Spontaneously reported adverse events following COVID-19 basic and booster immunizations in the Netherlands

Navigating duplication in pharmacovigilance databases: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacovigilance databases play a critical role in monitoring drug safety. The duplication of reports in pharmacovigilance databases, however, undermines their data integrity. This scoping review sought to provide a comprehensive understanding of duplication in pharmacovigilance databases worldwide.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Reviewers comprehensively searched the literature in PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar and other relevant websites.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed publications and grey literature, without language restriction, describing duplication and/or methods relevant to duplication in pharmacovigilance databases from inception to 1 September 2023.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews and conformed with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One reviewer extracted the data and performed descriptive analysis, which the second reviewer assessed. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus or in consultation with a third reviewer.

RESULTS

We screened 22 745 unique titles and 156 were eligible for full-text review. Of the 156 titles, 58 (47 peer-reviewed; 11 grey literature) fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the scoping review. Included titles addressed the extent (5 papers), prevention strategies (15 papers), causes (32 papers), detection methods (25 papers), management strategies (24 papers) and implications (14 papers) of duplication in pharmacovigilance databases. The papers overlapped, discussing more than one field. Advances in artificial intelligence, particularly natural language processing, hold promise in enhancing the efficiency and precision of deduplication of large and complex pharmacovigilance databases.

CONCLUSION

Duplication in pharmacovigilance databases compromises risk assessment and decision-making, potentially threatening patient safety. Therefore, efficient duplicate prevention, detection and management are essential for more reliable pharmacovigilance data. To minimise duplication, consistent use of worldwide unique identifiers as the key case identifiers is recommended alongside recent advances in artificial intelligence.

Frequency and timing of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines; A multi-country cohort event monitoring study

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, EMA set-up a large-scale cohort event monitoring (CEM) system to estimate incidence rates of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of different COVID-19 vaccines across the participating countries. This study aims to give an up to date and in-depth analysis of the frequency of patient-reported ADRs after the 1st, 2nd, and booster vaccination, to identify potential predictors in developing ADRs and to describe time-to-onset (TTO) and time-to-recovery (TTR) of ADRs.

METHODS

A CEM study was rolled out in a period ranging from February 2021 to February 2023 across multiple European countries; The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Analysis consisted of a descriptive analyses of frequencies of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs for 1st, 2nd and booster vaccination, analysis of potential predictors in developing ADRs with a generalized linear mixed-effects model, analysis of TTO and TTR of ADRs and a sensitivity analysis for loss to follow-up (L2FU).

RESULTS

A total of 29,837 participants completed at least the baseline and the first follow-up questionnaire for 1st and 2nd vaccination and 7,250 participants for the booster. The percentage of participants who reported at least one ADR is 74.32% (95%CI 73.82-74.81). Solicited ADRs, including injection site reactions, are very common across vaccination moments. Potential predictors for these reactions are the brand of vaccine used, the patient's age, sex and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination (0.24%, 95%CI 0.19--0.31) and booster (0.26%, 95%CI 0.15, 0.41). The TTO was 14 h (median) for dose 1 and slightly longer for dose 2 and booster dose. TTR is generally also within a few days. The effect of L2FU on estimations of frequency is limited.

CONCLUSION

Despite some limitations due to study design and study-roll out, CEM studies can allow prompt and almost real-time observations of the safety of medications directly from a patient-centered perspective, which can play a crucial role for regulatory bodies during an emergency setting such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Changes in Local and Systemic Adverse Effects following Primary and Booster Immunisation against COVID-19 in an Observational Cohort of Dutch Healthcare Workers Vaccinated with BNT162b2 (Comirnaty®)

In healthcare workers (HCWs) and in the general population, fear of adverse effects is among the main reasons behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We present data on self-reported adverse effects from a large cohort of HCWs who underwent primary (N = 470) and booster (N = 990) mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. We described general patterns in, and predictors of self-reported adverse effect profiles. Adverse effects following immunisation (AEFI) were reported more often after the second dose of primary immunisation than after the first dose, but there was no further increase in adverse effects following the booster round. Self-reported severity of systemic adverse effects was less following booster immunisation. Prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 was found to be a significant predictor of AEFI following primary immunisation, but was no longer a predictor after booster vaccination. Compared to other studies reporting specifically on adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in healthcare workers, we have a relatively large cohort size, and are the first to compare adverse effects between different rounds of vaccination. Compared to studies in the general population, we have a considerably homogenous population. Insights in AEFI following primary and booster vaccinations may help in addressing vaccine hesitancy, both in HCWs and in the general population.