Search

The Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public-private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk (B/R) monitoring of vaccines using electronic health record (eHR) databases in Europe. Proof-of-concept studies were designed to assess the proposed processes and system for generating the required evidence to perform B/R assessment and near-real time monitoring of vaccines. We aimed to test B/R methodologies for vaccines, using the comparison of the B/R profiles of whole-cell (wP) and acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine formulations in children as an example. We used multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to structure the B/R assessment combined with individual-level state transition modelling to build the B/R effects table. In the state transition model, we simulated the number of events in two hypothetical cohorts of 1 million children followed from first pertussis dose till pre-school-entry booster (or six years of age, whichever occurred first), with one cohort receiving wP, and the other aP. The benefits were reductions in pertussis incidence and complications. The risks were increased incidences of febrile convulsions, fever, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes, injection-site reactions and persistent crying. Most model parameters were informed by estimates (coverage, background incidences, relative risks) from eHR databases from Denmark (SSI), Spain (BIFAP and SIDIAP), Italy (Pedianet) and the UK (RCGP-RSC and THIN). Preferences were elicited from clinical and epidemiological experts. Using state transition modelling to build the B/R effects table facilitated the comparison of different vaccine effects (e.g. immediate vaccine risks vs long-term vaccine benefits). Estimates from eHR databases could be used to inform the simulation model. The model results could be easily combined with preference weights to obtain B/R scores. Existing B/R methodology, modelling and estimates from eHR databases can be successfully used for B/R assessment of vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Incidence rates of events following vaccination can be derived when exposure data is missing. • Incidence rate ratios from databases with complete exposure data can be used to derive IRs. • Type of database and event reporting methods determines bias for derived IRs. • Background incidence can be used to derive risk period incidence if the risk period is short. The Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public–private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid vaccine benefit-risk monitoring using existing European healthcare databases. Incidence rate (IR) estimates of vaccination-associated adverse events that are needed to model vaccination risks can be calculated from existing healthcare databases when vaccination (exposure) data are available. We assessed different methods to derive IRs in risk periods following vaccination when exposure data are missing in one database, using estimated IRs and IRRs from other databases for febrile seizures, fever and persistent crying. IRs were estimated for children aged 0–5 years in outcome-specific risk and non-risk periods following the first dose of acellular pertussis (aP) vaccination in four primary care databases and one hospital database. We compared derived and observed IRs in each database using three methods: 1) multiplication of non-risk period IR for database i by IR ratio (IRR) obtained from meta -analysis of IRRs estimated using the self-controlled case-series method, from databases other than i ; 2) same method as 1, but multiplying with background IR; and 3) meta -analyses of observed IRs from databases other than i. IRs for febrile seizures were lower in primary care databases than the hospital database. The derived IR for febrile seizures using data from primary care databases was lower than that observed in the hospital database, and using data from the hospital database gave a higher derived IR than that observed in the primary care database. For fever and persistent crying the opposite was observed. We demonstrated that missing IRs for a post-vaccination period can be derived but that the type of database and the method of event data capture can have an impact on potential bias. We recommend IRs are derived using data from similar database types (hospital or primary care) with caution as even this can give heterogeneous results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We tested the ADVANCE system workflows and methods for assessing vaccine benefit-risk. • We evaluated the use of European healthcare databases to assess pertussis vaccine reactogenicity. • Estimates differed based on where the data originate, i.e. in a primary care or hospital setting. • Primary care databases were more suited for milder reactogenicity events than hospital databases. • European healthcare databases can be used to generate reliable estimates for vaccine safety events. The Accelerated Development of Vaccine benefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) public-private collaboration, aimed to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk monitoring of vaccines using healthcare databases in Europe. The objective of this proof-of-concept (POC) study was to test the feasibility of the ADVANCE system to generate incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 person-years and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for risks associated with whole cell- (wP) and acellular- (aP) pertussis vaccines, occurring in event-specific risk windows in children prior to their pre-school-entry booster. The study population comprised almost 5.1 million children aged 1 month to <6 years vaccinated with wP or aP vaccines during the study period from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2015. Data from two Danish hospital (H) databases (AUH and SSI) and five primary care (PC) databases from, UK (THIN and RCGP RSC), Spain (SIDIAP and BIFAP) and Italy (Pedianet) were analysed. Database-specific IRRs between risk vs. non-risk periods were estimated in a self-controlled case series study and pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. The overall IRs were: fever, 58.2 (95% CI: 58.1; 58.3), 96.9 (96.7; 97.1) for PC DBs and 8.56 (8.5; 8.6) for H DBs; convulsions, 7.6 (95% CI: 7.6; 7.7), 3.55 (3.5; 3.6) for PC and 12.87 (12.8; 13) for H; persistent crying, 3.9 (95% CI: 3.8; 3.9) for PC, injection-site reactions, 2.2 (95% CI 2.1; 2.2) for PC, hypotonic hypo-responsive episode (HHE), 0.4 (95% CI: 0.4; 0.4), 0.6 (0.6; 0.6) for PC and 0.2 (0.2; 0.3) for H; and somnolence: 0.3 (95% CI: 0.3; 0.3) for PC. The pooled IRRs for persistent crying, fever, and ISR, adjusted for age and healthy vaccinee period were higher after wP vs. aP vaccination, and lower for convulsions, for all doses. The IRR for HHE was slightly lower for wP than aP, while wP was associated with somnolence only for dose 1 and dose 3 compared with aP. The estimated IRs and IRRs were comparable with published data, therefore demonstrating that the ADVANCE system was able to combine several European healthcare databases to assess vaccine safety data for wP and aP vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]