Search

Vaccines are everywhere hugely successful but are also under attack. The reason for the latter is the perception by some people that vaccines are unsafe. However that may be, vaccine safety, life any other scientific subject, must be constantly studied. It was from this point of view that a meeting was organized at the Wellcome Trust in London in May 2019 to assess some aspects of vaccine safety as subjects for scientific study. The objective of the meeting was to assess what is known beyond reasonable doubt and conversely what areas need additional studies. Although the meeting could not cover all aspects of vaccine safety science, many of the most important issues were addressed by a group of about 30 experts to determine what is already known and what additional studies are merited to assess the safety of the vaccines currently in use. The meeting began with reviews of the current situation in different parts of the world, followed by reviews of specific controversial areas, including the incidence of certain conditions after vaccination and the safety of certain vaccine components. Lastly, information about the human papillomavirus vaccine was considered because its safety has been particularly challenged by vaccine opponents. The following is a summary of the meeting findings. In addition to this summary, the meeting organizers will explore opportunities to perform studies that would enlarge knowledge of vaccine safety.

Background An association between rotavirus vaccination and intussusception has been documented in post-licensure studies in some countries. We evaluated the risk of intussusception associated with monovalent rotavirus vaccine (Rotavac) administered at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age in India. Methods Active prospective surveillance for intussusception was conducted at 22 hospitals across 16 states from April 2016 through September 2017. Data on demography, clinical features and vaccination were documented. Age-adjusted relative incidence for 1–7, 8–21, and 1–21 days after rotavirus vaccination in children aged 28–364 days at intussusception onset was estimated using the self-controlled case-series (SCCS) method. Only Brighton Collaboration level 1 cases were included. Results Out of 670 children aged 2–23 months with intussusception, 311 (46.4%) children were aged 28–364 days with confirmed vaccination status. Out of these, 52 intussusception cases with confirmed receipt of RVV were included in the SCCS analysis. No intussusception case was observed within 21 days of dose 1. Only one case occurred during 8–21 days after the dose 2. Post-dose 3, two cases in 1–7 days and 7 cases during 8–21 days period were observed. There was no increased risk of intussusception during 1–7 days after the doses 1 and 2 (zero cases observed) or dose 3 (relative incidence [RI], 1.71 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.0–5.11]). Similarly, no increased risk during 8–21 days after the dose 1 (zero cases observed), dose 2 (RI, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.0–3.28]) or dose 3 (RI, 2.52 [95% CI, 0.78–5.61]). The results were similar for 1–21 day periods after the doses separately or pooled. Conclusions The risk of intussusception during the first 21 days after any dose of rotavirus vaccine (Rotavac) was not higher among the Indian infants than the background risk, based on limited SCCS analysis of 52 children.

Objective Intussusception has been linked with rotavirus vaccine (RVV) as a rare adverse reaction. In view of limited background data on intussusception in India and in preparation for RVV introduction, a surveillance network was established to document the epidemiology of intussusception cases in Indian children. Methods Intussusception in children 2–23 months were documented at 19 nationally representative sentinel hospitals through a retrospective surveillance for 69 months (July 2010 to March 2016). For each case clinical, hospital course, treatment and outcome data were collected. Results Among the 1588 intussusception cases, 54.5% were from South India and 66.3% were boys. The median age was 8 months (IQR 6, 12) with 34.6% aged 2–6 months. Seasonal variation with higher cases were documented during March-June period. The most common symptoms and signs were vomiting (63.4%), bloody stool (49.1%), abdominal pain (46.9%) and excessive crying (42.8%). The classical triad (vomiting, abdominal pain, and blood in stools) was observed in 25.6% cases. 96.4% cases were diagnosed by ultrasound with ileocolic location as the commonest (85.3%). Management was done by reduction (50.8%) and surgery (41.1%) and only 1% of the patients’ died. 91.1% cases met Brighton criteria level 1 and 3.3% Level 2. Between 2010 and 2015, the case load and case ratio increased across all regions. Conclusion Intussusception cases have occurred in children across all parts of the country, with low case fatality in the settings studied. The progressive rise cases could indicate an increasing awareness and availability of diagnostic facilities.

Background Global efforts to adequately monitor safety of new vaccines for pregnant women in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are needed. The Global Alignment of Immunization Safety Assessment in pregnancy (GAIA) project recently published case definitions based on levels of diagnostic certainty for pregnancy- and neonatal outcomes and maternal vaccination. As a preliminary step to assessing the applicability of these definitions in LMICs, WHO selected sites and conducted a feasibility assessment to evaluate their ability to identify and classify selected outcomes (preterm birth, neonatal death, neonatal invasive bloodstream infection (NI-BSI), stillbirth) and maternal vaccination. Methods Candidate sites were initially screened using a questionnaire. For each outcome, eligible sites were asked to retrospectively identify and collect information for three individuals born in 2016. Subsequently, outcomes were classified by level of diagnostic certainty. Results Fifty-one sites (15 countries) were screened; 32 of them (9 countries) participated in the assessment and identified 315 subjects with the outcomes of interest. Twenty-four sites (8 countries) identified at least one subject per outcome and agreed to continue participating. The majority (80%) of preterm births, neonatal deaths, and NI-BSI subjects, but only 50% of stillbirths, could be assessed for diagnostic certainty. The main reasons for not classifying stillbirths were insufficient information to distinguish between antepartum and intrapartum stillbirth (29%); or that not all data for one subject fit into a single level of diagnostic certainty (35%). Forty-nine percent of mothers were considered vaccinated, 6% not-vaccinated, and vaccination status could not be assessed in 44% of them. Discussion GAIA case definitions for four neonatal outcomes and maternal vaccination were successfully piloted in 24 sentinel sites across four WHO regions. Our assessment found that modification of the stillbirth definition could help avoid potential misclassification. Vaccine safety monitoring in LMICs will benefit from systematic recording of all vaccinations during pregnancy.

Reporting of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) is a key component for functional vaccine safety monitoring system. The aim of our study is to document trends in the AEFI reporting ratio globally and across the six World Health Organization (WHO) regions. We describe the number of AEFI reports communicated each year through the World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund Joint Reporting Form on Immunization from 2000 to 2015. The AEFI reporting ratios (annual AEFI reports per 100,000 surviving infants) were calculated to identify WHO countries (n = 191 in 2000 and n = 194 by 2015) that met a minimal reporting ratio of 10, a target set by the Global Vaccine Action Plan for vaccine safety monitoring as a proxy measure for a functional AEFI reporting system. The number of countries reporting any AEFI fluctuated over time but with progress from 32 (17%) in 2000 to 124 (64%) in 2015. In 2015, the global average AEFI reporting ratio was 549 AEFI reports per 100,000 surviving infants. The number of countries with AEFI reporting ratios greater than 10 increased from 8 (4%) in 2000 to 81 (42%) in 2015. In 2015, 60% of countries in the WHO Region of the Americas reported at least 10 AEFI per 100,000 surviving infants, followed by 55% in European Region, 43% in Eastern Mediterranean Region, 33% in Western Pacific Region, 27% in South-East Asia Region and 21% in African Region. Overall, AEFI reporting has increased over the past sixteen years worldwide, but requires strengthening in a majority of low- and middle- income countries. The AEFI reporting ratio is useful for benchmarking and following trends over time; but does not provide information on the quality of the reporting system and does not guarantee capacity to detect and manage a vaccine safety problem at a national level. Additional efforts are required to ensure and improve data quality, AEFI reporting and surveillance of immunization safety in every country.

New vaccines designed to prevent diseases endemic in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are now being introduced without prior record of utilization in countries with robust pharmacovigilance systems. To address this deficit, our objective was to demonstrate feasibility of an international hospital-based network for the assessment of potential epidemiological associations between serious and rare adverse events and vaccines in any setting. This was done through a proof-of-concept evaluation of the risk of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) and aseptic meningitis (AM) following administration of the first dose of measles-mumps-containing vaccines using the self-controlled risk interval method in the primary analysis. The World Health Organization (WHO) selected 26 sentinel sites (49 hospitals) distributed in 16 countries of the six WHO regions. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) of 5.0 (95% CI: 2.5–9.7) for ITP following first dose of measles-containing vaccinations, and of 10.9 (95% CI: 4.2–27.8) for AM following mumps-containing vaccinations were found. The strain-specific analyses showed significantly elevated ITP risk for measles vaccines containing Schwarz (IRR: 20.7; 95% CI: 2.7–157.6), Edmonston-Zagreb (IRR: 11.1; 95% CI: 1.4–90.3), and Enders’Edmonston (IRR: 8.5; 95% CI: 1.9–38.1) strains. A significantly elevated AM risk for vaccines containing the Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strain (IRR: 10.8; 95% CI: 1.3–87.4) was also found. This proof-of-concept study has shown, for the first time, that an international hospital-based network for the investigation of rare vaccine adverse events, using common standardized procedures and with high participation of LMICs, is feasible, can produce reliable results, and has the potential to characterize differences in risk between vaccine strains. The completion of this network by adding large reference hospitals, particularly from tropical countries, and the systematic WHO-led implementation of this approach, should permit the rapid post-marketing evaluation of safety signals for serious and rare adverse events for new and existing vaccines in all settings, including LMICs. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)-U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) funded this project (Grant number U01 FD004575). GRiP, Global Research in Pediatrics, European Union Seventh framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) provided additional funding under grant agreement nº 261060.

The Council for the International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) and WHO working group on pharmacovigilance defines five cause specific AEFI which includes an immunization anxiety-related reaction. Historically this term has been used to describe a range of symptoms and signs that may arise after immunization that are related to "anxiety" about the immunization. However, the term "anxiety" does not adequately capture all the elements of this cause specific AEFI. In 2015, the Global Advisory Committee for Vaccine Safety convened an expert working group with the purpose of redefining, preventing and managing this particular AEFI. The term "Immunization Stress-Related Response" is proposed to replace the former terminology. We present a manual that redefines this AEFI and present a framework for prevention, diagnosis and management in both an individual and also when such events occur as clusters and affect multiple individuals. Since such mass events can result in cessation of immunization programmes and/or a loss of public confidence, a communication response is essential.

The success of immunization programs in lowering the incidence of vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs) has led to increased public attention on potential health risks associated with vaccines. As a result, a scientifically rigorous response to investigating reported adverse events following immunization (AEFI) and effective risk communications strategies are critical to ensure public confidence in immunization. Globally, an estimated 257 million people have chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, which causes more than 686,000 premature deaths from liver cancer and cirrhosis. Hepatitis B vaccination is the most effective way to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HBV infection, especially when a timely birth dose is given within 24 h of birth. However, an infant’s risk of dying is highest in the neonatal period, and thus, administering HepB-BD within 24 h of birth overlaps with the most fragile period in an infant’s life. A working group formed in July 2016 following the publication of the case reports of the effects on vaccination coverage of media reports of infant deaths after HepB-BD administration in China and Vietnam. The goal of the working group was to create a framework and describe best practices for preparing for and responding to AEFI reported after HepB-BD administration, using existing resources. The framework includes six steps, including three preparation steps and three response steps. This document is written for national and regional immunization program staff. Prior to using the framework for preparation and response to AEFIs reported after HepB-BD administration, staff members should be familiar with how AEFI are detected, reported, and investigated in the country. The document might also be of interest to national regulatory staff members who monitor vaccine safety within the country.

Global gains in vaccination coverage during the early 21st century have been threatened by the emergence of antivaccination groups that have questioned the effectiveness of vaccines to generate public distrust of vaccines and immunisation programmes. This manuscript summarises six key topics that have been at the centre of global discussions on vaccine safety during the early 21st century: thiomersal in multi-dose non-live vaccines, aluminium adjuvants used with several non-live vaccines, autism and auto-immune conditions as possible consequences of vaccination, a risk of immune overload with increasing numbers of vaccinations, and detrimental non-specific effects (NSEs) of vaccination. For each topic, we describe the hypothesis behind the public concern, the evidence reviewed by the WHO’s Global Advisory Committee for Vaccine Safety (GACVS) during 1999–2019, and any significant new data that has emerged since GACVS conclusions were made. Although the scientific evidence on these issues overwhelmingly supports the safety of vaccines, communication messages to caregivers and providers need to condense and convey scientific information in an appropriate way to address concerns contributing to vaccine distrust. In addition, there is need for further studies specifically designed to address both positive and negative NSE of vaccination. The role of GACVS will be increasingly important in evaluating the evidence and engaging the global community in promoting and assuring the safety of vaccines in the decades to come as we move into an era in which we use new vaccination platforms, antigens and formulations.

This paper explores the pipeline of new and upcoming vaccines as it relates to monitoring their safety. Compared with most currently available vaccines, that are constituted of live attenuated organisms or inactive products, future vaccines will also be based on new technologies. Several products that include such technologies are either already licensed or at an advanced stage of clinical development. Those include viral vectors, genetically attenuated live organisms, nucleic acid vaccines, novel adjuvants, increased number of antigens present in a single vaccine, novel mode of vaccine administration and thermostabilisation. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) monitors novel vaccines, from the time they become available for large scale use. GACVS maintains their safety profile as evidence emerges from post-licensure surveillance and observational studies. Vaccines and vaccine formulations produced with novel technologies will have different safety profiles that will require adapting pharmacovigilance approaches. For example, GACVS now considers viral vector templates developed on the model proposed by Brighton Collaboration. The characteristics of those novel products will also have implications for the risk management plans (RMPs). Questions related to the duration of active monitoring for genetic material, presence of adventitious agents more easily detected with enhanced biological screening, or physiological mechanisms of novel adjuvants are all considerations that will belong to the preparation of RMPs. In addition to assessing those novel products and advising experts, GACVS will also consider how to more broadly communicate about risk assessment, so vaccine users can also benefit from the committee’s advice.

Vaccination during pregnancy is increasingly being used as an effective approach for protecting both young infants and their mothers from serious infections. Drawing conclusions from published studies in this area can be difficult because of the inability to compare vaccine trial results across different studies and settings due to the heterogeneity in the definitions of terms used to assess the safety of vaccines in pregnancy and the data collected in such studies.The guidelines proposed in this document have been developed to harmonize safety data collection in all phases of clinical trials of vaccines in pregnant women and apply to data from the mother, fetus and infant. Guidelines on the prioritization of the data to be collected is also provided to allow applicability in various geographic, cultural and resource settings, including high, middle and low-income countries.

In 1999, the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) was established by the World Health Organization (WHO) to provide independent scientific advice on issues relating to the safety of vaccines and immunization. Fifteen years onward, we conducted a multi-faceted review to evaluate the impact, reach and challenges facing GACVS, including the role GACVS plays in informing global, regional and WHO member state vaccine policy. The methods included measures of organizational structure, citation impact, themes approached, and a discussion by previous and current members to evaluate past, present and future challenges. Given the increasing range of data sources and the deployment of many new vaccines, the Committee is facing the complex task of identifying the best available evidence for recommendations on vaccine safety. To help meet the increased demand for public transparency in decision making, GACVS-structured methodology for evidence-based decisions is evolving. GACVS also promotes best practices and capacity building for timely and accurate risk assessment; risk communications; outreach to help countries maintain and, if needed, rebuild public trust in vaccines; and advocacy for bridging the major gaps in vaccine safety capacity globally.

Improvements in vaccine safety surveillance and investigative capacity lead to identification of rare reactions attributable to vaccination. As a result, the issue of fair compensation for those who experience vaccine injuries is gaining growing attention. Although vaccine injury compensation programmes (VICP) have been developed in a few countries for more than 50 years, no global policy guidance to guide vaccine injury compensation in all countries wishing to adopt such compensation schemes is currently available. To update the landscape analysis of no-fault compensation programmes and characterize VICP implementing countries, we conducted a survey of all 194 Member States from the World Health Organization and received feedback from 151. This analysis describes the economic and vaccine safety surveillance characteristics of Member States implementing VICPs. This analysis describes the characteristics of 25 Member States implementing a compensation programmes. Characteristics examined include economic, vaccination and safety surveillance indicators. Twenty of the 25 Member States (80%) with compensation programmes are categorized as high-income countries, 20/25 (80%) met the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) safety indicator of reporting at least ten annual reports of adverse events following immunization per 100,000 population, 21/25 (84%) met the GVAP coverage indicator by achieving greater than 90% third dose of Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis vaccine (DTP3) and 17/25 (68%) assessed vaccine hesitancy in 2017. All Member States with VICP have a national immunization technical advisory group. This study identified growing interest in the implementation of no-fault compensation programs beyond high-income countries. Global policies guiding compensation should be developed for countries regardless of the maturity of their immunization programmes. Research in context As a result of improved vaccine safety surveillance, World Health Organization (WHO) Member States are facing situations where known untoward serious vaccine reactions are documented, including in low- and middle-income settings. This has led to increased interest for the development of national no-fault compensation policies for vaccine injuries. As of 2010, compensation schemes for vaccine related injuries had been identified and characterized in 19 out of 194 WHO member states. All these programmes were in the industrialized world with none in low- and middle-income countries. Previous reviews have described the characteristics of the existing programmes based on the six common elements identified by Evans in 1999 with less emphasis on characteristics from countries implementing these no-fault compensation programmes. This manuscript aimed to identify predictors of countries implementing no-fault compensation programmes for vaccine injuries and update the inventory of existing programmes as part of a more comprehensive global landscape evaluation of existing programmes. This information will be useful for country self-evaluation and future compensation policy formulation as discussion to develop policies guiding the implementation of vaccine injury compensation continues to gain growing attention.

While rotavirus vaccines are available, safe, and effective, many countries are not yet widely using these vaccines. Surveillance for rotavirus disease and potential vaccine adverse events is critical for country decision making about rotavirus vaccine. This special issue shares rotavirus and intussusception disease surveillance data and rotavirus vaccine cost-effectiveness analyses from countries that have yet to introduce rotavirus vaccines into their routine infant immunization programs. The studies highlight the substantial burden of rotavirus disease and the cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccine in a broad set of countries without rotavirus vaccine in their routine immunization programs.

Major vaccine safety controversies have arisen in several countries beginning in the last decades of 20th century. Such periodic vaccine safety controversies are unlikely to go away in the near future as more national immunization programs mature with near elimination of target vaccine-preventable diseases that result in relative greater prominence of adverse events following immunizations, both true reactions and temporally coincidental events. There are several ways in which vaccine safety capacity can be improved to potentially mitigate the impact of future vaccine safety controversies. This paper aims to take a "lifecycle" approach, examining some potential pre- and post-licensure opportunities to improve vaccine safety, in both developed (specifically U.S. and Europe) and low- and middle-income countries.

Major vaccine safety controversies have arisen in several countries beginning in the last decades of 20th century. Such periodic vaccine safety controversies are unlikely to go away in the near future as more national immunization programs mature with near elimination of target vaccine-preventable diseases that result in relative greater prominence of adverse events following immunizations, both true reactions and temporally coincidental events. There are several ways in which vaccine safety capacity can be improved to potentially mitigate the impact of future vaccine safety controversies. This paper aims to take a "lifecycle" approach, examining some potential pre- and post-licensure opportunities to improve vaccine safety, in both developed (specifically U.S. and Europe) and low- and middle-income countries. (C) 2015 by American Journal of Preventive Medicine and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Timely and effective evaluation of vaccine safety signals for newly developed vaccines introduced in low and middle- income countries (LMICs) is essential. The study tested the development of a global network of hospital-based sentinel sites for vaccine safety signal verification and hypothesis testing. Twenty-six sentinel sites in sixteen countries across all WHO regions participated, and 65% of the sites were from LMIC. We describe the process for the establishment and operationalization of such a network and the lessons learned in conducting a multi-country collaborative initiative. 24 out of the 26 sites successfully contributed data for the global analysis using standardised tools and procedures. Our study successfully confirmed the well-known risk estimates for the outcomes of interest. The main challenges faced by investigators were lack of adequate information in the medical records for case ascertainment and classification, and access to immunization data. The results suggest that sentinel hospitals intending to participate in vaccine safety studies strengthen their systems for discharge diagnosis coding, medical records and linkage to vaccination data. Our study confirms that a multi-country hospital-based network initiative for vaccine safety monitoring is feasible and demonstrates the validity and utility of large collaborative international studies to monitor the safety of new vaccines introduced in LMICs.

Serious illnesses or even deaths may rarely occur after childhood vaccinations. Public health programs are faced with great challenges to establish if the events presenting after the administration of a vaccine are due to other conditions, and hence a coincidental presentation, rather than caused by the administered vaccines. Given its priority, the Global Advisory Committee for Vaccine Safety (GACVS) commissioned a group of experts to review the previously published World Health Organization (WHO) Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) causality assessment methodology and aide-memoire, and to develop a standardized and user friendly tool to assist health care personnel in the processing and interpretation of data on individual events, and to assess the causality after AEFIs. We describe a tool developed for causality assessment of individual AEFIs that includes: (a) an eligibility component for the assessment that reviews the diagnosis associated with the event and identifies the administered vaccines; (b) a checklist that systematically guides users to gather available information to feed a decision algorithm; and (c) a decision support algorithm that assists the assessors to come to a classification of the individual AEFI. Final classification generated by the process includes four categories in which the event is either: (1) consistent; (2) inconsistent; or (3) indeterminate with respect of causal association; or (4) unclassifiable. Subcategories are identified to assist assessors in resulting public health decisions that can be used for action. This proposed tool should support the classification of AEFI cases in a standardized, transparent manner and to collect essential information during AEFI investigation. The algorithm should provide countries and health officials at the global level with an instrument to respond to vaccine safety alerts, and support the education, research and policy decisions on immunization safety.

With the advent of new vaccines targeted to highly endemic diseases in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and with the expansion of vaccine manufacturing globally, there is an urgent need to establish an infrastructure to evaluate the benefit-risk profiles of vaccines in LMIC. Fortunately the usual decade(s)-long time gap between introduction of new vaccines in high and low income countries is being significantly reduced or eliminated due to initiatives such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) and the Decade of Vaccines for the implementation of the Global Vaccine Action Plan. While hoping for more rapid disease control, this time shift may potentially add risk, unless appropriate capacity for reliable and timely evaluation of vaccine benefit-risk profiles in some LMIC's are developed with external assistance from regional or global level. An ideal vaccine safety and effectiveness monitoring system should be flexible and sustainable, able to quickly detect possible vaccine-associated events, distinguish them from programmatic errors, reliably and quickly evaluate the suspected event and its association with vaccination and, if associated, determine the benefit-risk of vaccines to inform appropriate action. Based upon the demonstrated feasibility of active surveillance in LMIC as shown by the Burkina Faso assessment of meningococcal A conjugate vaccine or that of rotavirus vaccine in Mexico and Brazil, and upon the proof of concept international GBS study, we suggest a sustainable, flexible, affordable and timely international collaborative vaccine safety monitoring approach for vaccines being newly introduced. While this paper discusses only the vaccine component, the same system could also be eventually used for monitoring drug effectiveness (including the use of substandard drugs) and drug safety. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

MenAfriVac™ is a new meningococcal A conjugate vaccine developed to prevent meningitis outbreaks in Africa. It was first introduced during the last quarter of 2010 in three West African countries. We report on the monitoring of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) in Burkina Faso where more than 11 million people aged 1-29 years were vaccinated. Vaccine pharmacovigilance relied on stimulated passive AEFI surveillance countrywide and active surveillance for 12 clinical conditions in one sentinel district (Ziniaré) with 97,715 people eligible for vaccination. All AEFI occurring during the 10 days of mass campaign or the 42 subsequent days were to be notified. Serious AEFI were submitted to a national expert committee (NEC) for causality assessment. A total of 11,466,950 people were vaccinated with 1471 vaccinees reported to have experienced at least one AEFI (12.83 cases per 100,000). 1444 AEFI were minor; the most common of which were fever, headache, gastro-intestinal disorders and local reactions (2-7 cases per 100,000). Of 27 serious AEFI reported, four cases were classified by the NEC as related to vaccine (1 case per 3 million vaccinated) including one case each of exanthematous pustulosis, angioedema, bronchospasm and severe vomiting. Active surveillance identified 71 cases of the 12 conditions of interest. Convulsions, urticaria and bronchospasm were more frequently reported. Attack rates for those conditions were similar to the baseline rates recorded in the same population, over the same time period, a year earlier. With the exception of convulsions in the days following vaccination the distribution of time intervals between vaccination and the occurrence of symptoms did not reveal any temporal clustering. The monitoring of AEFI of MenAfriVac™ in Burkina Faso did not suggest special concern regarding the vaccine safety. However, reported possible hypersensitivity reactions to vaccine components would require further review to rule out any anaphylactic reaction.

Currently available rotavirus vaccines have been associated with a small increased risk of intussusception (~1-2 cases per 100,000 vaccinated infants) in some populations. In response to this newly emerging data on intussusception related to current rotavirus vaccines, a group of technical experts convened by the Program for Applied Technology in Health met to review the data, establish what gaps in knowledge exist, and identify what future research is needed. This manuscript outlines the evidence that is currently available and the research agenda that was generated during this meeting. It also highlights the need for countries that are using or considering introducing the rotavirus vaccine to evaluate both the benefits and risks of vaccination.

To inform World Health Organization recommendations regarding use of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccines in national immunization programs, a multi-country evaluation of trends in Hib meningitis incidence and prevalence of nasopharyngeal Hib carriage was conducted in four South American countries using either a primary, three-dose immunization schedule without a booster dose or with a booster dose in the second year of life. Surveillance data suggest that high coverage of Hib conjugate vaccine sustained low incidence of Hib meningitis and low prevalence of Hib carriage whether or not a booster dose was used.

Since 2000, GAVI provided essential support for an unprecedented increase in the use of hepatitis B (HepB) and Haemophilus influenzae (Hib) containing vaccines in resource poor countries. This increase was supported with significant funding from international donors, intended to be time-limited. To assess the sustainability of this important expansion of the global access to vaccines, we reviewed supply chains, financial resources for procurement and decision-making in countries that introduced hepatitis B or Hib vaccines with GAVI support. During the period studied, the types of vaccine products supplied fluctuated rapidly in relationship with the number of suppliers and availability of more combination products. The price of the cheaper vaccines decreased while that of pentavalent DTwP-HepB-Hib remained stable. In average, vaccine introduction was associated with an increase of national programs budget, with new vaccines representing more than half of that increase, while the part of GAVI contributions to the budget went from 25% to 46%. Less than 20% of the vaccine introductions were decided by a national advisory body. Strengthening supply chains, adjusting funding schemes and increasing national ownership will be key to the sustained use of hepatitis B and Hib vaccines and the eventual addition of other important vaccines where they are the most needed.

Pregnant women and their babies are among the populations most vulnerable to untoward health outcomes. Yet current standards for evaluating health interventions cannot be met during pregnancy because of lack of adequate evidence. The situation is even more concerning in low-income and middle-income countries, where the need for effective interventions is the greatest. Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals for health will require strengthened attention to maternal and child health. In this paper we examine ongoing initiatives aimed at improving the assessment of maternal interventions. We review current methodologies to monitor outcomes of maternal interventions and identify where harmonisation is needed. Based on this analysis we identify settings where different minimal data sets should be considered taking into consideration the clinical realities. Stronger coordination mechanisms and a roadmap to support harmonised monitoring of maternal interventions across programmes and partners, working on improving pregnancy and early childhood health events, will greatly enhance ability to generate evidence-based policies.

This article analyzes the performance of a Hib vaccine demand forecast developed in 2003 for 68 GAVI-supported countries between 2004 and 2007. During that period of time, corresponding to an acceleration of Hib vaccine uptake, several groups of countries were identified based on the stage of their decision-making process, perception of Hib disease burden and programme performance. Better forecast accuracy was obtained for countries having already introduced the vaccine or that were about to do so. The ability to anticipate global needs in terms of vaccine volumes was highly dependant on the actual year of introduction of a small number of very large countries.

Summary objective To study the effectiveness of the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination program in Uganda. methods Case–control study of Hib vaccine effectiveness against Hib meningitis. Cases were children hospitalized with Hib meningitis confirmed by culture and ⁄ or latex agglutination. Cases were identified retrospectively from July 2002 to July 2004, and prospectively from July 2004 to July 2005. Each casepatient was matched by age to three neighbourhood and three hospital controls; all children were eligible to receive Hib vaccine through the routine schedule. Vaccine effectiveness was evaluated by conditional logistic regression, controlling for confounding variables. results We enrolled 41 cases; their median age was 6 months. Only six (15%) cases, all HIV-negative, had received ‡2 doses of Hib vaccine, compared with 64% of neighbourhood controls and 70% of hospital controls. Controlling for maternal education, the only variable which remained in the multivariable model, vaccine effectiveness for two or three doses vs. no dose was 99% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 92–100%] and 96% (95% CI 80–100%) when cases were compared with neighbourhood and hospital controls, respectively. conclusion In Uganda, Hib vaccine was highly effective in the context of the routine immunization schedule. Sustained routine use of Hib vaccine will contribute to the prevention of childhood morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Meticulous steps and procedures are proposed in planning guidelines for the development of comprehensive multiyear plans for national immunization programmes. However, we know very little about whether the real-life experience of those who adopt these guidelines involves following these procedures as expected. Are these steps and procedures followed in practice? We examined the adoption and usage of the guidelines in planning national immunization programmes and assessed whether the recommendations in these guidelines are applied as consistently as intended. METHODS: We gathered information from the national comprehensive multiyear plans developed by 77 low-income countries. For each of the 11 components, we examined how each country applied the four recommended steps of situation analysis, problem prioritization, selection of interventions, and selection of indicators. We then conducted an analysis to determine the patterns of alignment of the comprehensive multiyear plans with those four recommended planning steps. RESULTS: Within the first 3 years following publication of the guidelines, 66 (86%) countries used the tool to develop their comprehensive multiyear plans. The funding conditions attached to the use of these guidelines appeared to influence their rapid adoption and usage. Overall, only 33 (43%) countries fully applied all four recommended planning steps of the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption and usage of the guidelines for the development of comprehensive multiyear plans for national immunization programmes were rapid. However, our findings show substantial variation between the proposed planning ideals set out in the guidelines and actual use in practice. A better understanding of factors that influence how recommendations in public health guidelines are applied in practice could contribute to improvements in guidelines design. It could also help adjust strategies used to introduce them into public health programmes, with the ultimate goal of a greater health impact.

Vaccine-preventable infectious diseases are responsible for significant maternal, neonatal, and young infant morbidity and mortality. While there is emerging scientific evidence, as well as theoretical considerations, indicating that certain vaccines are safe for pregnant women and fetuses, policy formulation is challenging because of perceived potential risks to the fetus. This report presents an overview of available evidence on pregnant women vaccination safety monitoring in pregnant women, from both published literature and ongoing surveillance programs. Safety data were reviewed for vaccines against diseases which increase morbidity in pregnant women, their fetus or infant as well as vaccines which are used in mass vaccination campaigns against diseases. They include inactivated seasonal and pandemic influenza, mono- and combined meningococcal polysaccharide and conjugated vaccines, tetanus toxoid and acellular pertussis combination vaccines, as well as monovalent or combined rubella, oral poliomyelitis virus and yellow fever vaccines. No evidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes has been identified from immunization of pregnant women with these vaccines.

Serious vaccine-associated adverse events are rare. To further minimize their occurrence and to provide adequate care to those affected, careful monitoring of immunization programs and case management is required. Unfounded vaccine safety concerns have the potential of seriously derailing effective immunization activities. To address these issues, vaccine pharmacovigilance systems have been developed in many industrialized countries. As new vaccine products become available to prevent new diseases in various parts of the world, the demand for effective pharmacovigilance systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is increasing. To help establish such systems in all countries, WHO developed the Global Vaccine Safety Blueprint in 2011. This strategic plan is based on an in-depth analysis of the vaccine safety landscape that involved many stakeholders. This analysis reviewed existing systems and international vaccine safety activities and assessed the financial resources required to operate them. The Blueprint sets three main strategic goals to optimize the safety of vaccines through effective use of pharmacovigilance principles and methods: to ensure minimal vaccine safety capacity in all countries; to provide enhanced capacity for specific circumstances; and to establish a global support network to assist national authorities with capacity building and crisis management. In early 2012, the Global Vaccine Safety Initiative (GVSI) was launched to bring together and explore synergies among on-going vaccine safety activities. The Global Vaccine Action Plan has identified the Blueprint as its vaccine safety strategy. There is an enormous opportunity to raise awareness for vaccine safety in LMIC and to garner support from a large number of stakeholders for the GVSI between now and 2020. Synergies and resource mobilization opportunities presented by the Decade of Vaccines can enhance monitoring and response to vaccine safety issues, thereby leading to more equitable delivery of vaccines worldwide.

Introduction MenAfriVac is a new conjugate vaccine against Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, the major cause of meningitis outbreaks in sub-Saharan Africa. In Niger, the MenAfriVac introduction campaign was conducted in the District of Filingue, during September 2010, targeting 392,211 individuals aged 1–29 years. We set up an enhanced spontaneous surveillance system to monitor adverse events following immunization (AEFI) during the campaign period and 42 days thereafter. Methods All the 33 health centres of the district have been designated as surveillance units, which reported AEFIs on a daily basis to the health district headquarters. Health care workers were instructed to screen patients presenting with predefined conditions of interest and patients spontaneously presenting at units or at vaccination posts with complaints after vaccination. Cases were classified as serious (resulting in death, hospitalization or long-term disability) or minor. A National Expert Committee was established to determine if serious cases were causally associated with the vaccine. Results In total, 356,532 vaccine doses were administered. During 61 days of monitoring, 82 suspected AEFIs were reported: 16 severe and 66 minor. The cumulative incidence was of 23.0 per 100,000 doses. Among severe cases, 14 were classified as coincidences, one urticaria complicated by respiratory distress was classified as a probable vaccine reaction, and one death was unclassifiable because post-mortem information was unavailable. The number of units that reported at least one case was 19/33 (57.6%). Conclusions Although these results are limited by underreporting of cases, we did not identify safety concerns with MenAfriVac. The lessons learned from this experience should be used to reinforce the national pharmacovigilance system in Niger to make it complaint with international standards. In order to do so, we recommend using a lighter system for routine; and conducting regular training and supervisory activities to increase its acceptance among local health workers.

A new Group A meningococcal (Men A) conjugate vaccine, MenAfriVac™, was prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) in June 2010. Because Burkina Faso has repeatedly suffered meningitis epidemics due to Group A Neisseria meningitidis special efforts were made to conduct a country-wide campaign with the new vaccine in late 2010 and before the onset of the next epidemic meningococcal disease season beginning in January 2011. In the ensuing five months (July-November 2010) the following challenges were successfully managed: (1) doing a large safety study and registering the new vaccine in Burkina Faso; (2) developing a comprehensive communication plan; (3) strengthening the surveillance system with particular attention to improving the capacity for real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of spinal fluid specimens; (4) improving cold chain capacity and waste disposal; (5) developing and funding a sound campaign strategy; and (6) ensuring effective collaboration across all partners. Each of these issues required specific strategies that were managed through a WHO-led consortium that included all major partners (Ministry of Health/Burkina Faso, Serum Institute of India Ltd., UNICEF, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, Meningitis Vaccine Project, CDC/Atlanta, and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health/Oslo). Biweekly teleconferences that were led by WHO ensured that problems were identified in a timely fashion. The new meningococcal A conjugate vaccine was introduced on December 6, 2010, in a national ceremony led by His Excellency Blaise Compaore, the President of Burkina Faso. The ensuing 10-day national campaign was hugely successful, and over 11.4 million Burkinabes between the ages of 1 and 29 years (100% of target population) were vaccinated. African national immunization programs are capable of achieving very high coverage for a vaccine desired by the public, introduced in a well-organized campaign, and supported at the highest political level. The Burkina Faso success augurs well for further rollout of the Men A conjugate vaccine in meningitis belt countries.

Vaccine safety Large-scale immunization programmes now extend to all parts of the world, including least developed countries, where they reach unprecedented numbers of people. The number of vaccine doses administered worldwide continues to increase as new vaccines are developed and made available, and more people have access to immunization services. Development of immunization programmes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has increased immunization coverage, which in turn has led to a reduction in vaccine-preventable diseases. However, as vaccine use has increased in LMICs, so has public attention to vaccine safety issues, as happened previously in high-income countries. This has created additional vulnerability for all immunization programmes. Whether or not they are well founded, concerns about serious adverse events following immunization may rapidly undermine public confidence and become a serious threat to effective vaccination strategies, eroding the enormous gains in disease control achieved with decades of effort. Patterns of global access to vaccines and programme implementation are evolving. In the past, vaccines that became available for programmes in LMICs had already been used for years in high-income countries. Currently, however, some newly developed vaccines (e.g. rotavirus vaccine) have become available in LMICs only a short time after being introduced in high-income countries. Other new vaccines, such as meningococcal A vaccine or candidate vaccines against dengue and malaria, may be introduced first in LMICs, where the capacity for adequate safety monitoring is limited. Some of these vaccines may contain elements that have not been widely used in humans, including multiple antigens or recombinant viral vectors. As a result, for the first time people in LMICs are being administered with newly developed vaccines in settings where monitoring capacity is limited. In addition, there are important population groups for which the safety profile of vaccines may differ; for example, people with immune deficiency (in areas with high rates of human immunodeficiency virus prevalence), malnutrition and chronic conditions, as well as pregnant women. Although toxicity and safety are monitored in pre-licensing studies, the number of vaccine recipients observed in such studies is limited. Also, because serious vaccine reactions are very rare, it is generally only after licensure and administration to millions of people that such reactions are detected. Thus, a well-designed and well-structured global approach that involves adequate monitoring of large populations is required for early recognition of potential issues, timely investigation of concerns, informed decision-making and corrective actions. Optimizing vaccine safety The Decade of Vaccines, which was launched in 2010, aims to increase coordination within the vaccine community worldwide. The Global Vaccine Action Plan (1)--the framework endorsed by the World Health Assembly for the Decade of Vaccines--includes a vaccine safety strategy, the Global Vaccine Safety Blueprint. (2) The aim of the blueprint is to enhance the safety of vaccines through effective use of pharmacovigilance principles and methods. Its three strategic goals are: to assist LMICs to have at least minimal capacity for vaccine safety activities; to enhance capacity for vaccine safety assessment in countries that introduce newly developed vaccines, that introduce vaccines in settings with novel characteristics, or that manufacture and use prequalified vaccines; and to establish a global support structure for vaccine safety. The blueprint proposes eight complementary strategic objectives. Four of these objectives aim to improve the technical aspects of spontaneous reporting, active surveillance and risk communication; and to ensure the availability of harmonized methods and tools. The remaining four objectives promote the establishment of effective managerial principles to facilitate international collaboration and information exchange relating to vaccine safety monitoring. …

Despite the demonstration of effectiveness and public health impact of Hib conjugate vaccines, the majority of infants from poorest countries do not yet have access to this safe and effective preventive intervention. This paper provides a descriptive analysis of the main characteristics of countries that have included Hib vaccine in their national immunization programmes before 2006. It highlights the importance of regularly analyzing the process of decision-making involved in implementation of public health interventions, in order to learn from cumulative experience and expedite the introduction of future interventions.