Tree-temporal scan statistics for safety signal detection in vaccine clinical trials.

The evaluation of safety is critical in all clinical trials. However, the quantitative analysis of safety data in clinical trials poses statistical difficulties because of multiple potentially overlapping endpoints. Tree-temporal scan statistic approaches address this issue and have been widely employed in other data sources, but not to date in clinical trials. We evaluated the performance of three complementary scan statistical methods for routine quantitative safety signal detection: the self-controlled tree-temporal scan (SCTTS), a tree-temporal scan based on group comparison (BGTTS), and a log-rank based tree-temporal scan (LgRTTS). Each method was evaluated using data from two phase III clinical trials, and simulated data (simulation study). In the case study, the reference set was adverse events (AEs) in the Reference Safety Information of the evaluated vaccine. The SCTTS method had higher sensitivity than other methods, and after dose 1 detected 80 true positives (TP) with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 60%. The LgRTTS detected 49 TPs with 69% PPV. The BGTTS had 90% of PPV with 38 TPs. In the simulation study, with simulated reference sets of AEs, the SCTTS method had good sensitivity to detect transient effects. The LgRTTS method showed the best performance for the detection of persistent effects, with high sensitivity and expected probability of type I error. These three methods provide complementary approaches to safety signal detection in clinical trials or across clinical development programmes. All three methods formally adjust for multiple testing of large numbers of overlapping endpoints without being excessively conservative.

A Model for Monitoring Spontaneously Reported Medication Errors Using the Adjuvanted Recombinant Zoster Vaccine as an Example.

A European legislation was put in place for the reporting of medication errors, and guidelines were drafted to help stakeholders in the reporting, evaluation, and, ultimately, minimization of these errors. As part of pharmacovigilance reporting, a proper classification of medication errors is needed. However, this process can be tedious, time-consuming, and resource-intensive. To fulfill this obligation regarding medication errors, we developed an algorithm that classifies the reported errors in an automated way into four categories: potential medication errors, intercepted medication errors, medication errors without harm (i.e., not associated with adverse reaction(s)), and medication errors with harm (i.e., associated with adverse reaction(s)). A fifth category ("conflicting category") was created for reported cases that could not be unambiguously classified as either potential or intercepted medication errors. Our algorithm defines medication error categories based on internationally accepted terminology using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) preferred terms. We present the algorithm and the strengths of this automated way of reporting medication errors. We also give examples of visualizations using spontaneously reported vaccination error data associated with the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine. For this purpose, we used a customized web-based platform that uses visualizations to support safety signal detection. The use of the algorithm facilitates and ensures a consistent way of categorizing medication errors with MedDRA® terms, thereby saving time and resources and avoiding the risk of potential mistakes versus manual classification. This allows further assessment and potential prevention of medication errors. In addition, the algorithm is easy to implement and can be used to categorize medication errors from different databases.

Co-administration of the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine with other adult vaccines: An overview.

BACKGROUND: The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV; Shingrix®, GSK) is a subunit vaccine that has been approved for the prevention of herpes zoster in adults. Co-administration of two vaccines in a single visit is a strategy to improve overall vaccine coverage. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to consolidate available clinical data on RZV co-administration, providing an overview of safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity. METHODS: RZV co-administration data were obtained from five randomised, open-label, phase III clinical trials with similar study designs. The co-administered vaccines included: quadrivalent seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4; NCT01954251), 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; NCT02045836), reduced-antigen-content diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap; NCT02052596), 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13; NCT03439657) and COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster (NCT05047770). Eligible participants were healthy adults aged ≥50 years. RESULTS: A total of 3,974 participants were vaccinated (co-administration: 1,973; sequential: 2,001) across the five trials. Vaccine response rates to RZV were similar for co-administration (range: 95.8-99.1 %) and sequential groups (range: 95.1-99.1 %). Immune responses to RZV and the other vaccines (with the exception of pertactin) were non-inferior when the vaccines were co-administered compared with sequentially administered. Overall incidences of solicited local and general adverse events (AEs), unsolicited AEs, serious AEs or potential immune-mediated diseases were similar after co-administration or sequential administration. Myalgia was the most common solicited systemic AE (co-administration: 38-64 %; sequential: 30-59 %). Shivering and fever were more common after co-administration (16 % and 21 %, respectively) than after sequential administration (both 7 %) of RZV and PPSV23. CONCLUSIONS: Co-administration of RZV with routine vaccines does not significantly alter the reactogenicity, immunogenicity or safety of RZV or the co-administered vaccine. Healthcare practitioners should consider routine co-administration of RZV with other adult vaccines to improve vaccination coverage.

Effectiveness and safety of recombinant zoster vaccine: A review of real-world evidence.

The recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) was licensed in the US for prevention of herpes zoster (HZ) in 2017. We conducted a literature search (January 1, 2017-August 1, 2023) using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus to consolidate the real-world evidence related to RZV. Overall, RZV effectiveness against HZ was high across the studied populations in real-world settings, including adults aged ≥ 50 years and patients aged ≥ 18 years with immunodeficiency or immunosuppression. Effectiveness was higher with two doses versus one dose, especially in elderly people and immunocompromised individuals. The safety profile of RZV was broadly consistent with that established in clinical trials. RZV does not appear to increase the risk of disease flares in patients with immune-mediated diseases. Approximately two-thirds of individuals received a second RZV dose within 2-6 months after the first dose. Collectively, RZV effectiveness against HZ was high, and these real-world studies reaffirm its favorable benefit-risk profile.

What is the context?Herpes zoster is a common and painful rash that develops following reactivation of latent (meaning silent or dormant) varicella zoster virus, which is the virus that causes the common childhood illness chickenpox. The recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) was first approved for the prevention of herpes zoster in the USA and Canada in 2017 and has since been approved in the European Union and various other countries. The approval was based on the results of large clinical trials. Since its launch over 5 years ago, evidence for RZV use in real-world settings has been collected; the benefits of real-world studies include large sample sizes, more diverse populations, and the ability to identify rare side effects.What is new?We provide a review of real-world studies, which have shown that RZV is effective across the studied populations, including in adults aged 50 years and above and in patients with immunodeficiencies (i.e., those who have a decreased ability to fight infections or other diseases) or receiving immunosuppressive therapies (treatments that lower the activity of the body's immune system). The safety profile of RZV in real-world studies was generally consistent with that seen in clinical trials.What is the impact?These studies show the effectiveness and well-tolerated safety profile of RZV in real-world settings.

Recombinant Zoster Vaccine Is Efficacious and Safe in Frail Individuals.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Frail participants are often under-represented in randomized trials, raising questions about outcomes of interventions in real-world settings. Frailty is strongly associated with vulnerability to illness and adverse health outcomes. We studied the impact of frailty on recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) clinical outcomes. DESIGN/SETTING: Data from two previously conducted phase III randomized trials of RZV were pooled. These two parent trials were conducted concurrently at the same study sites using the same methods. PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTION: In the two parent studies, participants aged ≥50 years (ZOE-50 study) and ≥70 years (ZOE-70 study), respectively, were randomized 1:1 to receive two doses of RZV or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: In the current ZOE-Frailty study (NCT03563183), a frailty index was created using previously validated methods. Clinical outcomes assessed by frailty status included vaccine efficacy, immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety. RESULTS: Of 29,305 participants from the pooled ZOE-50 and ZOE-70 total vaccinated cohort, 92% were included in this study. Mean age was 68.8 years; 58.1% were women; 45.6% were pre-frail and 11.3% frail. The percentage of frail participants increased with age from 5.7% aged 50-59 years to 22.7% aged ≥80 years. RZV vaccine efficacy against herpes zoster was >90% for all frailty subgroups (non-frail: 95.8% (95% confidence interval = 91.6-98.2), pre-frail: 90.4% (84.4-94.4), frail: 90.2% (75.4-97.0)). The RZV group demonstrated robust anti-gE antibody and gE-specific CD42+ responses, with mean concentrations remaining above pre-vaccination levels at least 3 years post-dose two, in all frailty subgroups. In the RZV group, the percentage of participants reporting solicited adverse events tended to decrease with increasing frailty. CONCLUSION: The relatively nonrestrictive inclusion/exclusion criteria in the parent ZOE studies resulted in a range of participants that included frail and pre-frail older adults. RZV significantly reduced the risk of herpes zoster across all frailty subgroups.

Review of the initial post-marketing safety surveillance for the recombinant zoster vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) received its first marketing authorization in October 2017, for prevention of herpes zoster in individuals aged ≥50 years. METHODS: We summarized safety information, following RZV administration, received by GSK via spontaneous adverse event (AE) reports submitted by healthcare providers, vaccine recipients and other reporters. Observed-to-expected (O/E) analyses were performed for selected outcomes: reports of death, Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell's palsy. Standard case definitions were used to assess individual case reports. Data mining, using proportional reporting ratio and time-to-onset signal detection methods, was employed to identify RZV-AE pairs with disproportionate reporting or unexpected time-to-onset distribution. RESULTS: Between October 13, 2017 and February 10, 2019, an estimated 9.3 million doses were distributed and GSK received 15,638 spontaneous AE reports involving RZV. Most reports were classified as non-serious (95.3%) and originated from the United States (81.7%), where the majority of doses were distributed. Among reports with age or sex reported, individuals were mainly 50-69-year-olds (62.1%) and female (66.7%). Of all reports, 3,579 (22.9%) described vaccination errors, of which 82.7% were without associated symptoms. Of all vaccination error reports, most described errors of vaccine preparation and reconstitution (29.7%), inappropriate schedule or incomplete course of administration (26.7%), incorrect route of administration (16.4%), and storage errors (12.9%). The most commonly reported symptoms were consistent with the known RZV reactogenicity profile observed in clinical trials, including injection site reactions, pyrexia, chills, fatigue, headache. O/E analyses for selected outcomes and data mining analyses for all reported AEs did not identify any unexpected patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Review of the initial data from the post-marketing safety surveillance showed that the safety profile of RZV is consistent with that previously observed in pre-licensure clinical trials. Other studies are ongoing and planned, to continue generating real-world safety data and further characterize RZV.