ABSTRACT
Vaccine Benefit-Risk (B-R) assessment consists of evaluating the benefits and risks of a vaccine and making a judgment whether the expected key benefits outweigh the potential key risks associated with its expected use. B-R supports regulatory and public health decision-making throughout the vaccine's lifecycle. In August 2021, the Brighton Collaboration's Benefit-Risk Assessment of VAccines by TechnolOgy (BRAVATO) Benefit-Risk Assessment Module working group was established to develop a standard module to support the planning, conduct and evaluation of structured B-R assessments for vaccines from different platforms, based on data from clinical trials, post-marketing studies and real-world evidence. It enables sharing of relevant information via value trees, effects tables and graphical depictions of B-R trade-offs. It is intended to support vaccine developers, funders, regulators and policy makers in high-, middle- or low-income countries to help inform decision-making and facilitate transparent communication concerning development, licensure, deployment and other lifecycle decisions.
Subject(s)
Vaccines , Risk Assessment , Vaccines/adverse effects , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In Europe, the enhanced safety surveillance (ESS) of seasonal influenza vaccines is mandatory, in order to detect any potential increase in reactogenicity when the vaccine composition is updated. The MF59® -adjuvanted influenza vaccine (Fluad™) is the first and the only licensed adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine in Europe. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to summarize the safety data of Fluad™ over three consecutive seasons. METHODS: A passive approach to ESS (EPSS) was adopted, in which reporting of spontaneous adverse events (AEs) by vaccinees and vaccine exposure was estimated, in order to generate a near real-time reporting rate. EPSS was conducted in Italy during the 2015, 2016, and 2017 influenza seasons in the primary care setting. All AEs reported within 7 days following immunization were analyzed by season, type and seriousness. Fisher's exact test was used to compare frequencies between seasons. RESULTS: Total exposure accounted for approximately 1,000 doses of Fluad™ for each season. A total of 0.5% (2015), 0.7% (2016), and 0.5% (2017) individual case safety reports (ICSRs) were received, corresponding to a total of 9 (2015), 18 (2016), and 12 (2017) spontaneous AEs. The frequencies of AEs of interest were below those expected on the basis of the known safety profile of the vaccine. Most AEs were mild-to-moderate in severity. No between-season difference was found. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses confirmed that the safety data observed were consistent with the known safety profile of Fluad™, which has been amply established over the last 20 years. No significant changes in the safety profile were observed.
