 doses. Relative to control periods, we did not detect an increase in AESI. IBD patients had fewer all-cause hospitalizations during post-vaccination risk periods. Patients experienced more all-cause ED visits after dose 2 [Relative Incidence (RI):1.08(95%CI:1.04-1.12)] but fewer visits after doses 3 [RI:0.85 (95%CI:0.81-0.90)] and 4 [RI:0.73 (95%CI:0.57-0.92)]. There was no increase in gastroenterologist visits or IBD-related health care utilization post-vaccination. There were fewer IBD-related hospitalizations after dose 1 [RI:0.84 (95%CI:0.72-0.98)] and 3 [RI:0.63 (95%CI:0.52-0.76)], fewer IBD-related ED visits after dose 3 [RI:0.81 (95%CI:0.71-0.91)] and 4 [RI:0.55 (95%CI:0.32-0.96)], and fewer outpatient visits after dose 2 [RI:0.91 (95%CI:0.90-0.93)] and 3 [RI:0.87 (95%CI:0.86-0.89)]. CONCLUSION: This population-based study did not detect increased AESI, all-cause or IBD-related health care utilization following COVID-19 vaccination, suggesting a lack of association between vaccination and increased disease activity.

Lack of Evidence for Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease From COVID-19 Vaccines Among Adults in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

PURPOSE: Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) is a theoretical concern with new vaccines, although trials of authorized vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have not identified markers for VAED. The purpose of this study was to detect any signals for VAED among adults vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we assessed COVID-19 severity as a proxy for VAED among 400 adults hospitalized for COVID-19 from March through October 2021 at eight US healthcare systems. Primary outcomes were admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and severe illness (score ≥6 on the World Health Organization [WHO] Clinical Progression Scale). We compared the risk of outcomes among those who had completed a COVID-19 vaccine primary series versus those who were unvaccinated. We incorporated inverse propensity weights for vaccination status in a doubly robust regression model to estimate the causal average treatment effect. RESULTS: The causal risk ratio in vaccinated versus unvaccinated was 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.94) for ICU admission and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.25-0.76) for severe illness. CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized patients, reduced disease severity in those vaccinated against COVID-19 supports the absence of VAED.

Does HPV vaccination during periconceptional or gestational period increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes?-An updated systematic review and meta-analysis based on timing of vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is crucial in preventing cervical cancer, and a significant number of women in 135 countries worldwide may have unknowingly received the vaccine during peri-pregnancy or pregnancy due to a lack of regular pregnancy testing. Previous studies on the safety of pregnancy outcomes with vaccination before and after pregnancy have not reached definitive conclusions. Thus, we subdivided the vaccination time frame and conducted an updated study to further examine whether exposure to the HPV vaccine during pregnancy or the periconceptional period increases the likelihood of adverse pregnancy outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The clinical trials and cohort studies published before August 1, 2023, were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool were adopted to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies. In addition, the quality assessment was carried out using the Review Manager 5.4 Software, and a meta-analysis was conducted using the Stata 16 Software. RESULTS: Eleven studies were located. The results showed that receiving 4vHPV during the periconceptional or gestational period had no relationship with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, preterm birth, birth defects, small for gestational age, and ectopic pregnancy. Neither receiving 2vHPV nor 9vHPV was associated with a higher risk of stillbirth, preterm birth, birth defects, small for gestational age, and ectopic pregnancy; however, receiving 2vHPV during the period from 45 days before last menstrual period (LMP) to LMP and 9vHPV during the period from 90 days before LMP to 45 days after LMP seemed to be related to an increased risk of spontaneous abortion (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.04-2.45, RR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.28-3.24). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the likelihood of an elevated risk of spontaneous abortion caused by HPV vaccination during the periconceptional or gestational period could not be completely ruled out. Given the lack of evidence, further research is needed to examine the effect of HPV vaccination on spontaneous abortion.

Perinatal outcomes and sinopharm BBIBP-CorV vaccination during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: After the outbreak of COVID-19, a huge part of the health care services was dedicated to preventing and treating this disease. In case of COVID-19 infection, severe COVID-19 is reported more in pregnant individuals. Afterward, Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 became a hot topic due to known effects in preventing severe COVID-19 during pregnancy. Vaccination of pregnant individuals started in August 2021 with the Sinopharm vaccine in Iran. The aim of current study was to determine the incidence of perinatal outcomes in women who were vaccinated during pregnancy. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study included 129,488 singleton births from March 21, 2021, until March 21, 2022, in Tehran, Iran. The data was obtained from the Iranian Maternal and Neonatal (IMaN) Network and the Maternal Vaccination Registry. Adverse perinatal outcomes investigated in this study include preterm birth, extremely preterm birth, low birth weight, very low birth weight, intrauterine growth restriction, stillbirth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, congenital anomaly, neonatal death and low 5-minute Apgar score. The risk of all perinatal outcomes was evaluated using multiple logistic regression. The analysis was done using STATA version 14. RESULTS: Of all 129,488 singleton births included in this study, 17,485 (13.5%) were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (all with Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV)). The exposure to the Sinopharm vaccine during pregnancy caused a significant decrease in the incidence of preterm birth (P =0.006, OR=0.91 [95% CI, 0.85 to 0.97]), extremely preterm birth (P =<0.001,OR=0.55 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.66]), and stillbirth (P =<0.001, OR=0.60 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.76]). Exposure to vaccination during the first trimester was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (P =0.01, OR=1.27 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.55]) Maternal vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with an increased risk of other adverse perinatal outcomes included in this study. CONCLUSION: The finding of this population-based study indicated no adverse pregnancy outcome due to vaccination with the Sinopharm vaccine during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Overall risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes were lower in the vaccinated individuals compared to the unvaccinated group. Also, vaccination during the first trimester was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth.

The efficacy and safety of a quadrivalent live attenuated influenza nasal vaccine in Japanese children: A phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the primary method of preventing influenza infection and complications in young children. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single dose of MEDI3250 (intranasal, quadrivalent, live attenuated influenza vaccine) in healthy Japanese children during the 2016/17 influenza season. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study (jRCT2080223345), participants aged 2-18 years received MEDI3250 or placebo (2:1), stratified by age (2-6 years, 7-18 years). The primary and secondary endpoints were the incidence of confirmed symptomatic onset of influenza caused by a circulating wild-type strain or by a vaccine-matched strain, respectively. Safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and vaccine-related AEs. RESULTS: Overall, 910 participants received MEDI3250 (n = 608) or placebo (n = 302). For the primary endpoint (regardless of the influenza subtype), the incidence of influenza onset was 25.5 % (MEDI3250) and 35.9 % (placebo); relative risk reduction, 28.8 % (95 % confidence interval, 12.5 %-42.0 %). For the secondary endpoint (vaccine-matched strain), the incidence was 10.9 % (MEDI3250) and 17.2 % (placebo); relative risk reduction, 36.6 % (95 % confidence interval, 6.5 %-56.8 %). Solicited AEs occurred in 67.6 % (MEDI3250) and 63.6 % (placebo). Most events were mild; nasal discharge was most common (59.2 % [MEDI3250] and 52.6 % [placebo]). Unsolicited AEs occurred in 36.0 % (MEDI3250) and 33.1 % (placebo). The most common unsolicited vaccine-related AE was diarrhea (2.3 %, both groups). CONCLUSIONS: MEDI3250 had a greater preventive effect against influenza onset in Japanese children than placebo; no new safety signals were observed relative to previous clinical and post-marketing studies of MEDI3250.

A Causality Assessment Framework for COVID-19 Vaccines and Adverse Events at the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024. This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels-high, moderate, limited, or insufficient-while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as "convincingly supports" ("evidence established" in the 2024 NASEM report), "favors acceptance," "favors rejection," or "inadequate to accept or reject." The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weight-of-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-of-evidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.

Tinnitus after COVID-19 vaccination: Findings from the vaccine adverse event reporting system and the vaccine safety datalink.

PURPOSE: To assess the occurrence of tinnitus following COVID-19 vaccination using data mining and descriptive analyses in two U.S. vaccine safety surveillance systems. METHODS: Reports of tinnitus after COVID-19 vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 2020 through 2024 were examined using empirical Bayesian data mining and by calculating reporting rates. In the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) population, ICD-10 coded post-vaccination medical visits were examined using tree-based data mining, and tinnitus visit incidence rates during post-vaccination days 1-140 were calculated by age group for COVID-19 vaccines and for comparison, influenza vaccine. RESULTS: VAERS data mining did not find disproportionate reporting of tinnitus for any COVID-19 vaccine. VAERS received up to 84.82 tinnitus reports per million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered. VSD tree-based data mining found no signals for tinnitus. VSD tinnitus visit incidence rates after COVID-19 vaccines were similar to those after influenza vaccine except for the group aged ≥65 years (Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, 165 per 10,000 person-years; Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, 154; influenza vaccine, 135). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings do not support an increased risk of tinnitus following COVID-19 vaccination but cannot definitively exclude the possibility. Descriptive comparisons between COVID-19 and influenza vaccines were limited by lack of adjustment for potential confounding factors.

Comparison of Statistical Signal Detection Methods in Adverse Events Following Immunization - China, 2011-2015.

Introduction: The current study aims to assess the performance of data mining techniques in detecting safety signals for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) using routinely obtained data in China. Four different methods for detecting vaccine safety signals were evaluated. Methods: The AEFI data from 2011 to 2015 was collected for our study. We analyzed the data using four different methods to detect signals: the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), reporting odds ratio (ROR), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS). Each method was evaluated at 1-3 thresholds for positivity. To assess the performance of these methods, we used the published signal rates as gold standards to determine the sensitivity and specificity. Results: The number of identified signals varied from 602 for PRR1 (with a threshold of 1) to 127 for MGPS1. When considering the common reactions as the reference standard, the sensitivity ranged from 0.9% for MGPS1/2 to 38.2% for PRR1/2, and the specificity ranged from 85.2% for PRR1 and ROR1 to 96.7% for MGPS1. When considering the rare reactions as the reference standard, PRR1, PRR2, ROR1, ROR2, and BCPNN exhibited the highest sensitivity (73.3%), while MGPS1 exhibited the highest specificity (96.9%). Discussion: For common reactions, the sensitivities were modest and the specificities were high. For rare reactions, both the sensitivities and specificities were high. Our study provides valuable insights into the selection of signal detection methods and thresholds for AEFI data in China.

Recombination of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus: Features, Possible Mechanisms, and Future Directions.

Recombination is a pervasive phenomenon in RNA viruses and an important strategy for accelerating the evolution of RNA virus populations. Recombination in the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) was first reported in 1999, and many case reports have been published in recent years. In this review, all the existing reports on PRRSV recombination events were collected, and the genotypes, parental strains, and locations of the recombination breakpoints have been summarized and analyzed. The results showed that the recombination pattern constantly changes; whether inter- or intra-lineage recombination, the recombination hotspots vary in different recombination patterns. The virulence of recombinant PRRSVs was higher than that of the parental strains, and the emergence of virulence reversion was caused by recombination after using MLV vaccines. This could be attributed to the enhanced adaptability of recombinant PRRSV for entry and replication, facilitating their rapid propagation. The aim of this paper was to identify common features of recombinant PRRSV strains, reduce the recombination risk, and provide a foundation for future research into the mechanism of PRRSV recombination.

Safety and Immunogenicity of an Accelerated Ebola Vaccination Schedule in People with and without Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

The safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose Ebola vaccine regimen MVA-BN-Filo, Ad26.ZEBOV, 14 days apart, was evaluated in people without HIV (PWOH) and living with HIV (PLWH). In this observer-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, healthy adults were randomized (4:1) to receive MVA-BN-Filo (dose 1) and Ad26.ZEBOV (dose 2), or two doses of saline/placebo, administered intramuscularly 14 days apart. The primary endpoints were safety (adverse events (AEs)) and immunogenicity (Ebola virus (EBOV) glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses). Among 75 participants (n = 50 PWOH; n = 25 PLWH), 37% were female, the mean age was 44 years, and 56% were Black/African American. AEs were generally mild/moderate, with no vaccine-related serious AEs. At 21 days post-dose 2, EBOV glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responder rates were 100% among PWOH and 95% among PLWH; geometric mean antibody concentrations were 6286 EU/mL (n = 36) and 2005 EU/mL (n = 19), respectively. A total of 45 neutralizing and other functional antibody responses were frequently observed. Ebola-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were polyfunctional and durable to at least 12 months post-dose 2. The regimen was well tolerated and generated robust, durable immune responses in PWOH and PLWH. Findings support continued evaluation of accelerated vaccine schedules for rapid deployment in populations at immediate risk. Trial registration: NCT02598388 (submitted 14 November 2015).

Current Approaches in Postapproval Vaccine Safety Studies Using Real-World Data: A Systematic Review of Published Literature.

PURPOSE: Well-designed observational postmarketing studies using real-world data (RWD) are critical in supporting an evidence base and bolstering public confidence in vaccine safety. This systematic review presents current research methodologies in vaccine safety research in postapproval settings, technological advancements contributing to research resources and capabilities, and their major strengths and limitations. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed to identify relevant articles published from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022. Eligible studies were summarized overall by study design and other study characteristics (eg, country, vaccine studied, types of data source, and study population). An in-depth review of select studies representative of conventional or new designs, analytical approaches, or data collection methods was conducted to summarize current methods in vaccine safety research. FINDINGS: Out of 977 articles screened for inclusion, 135 were reviewed. The review shows that recent advancements in scientific methods, digital technology, and analytic approaches have significantly contributed to postapproval vaccine safety studies using RWD. "Near real-time surveillance" using large datasets (via collaborative or distributed databases) has been used to facilitate rapid signal detection that complements passive surveillance. There was increasing appreciation for self-controlled case-only designs (self-controlled case series and self-controlled risk interval) to assess acute-onset safety outcomes, artificial intelligence, and natural language processing to improve outcome accuracy and study timeliness and emerging artificial intelligence-based analysis to capture adverse events from social media platforms. IMPLICATIONS: Continued development in the area of vaccine safety research methodologies using RWD is warranted. The future of successful vaccine safety research, especially evaluation of rare safety events, is likely to comprise digital technologies including linking RWD networks, machine learning, and advanced analytic methods to generate rapid and robust real-world safety information.

COVID-19 vaccine reactogenicity among participants enrolled in the GENCOV study.

BACKGROUND: GENCOV is a prospective, observational cohort study of COVID-19-positive adults. Here, we characterize and compare side effects between COVID-19 vaccines and determine whether reactogenicity is exacerbated by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Participants were recruited across Ontario, Canada. Participant-reported demographic and COVID-19 vaccination data were collected using a questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess whether vaccine manufacturer, type, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection are associated with reactogenicity. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from n = 554 participants. Tiredness and localized side effects were the most common reactions across vaccine doses. For most participants, side effects occurred and subsided within 1-2 days. Recipients of Moderna mRNA and AstraZeneca vector vaccines reported reactions more frequently compared to recipients of a Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was independently associated with developing side effects. CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence of relatively mild and short-lived reactions reported by participants who have received approved COVID-19 vaccines.