Challenges in conducting post-authorisation safety studies (PASS): A vaccine manufacturer's view

Limitations Reported in Evaluating Effectiveness of Risk Minimization Measures in the EU during 2018-2021: A Qualitative Analysis of Industry-Sponsored Post-Authorization Safety Studies

Marketing-authorization holders evaluate the effectiveness of risk minimization measures (RMM) for medicines through the conduct of post-authorization safety studies (PASS). Earlier studies show that concluding on RMM effectiveness is challenging. The aim of this study was to describe reported limitations associated with RMM effectiveness assessments of industry-sponsored PASS that did not render a conclusion. We conducted a thematic analysis of study limitations extracted from assessment reports and study reports finalized by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee between 2018 and 2021. In 39 (61.0%) of the PASS a conclusion on RMM effectiveness was drawn, where 25 (39.0%) PASS was inconclusive. Most PASS had a cross-sectional design with surveys as primary data sources (73.4% and 65.6% respectively). Four main themes emerged: (i) survey-specific limitations, (ii) limitations specifically related to secondary use of data, (iii) general limitations related to study design, and (iv) limitations not related to study design. In general, frequently reported limitations were survey-related, such as selection bias or information bias. Interestingly, well-known study limitations related to secondary use of data such as missing or misclassification of data were more often presented in inconclusive compared with conclusive PASS. Given that about 40% of PASS did not allow a conclusion on RMM effectiveness, our results suggest prioritization for strategies to mitigate limitations related to the secondary use of data at the protocol stage, for example, through feasibility assessments. Although many databases may have incomplete registration of some variables, feasibility testing prior to conducting a PASS could contribute to meeting study objectives and concluding on RMM effectiveness.

A feasibility assessment of real-world data capabilities for monitoring vaccine safety and effectiveness in China: Human papillomavirus vaccination in the Yinzhou district as a use case

BACKGROUND

Real-world data (RWD) are increasingly used to generate real-world evidence (RWE) of vaccine safety and effectiveness for regulatory purposes. Assessing feasibility of using RWD sources prior to implementing observational studies is recommended. As a use case, we described the process and findings of a feasibility assessment to identify reliable and relevant data sources for monitoring the safety and effectiveness of the AS04-HPV-16/18 human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in China.

METHODS

Iterative multi-step process: (1) targeted literature review and data source mapping; (2) expert opinion from national RWD experts; (3) survey to evaluate the identified data source operational infrastructure; and (4) continuous appraisal of published studies using the identified data source.

RESULTS

The Yinzhou Regional Health Information Platform (YRHIP) was identified as a data source of main interest, based on its large population coverage, high cervical cancer screening rates, and availability of adult electronic immunization records. Field meetings with national RWD experts confirmed its suitability for post-authorization vaccine studies. Survey results showed that exposure data and relevant safety and effectiveness endpoints were recorded and linkable at the individual level across the platform. Iterative appraisal of emerging evidence from the literature corroborated these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility assessment indicates that the YRHIP has the capacity to capture demographic, exposure, outcome and other data required to generate RWE on HPV vaccine safety and effectiveness in China. Studies using the YRHIP to monitor the AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine in routine use building on this feasibility assessment are ongoing.

Review: Vaccine Myth-Buster - Cleaning Up With Prejudices and Dangerous Misinformation

Although vaccines have already saved and will continue to save millions of lives, they are under attack. Vaccine safety is the main target of criticism. The rapid distribution of false information, or even conspiracy theories on the internet has tremendously favored vaccine hesitancy. The World Health Organization (WHO) named vaccine hesitancy one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019. Parents and patients have several concerns about vaccine safety, of which the ubiquitous anxieties include inactivating agents, adjuvants, preservatives, or new technologies such as genetic vaccines. In general, increasing doubts concerning side effects have been observed, which may lead to an increasing mistrust of scientific results and thus, the scientific method. Hence, this review targets five topics concerning vaccines and reviews current scientific publications in order to summarize the available information refuting conspiracy theories and myths about vaccination. The topics have been selected based on the author's personal perception of the most frequently occurring safety controversies: the inactivation agent formaldehyde, the adjuvant aluminum, the preservative mercury, the mistakenly-drawn correlation between vaccines and autism and genetic vaccines. The scientific literature shows that vaccine safety is constantly studied. Furthermore, the literature does not support the allegations that vaccines may cause a serious threat to general human life. The author suggests that more researchers explaining their research ideas, methods and results publicly could strengthen the general confidence in science. In general, vaccines present one of the safest and most cost-effective medications and none of the targeted topics raised serious health concerns.

Pregnant women & vaccines against emerging epidemic threats: Ethics guidance for preparedness, research, and response

Zika virus, influenza, and Ebola have called attention to the ways in which infectious disease outbreaks can severely - and at times uniquely - affect the health interests of pregnant women and their offspring. These examples also highlight the critical need to proactively consider pregnant women and their offspring in vaccine research and response efforts to combat emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Historically, pregnant women and their offspring have been largely excluded from research agendas and investment strategies for vaccines against epidemic threats, which in turn can lead to exclusion from future vaccine campaigns amidst outbreaks. This state of affairs is profoundly unjust to pregnant women and their offspring, and deeply problematic from the standpoint of public health. To ensure that the needs of pregnant women and their offspring are fairly addressed, new approaches to public health preparedness, vaccine research and development, and vaccine delivery are required. This Guidance offers 22 concrete recommendations that provide a roadmap for the ethically responsible, socially just, and respectful inclusion of the interests of pregnant women in the development and deployment of vaccines against emerging pathogens. The Guidance was developed by the Pregnancy Research Ethics for Vaccines, Epidemics, and New Technologies (PREVENT) Working Group - a multidisciplinary, international team of 17 experts specializing in bioethics, maternal immunization, maternal-fetal medicine, obstetrics, pediatrics, philosophy, public health, and vaccine research and policy - in consultation with a variety of external experts and stakeholders.

Regulatory and health technology assessment advice on postlicensing and postlaunch evidence generation is a foundation for lifecycle data collection for medicines

The understanding of the benefit risk profile, and relative effectiveness of a new medicinal product, are initially established in a circumscribed patient population through clinical trials. There may be uncertainties associated with the new medicinal product that cannot be, or do not need to be resolved before launch. Postlicensing or postlaunch evidence generation (PLEG) is a term for evidence generated after the licensure or launch of a medicinal product to address these remaining uncertainties. PLEG is thus part of the continuum of evidence development for a medicinal product, complementing earlier evidence, facilitating further elucidation of a product's benefit/risk profile, value proposition, and/or exploring broader aspects of disease management and provision of healthcare. PLEG plays a role in regulatory decision making, not only in the European Union but also in other jurisdictions including the USA and Japan. PLEG is also relevant for downstream decision‐making by health technology assessment bodies and payers. PLEG comprises studies of different designs, based on data collected in observational or experimental settings. Experience to date in the European Union has indicated a need for improvements in PLEG. Improvements in design and research efficiency of PLEG could be addressed through more systematic pursuance of Scientific Advice on PLEG with single or multiple decision makers. To date, limited information has been available on the rationale, process or timing for seeking PLEG advice from regulators or health technology assessment bodies. This article sets out to address these issues and to encourage further uptake of PLEG advice.

Adjuvant Systems for vaccines: 13 years of post-licensure experience in diverse populations have progressed the way adjuvanted vaccine safety is investigated and understood

Adjuvant Systems (AS) are combinations of immune stimulants that enhance the immune response to vaccine antigens. The first vaccine containing an AS (AS04) was licensed in 2005. As of 2018, several vaccines containing AS04, AS03 or AS01 have been licensed or approved by regulatory authorities in some countries, and included in vaccination programs. These vaccines target diverse viral and parasitic diseases (hepatitis B, human papillomavirus, malaria, herpes zoster, and (pre)pandemic influenza), and were developed for widely different target populations (e.g. individuals with renal impairment, girls and young women, infants and children living in Africa, adults 50 years of age and older, and the general population). Clearly, the safety profile of one vaccine in one target population cannot be extrapolated to another vaccine or to another target population, even for vaccines containing the same adjuvant. Therefore, the assessment of adjuvant safety poses specific challenges. In this review we provide a historical perspective on how AS were developed from the angle of the challenges encountered on safety evaluation during clinical development and after licensure, and illustrate how these challenges have been met to date. Methods to evaluate safety of adjuvants have evolved based on the availability of new technologies allowing a better understanding of their mode of action, and new ways of collecting and assessing safety information. Since 2005, safety experience with AS has accumulated with their use in diverse vaccines and in markedly different populations, in national immunization programs, and in a pandemic setting. Thirteen years of experience using antigens combined with AS attest to their acceptable safety profile. Methods developed to assess the safety of vaccines containing AS have progressed the way we understand and investigate vaccine safety, and have helped set new standards that will guide and support new candidate vaccine development, particularly those using new adjuvants. FOCUS ON THE PATIENT: What is the context? Adjuvants are immunostimulants used to modulate and enhance the immune response induced by vaccination. Since the 1990s, adjuvantation has moved toward combining several immunostimulants in the form of Adjuvant System(s) (AS), rather than relying on a single immunostimulant. AS have enabled the development of new vaccines targeting diseases and/or populations with special challenges that were previously not feasible using classical vaccine technology. What is new? In the last 13 years, several AS-containing vaccines have been studied targeting different diseases and populations. Over this period, overall vaccine safety has been monitored and real-life safety profiles have been assessed following routine use in the general population in many countries. Moreover, new methods for safety assessment, such as a better determination of the mode of action, have been implemented in order to help understand the safety characteristics of AS-containing vaccines. What is the impact? New standards and safety experience accumulated over the last decade can guide and help support the safety assessment of new candidate vaccines during development.