The Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network: surveillance of adverse events following immunisation among individuals immunised with the COVID-19 vaccine, a cohort study in Canada

A scoping review of active, participant centred, digital adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance of WHO approved COVID-19 vaccines: A Canadian immunization Research Network study

This scoping review examines the role of digital solutions in active, participant-centered surveillance of adverse events following initial release of COVID-19 vaccines. The goals of this paper were to examine the existing literature surrounding digital solutions and technology used for active, participant centered, AEFI surveillance of novel COVID-19 vaccines approved by WHO. This paper also aimed to identify gaps in literature surrounding digital, active, participant centered AEFI surveillance systems and to identify and describe the core components of active, participant centered, digital surveillance systems being used for post-market AEFI surveillance of WHO approved COVID-19 vaccines, with a focus on the digital solutions and technology being used, the type of AEFI detected, and the populations under surveillance. The findings highlight the need for customized surveillance systems based on local contexts and the lessons learned to improve future vaccine monitoring and pandemic preparedness.

Importance of Examining Incidentality in Vaccine Safety Assessment

The author believes that the principles of statistical methods for vaccine safety can be divided into three categories: comparison of adverse event incidence rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, analysis of incidentality in the vaccinated group, and a combination of both. The first category includes the cohort study; the second, the self-controlled risk interval design (SCRI); and the third, the self-controlled case series method. A single p-value alone should not determine a scientific conclusion, and analysis should be performed using multiple statistical methods with different principles. The author believes that using both the cohort study and the SCRI for analysis is the best method to assess vaccine safety. When the cohort study may not detect a significant difference owing to a low incidence rate of an adverse event in the vaccinated group or a high one in the unvaccinated group, the SCRI may detect it. Because vaccines must have a higher level of safety than the pharmaceuticals used for treatment, vaccine safety is advisable to be assessed using methods that can detect a significant difference even for any value of the incidence rate of an adverse event. The author believes that the analyses of COVID-19 vaccine safety have areas for improvement because the proportion of papers that used the cohort study and the SCRI was negligible.

Adaptive immune responses to two-dose COVID-19 vaccine series in healthy Canadian adults ≥ 50 years: a prospective, observational cohort study

To evaluate immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines in adults aged 50 years and older, spike protein (S)-specific antibody concentration, avidity, and function (via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) inhibition surrogate neutralization and antibody dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP)), as well as S-specific T cells were quantified via activation induced marker (AIM) assay in response to two-dose series. Eighty-four adults were vaccinated with either: mRNA/mRNA (mRNA-1273 and/or BNT162b2); ChAdOx1-S/mRNA; or ChAdOx1-S/ChAdOx1-S. Anti-S IgG concentrations, ADCP scores and ACE2 inhibiting antibody concentrations were highest at one-month post-second dose and declined by four-months post-second dose for all groups. mRNA/mRNA and ChAdOx1-S/mRNA schedules had significantly higher antibody responses than ChAdOx1-S/ChAdOx1-S. CD8+ T-cell responses one-month post-second dose were associated with increased ACE2 surrogate neutralization. Antibody avidity (total relative avidity index) did not change between one-month and four-months post-second dose and did not significantly differ between groups by four-months post-second dose. In determining COVID-19 correlates of protection, a measure that considers both antibody concentration and avidity should be considered.

Prospective monitoring of adverse events following vaccination with Modified vaccinia Ankara - Bavarian Nordic (MVA-BN) administered to a Canadian population at risk of Mpox: A Canadian Immunization Research Network study

MVA-BN is an orthopoxvirus vaccine that provides protection against both smallpox and mpox. In June 2022, Canada launched a publicly-funded vaccination campaign to offer MVA-BN to at-risk populations including men who have sex with men (MSM) and sex workers. The safety of MVA-BN has not been assessed in this context. To address this, the Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network (CANVAS) conducted prospective safety surveillance during public health vaccination campaigns in Toronto, Ontario and in Vancouver, British Columbia. Vaccinated participants received a survey 7 and 30 days after each MVA-BN dose to elicit adverse health events. Unvaccinated individuals from a concurrent vaccine safety project evaluating COVID-19 vaccine safety were used as controls. Vaccinated and unvaccinated participants that reported a medically attended visit on their 7-day survey were interviewed. Vaccinated participants and unvaccinated controls were matched 1:1 based on age group, gender, sex and provincial study site. Overall, 1,173 vaccinated participants completed a 7-day survey, of whom 75 % (n = 878) also completed a 30-day survey. Mild to moderate injection site pain was reported by 60 % of vaccinated participants. Among vaccinated participants 8.4 % were HIV positive and when compared to HIV negative vaccinated individuals, local injection sites were less frequent in those with HIV (48 % vs 61 %, p = 0.021), but health events preventing work/school or requiring medical assessment were more frequent (7.1 % vs 3.1 %, p = 0.040). Health events interfering with work/school, or requiring medical assessment were less common in the vaccinated group than controls (3.3 % vs. 7.1 %, p < 0.010). No participants were hospitalized within 7 or 30 days of vaccination. No cases of severe neurological disease, skin disease, or myocarditis were identified. Our results demonstrate that the MVA-BN vaccine appears safe when used for mpox prevention, with a low frequency of severe adverse events and no hospitalizations observed.

A prospective cohort study protocol: monitoring and surveillance of adverse events following heterologous booster doses of Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in previous recipients of two doses of Sinopharm or Sputnik V vaccines in Iran

BACKGROUND

Regarding the paucity of evidence on the side effects of the booster dose of Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine in vaccinated people with Sinopharm or Sputnik V, we aimed to set up a cohort event monitoring (CEM) study to capture adverse events occurring in individuals who will receive the booster doses of AstraZeneca (either the first or second booster dose) following being vaccinated with Sinopharm or sputnik V vaccines in Iran.

METHODS

The present study is an active COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance through an observational prospective cohort study that will be conducted in vaccination centers in Iran. The study will be conducted in twelve provinces of Iran. Study sites are vaccination centers where the AstraZeneca vaccine is administered to the cohort population. The study population includes all individuals who have received two doses of Sinopharm or Sputnik V vaccines and either the first or second booster dose of AstraZeneca according to the national guidelines for immunization in Iran in 2023. We are planning to include 30,000 eligible people in this study. Each individual will be followed up for 13 weeks after either the first or second booster dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Furthermore, convenience sampling is used to include participants in the present study. Participation in the study will be strictly voluntary.

DISCUSSION

With the planned study we will provide a valid epidemiological evidence to improve the understanding of the safety of the booster dose of the AstraZeneca and to better evaluate the effectiveness of public health interventions. This could help policy makers in managing the COVID-19 pandemic according to scientific evidence.

Adverse Events Following Immunization With mRNA and Viral Vector Vaccines in Individuals With Previous Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection From the Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network

BACKGROUND

Adults previously infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) develop short-term immunity and may have increased reactogenicity to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This prospective, multicenter, active-surveillance cohort study examined the short-term safety of COVID-19 vaccines in adults with a prior history of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Canadian adults vaccinated between 22 December 2020 and 27 November 2021 were sent an electronic questionnaire 7 days post-dose 1, dose 2, and dose 3 vaccination. The main outcome was health events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination that prevented daily activities, resulted in work absenteeism, or required a medical consultation, including hospitalization.

RESULTS

Among 684 998 vaccinated individuals, 2.6% (18 127/684 998) reported a prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection a median of 4 (interquartile range: 2-6) months previously. After dose 1, individuals with moderate (bedridden) to severe (hospitalized) COVID-19 who received BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or ChAdox1-S vaccines had higher odds of a health event preventing daily activities, resulting in work absenteeism or requiring medical consultation (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.96 [3.67-4.28] for BNT162b2, 5.01 [4.57-5.50] for mRNA-1273, and 1.84 [1.54-2.20] for ChAdox1-S compared with no infection). Following dose 2 and 3, the greater risk associated with previous infection was also present but was attenuated compared with dose 1. For all doses, the association was lower or absent after mild or asymptomatic infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with moderate or severe previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to have a health event sufficient to impact routine activities or require medical assessment in the week following each vaccine dose.

A narrative review of vaccine pharmacovigilance during mass vaccination campaigns: Focus on myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination

Vaccines have had a tremendous impact on reducing the burden of infectious diseases; however, they have the potential to cause adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). Prelicensure clinical trials are limited in their ability to detect rare AEFIs that may occur in less than one per thousand individuals. While postmarketing surveillance systems have shown COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to be safe, they led to the identification of rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination that were not initially detected in clinical trials. In this narrative review, we highlight concepts of vaccine pharmacovigilance during mass vaccination campaigns and compare the approaches used in the context of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination to historical examples. We describe mechanisms of passive and active surveillance, their strengths and limitations, and how they interacted to identify and characterize the safety signal of myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Articles were synthesized from a PubMed search using relevant keywords for articles published on vaccine surveillance systems and myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination, as well as the authors' collections of relevant publications and grey literature reports. The global experience around the identification and monitoring of myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination has provided important lessons for vaccine safety surveillance and highlighted its importance in maintaining public trust in mass vaccination programmes in a pandemic context.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy: a Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) network cohort study

Background

Pregnant individuals have been receiving COVID-19 vaccines following pre-authorisation clinical trials in non-pregnant people. This study aimed to determine the frequency and nature of significant health events among pregnant females after COVID-19 vaccination, compared with unvaccinated pregnant controls and vaccinated non-pregnant individuals.

Methods

We did an observational cohort study, set in seven Canadian provinces and territories including Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Yukon, and Prince Edward Island. Eligibility criteria for vaccinated individuals were a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine within the previous 7 days; an active email address and telephone number; ability to communicate in English or French; and residence in the aforementioned provinces or territories. Study participants were pregnant and non-pregnant females aged 15–49 years. Individuals were able to participate as controls if they were unvaccinated and fulfilled the other criteria. Data were collected primarily by self-reported survey after both vaccine doses, with telephone follow-up for those reporting any medically attended event. Participants reported significant health events (new or worsening of a health event sufficient to cause work or school absenteeism, medical consultation, or prevent daily activities) occurring within 7 days of vaccination or within the past 7 days for unvaccinated individuals. We employed multivariable logistic regression to examine significant health events associated with mRNA vaccines, adjusting for age group, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and trimester, as appropriate.

Findings

As of Nov 4, 2021, 191 360 women aged 15–49 years with known pregnancy status had completed the first vaccine dose survey and 94 937 had completed the second dose survey. 180 388 received one dose and 94 262 received a second dose of an mRNA vaccine, with 5597 pregnant participants receiving dose one and 3108 receiving dose two, and 174 765 non-pregnant participants receiving dose one and 91 131 receiving dose two. Of 6179 included unvaccinated control participants, 339 were pregnant and 5840 were not pregnant. Overall, 226 (4·0%) of 5597 vaccinated pregnant females reported a significant health event after dose one of an mRNA vaccine, and 227 (7·3%) of 3108 after dose two, compared with 11 (3·2%) of 339 pregnant unvaccinated females. Pregnant vaccinated females had an increased odds of a significant health event within 7 days of the vaccine after dose two of mRNA-1273 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4·4 [95% CI 2·4–8·3]) compared with pregnant unvaccinated controls within the past 7 days, but not after dose one of mRNA-1273 or any dose of BNT162b2. Pregnant vaccinated females had decreased odds of a significant health event compared with non-pregnant vaccinated females after both dose one (aOR 0·63 [95% CI 0·55–0·72]) and dose two (aOR 0·62 [0·54–0·71]) of any mRNA vaccination. There were no significant differences in any analyses when restricted to events which led to medical attention.

Interpretation

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have a good safety profile in pregnancy. These data can be used to appropriately inform pregnant people regarding reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, and should be considered alongside effectiveness and immunogenicity data to make appropriate recommendations about best use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Public Health Agency of Canada.

Comparing the Use of a Mobile App for Surveillance of Adverse Events Following Influenza Immunization to a Web-Based platform: a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Vaccine safety surveillance is a core component of vaccine pharmacovigilance. In Canada, active, participant-centered vaccine surveillance is available for influenza vaccines and has been used for COVID-19 vaccines.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of using a mobile app for reporting participant-centered seasonal influenza adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) compared to a web-based notification system.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to influenza vaccine safety reporting via a mobile app or a web-based notification platform. All participants were invited to complete a user experience survey.

RESULTS

Among the 2408 randomized participants, 1319 (54%) completed their safety survey 1 week after vaccination, with a higher completion rate among the web-based notification platform users (767/1196, 64%) than among mobile app users (552/1212, 45%; P<.001). Ease-of-use ratings were high for the web-based notification platform users (99% strongly agree or agree) and 88.8% of them strongly agreed or agreed that the system made reporting AEFIs easier. Web-based notification platform users supported the statement that a web-based notification-only approach would make it easier for public health professionals to detect vaccine safety signals (91.4%, agreed or strongly agreed).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants in this study were significantly more likely to respond to a web-based safety survey rather than within a mobile app. These results suggest that mobile apps present an additional barrier for use compared to the web-based notification-only approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05794113; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT05794113.