Dataset Information

Active surveillance of serious adverse events following transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The reported incidence of adverse reactions following Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) transfusion has generally been lower than expected based on the incidence of transfusion reactions that have been observed in studies of conventional plasma transfusion. This raises the concern for under-reporting of adverse events in studies of CCP that rely on passive surveillance strategies.

Materials and methods

Our institution implemented a protocol to actively identify possible adverse reactions to CCP transfusion. In addition, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of inpatients who received CCP at Stanford Hospital between May 13, 2020 and January 31, 2021. We determined the incidence of adverse events following CCP transfusion.

Results

A total of 49 patients received CCP. Seven patients (14%) had an increased supplemental oxygen requirement within 4 h of transfusion completion, including one patient who was intubated during the transfusion. An additional 11 patients (total of 18, 37%) had increased oxygen requirements within 24 h of transfusion, including 3 patients who were intubated. Six patients (12%) fulfilled criteria for transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO).

Conclusion

Using an active surveillance strategy, we commonly observed adverse events following the transfusion of CCP to hospitalized patients. It was not possible to definitively determine whether or not these adverse events are related to CCP transfusion. TACO was likely over-diagnosed given overlap with the manifestations of COVID-19. Nevertheless, these results suggest that the potential adverse effects of CCP transfusion may be underestimated by reports from passive surveillance studies.

SUBMITTER: Swenson E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8661846 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe current process for generating evidence in pharmacovigilance has several limitations, which often lead to delays in the evaluation of drug-associated risks.ObjectivesIn this study, we proposed and tested a near real-time epidemiological surveillance system using sequential, cumulative analyses focusing on the detection and preliminary risk quantification of potential safety signals following initiation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).MethodsWe emulated an active surveillance system in an historical setting by conducting repeated annual cohort studies using nationwide Danish healthcare data (1996-2016). Outcomes were selected from the European Medicines Agency's Designated Medical Event list, summaries of product characteristics, and the literature. We followed patients for a maximum of 6 months from treatment initiation to the event of interest or censoring. We performed Cox regression analyses adjusted for standard sets of covariates. Potential safety signals were visualized using heat maps and cumulative hazard ratio (HR) plots over time.ResultsIn the total study population, 969,667 new users were included and followed for 461,506 person-years. We detected potential safety signals with incidence rates as low as 0.9 per 10,000 person-years. Having eight different exposure drugs and 51 medical events, we identified 31 unique combinations of potential safety signals with a positive association to the event of interest in the exposed group. We proposed that these signals were designated for further evaluation once they appeared in a prospective setting. In total, 21 (67.7%) of these were not present in the current summaries of product characteristics.ConclusionThe study demonstrated the feasibility of performing epidemiological surveillance using sequential, cumulative analyses. Larger populations are needed to evaluate rare events and infrequently used antidepressants.

Project description:ImportanceSafety surveillance of vaccines against COVID-19 is critical to ensure safety, maintain trust, and inform policy.ObjectivesTo monitor 23 serious outcomes weekly, using comprehensive health records on a diverse population.Design, setting, and participantsThis study represents an interim analysis of safety surveillance data from Vaccine Safety Datalink. The 10 162 227 vaccine-eligible members of 8 participating US health plans were monitored with administrative data updated weekly and supplemented with medical record review for selected outcomes from December 14, 2020, through June 26, 2021.ExposuresReceipt of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccination, with a risk interval of 21 days for individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2 compared with an interval of 22 to 42 days for similar individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence of serious outcomes, including acute myocardial infarction, Bell palsy, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Incidence of events that occurred among vaccine recipients 1 to 21 days after either dose 1 or 2 of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was compared with that of vaccinated concurrent comparators who, on the same calendar day, had received their most recent dose 22 to 42 days earlier. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression, adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, health plan, and calendar day. For a signal, a 1-sided P < .0048 was required to keep type I error below .05 during 2 years of weekly analyses. For 4 additional outcomes, including anaphylaxis, only descriptive analyses were conducted.ResultsA total of 11 845 128 doses of mRNA vaccines (57% BNT162b2; 6 175 813 first doses and 5 669 315 second doses) were administered to 6.2 million individuals (mean age, 49 years; 54% female individuals). The incidence of events per 1 000 000 person-years during the risk vs comparison intervals for ischemic stroke was 1612 vs 1781 (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08); for appendicitis, 1179 vs 1345 (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93); and for acute myocardial infarction, 935 vs 1030 (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18). No vaccine-outcome association met the prespecified requirement for a signal. Incidence of confirmed anaphylaxis was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.2-6.9) per million doses of BNT162b2 and 5.1 (95% CI, 3.3-7.6) per million doses of mRNA-1273.Conclusions and relevanceIn interim analyses of surveillance of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, incidence of selected serious outcomes was not significantly higher 1 to 21 days postvaccination compared with 22 to 42 days postvaccination. While CIs were wide for many outcomes, surveillance is ongoing.

Project description:BackgroundWith over 80% of children worldwide vaccinated, concerns about vaccine safety continues to be a public health issue. Ghana's Adverse Events Following Immunization surveillance started in 1978 with the objective to promptly detect and manage AEFI cases either real or perceived. Periodic evaluation of the surveillance system is critical for optimal performance; hence we evaluated the system to assess its attributes, usefulness and system's performance in meeting its objectives.MethodsA case of AEFI was defined as any untoward medical event occurring within 28 days after vaccination and may not necessarily have causal relationship with the vaccine use. We reviewed surveillance data and procedures for the period 2014 to 2018 and interviewed key stakeholders. Adapting the CDC's Updated Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems, we assessed the system's attributes and usefulness. We performed summary descriptive statistics on quantitative data and directed content analysis on information gathered from interviews.ResultsIn all, 2,282 AEFI cases including 476 (21%) serious cases (life threatening events) were reported for the period. The highest case detection rates of 61.45 AEFIs per 100,000 surviving infants was recorded in 2018. Reporting forms were modified to accommodate new indicators without any disruption in the function of the system. At the national level, completeness of 100 randomly sampled reporting forms (100%) and was higher than the region (27%) but timeliness (50%) was lower than the region (83%). All (16/16) Community Health Nurses interviewed indicated "fear of being victimized" as the reason for underreporting, nonetheless, the system was useful as it made them cautious when vaccinating children to prevent reactions. Data on AEFI surveillance was also useful in guiding training needs and provision of vaccination logistics.ConclusionThe AEFI surveillance system is useful at all levels but partially meeting its objective due to underreporting. We recommend training and supportive supervision to improve timeliness of reporting, data completeness and acceptability.