Dataset Information

Post-authorisation passive enhanced safety surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccines: protocol of a pilot study in England.

ABSTRACT: AIM:To pilot enhanced safety surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccine meeting the European Medicines Agency (EMA) requirement to rapidly detect a significant increase in the frequency or severity of adverse events of interest (AEIs), which may indicate risk from the new season's vaccine. STUDY DESIGN:A prospective passive enhanced safety surveillance combining data collection from adverse drug reaction (ADR) cards with automated collection of pseudonymised routinely collected electronic health record (EHR) data. This study builds on a feasibility study carried out at the start of the 2015/2016 influenza season. We will report influenza vaccine exposure and any AEIs reported via ADR card or recorded directly into the EHR, from the commencement of influenza vaccination and ends as specified by EMA (30 November 2016). SETTING:Ten volunteer English general practices, primarily using the GSK influenza vaccines. They had selected this vaccine in advance of the study. PARTICIPANTS:People who receive a seasonal influenza vaccine, in each age group defined in EMA interim guidance: 6?months to 5 years, 6-12 years, 13-17 years, 18-65 years and >65 years. OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome measure is the rate of AEIs occurring within 7 days postvaccination, using passive surveillance of general practitioner (GP) EHR systems enhanced by a card-based ADR reporting system. Extracted data will be presented overall by brand (Fluarix Tetra vs others), by age strata and risk groups. The secondary outcome measure is the vaccine uptake among the subjects registered in the enrolled general practices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval was granted by the Proportionate Review Sub-committee of the North East-Newcastle & North Tyneside 2 on 5 August 2016. The study received approval from the Health Research Authority on 1 September 2016. We will produce an interim analysis within 8 weeks, and an end-of-study report, which will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

SUBMITTER: de Lusignan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5541341 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Post-authorisation passive enhanced safety surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccines: protocol of a pilot study in England.

de Lusignan Simon S Dos Santos Gaël G Correa Ana A Haguinet François F Yonova Ivelina I Lair Florence F Byford Rachel R Ferreira Filipa F Stuttard Karen K Chan Tom T

BMJ open 20170517 5

<h4>Aim</h4>To pilot enhanced safety surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccine meeting the European Medicines Agency (EMA) requirement to rapidly detect a significant increase in the frequency or severity of adverse events of interest (AEIs), which may indicate risk from the new season's vaccine.<h4>Study design</h4>A prospective passive enhanced safety surveillance combining data collection from adverse drug reaction (ADR) cards with automated collection of pseudonymised routinely collected el ...[more]

PMID: 28515198

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe European Medicines Agency (EMA) requires vaccine manufacturers to conduct enhanced safety surveillance (ESS) of seasonal influenza vaccines including a near real-time evaluation of collected data. The objective was to identify whether the use of passive surveillance or active surveillance provides different results of reported adverse events of interest (AEIs) by specified age strata and AEI type. We report the weekly incidence rates of AEIs within 7 days following seasonal influenza vaccination using passive and active surveillance.MethodsAEIs were collected within 7 days of vaccination from ten general practices predominantly administering inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4, Fluarix Tetra, GSK). Vaccinees completed an adverse drug reaction (ADR) card. ADR card and medically attended AEIs data were recorded in practice electronic health records. We report the outcome of the first 5 weeks of safety surveillance (September 12, 2016-October 16, 2016); in an exploratory analysis, rates of AEI for IIV4 are compared to those passively reported through a sentinel network.ResultsPractices vaccinated 13.1% (12,864/98,091) of their registered population; 5.6% (95% CI 5.20-6.00) of them reported AEIs, none serious. The most frequent were respiratory 2.60% (95% CI 2.33-2.88), musculoskeletal 1.82% (95% CI 1.59-2.05) and neurological 1.05% (95% CI 0.88-1.23). AEIs were more frequently reported for adults than for children; 5.91% (95% CI 5.49-6.34) compared to 1.49% (95% CI 0.69-2.29); 47.18% of the adults reported AEI using the ADR card, none were returned for subjects < 18 years old. The frequency of AEIs reporting was higher, 6.88% (95% CI 6.35-7.42) vs. 3.30% (95% CI 2.68-3.96, 100/3028, p < 0.000), through ESS than passive surveillance.ConclusionThe ESS did not reveal any safety signal and we demonstrated the feasibility of conducting ESS following EMA recommendations. The use of a customised ADR card led to a doubling of AEIs reports over passive surveillance in adults.FundingGlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, Wavre, Belgium.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The European Medicines Agency (EMA) requires vaccine manufacturers to conduct enhanced real-time surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccination. The EMA has specified a list of adverse events of interest to be monitored. The EMA sets out 3 different ways to conduct such surveillance: (1) active surveillance, (2) enhanced passive surveillance, or (3) electronic health record data mining (EHR-DM). English general practice (GP) is a suitable setting to implement enhanced passive surveillance and EHR-DM. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to test the feasibility of conducting enhanced passive surveillance in GP using the yellow card scheme (adverse events of interest reporting cards) to determine if it has any advantages over EHR-DM alone. METHODS:A total of 9 GPs in England participated, of which 3 tested the feasibility of enhanced passive surveillance and the other 6 EHR-DM alone. The 3 that tested EPS provided patients with yellow (adverse events) cards for patients to report any adverse events. Data were extracted from all 9 GPs' EHRs between weeks 35 and 49 (08/24/2015 to 12/06/2015), the main period of influenza vaccination. We conducted weekly analysis and end-of-study analyses. RESULTS:Our GPs were largely distributed across England with a registered population of 81,040. In the week 49 report, 15,863/81,040 people (19.57% of the registered practice population) were vaccinated. In the EPS practices, staff managed to hand out the cards to 61.25% (4150/6776) of the vaccinees, and of these cards, 1.98% (82/4150) were returned to the GP offices. Adverse events of interests were reported by 113 /7223 people (1.56%) in the enhanced passive surveillance practices, compared with 322/8640 people (3.73%) in the EHR-DM practices. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, we demonstrated that GPs EHR-DM was an appropriate method of enhanced surveillance. However, the use of yellow cards, in enhanced passive surveillance practices, did not enhance the collection of adverse events of interests as demonstrated in this study. Their return rate was poor, data entry from them was not straightforward, and there were issues with data reconciliation. We concluded that customized cards prespecifying the EMA's adverse events of interests, combined with EHR-DM, were needed to maximize data collection. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015469.

Dataset Information

Post-authorisation passive enhanced safety surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccines: protocol of a pilot study in England.

Publications

Post-authorisation passive enhanced safety surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccines: protocol of a pilot study in England.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets