Immunisation Information Systems - useful tools for monitoring vaccination programmes in EU/EEA countries, 2016.

Immunisation Information Systems (IIS) are computerised confidential population based-systems containing individual-level information on vaccines received in a given area. They benefit individuals directly by ensuring vaccination according to the schedule and they provide information to vaccine providers and public health authorities responsible for the delivery and monitoring of an immunisation programme. In 2016, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) conducted a survey on the level of implementation and functionalities of IIS in 30 European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) countries. It explored the governance and financial support for the systems, IIS software, system characteristics in terms of population, identification of immunisation recipients, vaccinations received, and integration with other health record systems, the use of the systems for surveillance and programme management as well as the challenges involved with implementation. The survey was answered by 27 of the 30 EU/EEA countries having either a system in production at national or subnational levels (n = 16), or being piloted (n = 5) or with plans for setting up a system in the future (n = 6). The results demonstrate the added-value of IIS in a number of areas of vaccination programme monitoring such as monitoring vaccine coverage at local geographical levels, linking individual immunisation history with health outcome data for safety investigations, monitoring vaccine effectiveness and failures and as an educational tool for both vaccine providers and vaccine recipients. IIS represent a significant way forward for life-long vaccination programme monitoring.

Guillain-Barré syndrome and adjuvanted pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 vaccines: a multinational self-controlled case series in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following the United States' 1976 swine flu vaccination campaign in the USA led to enhanced active surveillance during the pandemic influenza (A(H1N1)pdm09) immunization campaign. This study aimed to estimate the risk of GBS following influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination. METHODS: A self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis was performed in Denmark, Finland, France, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Information was collected according to a common protocol and standardised procedures. Cases classified at levels 1-4a of the Brighton Collaboration case definition were included. The risk window was 42 days starting the day after vaccination. Conditional Poisson regression and pooled random effects models estimated adjusted relative incidences (RI). Pseudo likelihood and vaccinated-only methods addressed the potential contraindication for vaccination following GBS. RESULTS: Three hundred and three (303) GBS and Miller Fisher syndrome cases were included. Ninety-nine (99) were exposed to A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination, which was most frequently adjuvanted (Pandemrix and Focetria). The unadjusted pooled RI for A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination and GBS was 3.5 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 2.2-5.5), based on all countries. This lowered to 2.0 (95% CI: 1.2-3.1) after adjustment for calendartime and to 1.9 (95% CI: 1.1-3.2) when we accounted for contra-indications. In a subset (Netherlands, Norway, and United Kingdom) we further adjusted for other confounders and there the RI decreased from 1.7 (adjusted for calendar month) to 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7-2.8), which is the main finding. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates the potential of conducting European collaborative vaccine safety studies. The main, fully adjusted analysis, showed that the RI of GBS was not significantly elevated after influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination (RI = 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7-2.8). Based on the upper limits of the pooled estimate we can rule out with 95% certainty that the number of excess GBS cases after influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination would be more than 3 per million vaccinated.

International collaboration to assess the risk of Guillain Barré Syndrome following Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccines.

BACKGROUND: The global spread of the 2009 novel pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus led to the accelerated production and distribution of monovalent 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) vaccines (pH1N1). This pandemic provided the opportunity to evaluate the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), which has been an influenza vaccine safety concern since the swine flu pandemic of 1976, using a common protocol among high and middle-income countries. The primary objective of this project was to demonstrate the feasibility and utility of global collaboration in the assessment of vaccine safety, including countries both with and without an established infrastructure for vaccine active safety surveillance. A second objective, included a priori, was to assess the risk of GBS following pH1N1 vaccination. METHODS: The primary analysis used the self-controlled case series (SCCS) design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of GBS in the 42 days following vaccination with pH1N1 vaccine in a pooled analysis across databases and in analysis using a meta-analytic approach. RESULTS: We found a relative incidence of GBS of 2.42 (95% CI 1.58-3.72) in the 42 days following exposure to pH1N1 vaccine in analysis of pooled data and 2.09 (95% CI 1.28-3.42) using the meta-analytic approach. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that international collaboration to evaluate serious outcomes using a common protocol is feasible. The significance and consistency of our findings support a conclusion of an association between 2009 H1N1 vaccination and GBS. Given the rarity of the event the relative incidence found does not provide evidence in contradiction to international recommendations for the continued use of influenza vaccines.

The incidence of narcolepsy in Europe: before, during, and after the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic and vaccination campaigns.

BACKGROUND: In August 2010 reports of a possible association between exposure to AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine and occurrence of narcolepsy in children and adolescents emerged in Sweden and Finland. In response to this signal, the background rates of narcolepsy in Europe were assessed to rapidly provide information for signal verification. METHODS: We used a dynamic retrospective cohort study to assess the narcolepsy diagnosis rates during the period 2000-2010 using large linked automated health care databases in six countries: Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Overall, 2608 narcolepsy cases were identified in almost 280 million person years (PY) of follow up. The pooled incidence rate was 0.93 (95% CI: 0. 90-0.97) per 100,000 PY. There were peaks between 15 and 30 year of age (women>men) and around 60 years of age. In the age group 5-19 years olds rates were increased after the start of pandemic vaccination compared to the period before the start of campaigns, with rate ratios (RR) of 1.9 (95% CI: 1.1-3.1) in Denmark, 6.4 (95% CI: 4.2-9.7) in Finland and 7.5 (95% CI: 5.2-10.7) in Sweden. Cases verification in the Netherlands had a significant effect on the pattern of incidence over time. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this incidence study provided useful information for signal verification on a population level. The safety signal of increased narcolepsy diagnoses following the start of the pandemic vaccination campaign as observed in Sweden and Finland could be observed with this approach. An increase in narcolepsy diagnoses was not observed in other countries, where vaccination coverage was low in the affected age group, or did not follow influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination. Patient level analyses in these countries are being conducted to verify the signal in more detail.

Tracking parental attitudes on vaccination across European countries: The Vaccine Safety, Attitudes, Training and Communication Project (VACSATC).

The paper presents the first results from the European project VACSATC which aimed to track parental attitudes on vaccinations across several European countries. We compared five cross-sectional surveys of parents with children less than 3 years of age in England, Norway, Poland, Spain and Sweden carried out during 2008-2009. Data were collected from 6611 respondents. Two countries used face-to face interviews, one used telephone interviews, and two other countries used mail-in questionnaires. In all countries health professionals were indicated as the most important and trusted source of information on vaccination. The study results also show that parental attitudes on vaccinations in the childhood vaccination programs are generally positive. However, there were differences in attitudes on vaccination between the five countries, possibly reflecting different methods of sampling the respondents, context-specific differences (e.g. level of activity of governmental agencies), but also individual-level parental variation in demographic and socioeconomic status variables.

The Brighton Collaboration: addressing the need for standardized case definitions of adverse events following immunization (AEFI).

UNLABELLED: To further scientific progress of immunization safety, comparability of data from clinical trials and surveillance systems is essential. Comparability requires the availability of standardized case definitions for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) and guidelines for case determination, recording and data presentation. METHOD: International collaborative working groups, consisting of professional volunteers from developed and developing countries, conduct systematic literature reviews to develop 50-100 AEFI definitions. Case definitions are finalized after a comment period by a reference group consisting of organizations concerned with immunization safety, and will be disseminated via the world-wide-web and other means for free world-wide use. RESULTS: Literature reviews yielded substantial diversity in data collection and presentation. We have developed standardized case definitions together with guidelines for use in clinical trials and surveillance systems. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity in safety methods leads to considerable loss of scientific information. We have built the necessary international network of currently about 300 participants from patient care, public health, scientific, pharmaceutical, regulatory and professional organizations to develop and assess standardized AEFI case definitions and guidelines. Evaluation studies, global implementation, ongoing definition development and a continuously growing network will be essential for the success of the collaboration.