Adverse Events Following Influenza Immunization Reported by Healthcare Personnel Using Active Surveillance Based on Text Messages

A scoping review of active, participant-centred, digital adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance: A Canadian immunization research network study

BACKGROUND

Post-licensure adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance is conducted to monitor vaccine safety, such as identifying batch/brand issues and rare reactions, which consequently improves community confidence. The integration of technology has been proposed to improve AEFI surveillance, however, there is an absence of description regarding which digital solutions are successfully being used and their unique characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this scoping review were to 1) map the research landscape on digital systems used for active, participant-centred, AEFI surveillance and 2) describe their core components.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review informed by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRSIMA-ScR) guideline. OVID-Medline, Embase Classic + Embase, and Medrxiv were searched by a medical librarian from January 1, 2000 to January 28th, 2021. Two independent reviewers determined which studies met inclusion based on pre-specified eligibility criteria. Data extraction was conducted using pre-made tables with specific variables by one investigator and verified by a second.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven publications met inclusion, the majority of which came from Australia (n = 15) and Canada (n = 6). The most studied active, participant-centred, digital AEFI surveillance systems were SmartVax (n = 8) (Australia), Vaxtracker (n = 7) (Australia), and Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) Network (Canada) (n = 6). The two most common methods of communicating with vaccinees reported were short-message-service (SMS) (n = 15) and e-mail (n = 14), with online questionnaires being the primary method of data collection (n = 20).

CONCLUSION

Active, participant-centred, digital AEFI surveillance is an area actively being researched as depicted by the literature landscape mapped by this scoping reviewWe hypothesize that the AEFI surveillance approach herein described could become a primary method of collecting self-reported subjective symptoms and reactogenicity from vaccinees, complementing existing systems. Future evaluation of identified digital solutions is necessary to bring about improvements to current vaccine surveillance systems to meet contemporary and future public health needs.

Real-time safety surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccines in children, Australia, 2015

Increased febrile reactions in Australian children from one influenza vaccine brand in 2010 diminished confidence in influenza immunisation, highlighting the need for improved vaccine safety surveillance. AusVaxSafety, a national vaccine safety surveillance system collected adverse events in young children for 2015 influenza vaccine brands in real time through parent/carer reports via SMS/email. Weekly cumulative data on 3,340 children demonstrated low rates of fever (4.4%) and medical attendance (1.1%). Fever was more frequent with concomitant vaccination.

Post-marketing surveillance of adverse events following immunization with inactivated quadrivalent and trivalent influenza vaccine in health care providers in Western Australia

In 2015, inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) was first introduced into the Australian market. A routine vaccine safety surveillance system in Western Australia was used to conduct post-licensure surveillance of adverse events following immunization with inactivated QIV and trivalent influenza vaccines (TIV) in a sample of 1685 healthcare providers (HCPs). A similar percentage of HCPs who received QIV reported having any reaction seven days post-vaccination as HCPs who received TIV (13.6 vs. 12.8%, respectively; p=0.66). However, a slightly higher percentage of HCPs who received QIV reported pain or swelling at the injection site as compared to HCPs who received TIV (6.9% vs. 4.2%, respectively; p=0.02). No serious vaccine-associated adverse events were detected during follow-up of either vaccine. Acknowledging the study limitations, the results of this post-marketing surveillance support the safety of QIV, suggesting there is little difference in the reactogenicity of QIV as compared to TIV.