Assessment of potential adverse events following the 2022-2023 seasonal influenza vaccines among U.S. adults aged 65 years and older.

BACKGROUND: While safety of influenza vaccines is well-established, some studies have suggested potential associations between influenza vaccines and certain adverse events (AEs). This study examined the safety of the 2022-2023 influenza vaccines among U.S. adults ≥ 65 years. METHODS: A self-controlled case series compared incidence rates of anaphylaxis, encephalitis/encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), and transverse myelitis following 2022-2023 seasonal influenza vaccinations (i.e., any, high-dose or adjuvanted) in risk and control intervals among Medicare beneficiaries ≥ 65 years. We used conditional Poisson regression to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for event-dependent observation time and seasonality. Analyses also accounted for uncertainty from outcome misclassification where feasible. For AEs with any statistically significant associations, we stratified results by concomitant vaccination status. RESULTS: Among 12.7 million vaccine recipients, we observed 76 anaphylaxis, 276 encephalitis/encephalomyelitis, 134 GBS and 75 transverse myelitis cases. Only rates of anaphylaxis were elevated in risk compared to control intervals. With all adjustments, an elevated, but non-statistically significant, anaphylaxis rate was observed following any (IRR: 2.40, 95% CI: 0.96-6.03), high-dose (IRR: 2.31, 95% CI: 0.67-7.91), and adjuvanted (IRR: 3.28, 95% CI: 0.71-15.08) influenza vaccination; anaphylaxis IRRs were 2.54 (95% CI: 0.49-13.05) and 1.64 (95% CI: 0.38-7.05) for persons with and without concomitant vaccination, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of encephalitis/encephalomyelitis, GBS, or transverse myelitis were not elevated following 2022-2023 seasonal influenza vaccinations among U.S. adults ≥ 65 years. There was an increased rate of anaphylaxis following influenza vaccination that may have been influenced by concomitant vaccination.

Evaluation of potential adverse events following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among adults aged 65 years and older: Two self-controlled studies in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Our near-real-time safety monitoring of 16 adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination identified potential elevation in risk for six AEs following primary series and monovalent booster dose administration. The crude association with AEs does not imply causality. Accordingly, we conducted robust evaluation of potential associations. METHODS: We conducted two self-controlled case series studies of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) in U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 years. Adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated following primary series doses for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism (PE), immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC); and following monovalent booster doses for AMI, PE, ITP, Bell's Palsy (BP) and Myocarditis/Pericarditis (Myo/Peri). RESULTS: The primary series study included 3,360,981 individuals who received 6,388,542 primary series doses; the booster study included 6,156,100 individuals with one monovalent booster dose. The AMI IRR following BNT162b2 primary series and booster was 1.04 (95 % CI: 0.91 to 1.18) and 1.06 (95 % CI: 1.003 to 1.12), respectively; for mRNA-1273 primary series and booster, 1.01 (95 % CI: 0.82 to 1.26) and 1.05 (95 % CI: 0.998 to 1.11), respectively. The hospital inpatient PE IRR following BNT162b2 primary series and booster was 1.19 (95 % CI: 1.03 to 1.38) and 0.86 (95 % CI: 0.78 to 0.95), respectively; for mRNA-1273 primary series and booster, 1.15 (95 % CI: 0.94 to 1.41) and 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.79 to 0.96), respectively. The studies' results do not support that exposure to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines elevate the risk of ITP, DIC, Myo/Peri, and BP. CONCLUSION: We did not find an increased risk for AMI, ITP, DIC, BP, and Myo/Peri and there was not consistent evidence for PE after exposure to COVID-19 mRNA primary series or monovalent booster vaccines. These results support the favorable safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. elderly population.

Evaluating Rapid-cycle Deliberate Practice Versus Mastery Learning in Training Nurse Anesthetists on the Universal Anaesthesia Machine Ventilator in Sierra Leone.

BACKGROUND: Underserved sub-Saharan countries have 0.1 to 1.4 anesthesia providers per 100 000 citizens, below the Lancet Commission's target of 20 per 100 000 needed for safe surgery. Most of these anesthesia providers are nurse anesthetists, with anesthesiologists numbering as few as zero in some nations and 2 per 7 million in others, such as Sierra Leone. In this study, we compared 2 simulation-based techniques for training nurse anesthetists on the Universal Anaesthesia Machine Ventilator-rapid-cycle deliberate practice and mastery learning. METHODS: A 2-week Universal Anaesthesia Machine Ventilator course was administered to 17 participants in Sierra Leone. Seven were randomized to the rapid-cycle deliberate practice group and 10 to the mastery learning group. Participants underwent baseline and posttraining evaluations in 3 scenarios: general anesthesia, intraoperative power failure, and postoperative pulmonary edema. Performance was analyzed based on checklist performance scores and the number of times participants were stopped for a mistake. Statistical significance to 0.05 was determined with the Mann-Whitney U Test. RESULTS: Checklist performance scores did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. When the groups were combined, simulation-based training resulted in a statistically significant improvement in performance. The highest-frequency problem areas were preoxygenation, switching from spontaneous to mechanical ventilation, and executing appropriate treatment interventions for a postoperative emergency. CONCLUSION: Both rapid-cycle deliberate practice and mastery learning are effective methods for simulation-based training to improve nurse anesthetist performance with the Universal Anaesthesia Machine Ventilator in 3 separate scenarios. The data did not indicate any difference between these methods; however, a larger sample size may support or refute our findings.