Adverse events following pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent and seasonal influenza vaccinations during the 2009-2010 season in the active component U.S. military and civilians aged 17-44years reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

Enhanced passive safety surveillance of high-dose and standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated split-virion influenza vaccines in Germany and Finland during the 2022/23 influenza season

Enhanced Passive Safety Surveillance (EPSS) was conducted for quadrivalent inactivated split-virion influenza vaccines (IIV4) in Germany (high dose [HD]) and Finland (standard dose [SD]) for the northern hemisphere (NH) 2022/23 influenza season. The primary objective was to assess adverse events following immunization (AEFI) occurring ≤7 days post-vaccination. In each country, the EPSS was conducted at the beginning of the NH influenza season. Exposure information was documented using vaccination cards (VC), and AEFI were reported via an electronic data collection system or telephone. AEFI were assessed by seriousness and age group (Finland only). The vaccinee reporting rate (RR) was calculated as the number of vaccinees reporting ≥ 1 AEFI divided by the total vaccinees. In Germany, among 1041 vaccinees, there were 31 AEFI (ten vaccinees) during follow-up, including one serious AEFI. Of 16 AEFI (six vaccinees) with reported time of onset, 15 occurred ≤7 days post-vaccination (RR 0.58%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21, 1.25), which was lower than the 2021/22 season (RR 1.88%, 95% CI: 1.10, 3.00). In Finland, among 1001 vaccinees, there were 142 AEFI (51 vaccinees) during follow-up, none of which were serious. Of 133 AEFI (48 vaccinees) with time of onset reported, all occurred ≤7 days post-vaccination (RR 4.80%, 95% CI: 3.56, 6.31), which was similar to the 2021/22 season (RR 4.90%, 95% CI: 3.65, 6.43). The EPSS for HD-IIV4 and for SD-IIV4 in the 2022/23 influenza season did not suggest any clinically relevant changes in safety beyond what is known/expected for IIV4s.

Overview of U.S. COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance systems

The U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, which commenced in December 2020, has been instrumental in preventing morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 disease. Safety monitoring has been an essential component of the program. The federal government undertook a comprehensive and coordinated approach to implement complementary safety monitoring systems and to communicate findings in a timely and transparent way to healthcare providers, policymakers, and the public. Monitoring involved both well-established and newly developed systems that relied on both spontaneous (passive) and active surveillance methods. Clinical consultation for individual cases of adverse events following vaccination was performed, and monitoring of special populations, such as pregnant persons, was conducted. This report describes the U.S. government's COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring systems and programs used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Indian Health Service. Using the adverse event of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination as a model, we demonstrate how the multiple, complementary monitoring systems worked to rapidly detect, assess, and verify a vaccine safety signal. In addition, longer-term follow-up was conducted to evaluate the recovery status of myocarditis cases following vaccination. Finally, the process for timely and transparent communication and dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine safety data is described, highlighting the responsiveness and robustness of the U.S. vaccine safety monitoring infrastructure during the national COVID-19 vaccination program.

Role of anti-polyethylene glycol (PEG) antibodies in the allergic reactions to PEG-containing Covid-19 vaccines: Evidence for immunogenicity of PEG

A small fraction of recipients who receive polyethylene-glycol (PEG)-containing COVID-19 mRNA-LNP vaccines (Comirnaty and Spikevax) develop hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) or anaphylaxis. A causal role of anti-PEG antibodies (Abs) has been proposed, but not yet been proven in humans.We used ELISA for serial measurements of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing Ab (anti-S) and anti-PEG IgG/IgM Ab levels before and after the first and subsequent booster vaccinations with mRNA-LNP vaccines in a total of 291 blood donors. The HSRs in 15 subjects were graded and correlated with anti-PEG IgG/IgM, just as the anti-S and anti-PEG Ab levels with each other. The impacts of gender, allergy, mastocytosis and use of cosmetics were also analyzed. Serial testing of two or more plasma samples showed substantial individual variation of anti-S Ab levels after repeated vaccinations, just as the levels of anti-PEG IgG and IgM, which were over baseline in 98-99 % of unvaccinated individuals. About 3-4 % of subjects in the strongly left-skewed distribution had 15-45-fold higher values than the median, referred to as anti-PEG Ab supercarriers. Both vaccines caused significant rises of anti-PEG IgG/IgM with >10-fold rises in about ∼10 % of Comirnaty, and all Spikevax recipients. The anti-PEG IgG and/or IgM levels in the 15 vaccine reactors (3 anaphylaxis) were significantly higher compared to nonreactors. Serial testing of plasma showed significant correlation between the booster injection-induced rises of anti-S and anti-PEG IgGs, suggesting coupled anti-S and anti-PEG immunogenicity.Conclusions: The small percentage of people who have extremelevels of anti-PEG Ab in their blood may be at increased risk for HSRs/anaphylaxis to PEGylated vaccines and other PEGylated injectables. This risk might be further increased by the anti-PEG immunogenicity of these vaccines. Screening for anti-PEG Ab "supercarriers" may help predicting reactors and thus preventing these adverse phenomena.

Enhanced passive safety surveillance of high-dose and standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated split-virion influenza vaccines in Germany and Finland during the influenza season 2021/22

BACKGROUND

Enhanced passive safety surveillance (EPSS) was conducted for quadrivalent inactivated split-virion influenza vaccines (IIV4) in Germany (high dose [HD], aged ≥60 years) and in Finland (standard dose [SD], aged ≥6 months) at the beginning of the northern hemisphere 2021/22 influenza season. The primary objective was to assess adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurring ≤7 days post-vaccination.

METHODS

Vaccinees were issued vaccination cards (VC) and were encouraged to report ADRs via an electronic data collection system or by telephone. ADRs were assessed by frequency, time to onset, intensity and by age group. The vaccinee reporting rate (RR) was calculated as the number of vaccinees reporting ≥1 ADR divided by total vaccinees. Reactogenicity was compared with previous experiences with each vaccine.

RESULTS

Among 903 HD-IIV4 vaccinees in Germany, 17 reported ≥1 ADR within ≤7 days post-vaccination: RR, 1.88% (95% CI: 1.10, 3.00). Time to onset was known for 53/65 ADRs, all of which occurred ≤7 days post-vaccination. In Germany, seven ADRs were reported that were not listed previously. Among the 1000 SD-IIV4 vaccinees in Finland, 49 reported ≥1 ADR within ≤7 days post-vaccination: RR, 4.90% (95% CI: 3.65, 6.43). Time to onset was known for 126/134 ADRs, of which 125 occurred ≤7 days post-vaccination. In Finland, 21 ADRs were reported that were not listed previously. No ADRs reported during follow-up were serious.

CONCLUSIONS

The EPSS for HD-IIV4 and for SD-IIV4 in the 2021/22 influenza season did not suggest any clinically relevant changes in safety beyond what is known/expected for IIV4s.

Enhanced passive safety surveillance of a quadrivalent inactivated split virion influenza vaccine in Finland during the influenza season 2020/21

BACKGROUND

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) requires enhanced safety surveillance to be conducted for annual seasonal influenza vaccines with the aim of rapidly detecting any potential new safety concerns before the peak immunisation period of the vaccine in any given year. The aim of this study was to detect any clinically significant change in the frequency or severity of expected reactogenicity of the quadrivalent inactivated split-virion influenza vaccine (IIV4) during routine immunisation in Finland for the 2020/21 season. The primary objective was to investigate the frequency of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurring within 7 days following vaccination.

METHODS

Enhanced passive safety surveillance of individuals vaccinated with IIV4 was conducted from October 9, 2020 to November 30, 2020 across seven sites in Finland. The vaccinee reporting rate and ADR reporting rate were calculated and compared with known or expected safety data in order to identify any clinically significant changes.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 1008 individuals with 29 vaccinees reporting 82 suspected ADRs. Of these, 28 people reported 79 suspected ADRs within 7 days following vaccination, corresponding to a vaccinee reporting rate of 2.78% (95% CI: 1.85, 3.99) (ADR reporting rate, 7.84% [95% CI: 6.25, 9.67%]). The most frequently reported ADRs were injection site reactions (vaccination site pain, vaccination site erythema and vaccination site swelling) (n = 46, 2.28%), myalgia (n = 9, 0.89%) and headache (n = 8, 0.79%). No serious suspected adverse events were reported at any point post-vaccination and ADR reporting rates were in general lower compared to those reported for IIV4 in the 2019/20 surveillance study.

CONCLUSION

No clinically significant changes in what is known or expected for IIV4 were reported for the 2020/21 season which supports the safety profile of this vaccine and will help maintain public confidence in influenza vaccination.

Applying lessons learned from nanomedicines to understand rare hypersensitivity reactions to mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

After over a billion of vaccinations with messenger RNA-lipid nanoparticle (mRNA-LNP) based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, anaphylaxis and other manifestations of hypersensitivity can be considered as very rare adverse events. Although current recommendations include avoiding a second dose in those with first-dose anaphylaxis, the underlying mechanisms are unknown; therefore, the risk of a future reaction cannot be predicted. Given how important new mRNA constructs will be to address the emergence of new viral variants and viruses, there is an urgent need for clinical approaches that would allow a safe repeated immunization of high-risk individuals and for reliable predictive tools of adverse reactions to mRNA vaccines. In many aspects, anaphylaxis symptoms experienced by the affected vaccine recipients resemble those of infusion reactions to nanomedicines. Here we share lessons learned over a decade of nanomedicine research and discuss the current knowledge about several factors that individually or collectively contribute to infusion reactions to nanomedicines. We aim to use this knowledge to inform the SARS-CoV-2 lipid-nanoparticle-based mRNA vaccine field.

The reporting sensitivity of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for anaphylaxis and for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Underreporting is a limitation common to passive surveillance systems, including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that monitors the safety of U.S.-licensed vaccines. Nonetheless, previous reports demonstrate substantial case capture for clinically severe adverse events (AEs), including 47% of intussusception cases after rotavirus vaccine, and 68% of vaccine associated paralytic polio after oral polio vaccine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the sensitivity of VAERS in capturing AE reports of anaphylaxis and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following vaccination and whether this is consistent with previous estimates for other severe AEs.

METHODS

We estimated VAERS reporting rates following vaccination for anaphylaxis and GBS. We used data from VAERS safety reviews as the numerator, and estimated incidence rates of anaphylaxis and GBS following vaccination from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) studies as the denominator. We defined reporting sensitivity as the VAERS reporting rate divided by the VSD incidence rate. Sensitivity was reported as either a single value, or a range if data were available from >1 study.

RESULTS

VAERS sensitivity for capturing anaphylaxis after seven different vaccines ranged from 13 to 76%; sensitivity for capturing GBS after three different vaccines ranged from 12 to 64%. For anaphylaxis, VAERS captured 13-27% of cases after the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, 13% of cases after influenza vaccine, 21% of cases after varicella vaccine, 24% of cases after both the live attenuated zoster and quadrivalent human papillomavirus (4vHPV) vaccines, 25% of cases after the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and 76% of cases after the 2009 H1N1 inactivated pandemic influenza vaccine. For GBS, VAERS captured 12% of cases after the 2012-13 inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine, 15-55% of cases after the 2009 H1N1 inactivated pandemic influenza vaccine, and 64% of cases after 4vHPV vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

For anaphylaxis and GBS, VAERS sensitivity is comparable to previous estimates for detecting important AEs following vaccination.

Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis, Vaccination and Virus

Anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate (Anti-NMDA) receptor encephalitis is an acute autoimmune disorder. The symptoms range from psychiatric symptoms, movement disorders, cognitive impairment, and autonomic dysfunction. Previous studies revealed that vaccination might induce this disease. A few cases were reported to be related to H1N1 vaccine, tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis and polio vaccine, and Japanese encephalitis vaccine. Although vaccination is a useful strategy to prevent infectious diseases, in a low risk, it may trigger serious neurological symptoms. In addition to anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, other neurological diseases were reported to be associated with a number of vaccines. In this paper, the anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis cases related to a number of vaccines and other neurological symptoms that might be induced by these vaccines were reviewed. In addition, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis cases that were induced by virus infection were also reviewed.

Antigenic Variability a Potential Factor in Assessing Relationship Between Guillain Barré Syndrome and Influenza Vaccine - Up to Date Literature Review

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a possible serious adverse event of the influenza vaccine but it is yet to be proven. The objective of our traditional literature review is to assess the potential relationship between GBS and influenza vaccine. A traditional literature review has been carried out by selecting 26 articles from PubMed published between 2011 and 2020. Twenty-six articles met the selection criteria (eight observational studies, four systematic literature review, three meta-analyses, two case-control, two retrospective cohort, and seven case series). Selected studies were focused on monitoring the safety of influenza vaccines, the relative safety of pandemic and seasonal influenza vaccines, influenza vaccine a potential etiology of GBS, and pathogenesis of post-vaccination GBS. Few studies have shown a higher incidence of GBS with a pandemic influenza vaccine compared to the seasonal influenza vaccine, while several studies have concluded a small increase in the possibility of GBS following any type of influenza vaccine. There were some studies that estimated no association possibly due to the presence of confounding factors such as influenza-like illness, low power of the study, and reporting bias in post-vaccination surveillance programs. GSB should be taken into consideration as one of the less common but serious side effects of the influenza vaccine but it should not adversely affect the acceptance of the influenza vaccination program. Continuous monitoring of influenza vaccine safety should be performed regularly.

Enhanced Safety Surveillance of Seasonal Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines in English Primary Care: Interim Analysis

Introduction

The 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.

Methods

AEIs 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.

Results

Practices 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.

Conclusion

The 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.

Funding

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, Wavre, Belgium.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0747-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Report from enhanced safety surveillance of two influenza vaccines (Vaxigrip and Intanza 15 μg) in two European countries during influenza season 2016/17 and comparison with 2015/16 season

Passive enhanced safety surveillance (ESS) was implemented in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland for Vaxigrip and Intanza 15 µg influenza vaccines during the 2016/17 influenza season. Lessons learned during 2015/16 ESS implementation were integrated and applied towards the current ESS. The primary objective was to estimate the reporting rates of suspected adverse reactions (ARs) occurring within 7 days of vaccination with Vaxigrip or Intanza 15 µg. For Vaxigrip (N = 962), 17 vaccinees (1.8%) reported 59 suspected ARs (6.1%) within 7 days of vaccination. For Intanza 15 µg (N = 1000), 21 vaccinees (2.1%) reported 101 (10.1%) suspected ARs within 7 days of vaccination. No obvious pattern in the type of suspected ARs or their frequency was observed for either vaccine. None of the frequencies of suspected ARs were above the 2015/16 ESS frequencies for Vaxigrip, whereas for Intanza 15 µg only one AR (oropharyngeal pain) crossed the historical threshold. There was no change in reactogenicity and data was consistent with the safety profiles of the two vaccines. The passive ESS experience gained from season to season will help to contribute to a sustainable safety surveillance system of seasonal influenza vaccines early in the season.

Distinct patterns of cellular immune response elicited by influenza non-adjuvanted and AS03-adjuvanted monovalent H1N1(pdm09) vaccine

The study aimed at identifying biomarkers of immune response elicited by non-adjuvanted-(NAV) and adjuvanted-(AV) H1N1(pdm09) vaccines. The results showed that despite both vaccines elicited similar levels of anti-H1N1 antibodies at day30 after vaccination, higher reactivity was observed in AV at day180. While AV induced early changes in cell-surface molecules on monocytes, CD4⁺, CD8⁺ T-cells and B-cells, NAV triggered minor changes, starting later on at day3. Furthermore, AV induced a late and persistent increase in TLR gene expression after day3, except for tlr4, while NAV displayed earlier but transient tlr3/4/7/9 up-regulation. Contrasting with NAV, prominent chemokine gene expression (cxcl8,cxcl9,ccl5) and a broad spectrum up-regulation of plasmatic biomarkers (CXCL8,IL-6,IL-1β,IL-12,IL-10) was evident in AV, which showed a major involvement of TNF and IL-10. Similarly, AV induced a robust IL-10-modulated proinflammatory storm, with early and persistent involvement of TNF-α/IL-12/IFN-γ axis derived from NK-cells, CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T-cells along with promiscuous production of IL-4/IL-5/IL-13. Conversely, NAV promotes a concise and restricted intracytoplasmic chemokine/cytokine response, essentially mediated by TNF-α and IL-4, with late IL-10 production by CD8⁺ T-cells. Systems biology approach underscored that AV guided the formation of an imbricate network characterized by a progressive increase in the number of neighborhood connections amongst innate and adaptive immunity. In AV, the early cross-talk between innate and adaptive immunity, followed by the triad NK/CD4⁺/CD8⁺ T-cells at day3, sponsored a later/robust biomarker network. These findings indicate the relevance of adjuvanted vaccination to orchestrate broad, balanced and multifactorial cellular immune events that lead ultimately to a stronger H1N1 humoral immunity.