Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare both groups. RESULTS: Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality.

Demonstrating the capacity of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization for timely responses to post-market vaccine monitoring signals: Canada's experience with the live-attenuated influenza vaccine.

Over the last several years, the recommended use of the live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) for children has evolved in the United States (US) in response to evidence of a potential decrease in LAIV effectiveness based on post-market monitoring. These issues were not observed in Canada or elsewhere; consequently, recommendations from Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) and the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on whether to use LAIV differed for two influenza seasons (2016-2017 and 2017-2018). This retrospective describes how NACI arrived at its recommendations in response to post-market signals of reduced LAIV performance from the US in 2013-2014 and again in 2015-2016. NACI's experience with LAIV marks the first time in Canada where a preferential recommendation on the use of an influenza vaccine in a routine immunization program was reversed. This experience highlights the importance of ongoing post-market monitoring of vaccines, international collaboration and careful consideration of local context to inform vaccine recommendations. NACI's capacity for timely responses to post-market vaccine performance signals will facilitate responsiveness to similar post-market monitoring signals from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines.

A framework for the systematic consideration of ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability in vaccine program recommendations.

For the successful implementation of population-level recommendations, it is critical to consider the full spectrum of public health science, including clinical and programmatic factors. Current frameworks may identify various factors that should be examined when making evidence-informed vaccine-related recommendations. However, while most immunization guidelines systematically assess clinical factors, such as efficacy and safety of vaccines, there is no published framework outlining how to systematically assess programmatic factors, such as the ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability of recommendations. We have addressed this gap with the development of the EEFA (Ethics, Equity Feasibility, Acceptability) Framework, supported by evidence-informed tools, including Ethics Integrated Filters, Equity Matrix, Feasibility Matrix, and an Acceptability Matrix. The Framework and tools are based on five years of environmental scans, systematic reviews and surveys, and refined by expert and stakeholder consultations and feedback. For each programmatic factor, the EEFA Framework summarizes the minimum threshold for consideration and when further in-depth analysis may be required, which aspects of the factor should be considered, how to assess the factor using the supporting evidence-informed tools, and who should be consulted to complete the assessment. Research, particularly in the fields of vaccine acceptability and equity, has validated the utility and comprehensiveness of the tools. The Framework has been successfully used in Canada for clear, timely, transparent vaccine guidance with positive stakeholder feedback on its comprehensiveness, relevance and appropriateness. Applying the EEFA Framework allows for the systematic consideration of the spectrum of public health science without a delay in recommendations, complementing existing decision-making frameworks. This Framework will therefore be useful for advisory groups worldwide to integrate critical factors that could impact the successful and timely implementation of comprehensive, transparent recommendations, and will further the global objective of developing practical and evidence-informed immunization policies.