Overview of the Clinical Consult Case Review of adverse events following immunization: Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network 2004-2009
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. Vaccine
(Impact Factor: 3.62).
07/2011; 29(40):6920-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.07.044
In 2004 the Clinical Consult Case Review (CCCR) working group was formed within the CDC-funded Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network to review individual cases of adverse events following immunizations (AEFI).
Cases were referred by practitioners, health departments, or CDC employees. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) searches and literature reviews for similar cases were performed prior to review. After CCCR discussion, AEFI were assessed for a causal relationship with vaccination and recommendations regarding future immunizations were relayed back to the referring physicians. In 2010, surveys were sent to referring physicians to determine the utility and effectiveness of the CCCR service.
CISA investigators reviewed 76 cases during 68 conference calls between April 2004 and December 2009. Almost half of the cases (35/76) were neurological in nature. Similar AEFI for the specific vaccines received were discovered for 63 cases through VAERS searches and for 38 cases through PubMed searches. Causality assessment using the modified WHO criteria resulted in classifying 3 cases as definitely related to vaccine administration, 12 as probably related, 16 as possibly related, 18 as unlikely related, 10 as unrelated, and 17 had insufficient information to assign causality. The physician satisfaction survey was returned by 30 (57.7%) of those surveyed and a majority of respondents (93.3%) felt that the CCCR service was useful.
The CCCR provides advice about AEFI to practitioners, assigns potential causality, and contributes to an improved understanding of adverse health events following immunizations.
Available from: Christine Casey
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) reported to the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) represent true causally related events, as well as events that are temporally, but not necessarily causally related to vaccine. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if the causal relationships between the vaccine and the AEFI reported to VAERS could be assessed through expert review. DESIGN: A stratified random sample of 100 VAERS reports received in 2004 contained 13 fatal cases, 19 cases with non-fatal disabilities, 39 other serious non-fatal cases and 29 non-serious cases. Experts knowledgeable about vaccines and clinical outcomes, reviewed each VAERS report and available medical records. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Modified World Health Organization criteria were used to classify the causal relationship between vaccines and AEFI as definite, probable, possible, unlikely or unrelated. Five independent reviewers evaluated each report. If they did not reach a majority agreement on causality after initial review, the report was discussed on a telephone conference to achieve agreement. RESULTS: 108 AEFIs were identified in the selected 100 VAERS reports. After initial review majority agreement was achieved for 83% of the AEFI and 17% required further discussion. In the end, only 3 (3%) of the AEFI were classified as definitely causally related to vaccine received. Of the remaining AEFI 22 (20%) were classified as probably and 22 (20%) were classified as possibly related to vaccine received; a majority (53%) were classified as either unlikely or unrelated to a vaccine received. CONCLUSIONS: Using VAERS reports and additional documentation, causality could be assessed by expert review in the majority of VAERS reports. Assessment of VAERS reports identified that causality was thought to be probable or definite in less than one quarter of reports, and these were dominated by local reactions, allergic reactions, or symptoms known to be associated with the vaccine administered.
Vaccine 10/2012; 30(50). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.09.074 · 3.62 Impact Factor
Available from: Barbara Pahud
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines were licensed and administered in the United States during the H1N1 influenza pandemic between 2009 and 2013.
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System received reports of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) after H1N1 vaccination. Selected reports were referred to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment network for additional review. We assessed causality using modified World Health Organization criteria.
There were 3,928 reports of AEFI in children younger than age 18 years after 2009 H1N1 vaccination received by January 31, 2010. Of these, 214 (5.4%) were classified as serious nonfatal and 109 were referred to Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment for further evaluation. Ninety-nine (91%) had sufficient initial information to begin investigation and are described here. The mean age was 8 years (range, 6 months-17 years) and 38% were female. Median number of days between vaccination and symptom onset was 2 (range, -11 days to +41 days). Receipt of inactivated, live attenuated, or unknown type of 2009 H1N1 vaccines was reported by 68, 26 and 5 cases, respectively. Serious AEFI were categorized as neurologic events in 47 cases, as hypersensitivity in 15 cases and as respiratory events in 10 cases. At the time of evaluation, recovery was described as complete (61), partial (16), no improvement (1), or unknown (21). Causality assessment yielded the following likelihood of association with 2009 H1N1 vaccination: 8 definitely; 8 probably; 21 possibly; 43 unlikely; 17 unrelated; and 2 unclassifiable.
Most AEFI in children evaluated were not causally related to vaccine and resolved without sequelae. Detailed clinical assessment of individual serious AEFI can provide reassurance of vaccine safety.
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 02/2013; 32(2):163-168. DOI:10.1097/INF.0b013e318271b90a · 2.72 Impact Factor
The Journal of pediatrics 02/2013; 162(6). DOI:10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.01.028 · 3.79 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.