Events supposedly attributable to vaccination or immunization during pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccination campaigns in Latin America and the Caribbean

Population-Based Incidence of Guillain-Barré Syndrome During Mass Immunization With Viral Vaccines: A Pooled Analysis

Misunderstanding temporal coincidence of adverse events during mass vaccination and invalid assessment of possible safety concerns have negative effects on immunization programs, leading to low immunization coverage. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the incidence rates of GBS that are temporally associated with viral vaccine administration but might not be attributable to the vaccines. By literature search in Embase and PubMed, we included 48 publications and 2,110,441,600 participants. The pooled incidence rate of GBS was 3.09 per million persons (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.67 to 3.51) within six weeks of vaccination, equally 2.47 per 100,000 person-year (95%CI: 2.14 to 2.81). Subgroup analyses illustrated that the pooled rates were 2.77 per million persons (95%CI: 2.47 to 3.07) for individuals who received the influenza vaccine and 2.44 per million persons (95%CI: 0.97 to 3.91) for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, respectively. Our findings evidence the GBS-associated safety of virus vaccines. We present a reference for the evaluation of post-vaccination GBS rates in mass immunization campaigns, including the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Relief After COVID-19 Vaccination: A Doubtful or Evident Outcome?

Background: Since development of the first COVID-19 vaccine, the landscape of public confidence in these vaccines is uncertain. Building confidence is crucial for better preparedness of future pandemics. Following the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in the country, the aim of this study was to examine whether the Saudi public feels relieved post-vaccination and to identify the factors predicting such relief.

Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted in July 2021 among COVID-19 vaccine recipients in Saudi Arabia. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was employed to examine and identify the variables associated with feeling relieved post-vaccination.

Results: Most of the respondents (66%) stated feeling more relieved post-vaccination. Male gender [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.380; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.981–1.943], being a student (AOR: 3.902; 95% CI: 1.674–9.096), and received two doses of the vaccine (AOR: 2.278; 95% CI: 1.630–3.182) were associated with feeling more relieved after getting vaccinated. Respondents who were anxious about the vaccine before receiving it (AOR: 0.220; 95% CI: 0.160–0.302), and experienced a severe reaction after vaccination (AOR: 0.288; 95% CI: 0.165–0.504) had lower odds of feeling relieved post-vaccination. Respondents who relied on social media as the main source of vaccine-related information and those having no information about the vaccine were also less likely to feel relieved post-vaccination.

Conclusions: Individuals' attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines may not necessarily alter post-vaccination. Although mandatory vaccination policies can significantly contribute to achieving herd immunity, public confidence toward vaccines might be eroded, which could in turn impose significant challenges in future pandemics efforts.

Vaccines and allergic reactions: The past, the current COVID-19 pandemic, and future perspectives

Vaccines are essential public health tools with a favorable safety profile and prophylactic effectiveness that have historically played significant roles in reducing infectious disease burden in populations, when the majority of individuals are vaccinated. The COVID-19 vaccines are expected to have similar positive impacts on health across the globe. While serious allergic reactions to vaccines are rare, their underlying mechanisms and implications for clinical management should be considered to provide individuals with the safest care possible. In this review, we provide an overview of different types of allergic adverse reactions that can potentially occur after vaccination and individual vaccine components capable of causing the allergic adverse reactions. We present the incidence of allergic adverse reactions during clinical studies and through post-authorization and post-marketing surveillance and provide plausible causes of these reactions based on potential allergenic components present in several common vaccines. Additionally, we review implications for individual diagnosis and management and vaccine manufacturing overall. Finally, we suggest areas for future research.

A review of vaccine effects on women in light of the COVID-19 pandemic

The pandemic situation triggered by the spread of COVID-19 has caused great harm worldwide. More than six million people have been infected, and more than 360,000 of them have died. This is the worst catastrophe suffered by mankind in recent history. In the face of this severe disaster, people all over the world are frightened of the prospect of facing an outbreak or an annual recurrence. However, the development of a vaccine will help control the impact of COVID-19. Women in particular have been more seriously affected by the pandemic. Since the pressure and physical load they suffer are often greater than what men endure, women are more threatened by COVID-19. Though women have a poorer quality of life and work and face worse economic conditions, they also tend to have better physiological immunity than men, which can ease the effect of COVID-19. The early development of a vaccine against COVID-19 is an important issue that must take into consideration women's better immune response to the virus along with the technique of hormone regulation. Relevant research has been conducted on female-specific vaccines in the past, and women's issues were considered during those clinical trials to ensure that complications and antibody responses were positive and effective in women. National policies should also propose good strategies for women to be vaccinated. This could improve consciousness, give women a better vaccination experience, enhance their willingness to vaccinate, and protect them from COVID-19 infection.

Guillain-Barré syndrome and influenza vaccines: current evidence

OBJECTIVE

Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a consequence of influenza vaccination is a relevant topic, yet to be clarified, which raises concern both amongst health care personnel and the general population. Every study and pharmacovigilance system point to need of further research and the importance of continuous monitoring of safety regarding influenza vaccines. The aim of the present study is to investigate the publication of new data since the realisation of our meta-analysis of GBS and influenza vaccines (published in 2015).

METHODS

A systematic revision of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Knowledge (WOS) databases has been carried out. These report observational studies assessing GBS risk after the administration of influenza vaccines from May 2014 up to July 20th, 2017.

RESULTS

The research yielded 107 articles. Only three studies met established inclusion criteria and referred to an estimation GBS risk after some influenza vaccine. Two studies investigated GBS risk by the pandemic A/H1N1 vaccine, while only one looked into season vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review, conducted after the publication of our previous meta-analysis, seems to confirm its previous results. Therefore, GBS should be considered an infrequent adverse effect of influenza vaccination, which should not negatively influence its acceptance. Unfortunately, very few of the systematically surveyed studies meeting inclusion criteria. This fact sharply contrasts with the current consensus as to the need of continuously monitoring the safety of influenza vaccines.

International Consensus (ICON): allergic reactions to vaccines

BACKGROUND

Routine immunization, one of the most effective public health interventions, has effectively reduced death and morbidity due to a variety of infectious diseases. However, allergic reactions to vaccines occur very rarely and can be life threatening. Given the large numbers of vaccines administered worldwide, there is a need for an international consensus regarding the evaluation and management of allergic reactions to vaccines.

METHODS

Following a review of the literature, and with the active participation of representatives from the World Allergy Organization (WAO), the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI), and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI), the final committee was formed with the purpose of having members who represented a wide-range of countries, had previously worked on vaccine safety, and included both allergist/immunologists as well as vaccinologists.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on a variety of topics, including: definition of immediate allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, approaches to distinguish association from causality, approaches to patients with a history of an allergic reaction to a previous vaccine, and approaches to patients with a history of an allergic reaction to components of vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

This document provides comprehensive and internationally accepted guidelines and access to on-line documents to help practitioners around the world identify allergic reactions following immunization. It also provides a framework for the evaluation and further management of patients who present either following an allergic reaction to a vaccine or with a history of allergy to a component of vaccines.

Contributions and challenges for worldwide vaccine safety: The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety at 15 years

In 1999, the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) was established by the World Health Organization (WHO) to provide independent scientific advice on issues relating to the safety of vaccines and immunization. Fifteen years onward, we conducted a multi-faceted review to evaluate the impact, reach and challenges facing GACVS, including the role GACVS plays in informing global, regional and WHO member state vaccine policy. The methods included measures of organizational structure, citation impact, themes approached, and a discussion by previous and current members to evaluate past, present and future challenges. Given the increasing range of data sources and the deployment of many new vaccines, the Committee is facing the complex task of identifying the best available evidence for recommendations on vaccine safety. To help meet the increased demand for public transparency in decision making, GACVS-structured methodology for evidence-based decisions is evolving. GACVS also promotes best practices and capacity building for timely and accurate risk assessment; risk communications; outreach to help countries maintain and, if needed, rebuild public trust in vaccines; and advocacy for bridging the major gaps in vaccine safety capacity globally.