A multi-site feasibility study to assess fever and wheezing in children after influenza vaccines using text messaging.

BACKGROUND: Using text messaging for vaccine safety monitoring, particularly for non-medically attended events, would be valuable for pandemic influenza and emergency vaccination program preparedness. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of text messaging to evaluate fever and wheezing post-influenza vaccination in a prospective, observational, multi-site pediatric study. METHODS: Children aged 2-11 years old, with an emphasis on children with asthma, were recruited during the 2014-2015 influenza season from three community-based clinics in New York City, and during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 seasons from a private practice in Fall River, Massachusetts. Parents of enrolled children receiving quadrivalent live attenuated (LAIV4) or inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) replied to text messages assessing respiratory symptoms (day 3 and 7, then weekly through day 42), and temperature on the night of vaccination and the next seven nights (day 0-7). Missing data were collected via diary (day 0-7 only) and phone. Phone confirmation was obtained for both presence and absence of respiratory symptoms. Reporting rates, fever (T≥100.4 °F) frequency, proportion of wheezing and/or chest tightness reports captured via text message versus all sources (text, phone, diary, electronic health record) and parental satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: Across both seasons, 266 children were analyzed; 49.2% with asthma. Parental text message response rates were high (>70%) across sites. Overall, fever frequency was low (day 0-2: 4.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3-7.4%]; d3-7: 6.7% [95% CI 4.1-10.8%]). A third (39.2%) of parents reported a respiratory problem in their child, primarily cough. Most (88.2%) of the 52 wheezing and/or chest tightness reports were by text message. Most (88.1%) participants preferred text messaging over paper reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Text messaging can provide information about pediatric post-vaccination fever and wheezing and was viewed positively by parents. It could be a helpful tool for rapid vaccine safety monitoring during a pandemic or other emergency vaccination program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02295007.

Feasibility of Text Message Influenza Vaccine Safety Monitoring During Pregnancy.

INTRODUCTION: The feasibility and accuracy of text messaging to monitor events after influenza vaccination throughout pregnancy and the neonatal period has not been studied, but may be important for seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines and future maternal vaccines. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted during 2013-2014 and analyzed in 2015-2016. Enrolled pregnant women receiving inactivated influenza vaccination at a gestational age <20 weeks were sent text messages intermittently through participant-reported pregnancy end to request fever, health events, and neonatal outcomes. Text message response rates, Day 0-2 fever (≥100.4°F), health events, and birth/neonatal outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Most (80.2%, n=166) eligible women enrolled. Median gestational age was 8.9 (SD=3.9) weeks at vaccination. Response rates remained high (80.0%-95.2%). Only one Day 0-2 fever was reported. Women reported via text both pregnancy- and non-pregnancy-specific health events, not all associated with medical visits. Most pregnancy-specific events in the electronic medical record (EMR) were reported via text message. Of all enrollees, 84.9% completed the study (131 reported live birth, ten reported pregnancy loss). Two losses reported via text were not medically attended; there was one additional EMR-identified loss. Gestational age and weight at birth were similar between text message-reported and EMR-abstracted data and 95% CIs were overlapping for proportions of prematurity, low birth weight, small for gestational age, and major birth defects, as identified by text message-reported versus EMR-abstracted plus text message-reported versus EMR-abstracted data only. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the feasibility of text messaging for influenza vaccine safety surveillance sustained throughout pregnancy. In these women receiving inactivated influenza vaccination during pregnancy, post-vaccination fever was infrequent and a typical pattern of maternal and neonatal health outcomes was observed.

Assessing Fever Frequency After Pediatric Live Attenuated Versus Inactivated Influenza Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have found a higher frequency of fever with trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) than with inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV), but quadrivalent LAIV has not been assessed. Understanding fever is important for safety reviews and for parents and providers. In addition, there have been only a limited number of studies in which text messaging was used for vaccine adverse-event (AE) surveillance. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study in 3 community clinics in New York City to assess post-influenza vaccination fever in 24- to 59-month-olds during the 2013-2014 season. Enrolled families of children who received quadrivalent LAIV (LAIV4) or IIV (trivalent IIV3 or quadrivalent IIV4) replied to text messages that assessed their temperature on vaccination night and the next 10 nights (days 0 to 10); missing data were collected via telephone and a diary. We compared frequencies of fever (temperature ≥ 100.4°F) according to vaccine group on days 0 to 2 and 3 to 10 by using χ2 and multivariate log-binomial regression adjusted for age, previous influenza vaccination, and vaccine coadministration. We also assessed outcomes using all sources versus only text messages. RESULTS: Most (84.1% [n = 540]) eligible parents enrolled. Fever frequencies on days 0 to 2 did not differ between LAIV4 and any IIV (3.8% vs 5.7%, respectively; adjusted relative risk [aRR] [95% confidence interval], 0.60 [0.25-1.46]), between LAIV4 and IIV4 (4.2% vs 7.1%, respectively; aRR, 0.58 [0.19-1.72]), or between IIV4 and IIV3 (7.1% vs 6.0%, respectively; aRR, 1.02 [0.30-3.46]). The findings were similar when all data sources versus text-message data alone were used. There were no significant differences on days 3 to 10. CONCLUSIONS: Postvaccination fever frequencies were low overall and did not differ according to influenza vaccine type during the 2013-2014 influenza season. The similarity of results when data were limited to text messages lends support to its use for surveillance of vaccine adverse events.

Live vaccine use and safety in DiGeorge syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Live vaccines are generally contraindicated in patients with DiGeorge syndrome (DGS), a congenital disorder characterized by cellular immune deficiency. Vaccine utilization and safety in this population are not well described. This study examined vaccination patterns and adverse events following live immunization (AEFLI) in these individuals. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted in subjects with DGS confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization assay (chromosome 22q11.2 microdeletion). Live vaccine-preventable illnesses, vaccination coverage and timeliness, and AEFLIs in the 56-day window after live vaccination were examined. Bivariate and multivariable analyses assessed the impact of demographics medical history, timing of diagnostic confirmation, and preceding immune function on vaccination patterns and AEFLIs. RESULTS: Of 194 subjects, 77% and 75% received measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and varicella vaccines, respectively; 58% completed recommended vaccinations by age 19 to 35 months. Adverse events occurred after 14% and 20% of MMR and varicella vaccine doses, respectively. Most events were minor, few were serious, and no deaths were reported in post-live vaccination windows. Although early diagnostic confirmation negatively affected live vaccination coverage and timeliness (P < .001), baseline CD4% did not differ between subjects who did or did not receive live vaccines by 12 to 18 months. Among varicella vaccine recipients, those with a subsequent adverse event had a lower preceding CD4% (24.8% ± 7.3%) than those without (35.5% ± 11.7%) (P < .05); no CD4% differences were observed with MMR vaccination. Fourteen unvaccinated subjects experienced live vaccine-preventable illnesses. CONCLUSIONS: Live vaccines were frequently given and generally well-tolerated among patients with DGS with mild-to-moderate immunosuppression.

Clinical assessment of serious adverse events in children receiving 2009 H1N1 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines were licensed and administered in the United States during the H1N1 influenza pandemic between 2009 and 2013. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Causality assessment of adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

UNLABELLED: 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.

Causality assessment of serious neurologic adverse events following 2009 H1N1 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events occurring after vaccination are routinely reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). We studied serious adverse events (SAEs) of a neurologic nature reported after receipt of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine during the 2009-2010 influenza season. Investigators in the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network sought to characterize these SAEs and to assess their possible causal relationship to vaccination. METHODS: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) physicians reviewed all SAE reports (as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR§314.80) after receipt of H1N1 vaccine reported to VAERS between October 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. Non-fatal SAE reports with neurologic presentation were referred to CISA investigators, who requested and reviewed additional medical records and clinical information as available. CISA investigators assessed the causal relationship between vaccination and the event using modified WHO criteria as defined. RESULTS: 212 VAERS reports of non-fatal serious neurological events were referred for CISA review. Case reports were equally distributed by gender (50.9% female) with an age range of 6 months to 83 years (median 38 years). The most frequent diagnoses reviewed were: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (37.3%), seizures (10.8%), cranial neuropathy (5.7%), and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (3.8%). Causality assessment resulted in classification of 72 events as "possibly" related (33%), 108 as "unlikely" related (51%), and 20 as "unrelated" (9%) to H1N1 vaccination; none were classified as "probable" or "definite" and 12 were unclassifiable (6%). CONCLUSION: The absence of a specific test to indicate whether a vaccine component contributes to the pathogenesis of an event occurring within a biologically plausible time period makes assessing causality difficult. The development of standardized protocols for providers to use in evaluation of adverse events following immunization, and rapid identification and follow-up of VAERS reports could improve causality assessment.

Overview of the Clinical Consult Case Review of adverse events following immunization: Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network 2004-2009.

BACKGROUND: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: The CCCR provides advice about AEFI to practitioners, assigns potential causality, and contributes to an improved understanding of adverse health events following immunizations.

Detection of fecal shedding of rotavirus vaccine in infants following their first dose of pentavalent rotavirus vaccine.

Studies on rotavirus vaccine shedding and its potential transmission within households including immunocompromised individuals are needed to better define the potential risks and benefits of vaccination. We examined fecal shedding of pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5) for 9 days following the first dose of vaccine in infants between 6 and 12 weeks of age. Rotavirus antigen was detected by enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and vaccine-type rotavirus was identified by nucleotide sequencing based on genetic relatedness to the RV5 VP6 gene. Stool from 22 (21.4%) of 103 children contained rotavirus antigen-positive specimens on ≥ 1 post-vaccination days. Rotavirus antigen was detected as early as post-vaccination day 3 and as late as day 9, with peak numbers of shedding on post-vaccination days 6 through 8. Vaccine-type rotavirus was detected in all 50 antigen-positive specimens and 8 of 8 antigen-negative specimens. Nine (75%) of 12 EIA-positive and 1 EIA-negative samples tested culture-positive for vaccine-type rotavirus. Fecal shedding of rotavirus vaccine virus after the first dose of RV5 occurred over a wide range of post-vaccination days not previously studied. These findings will help better define the potential for horizontal transmission of vaccine virus among immunocompromised household contacts of vaccinated infants for future studies.