Recurrence risk of a hypotonic hyporesponsive episode in two Australian specialist immunisation clinics

Factors associated with intention for revaccination among patients with adverse events following immunization

OBJECTIVES

Individuals and healthcare providers may be uncertain about the safety of revaccination after an adverse event following immunization (AEFI). We identified factors associated with physician recommendation for revaccination and participant intention to be revaccinated among patients with adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) assessed in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic (SIC) Network from 2013 to 2019.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included patients assessed in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic Network from 2013 to 2019 for an AEFI who required additional doses of the vaccine temporally associated with their AEFI. Participants underwent standardized assessment and data collection. Physician recommendations regarding revaccination and participant intent for revaccination were recorded. AEFI impact on daily activities and need for medical attention was captured as low, moderate, high impact and serious (e.g., requiring hospitalization). Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with physician recommendation and participant intention for revaccination, controlling for province of assessment.

RESULTS

Physician recommendation was significantly associated with the type of AEFI and AEFI impact. Compared to large local reaction, physician recommendation for revaccination was reduced for immediate hypersensitivity (aOR: 0.24 [95% CI: 0.08-0.76]) and new onset autoimmune disease (aOR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.69). Compared to low impact AEFIs, physician recommendation was reduced for moderate (aOR: 0.22 [95% CI: 0.07-0.65]), high impact (aOR: 0.08 [95% CI: 0.02-0.30]), and serious AEFIs (aOR: 0.11 [95% CI: 0.03-0.37]). Participant intention for revaccination was significantly associated with AEFI impact, with reduced odds for high versus low impact AEFIs (aOR: 0.12 [95% CI: 0.04-0.42]).

CONCLUSION

Physicians appear to use AEFI type and impact to guide recommendations while patients use primarily AEFI impact to form intentions for revaccination. The findings may help inform counselling for patients with AEFIs.

Revaccination and Adverse Event Recurrence in Patients with Adverse Events following Immunization

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the risk of recurrence of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) upon revaccination and to determine among patients with suspected vaccine allergy whether allergy skin test positivity was associated with AEFI recurrence.

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective observational study included patients assessed in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic Network from 2013 to 2019 with AEFIs who required revaccination with the vaccine temporally associated with their AEFI. Participants underwent standardized assessment and data collection. Special Immunization Clinic physicians used guidelines to inform their recommendations. Participants were followed up after revaccination to capture AEFI recurrences. Data were transferred to a central database for descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 588 participants were assessed for 627 AEFIs; 570 (91%) AEFIs occurred in children <18 years of age. AEFIs included immediate hypersensitivity (130/627; 21%), large local reactions (110/627; 18%), nonurticarial rash (51/627; 8%), seizures (26/627; 4%), and thrombocytopenia (11/627; 2%). Revaccination was recommended to 513 of 588 (87%) participants. Among participants recommended and due for revaccination during the study period, 63% (299/477) were revaccinated. AEFI recurrence was 10% (31/299) overall, 31% (15/49) for large local reactions, and 7% (5/66) for immediate hypersensitivity. No recurrence was serious. Among 92 participants with suspected vaccine allergy who underwent skin testing and were revaccinated, the negative predictive value of skin testing for AEFI recurrence was 96% (95% CI 92.5%-99.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most individuals with AEFIs were safely revaccinated. Among those with suspected vaccine allergy, skin testing may help determine the safety of revaccination.

Pertussis vaccination in mixed markets: Recommendations from the Global Pertussis Initiative

The Global Pertussis Initiative is an expert scientific forum that publishes consensus recommendations concerning pertussis for many regions of the world. Here, we give recommendations for the primary vaccination of infants in those countries where whole-cell pertussis (wP)- and acellular pertussis (aP)-containing combination vaccines are used in parallel. A selective literature review was performed concerning the influence on safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of mixing wP- and aP-containing vaccines for primary immunization of infants. In addition, local data were collected from various countries and the results discussed in a face-to-face meeting. Very few data addressing issues of mixing combination vaccines were identified, and no data were available concerning the effectiveness or duration of protection. It was also found that pharmacovigilance data are scarce or lacking in those countries where they would be needed the most. We then identified frequent problems occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where both vaccine types are used. Relying on local knowledge, we give practical recommendations for a variety of situations in different settings. Specific needs for additional data addressing these issues were also identified. International bodies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as vaccine producers should try to find ways to highlight the problems of mixing wP- and aP-containing combination vaccines with robust data. Countries are urged to improve on their pharmacovigilance for vaccines. For practicing physicians, our recommendations offer guidance when wP- and aP-containing vaccines are used in parallel during primary immunization.