Complications of BCG vaccine SSI® recent story and risk management plan: the French experience.

INTRODUCTION: As of January 2006, the BCG vaccine SSI® became the only BCG vaccine available for tuberculosis vaccination in France. The use of this vaccine led to significant changes in vaccination technique which were accompanied by a rapid increase in the number of adverse reactions (ADRs) reported. A national pharmacovigilance follow-up began in February 2006, and a risk management plan (RMP) was put in place in April 2006, made of three phases (carried out in June 2006, July 2006 and September 2006) with risk minimisation measures. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of the RMP on the amount of ADRs reported. METHODS: Based on data collected by the regional pharmacovigilance centres and the MSD laboratory, the cases of locoregional ADRs spontaneously reported were analysed retrospectively from January 2005 to February 2006, and then prospectively up to June 2008, the date at which the national follow-up ended. The locoregional ADRs were divided into three categories: abscesses, local reactions or lymphadenopathy of more than 1 cm and suppurative lymphadenopathy. A parallel was then drawn between these data and the different phases of the RMP. RESULTS: During the entire follow-up period, we note 1050 locoregional ADRs, of which 764 were abscesses (73% of all cases), 266 were local reactions and 20 involved suppurative lymphadenopathy.Locoregional ADRs increased rapidly from January 2006 onward, reaching a peak in August 006 and then falling and stabilising from December 2007 onward.The RMP was implemented when there was an increase in the number of ADRs reported. The drop in the number of these effects began 3 months after the first phase and 2 months after the second phase of the RMP. The third phase was not accompanied by a variation in the number of ADRs reported. CONCLUSION: The RMP appears to have positive effect on the evolution of the number of ADRs, their decrease occurring rapidly after the risk minimisation measures of the first two phases. Nonetheless, these data should be confirmed by other studies on the efficacy of RMPs.

First French experience of ADR reporting by patients after a mass immunization campaign with Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic vaccines: a comparison of reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Available data concerning the contribution of patient adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting in practice are scarce. Few studies have compared patients' reports with reports from healthcare professionals (HCPs). During the 2009-10 mass immunization campaign with A (H1N1)v2009 pandemic influenza vaccines, a reinforced pharmacovigilance plan was introduced in France according to European Medicines Agency recommendations. For the first time, patients were offered the opportunity to report suspected ADRs to pandemic vaccines directly to regional pharmacovigilance centres. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the characteristics of patient and HCP ADR reports in order to assess the qualitative and quantitative contribution of patient reporting to the French Pharmacovigilance System. METHODS: All spontaneous ADRs registered into the French Pharmacovigilance Database from 21 October 2009 to 15 June 2010, in which either one of the most frequently administered pandemic vaccines (i.e. Panenza® or Pandemrix®) was involved, were analysed. ADRs were classified as 'serious', 'medically serious' and 'non-serious'. This study focused on 'serious' and 'medically serious' ADRs. An ADR was ranked as 'medically serious' when it required medical intervention or hospitalization within less than 24 hours. In each level of seriousness, frequency of 'unlabelled' ADRs, ADRs of 'special interest', imputability scores and category of ADRs according to Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activitives (MedDRA®) primary System Organ Class were compared between patient and professional reports. RESULTS: Among the 4746 reports received during the study period, 1006 (21.2%) originated from patients. HCPs reported significantly more 'medically serious' or 'serious' ADRs than patients (15.1% [565/3740] vs 8.4% [85/1006], respectively; p < 0.001). No difference was found in 'unlabelled, serious' ADRs between patients and HCPs (56.5% [n = 13] vs 56.7% [n = 136], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this first French experience of formal patient participation to ADR reporting, patient contribution to the total number of ADRs reached 21.2%. This study revealed no major qualitative difference between patient and HCP reports. ADR profiles reported by patients appeared to be consistent with those from professionals. Further investigations are necessary to assess the intrinsic quality of notification forms coming from non-professional reporters. However, this study is of particular interest in the context of publication of the first governmental decree that will formally integrate patient participation to the current French ADR reporting scheme.

[National Campaign of Vaccination against the flu A (H1N1)v: National Follow-up of Pharmacovigilance]. / Campagne nationale de vaccination contre la grippe A (H1N1)v : suivi national de pharmacovigilance.

OBJECTIVES: The present study was performed to evaluate safety data collected by the French Network of Pharmacovigilance centres network, from October 21, 2009 to June 15, 2010. METHODS: French Health Authorities (Afssaps [Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des produits de santé]) heightened awareness to extensive notifications with online health practitioners' reports and patients' reports via the Regional Centre concerned. RESULTS: During the campaign, 4.1 millions doses of Pandemrix(®) and 1.6 million doses of Panenza(®) were administered. Following Pandemrix(®), 4 183 adverse effects (AEs) were reported including 193 "serious" AEs. Concerning Panenza(®), 591 AEs were reported including 70 "serious" AE. The most frequently reported "serious" AEs were neurological for both Pandemrix(®) (38.9%, mainly isolated ascending paresthesia without any other neurological symptom and complication) and Panenza(®) (28.9%). Febrile convulsions were the most common neurological AEs with Panenza(®) in children. All reported deaths (n = 22) described causes other than recent A(H1N1)v vaccination. No causal relationship was established between these AEs and vaccination. Among AEs of "special" interest, 13 reports of confirmed GBS and 15 reports of demyelinating disorders were notified. No report of narcolepsy was made during the study period. CONCLUSION: For both vaccines, neurological AEs (isolated ascending paresthesia with Pandemrix(®) and febrile convulsions with Panenza(®)) were among the most frequently reported "serious" AEs. Despite limits of this survey based on spontaneous reporting, the study did not detect any safety signals, at least with an 8-month follow-up.