Adverse Events Following Immunization with Novel Oral Polio Vaccine Type 2, and the Experience and Challenges of Reporting in Sierra Leone

Background

The manifestation and spread of neuroinvasive circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPVs) across several countries, which led to the emergency use of the novel oral polio vaccine type 2 (nOPV2), raised concerns about adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance. We assessed the attributes of AEFI with nOPV2 and examined stakeholder experiences and challenges in AEFI surveillance in Sierra Leone.

Methods

Using a mixed method approach, we retrospectively reviewed passive data collected during a 2021 immunization campaign, and conducted semi-structured, interviews with vaccinators, district AEFI focal persons, and key stakeholders at the national Expanded Program on Immunization and the National Medicines Regulatory Authority. AEFI were categorized using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Preferred Terms (PTs) and System Organ Class (SOC). Outcomes were stratified as recovered or not, with preventability and causality assessed using the Schumock and Thornton and World Health Organization (WHO) algorithms, respectively.

Results

A total of 528 suspected AEFI were documented, predominantly affecting children aged 28 days to 23 months (63.3%). Most reported AEFI were administration site conditions and general disorders, with pyrexia being the predominant PT. Of 80 serious cases, 78 recovered, with 74 having an inconsistent causal relationship with the vaccine. Most serious cases (78) were deemed non-preventable, with only two being probably preventable. AEFI reporting was not routinely carried out across the group of people interviewed. AEFI reporting was not consistently performed, with discrepancies in defining reportable events and confusion over responsibility. Challenges with the open data kit (ODK) platform were noted, along with perceived inadequacies in training.

Conclusion

While the nOPV2 is relatively new, the majority of AEFI were not serious, and most serious cases were not causally linked to the vaccine. Participants exhibited variations in experience and awareness of AEFI reporting.

Understanding reporting practices and perceptions of barriers in adverse events following immunisation surveillance: A cross-sectional survey of paediatricians in Kerala, India

PURPOSE

The role of health care professionals (HCPs) is central to adverse event following immunisation (AEFI) surveillance. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among paediatricians practising in Kerala, India, to assess their knowledge and reporting behaviour in AEFI surveillance as well as to identify barriers to reporting.

RESULTS

A random sample of 380 paediatricians were contacted of whom, 243 (63.9%) participated in the survey. The understanding scores were distributed as follows: 30.9% very high or high, 40.3% moderate, and 28.8% low. Formal training was significantly associated with higher understanding scores, and increased AEFI detection and reporting. Only 42.0% of respondents had formal training; paediatricians in the public sector had higher access to training than those in the private sector. There were 141 respondents (58.0%) who identified an AEFI in the previous year, of whom 66 (46.8%) reported it. The main barriers to AEFI reporting were: difficulties with reporting process (28.9%); fear of raising public alarm (28.1%); time constraints (22.3%); fear of personal consequences (15.7%); and belief that health authorities rarely take useful action (11.6%).

CONCLUSION

Training in AEFI surveillance should be prioritised for HCPs with greater emphasis in medical education programmes. Study showed that a user-friendly reporting mechanism and a blame-free culture are crucial to improve AEFI reporting practices.

On the contextual nature of vaccine safety monitoring: Adverse events reporting after HPV-vaccination in Denmark, 2015

BACKGROUND

In 2013-15, Denmark experienced an increase in reported suspected adverse events following vaccination (AEFI) against human papilloma virus (HPV). Dedicated centres ("One Access") were established in order to standardize management of patients who experienced medically unexplained physical symptoms after HPV vaccination. Since One Access was targeted patients with suspected AEFI after HPV vaccination, we used this opportunity to estimate completeness in AEFI reporting to the Danish Medicines Agency (DMA), and explore the topic of AEFI reporting from the perspective of physicians working at the centres to better understand health professionals' reporting behaviour.

METHODS

The study consisted of a quantitative and a qualitative part. In the quantitative analysis, we used the Danish civil registry number to merge a line-list of all One Access patients referred in 2015 with total number of patients who had reported suspected serious AEFI following HPV vaccination to the DMA in the years 2009-2015. We conducted four semi-structured interviews with doctors representing three out of five regions. The Theoretical Domains Framework together with empirical data from two clinical fieldtrips guided the formation of the qualitative study.

RESULTS

Among 1577 One Access patients, only 404 (26%) were reported to the DMA. We found significant regional differences in reporting completeness (p < 0.001) and differences between regions when looking at reporters' backgrounds (healthcare professionals vs non-professionals; p = 0.004). We identified several factors of importance for reporting behaviour amongst physicians, mainly under the domains of Knowledge, Motivation & Goals, and Environmental Context.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an official aim of homogenous case management, reporting of suspected AEFI was incomplete with large regional differences. The qualitative study corroborated that reporting behaviour was contextual. This observation represents an important caveat in interpreting data from AEFI reporting, in particular when these data are used for research or policymaking.

Knowledge, practice and approaches of health professionals to adverse events following immunization and their reporting in Albania

In Albania, the reporting of an adverse events following immunization (AEFI) is done not only by immunization providers but also from clinicians providing clinical treatment of AEFI in health posts, health centers and private or public hospitals. The AEFI reporting system in Albania has started in 2001 with the establishment of National Regulatory Authority of Vaccines in the Institute of Public Health. The most important problems of passive surveillance systems include underreporting, deficiency and inaccuracy of information. A structured questionnaire containing 68 questions constructed from immunization experts constituted the study tool. The questionnaire addressed health professionals working at child consultant's facilities and primary health centers in the district of Tirana. There were a total of 102 health professional interviewed. The majority of the respondents working at health centers in the district of Tirana in general, had poor knowledge levels on AEFI surveillance. The lowest score were received in knowledge about the role of different stakeholders involved in AEFI surveillance. The number of years practicing the profession did not influence in the total score of "practice and attitude toward reporting and managing an AEFI". Although the majority of health care professionals have encountered an AEFI during their practice (72/102, 70,5%), only half of them have never reported an AEFI (37/102, 36,2%). Barriers to reporting included lack of interest, unclear definition of AEFI and lack of awareness of what to report. Nevertheless, the main reason for not reporting was because a respondent thought he or she had not observed an AEFI in the last years (44,1%). Majority of the respondents did not have any training about AEFI (68,6%, 70/102). From this study it is concluded that it is necessary to develop training and educational programs in order to increase awareness of all health professionals involved in child health toward reporting of adverse events following immunization. It is necessary to build feedback systems to give information on AEFI. This study shows the influence of knowledge, perceptions and practices of health care workers in the surveillance of adverse events following immunization. Thus, information generated from this study might be valuable for the public health regulators to generate new guidelines about AEFI surveillance and update existing information.

Knowledge, Perceptions, and Practice of Nurses on Surveillance of Adverse Events following Childhood Immunization in Nairobi, Kenya

Background. Although vaccines currently approved for routine childhood immunization are safe and effective, frequent adverse events following immunization often cause illnesses and sometimes loss of public trust in immunization programs. Nurses are essential in this surveillance system. Objective. To determine nurses' knowledge, perception, and practice towards surveillance of postimmunization adverse events within Nairobi County health centers, Kenya. Methods. This is a cross-sectional survey involving nurses (n = 274). Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 20. Differences in proportions of categorical variables were compared between groups using chi-square tests. Binary logistic regression model was used to compute independent predictors of outcome. Results. 29.2%, 32.1%, and 45.3% of the respondents had good knowledge, good practices, and good perceptions on AEFI surveillance, respectively. Respondents with diploma or degree nursing training level were 1.8 times and 2.5 times more likely to have good knowledge and good perception in AEFI surveillance, respectively. Nurses with previous AEFI training were 9.7 times and 1.8 times more likely to have good AEFI knowledge and practices, respectively. Conclusion. There is a need to train and mentor nurses on AEFI surveillance. Findings of this study will be valuable in informing policy review on childhood immunization programs.

Preparedness and emergency response research centers: using a public health systems approach to improve all-hazards preparedness and response

In 2008, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Institute of Medicine (IOM) prepared a report identifying knowledge gaps in public health systems preparedness and emergency response and recommending near-term priority research areas. In accordance with the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act mandating new public health systems research for preparedness and emergency response, CDC provided competitive awards establishing nine Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs) in accredited U.S. schools of public health. The PERRCs conducted research in four IOM-recommended priority areas: (1) enhancing the usefulness of public health preparedness and response (PHPR) training, (2) creating and maintaining sustainable preparedness and response systems, (3) improving PHPR communications, and (4) identifying evaluation criteria and metrics to improve PHPR for all hazards. The PERRCs worked closely with state and local public health, community partners, and advisory committees to produce practice-relevant research findings. PERRC research has generated more than 130 peer-reviewed publications and nearly 80 practice and policy tools and recommendations with the potential to significantly enhance our nation's PHPR to all hazards and that highlight the need for further improvements in public health systems.

Awareness and utilization of reporting pathways for adverse events following immunization: online survey among pediatricians in Russia and Germany

OBJECTIVES

Vaccine safety surveillance is highly dependent on accurate reporting of adverse events following immunization (AEFI). An online survey was conducted to assess the utilization of AEFI reporting standards and pathways among pediatricians in Germany, and in Russia where pediatric specialization begins in medical school.

METHODS

In May 2011, a 31-item online questionnaire was sent to members of the German Professional Association for Pediatricians (BVKJ) and the Union of Pediatricians of Russia (UPR), capturing information on vaccine safety training, awareness of AEFI reporting pathways, and use of standardized case definitions for the ascertainment of AEFI. A convenience sample of 1,632 completed online surveys was analyzed.

RESULTS

Participating pediatricians reported spending approximately 50 min per 8-hour workday on vaccine safety consultations, but only 42 % (56 % UPR, 26 % BVKJ) have ever received any formal vaccine safety training. Two-thirds reported having observed AEFI in their practice, but only one-third utilized standardized case definitions for case ascertainment. Only 35 % of participants named accurate AEFI reporting pathways. Every second pediatrician would report AEFI to institutions that are not primarily in charge of vaccine safety surveillance; the remaining reports would either be lost or delayed. Pediatricians who had received formal vaccine safety training were significantly more likely to apply international safety standards and to report adequately, both at the p < 0.05 level.

CONCLUSION

Pediatricians play a key role in the post-marketing surveillance of vaccine safety. The lack of training represents a missed opportunity. There may be a role for professional societies to improve vaccine safety training.

Consumer reporting of adverse events following immunization (AEFI): identifying predictors of reporting an AEFI

Passive reporting of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) by consumers or healthcare professionals is the primary mechanism for post-marketing surveillance of vaccine safety. Although recent initiatives have promoted consumer reporting, there is a lack of research concerning consumer reporters. Computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were conducted in 2011 of a cross-sectional, random, general population sample of 191 South Australian parents who stated that their children had previously experienced an AEFI. We compared awareness of surveillance, vaccine safety opinions, and demographics of parents reporting an AEFI to either healthcare professionals or surveillance authorities with those who did not report their children's AEFI. Multivariate regression analyses measured: the association between reporting and safety views; and demographic predictors of reporting an AEFI. Reporting an AEFI to a healthcare professional or a surveillance authority was not significantly associated with awareness of a surveillance system. AEFI reporters, when compared with non-reporters, were more likely to be Australian-born (OR = 4.58, [1.64, 12.78], P = 0.004); were associated with the perception that a serious reaction was more likely to occur at their children's last immunization (OR = 2.54 [95%CI 1.22, 5.30], P = 0.013); and were less accepting of the risk of febrile convulsion, (OR = 3.59 [95%CI 1.50, 8.57], P = 0.004). Although reporting an AEFI was not associated with awareness of surveillance or most socio-demographics, the results suggest some difference in safety opinions. Further studies are required to ascertain if these differences pre-date the occurrence of an AEFI or are a consequence of the AEFI and how consumers can contribute further to vaccine safety surveillance.

Healthcare providers' knowledge, experience and challenges of reporting adverse events following immunisation: a qualitative study

Background

Healthcare provider spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) is central to monitoring post-licensure vaccine safety, but little is known about how healthcare professionals recognise and report to surveillance systems. The aim of this study was explore the knowledge, experience and attitudes of medical and nursing professionals towards detecting and reporting AEFI.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study, using semi-structured, face to face interviews with 13 Paediatric Emergency Department consultants from a tertiary paediatric hospital, 10 General Practitioners, 2 local council immunisation and 4 General Practice nurses, recruited using purposive sampling in Adelaide, South Australia, between December 2010 and September 2011. We identified emergent themes related to previous experience of an AEFI in practice, awareness and experience of AEFI reporting, factors that would facilitate or impede reporting and previous training in vaccine safety. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results

AEFI reporting was infrequent across all groups, despite most participants having reviewed an AEFI. We found confusion about how to report an AEFI and variability, according to the provider group, as to the type of events that would constitute a reportable AEFI. Participants’ interpretation of a “serious” or “unexpected” AEFI varied across the three groups. Common barriers to reporting included time constraints and unsatisfactory reporting processes. Nurses were more likely to have received formal training in vaccine safety and reporting than medical practitioners.

Conclusions

This study provides an overview of experience and beliefs of three healthcare professional groups in relation to identifying and reporting AEFI. The qualitative assessment reveals differences in experience and awareness of AEFI reporting across the three professional groups. Most participants appreciated the importance of their role in AEFI surveillance and monitoring the ongoing safety of vaccines. Future initiatives to improve education, such as increased training to health care providers, particularly, medical professionals, are required and should be included in both undergraduate curricula and ongoing, professional development.