Self-controlled case series design in vaccine safety: a systematic review

Current Approaches in Postapproval Vaccine Safety Studies Using Real-World Data: A Systematic Review of Published Literature

PURPOSE

Well-designed observational postmarketing studies using real-world data (RWD) are critical in supporting an evidence base and bolstering public confidence in vaccine safety. This systematic review presents current research methodologies in vaccine safety research in postapproval settings, technological advancements contributing to research resources and capabilities, and their major strengths and limitations.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed to identify relevant articles published from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022. Eligible studies were summarized overall by study design and other study characteristics (eg, country, vaccine studied, types of data source, and study population). An in-depth review of select studies representative of conventional or new designs, analytical approaches, or data collection methods was conducted to summarize current methods in vaccine safety research.

FINDINGS

Out of 977 articles screened for inclusion, 135 were reviewed. The review shows that recent advancements in scientific methods, digital technology, and analytic approaches have significantly contributed to postapproval vaccine safety studies using RWD. "Near real-time surveillance" using large datasets (via collaborative or distributed databases) has been used to facilitate rapid signal detection that complements passive surveillance. There was increasing appreciation for self-controlled case-only designs (self-controlled case series and self-controlled risk interval) to assess acute-onset safety outcomes, artificial intelligence, and natural language processing to improve outcome accuracy and study timeliness and emerging artificial intelligence-based analysis to capture adverse events from social media platforms.

IMPLICATIONS

Continued development in the area of vaccine safety research methodologies using RWD is warranted. The future of successful vaccine safety research, especially evaluation of rare safety events, is likely to comprise digital technologies including linking RWD networks, machine learning, and advanced analytic methods to generate rapid and robust real-world safety information.

Uptake, safety and effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine in inflammatory bowel disease: a UK-wide study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate (1) the UK-wide inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) uptake in adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), (2) the association between vaccination against influenza and IBD flare and (3) the effectiveness of IIV in preventing morbidity and mortality.

DESIGN

Data for adults with IBD diagnosed before the 1 September 2018 were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold. We calculated the proportion of people vaccinated against seasonal influenza in the 2018-2019 influenza cycle. To investigate vaccine effectiveness, we calculated the propensity score (PS) for vaccination and conducted Cox proportional hazard regression with inverse-probability treatment weighting on PS. We employed self-controlled case series analysis to investigate the association between vaccination and IBD flare.

RESULTS

Data for 13 631 people with IBD (50.4% male, mean age 52.9 years) were included. Fifty percent were vaccinated during the influenza cycle, while 32.1% were vaccinated on time, that is, before the seasonal influenza virus circulated in the community. IIV was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (aHR (95% CI): 0.73 (0.55,0.97) but not hospitalisation for pneumonia (aHR (95% CI) 0.52 (0.20-1.37), including in the influenza active period (aHR (95% CI) 0.48 (0.18-1.27)). Administration of the IIV was not associated with IBD flare.

CONCLUSION

The uptake of influenza vaccine was low in people with IBD, and the majority were not vaccinated before influenza virus circulated in the community. Vaccination with the IIV was not associated with IBD flare. These findings add to the evidence to promote vaccination against influenza in people with IBD.

The safety of seasonal influenza vaccination among adults prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors: A self-controlled case series study using administrative data

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy for patients undergoing cancer treatment carries a risk of severe immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). Questions remain about whether seasonal influenza vaccination might increase the risk of developing IRAEs among these patients given that vaccines are immunomodulatory. Previous vaccine safety studies on patients with cancer prescribed ICI therapy have demonstrated conflicting results.

METHODS

Using health administrative data from Ontario, Canada among adults diagnosed with cancer who had been prescribed ICI therapy and who had received an influenza vaccine from 2012 to 2019, we conducted a self-controlled case series study. The pre-vaccination control period started 42-days post-ICI initiation until 14-days prior to vaccination, the risk period was 1-42 days post-vaccination, and the post-vaccination control period was after the risk period until ICI discontinuation or a maximum period of two years. Emergency department (ED) visit(s) and/or hospitalization for any cause after ICI initiation was used to identify severe IRAEs. We fitted a fixed-effects Poisson regression model accounting for seasonality and calendar time to estimate relative incidence of IRAEs between risk and control periods.

RESULTS

We identified 1133 records of cancer patients who received influenza vaccination while prescribed ICI therapy. Most were aged ≥ 66 years (73 %), were male (63 %), had lung cancer (54 %), and had received ICI therapy with a programmed cell death protein 1(PD-1) inhibitor (91 %). A quarter (26 %) experienced an ED visit and/or hospitalization during the observation period. Rates of ED visits and/or hospitalizations in the risk vs. control periods were similar, with an incidence rate ratio of 1.04 (95 % CI: 0.75-1.45). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.

CONCLUSION

Seasonal influenza vaccination was not associated with an increased incidence of ED visit or hospitalization among adults with cancer treated with ICI therapy and our results support further evidence of vaccine safety.

Is Vaccination Against COVID-19 Associated With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Flare? Self-Controlled Case Series Analysis Using the UK CPRD

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the association between vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flare.

METHODS

Patients with IBD vaccinated against COVID-19 who consulted for disease flare between December 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were ascertained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. IBD flares were identified using consultation and corticosteroid prescription records. Vaccinations were identified using product codes and vaccination dates. The study period was partitioned into vaccine-exposed (vaccination date and 21 days immediately after), prevaccination (7 days immediately before vaccination), and the remaining vaccine-unexposed periods. Participants contributed data with multiple vaccinations and IBD flares. Season-adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using self-controlled case series analysis.

RESULTS

Data for 1911 cases with IBD were included; 52% of them were female, and their mean age was 49 years. Approximately 63% of participants had ulcerative colitis (UC). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period when all vaccinations were considered (aIRR [95% CI] 0.89 [0.77-1.02], 0.79 [0.66-0.95], and 1.00 [0.79-1.27] in IBD overall, UC, and Crohn's disease, respectively). Analyses stratified to include only first, second, or third COVID-19 vaccinations found no significant association between vaccination and IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period (aIRR [95% CI] 0.87 [0.71-1.06], 0.93 [0.75-1.15], and 0.86 [0.63-1.17], respectively). Similarly, stratification by COVID-19 before vaccination and by vaccination with vectored DNA or messenger RNA vaccine did not reveal an increased risk of flare in any of these subgroups.

DISCUSSION

Vaccination against COVID-19 was not associated with IBD flares regardless of prior COVID-19 infection and whether messenger RNA or DNA vaccines were used.

Effects of herpes zoster vaccination and antiviral treatment on the risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Evidence suggests that there is an increased risk of stroke after herpes zoster (HZ). However, reports on the effects of HZ vaccination (HZV) and antiviral treatment on stroke risk are inconsistent. Thus, we examined these associations in a meta-analysis.

Methods

To identify relevant studies, we searched three databases for articles published up to January 2023. Random-effect models were examined to determine overall pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

This review included 12 observational studies (six on HZV and seven on antiviral treatment). When comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, vaccination was found to be associated with a lower risk of stroke (OR, 0.78; 95% CI 0.68-0.9; P = 0.001). A meta-analysis of self-controlled case series (SCCS) revealed evidence of a reduced OR in individuals who received the vaccine (OR, 1.14; 95% CI 0.94-1.37; P = 0.181) compared with unvaccinated individuals (OR, 1.36; 95% CI 1.15-1.61; P < 0.001). Compared with untreated patients, antiviral therapy was not associated with a reduced risk of stroke (OR, 1.13; 95% CI 0.94-1.36; P = 0.201). The meta-analysis of the SCCS showed no evidence of a reduced OR in individuals who received antiviral therapy (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.17-1.51; P < 0.001) compared to untreated individuals (OR, 1.45; 95% CI 1.25-1.69; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests that the HZV, but not antiviral treatment, decreases the odds of developing stroke.

Information systems for vaccine safety surveillance

Immunization implementation in the community relies upon post-licensure vaccine safety surveillance to maintain safe vaccination programs and to detect rare AEFI not observed in clinical trials. The increasing availability of electronic health-care related data and correspondence from both health-related providers and internet-based media has revolutionized health-care information. Many and varied forms of health information related to adverse event following immunization (AEFI) are potentially suitable for vaccine safety surveillance. The utilization of these media ranges from more efficient use of electronic spontaneous reporting, automated solicited surveillance methods, screening various electronic health record types, and the utilization of natural language processing techniques to scan enormous amounts of internet-based data for AEFI mentions. Each of these surveillance types have advantages and disadvantages and are often complementary to each other. Most are "hypothesis generating," detecting potential safety signals, where some, such as vaccine safety datalinking, may also serve as "hypothesis testing" to help verify and investigate those potential signals.

Risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome Among Older Adults Receiving Influenza Vaccine in Taiwan

IMPORTANCE

Although influenza vaccination has been associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), the findings among studies of older adult populations are inconsistent.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk of GBS after influenza vaccination among older adults.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study incorporated a self-controlled case series design. Days 1 to 7, days 1 to 14, and days 1 to 42 after influenza vaccination were identified as risk intervals; days 8 to 180, days 15 to 180, and days 43 to 180 comprised the corresponding control interval. Population-based data were obtained from Taiwan's National Health Insurance research database between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2021, through February 28, 2022. Adults 65 years or older who developed GBS within 180 days after influenza vaccination were enrolled.

EXPOSURE

Government-funded seasonal influenza vaccination.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Onset of GBS during risk intervals after influenza vaccination compared with control intervals using Poisson regression to calculate incidence rate ratio (IRR).

RESULTS

Of 13 482 122 adults aged 65 years or older who received an influenza vaccination, 374 were hospitalized for GBS. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 75.0 (6.1) years; 215 (57.5%) were men and 159 (42.5%) were women. In terms of comorbidities, 33 adults (8.8%) had cancer and 4 (1.1%) had autoimmune diseases. The IRRs for GBS during days 1 to 7, days 1 to 14, and days 1 to 42 were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.55-1.61; P = .84), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.58-1.29; P = .48), and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.72-1.17; P = .49), respectively. No results showed statistical significance. Similarly, no significant differences in IRRs were noted for the overall risk interval (ie, days 1-42) in subgroup analyses pertaining to different age groups (65-74 years [0.93 (95% CI, 0.66-1.31)], 75-84 years [0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.26)], and ≥85 years [1.10 (95% CI, 0.57-2.11)]), sex (men, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.71-1.33; P = .87]; women, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.58-1.23; P = .39]), Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.03 [95% CI, 0.77-1.38; P = .84]), or comorbidities (cancer, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.28-1.64; P = .39]; autoimmune disease, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.11-10.53; P = .94]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that influenza vaccination did not increase the risk of GBS among adults aged 65 years or older in Taiwan regardless of postvaccination period or underlying characteristics.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: The Perils of Peddling Science by Social Media and the Lay Press

Introduction: Vaccines are the best tools to end the pandemic, and their public acceptance is crucial in achieving herd immunity. Despite global efforts to increase access to vaccination, the World Health Organization explicitly lists vaccination hesitancy (VH) as a significant threat. Despite robust safety reports from regulatory authorities and public health advisories, a substantial proportion of the community remains obsessed with the hazards of vaccination. This calls for identifying and eliminating possible causative elements, among which this study investigates the inappropriate dissemination of medical literature concerning COVID-19 and adverse events following immunization (AEFI), its influence on promoting VH, and proposals for overcoming this problem in the future. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases, using the keywords “adverse events following immunization (AEFI)”, “COVID-19”, “vaccines” and “hesitancy” and related medical and subjective headings (MeSH) up to 31 March 2022, and extracted studies relevant to the COVID-19 AEFI and associated VH. Finally, 47 articles were chosen to generate a narrative synthesis. Results: The databases depicted a steep rise in publications on COVID-19 AEFI and COVID-19 VH from January 2021 onwards. The articles depicted multiple events of mild AEFIs without fatal events in recipients. While documenting AEFIs is praiseworthy, publishing such reports without prior expert surveillance can exaggerate public apprehension and inappropriately fuel VH. VH is a deep-rooted phenomenon, but it is difficult to zero in on the exact reason for it. Spreading rumors/misinformation on COVID-19 vaccines might be an important provocation for VH, which includes indiscriminately reporting AEFI on a massive scale. While a number of reported AEFIs fall within the acceptable limits in the course of extensive COVID-19 vaccinations, it is important to critically evaluate and moderate the reporting and dissemination of AEFI in order to allay panic. Conclusions: Vaccination programs are necessary to end any pandemic, and VH may be attributed to multiple reasons. VH may be assuaged by initiating educational programs on the importance of vaccination, raising public awareness and monitoring the inappropriate dissemination of misleading information. Government-initiated strategies can potentially restrict random AEFI reports from lay epidemiologists and healthcare practitioners.