Safety Surveillance of Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis (DTaP) Vaccines

Surveillance for adverse events following immunization with DTaP-containing combination vaccines in Linping, China, 2019-2022

Background

The DTaP-Hib and DTaP-IPV/Hib combination vaccine can be used as a substitute for the diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis combined vaccine (DTaP). We aimed to evaluate the safety of multi-component vaccines containing DTaP by analyzing the reporting rates and characteristics of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) in Linping District during the years 2019 to 2022.

Methods

We obtained data of AEFI and vaccination from the National AEFI Surveillance System of China and Zhejiang Municipal Immunization Information Management System, respectively, during 2019-2022 for a descriptive, epidemiological analysis.

Results

The total number of AEFI reported following vaccinations with DTaP-containing combination vaccines was 802 in Linping District from 2019 to 2022. The overall reporting rates of AEFIs following DTaP, DTaP-Hib, and DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccinations were 445.72 (537 cases), 536.29 (45 cases), and 306.13 (220 cases) per 100,000 doses in Linping District from 2019 to 2022, respectively. Only one case of a serious AEFI following DTaP vaccination, with a reporting rate of 0.83 per 100,000 doses. The composition ratio of vaccine product-related reactions for DTaP, DTaP-Hib, and DTaP-IPV/Hib were 99.81, 97.78, and 100.00%, respectively. The composition ratio of coincidental events for DTaP and DTaP-Hib were 0.19 and 2.22%, respectively. The reporting rates of total AEFIs for DTaP-IPV/Hib were lower than for DTaP. The reporting rate of local induration for DTaP-Hib was lower than for DTaP, and the reporting rates of local redness & swelling and local induration for DTaP-IPV/Hib were both lower than for DTaP. DTaP-IPV/Hib had a higher proportion of AEFIs in first quarter compared to DTaP. The reporting rate after the second dose of DTaP-Hib was higher than that of DTaP, and the reporting rates of AEFIs after the first dose and third dose of DTaP-IPV/Hib were lower than DTaP.

Conclusion

The reported AEFIs to multi-component vaccines containing DTaP components during 2019-2022 in Linping District were mainly mild vaccine reactions. DTaP-containing combination vaccines demonstrated a good safety profile.

Vaccine Strategies to Elicit Mucosal Immunity

Vaccines are essential tools to prevent infection and control transmission of infectious diseases that threaten public health. Most infectious agents enter their hosts across mucosal surfaces, which make up key first lines of host defense against pathogens. Mucosal immune responses play critical roles in host immune defense to provide durable and better recall responses. Substantial attention has been focused on developing effective mucosal vaccines to elicit robust localized and systemic immune responses by administration via mucosal routes. Mucosal vaccines that elicit effective immune responses yield protection superior to parenterally delivered vaccines. Beyond their valuable immunogenicity, mucosal vaccines can be less expensive and easier to administer without a need for injection materials and more highly trained personnel. However, developing effective mucosal vaccines faces many challenges, and much effort has been directed at their development. In this article, we review the history of mucosal vaccine development and present an overview of mucosal compartment biology and the roles that mucosal immunity plays in defending against infection, knowledge that has helped inform mucosal vaccine development. We explore new progress in mucosal vaccine design and optimization and novel approaches created to improve the efficacy and safety of mucosal vaccines.

Postmarketing Safety Surveillance of a Hexavalent Vaccine in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

We assessed the safety of hexavalent vaccine diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis, inactivated poliovirus, hepatitis b, and haemophilus influenzae b conjugate vaccine in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Five hundred-one reports of adverse events (AEs) were identified; 21 (4.2%) were serious. Most frequently reported AEs were fever (10.2%) and injection site erythema (5.4%). AEs reported were consistent with findings from prelicensure studies.

Vaccination deferral among children with seizures in Zhejiang: influence, recommendation, safety and implications

OBJECTIVES

Delayed vaccination in children with seizures was common in China. This study aims to describe the vaccination status, reasons for vaccination deferral, vaccination recommendations and the safety for these patients in Zhejiang.

METHODS

1539 children included were divided into febrile seizure (FS) group, epilepsy (EP) group, unclassified seizure group and other symptomatic seizure group. Medical records and reasons for the vaccination deferral were collected by questionnaire. Vaccination data and Adverse Event Following Immunization were retrieved from vaccination booklets.

RESULTS

The main diseases of children enrolled were FS (756, 49.1%) and EP (443, 28.8%). Most of them (95.6%) were vaccinated on time before the onset of seizure, but their vaccination was delayed after seizure occurred. 76.1% were recommended to receive vaccines normally, of which the FS group accounted for the highest proportion (90.3%). 88.73% of them were vaccinated as recommended, and no serious side effects or seizure occurred. The main reason for vaccination deferral was providers' and parents' hesitation to have them vaccinated.

CONCLUSION

Seizures were overestimated as a contraindication for vaccination in China. Routine vaccination was safe in most circumstances. It is essential to educate providers and parents about the benefits and contraindications of vaccination in children with seizures.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 2: Inactivated Vaccines

Background and Aims

The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations can be altered by immunosuppressive therapies, and perhaps by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on inactivated vaccines.

Methods

Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative online platform, and voted on by a multidisciplinary group. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients.

Results

Consensus was reached on 15 of 20 questions. Recommendations address the following vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type b, recombinant zoster, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumococcus, meningococcus, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis, and human papillomavirus. Most of the recommendations for patients with IBD are congruent with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations for the general population, with the following exceptions. In patients with IBD, the panel suggested Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine for patients older than 5 years of age, recombinant zoster vaccine for adults younger than 50 year of age, and hepatitis B vaccine for adults without a risk factor. Consensus was not reached, and recommendations were not made for 5 statements, due largely to lack of evidence, including double-dose hepatitis B vaccine, timing of influenza immunization in patients on biologics, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines in adult patients without risk factors, and human papillomavirus vaccine in patients aged 27–45 years.

Conclusions

Patients with IBD may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, maintaining appropriate vaccination status in these patients is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, IBD is not a contraindication to the use of inactivated vaccines, but immunosuppressive therapy may reduce vaccine responses.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 2: Inactivated Vaccines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations can be altered by immunosuppressive therapies, and perhaps by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on inactivated vaccines.

METHODS

Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative online platform, and voted on by a multidisciplinary group. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 15 of 20 questions. Recommendations address the following vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type b, recombinant zoster, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumococcus, meningococcus, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis, and human papillomavirus. Most of the recommendations for patients with IBD are congruent with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations for the general population, with the following exceptions. In patients with IBD, the panel suggested Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine for patients older than 5 years of age, recombinant zoster vaccine for adults younger than 50 year of age, and hepatitis B vaccine for adults without a risk factor. Consensus was not reached, and recommendations were not made for 5 statements, due largely to lack of evidence, including double-dose hepatitis B vaccine, timing of influenza immunization in patients on biologics, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines in adult patients without risk factors, and human papillomavirus vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IBD may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, maintaining appropriate vaccination status in these patients is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, IBD is not a contraindication to the use of inactivated vaccines, but immunosuppressive therapy may reduce vaccine responses.

Post-licensure surveillance of trivalent adjuvanted influenza vaccine (aIIV3; Fluad), Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), United States, July 2016-June 2018

BACKGROUND

Trivalent adjuvanted influenza vaccine (aIIV3; Fluad®) was approved in the United States (U.S.) in 2015 for adults aged ≥65 years and has been in use since the 2016-17 influenza season.

METHODS

We analyzed U.S. reports for aIIV3 submitted from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018 to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national spontaneous reporting system. Medical records were reviewed for serious reports. Among individuals ≥65 years of age, the relative frequency of the most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) after aIIV3 were compared with non-adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccines given to adults aged ≥65 years, high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) and trivalent or quadrivalent vaccines (IIV3/IIV4). Data mining analyses were undertaken to identify whether AEs for aIIV3 occurred disproportionately more than expected compared to all influenza vaccines.

RESULTS

VAERS received 630 reports after aIIV3, of which 521 (83%) were in adults aged ≥65 years; 79 (13%) in persons <65 years and in 30 (5%) reports age was missing; 19 (3%) reports were serious, including two deaths (0.4%) related to myocardial infarction and Sjogren's syndrome. The most common AEs reported in adults aged ≥65 years were injection site pain (21%) and erythema (18%), with similar proportions reported for IIV3-HD (17% and 19%, respectively) and for IIV3/IIV4 (15%, each). Except for reports related to vaccination of inappropriate age (n = 79) and syringe malfunction (n = 6), data mining did not identify other disproportionately reported AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our review of aIIV3 in VAERS did not identify any unexpected health conditions of concern, we observed more than twice the expected number of reports with administration of the vaccine to persons outside of the age range for which the vaccine is approved in the U.S. Health care providers should be educated on the age groups for whom aIIV3 is recommended.