Anosmia: Brighton Collaboration case definition and guidelines for data collection,analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data

This is a Brighton Collaboration case definition of anosmia to be used in the evaluation of adverse events following immunization, and for epidemiologic studies for the assessment of background incidence or hypothesis testing. The case definition was developed by a group of experts convened by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in the context of active development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The case definition format of the Brighton Collaboration was followed to develop a consensus definition and defined levels of certainty, after an exhaustive review of the literature and expert consultation. The document underwent peer review by the Brighton Collaboration Network and by two expert reviewers prior to submission.     

Sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) as an adverse event following immunization (AEFI): Case definition & guidelines for data collection,analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data

This is a Brighton Collaboration case definition of the term “Sensorineural Hearing Loss” to be utilized in the evaluation of adverse events following immunization. The case definition was developed by a group of experts convened by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in the context of active development of vaccines for Lassa Fever and other emerging pathogens. The case definition format of the Brighton Collaboration was followed to develop a consensus definition and define levels of diagnostic certainty, after an exhaustive review of the literature and expert consultation. The document underwent peer review by the Brighton Collaboration Network.     

Vaccine-associated enhanced disease: Case definition and guidelines for data collection,analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data

This is a Brighton Collaboration Case Definition of the term “Vaccine Associated Enhanced Disease” to be utilized in the evaluation of adverse events following immunization. The Case Definition was developed by a group of experts convened by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in the context of active development of vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and other emerging pathogens. The case definition format of the Brighton Collaboration was followed to develop a consensus definition and defined levels of certainty, after an exhaustive review of the literature and expert consultation. The document underwent peer review by the Brighton Collaboration Network and by selected Expert Reviewers prior to submission.     

Neonatal infections: Case definition and guidelines for data collection,analysis, and presentation of immunisation safety data

Maternal vaccination is an important area of research and requires appropriate and internationally comparable definitions and safety standards. The GAIA group, part of the Brighton Collaboration was created with the mandate of proposing standardised definitions applicable to maternal vaccine research. This study proposes international definitions for neonatal infections.The neonatal infections GAIA working group performed a literature review using Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane collaboration and collected definitions in use in neonatal and public health networks. The common criteria derived from the extensive search formed the basis for a consensus process that resulted in three separate definitions for neonatal blood stream infections (BSI), meningitis and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). For each definition three levels of evidence are proposed to ensure the applicability of the definitions to different settings.Recommendations about data collection, analysis and presentation are presented and harmonized with the Brighton Collaboration and GAIA format and other existing international standards for study reporting.     

An algorithm developed using the Brighton Collaboration case definitions is more efficient for determining diagnostic certainty

The Brighton Collaboration is a global research network focused on vaccine safety. The Collaboration has created case definitions to determine diagnostic certainty for several adverse events. Currently nested within multi-page publications, these definitions can be cumbersome for use. We report the results of a randomized trial in which the case definition for anaphylaxis was converted into a user-friendly algorithm and compared the algorithm with the standard case definition. The primary outcomes were efficiency and accuracy. Forty medical students determined the Brighton Level of diagnostic certainty of a sample case of anaphylaxis using either the algorithm or the original case definition. Most participants in both groups selected the correct Brighton Level. Participants using the algorithm required significantly less time to review the case and determine the level of diagnostic certainty [mean difference = 107 s (95% CI: 13–200; p = 0.026)], supporting that the algorithm was more efficient without impacting accuracy.     

Performance of the Brighton collaboration case definition for hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode (HHE) on reported collapse reactions following infant vaccinations in the Netherlands

We reviewed collapse (sudden onset of pallor, limpness and hyporesponsiveness) following the first infant (DPTP+Hib) vaccination reported to the enhanced passive surveillance system of the Netherlands in 1994-2003. All 1303 reports identified by the current RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and Environment) case definition were captured by the Brighton Collaboration (BC) case definition, with in 17 (1.3%) reports insufficient information. Over the years the proportion of the highest level of diagnostic certainty (level 1) increased due to more complete data from 70% to over 90%. We checked the BC case definition also on a sample of cases (with pallor or hyporesponsiveness) not meeting RIVM's case definition for collapse at the time. Sixty out of 200 cases were captured by BC but again rejected by RIVM. The sensitivity BC levels 2 and 3 appeared too high. We recommend a more restrict case definition by the Brighton Collaboration with certain exclusion criteria to make it more specific. Furthermore a change in the specifications for levels 2 and 3 will increase specificity and accommodate for the loss of sensitivity.     

Applicability, reliability, sensitivity, and specificity of six Brighton Collaboration standardized case definitions for adverse events following immunization

We evaluated the applicability, reliability, sensitivity, and specificity of six standardized case definitions for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) (for fever, generalized convulsive seizure, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode, intussusception, nodule, and persistent crying) developed by the Brighton Collaboration using the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The evaluation included: (a) the development of codified search strings using standardized coding terminology, and (b) for sensitivity and specificity analyses, the development of a "gold standard" for case determination by clinical expert reviews, and its comparison against the application of the definitions to VAERS reports by nonclinicians. Application of the case definitions in an automated approach proved to be valid, feasible, and unlikely to miss confirmed cases of the reported clinical event. The definitions had variable but generally high sensitivity and specificity compared to clinician review, which in itself yielded inconsistent case determination. The study demonstrated the need for the developed standardized definitions for AEFI and their usefulness in passive surveillance.     

Guillain-Barré syndrome following receipt of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine in Korea with an emphasis on Brighton Collaboration case definition

Background

In 2009-2010 season, with ongoing of influenza A (H1N1), employment of mass vaccination has generated concerns in issue of adverse events following immunization (AEFI). This study investigates the clinical and laboratory data of reported cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and Fisher syndrome (FS) following receipt of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) in Korea, with all cases reviewed under case definition developed by Brighton Collaboration GBS Working Group.

Method

Retrospective review of medical records for all suspected cases of GBS ad FS following receipt of influenza A (H1N1) monovalent vaccine reported to NVICP from December 1, 2009, through April 28, 2010 was conducted. Additional analyses were performed for identification of levels of diagnostic certainty according to Brighton Collaboration case definition.

Result

Of 29 reported cases, 22 were confirmed to meet Brighton criteria level 1, 2, or 3 for GBS (21) or FS (1). Of those, 2 (9.1%) met level 1, 9 (40.9%) met level 2, and 11 (50.0%) met level 3. The male to female ratio was 2:0 in cases with level 1, 8:1 in cases with level 2, and 3:8 in cases with level 3. The mean age was older in cases with level 1 (54.0 ± 26.9) than that of cases with level 2 (25.6 ± 22.8), and level 3 (13.6 ± 2.4, P = 0.005). The median onset interval was longer in cases with level 1 (16 days) than that of cases that met level 2 (12.44 days), and 3 (1.09 days, P = 0.019).

Conclusion

The Brighton case definition was used to improve the quality of AEFI data in Korea, and was applicable in retrospective review of medical records in cases with GBS and FS after influenza A (H1N1) vaccination. These findings suggest that standardized case definition was feasible in clarifying the AEFI data, and to further increase the understanding of possible relationship of influenza vaccine and GBS.     

All that palsies is not Bell's -the need to define Bell's palsy as an adverse event following immunization

Bell's palsy has been reported as an adverse event following immunization (AEFI). Review of the published literature reveals that several characteristics have been used to describe Bell's palsy, which differ significantly from author to author. Evidently, the definition of "Bell's palsy" remains controversial, and consensus between different medical subspecialties is urgently needed. The Brighton Collaboration has formed an international working group with representatives of neurology, otorhinolaryngology, pediatrics, electrophysiology, pharmacology, pharmaceutical and biotech industry as well as regulatory agencies to create a case definition of Bell's palsy as an AEFI.     

Evaluation of the Brighton Collaboration case definition of acute intussusception during active surveillance

To evaluate the Brighton Collaboration case definition of acute intussusception, we reviewed all episodes reported to the Swiss Paediatric Surveillance Unit (SPSU) during 1 year (4/2003--3/2004). Of 96 confirmed episodes 86 (90%, 95% CI 83--96) were captured by the case definition. Of the remaining 10 episodes, 9 resolved spontaneously following presentation with clinical signs and symptoms, and ultrasound findings compatible with intussusception. Eighty-two episodes met level 1 of the definition, the highest level of diagnostic certainty. Compared to level 1, the sensitivity of level 2 (intermediate level) and level 3 (lowest level) was 65% (CI 55--74) and 30% (CI 20--40), respectively. In conclusion, the case definition was useful and applicable to assess the background rate of intussusception in the light of potential future rotavirus immunization.     

Key terms for the assessment of the safety of vaccines in pregnancy: Results of a global consultative process to initiate harmonization of adverse event definitions

BackgroundThe variability of terms and definitions of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) represents a missed opportunity for optimal monitoring of safety of immunization in pregnancy. In 2014, the Brighton Collaboration Foundation and the World Health Organization (WHO) collaborated to address this gap.MethodsTwo Brighton Collaboration interdisciplinary taskforces were formed. A landscape analysis included: (1) a systematic literature review of adverse event definitions used in vaccine studies during pregnancy; (2) a worldwide stakeholder survey of available terms and definitions; (3) and a series of taskforce meetings. Based on available evidence, taskforces proposed key terms and concept definitions to be refined, prioritized, and endorsed by a global expert consultation convened by WHO in Geneva, Switzerland in July 2014.ResultsUsing pre-specified criteria, 45 maternal and 62 fetal/neonatal events were prioritized, and key terms and concept definitions were endorsed. In addition recommendations to further improve safety monitoring of immunization in pregnancy programs were specified. This includes elaboration of disease concepts into standardized case definitions with sufficient applicability and positive predictive value to be of use for monitoring the safety of immunization in pregnancy globally, as well as the development of guidance, tools, and datasets in support of a globally concerted approach.ConclusionsThere is a need to improve the safety monitoring of immunization in pregnancy programs. A consensus list of terms and concept definitions of key events for monitoring immunization in pregnancy is available. Immediate actions to further strengthen monitoring of immunization in pregnancy programs are identified and recommended.     

Anaphylaxis following H1N1 pandemic vaccines: safety data in perspective

We present here a detailed analysis of anaphylaxis cases reported to GlaxoSmithKline safety database following vaccination with its H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccines, Pandemrix™ and Arepanrix™. Cases were assessed according to the Brighton Collaboration Case Definition (BCCD) as either confirmed diagnosis (97/395, 24.6%), insufficient information to fulfil the minimal criteria of the case definition (117/395, 29.6%) or anaphylaxis excluded (181/395, 45.8%). There was no evidence that the rate of anaphylaxis following vaccination with Pandemrix™ or Arepanrix™ is increased with respect to the rates of anaphylaxis for other vaccines. Our analysis also highlighted the challenges of reliably determining the rate of anaphylaxis as an adverse event in the postmarketing setting following mass vaccination, as anaphylaxis was excluded in 45.8% of reported cases.     

Safety reporting in developing country vaccine clinical trials-a systematic review

With more vaccines becoming available worldwide, vaccine research is on the rise in developing countries. To gain a better understanding of safety reporting from vaccine clinical research in developing countries, we conducted a systematic review in Medline and Embase (1989-2011) of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting safety outcomes with ≥50% developing country participation (PROSPERO systematic review registration number: CRD42012002025). Developing country vaccine RCTs were analyzed with respect to the number of participants, age groups studied, inclusion of safety information, number of reported adverse events following immunization (AEFI), type and duration of safety follow-up, use of standardized AEFI case definitions, grading of AEFI severity, and the reporting of levels of diagnostic certainty for AEFI. The systematic search yielded a total number of 50 randomized vaccine clinical trials investigating 12 different vaccines, most commonly rotavirus and malaria vaccines. In these trials, 94,459 AEFI were reported from 446,908 participants receiving 735,920 vaccine doses. All 50 RCTs mentioned safety outcomes with 70% using definitions for at least one AEFI. The most commonly defined AEFI was fever (27), followed by local (16) and systemic reactions (14). Logistic regression analysis revealed a positive correlation between the implementation of a fever case definition and the reporting rate for fever as an AEFI (p=0.027). Overall, 16 different definitions for fever and 7 different definitions for erythema were applied. Predefined AEFI case definitions by the Brighton Collaboration were used in only two out of 50 RCTs. The search was limited to RCTs published in English or German and may be missing studies published locally. The reported systematic review suggests room for improvement with respect to the harmonization of safety reporting from developing country vaccine clinical trials and the implementation of standardized case definitions.     

Pain caused by measles,mumps, and rubella vaccines: A systematic literature review

PurposeThe risk of post-vaccination adverse events (AEs) is a primary public health concern. Among the AEs, pain is a significant source of anxiety for both children and their parents. This review describes and assesses the intensity of pain experienced by children post-vaccination with widely used Measles–Mumps–Rubella (MMR) vaccines.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane to identify publications describing immediate pain at injection site (primary objective) or pain within days (secondary objective) after 2 specific MMR vaccines. Immediate pain (‘acute pain’ according to the Brighton Collaboration case definition) was defined as pain occurring at the time or within 5 min of injection.ResultsFour studies, which compared the intensity of immediate injection site pain experienced by children after MMR vaccination, were identified. Various pain assessment tools and methods were used to quantify the intensity of pain, including the median difference in Visual Analog Scale scores between vaccine groups. All four studies showed significantly less immediate pain caused by Priorix (GSK Vaccines) compared with M-M-R II (Merck & Co., Inc.).ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this review summarizes for the first time the available scientific evidence on the intensity of pain following different MMR vaccines. It highlights that MMR vaccines can differ in terms of immediate pain. Further research may be needed to better understand the underlying reason for this observation. In this context, it is very important to understand which physicochemical properties are most relevant for the immediate pain profile of a vaccine to thereby support the development of vaccines with the best possible immediate pain profile.     

Neurologic Disease after Yellow Fever Vaccination,São Paulo,Brazil, 2017–2018

Yellow fever (YF) vaccine can cause neurologic complications. We examined YF vaccine–associated neurologic disease reported from 3 tertiary referral centers in São Paulo, Brazil, during 2017–2018 and compared the performance of criteria established by the Yellow Fever Vaccine Working Group/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Brighton Collaboration. Among 50 patients who met inclusion criteria, 32 had meningoencephalitis (14 with reactive YF IgM in cerebrospinal fluid), 2 died, and 1 may have transmitted infection to an infant through breast milk. Of 7 cases of autoimmune neurologic disease after YF vaccination, 2 were acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, 2 myelitis, and 3 Guillain-Barré syndrome. Neurologic disease can follow fractional vaccine doses, and novel potential vaccine-associated syndromes include autoimmune encephalitis, opsoclonus-myoclonus-ataxia syndrome, optic neuritis, and ataxia. Although the Brighton Collaboration criteria lack direct vaccine causal assessment, they are more inclusive than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria.     

Increased risk of anaphylaxis following administration of 2009 AS03-adjuvanted monovalent pandemic A/H1N1 (H1N1pdm09) vaccine

Background

Anaphylaxis after trivalent influenza vaccination is typically reported at a rate of <1 per million doses. In Quebec, Canada, anaphylaxis following administration of the monovalent AS03-adjuvanted H1N1pdm09 vaccine was reported through passive surveillance at a rate of 8 per million doses administered. This was 20 times higher than the reporting rate for non-adjuvanted trivalent vaccines administered during the six previous seasons. However, adequate estimation of the incidence of anaphylaxis is hindered by wide variations in definitions and diagnosis.

Methods

Using the Brighton collaboration case definition of anaphylaxis, all cases with allergic symptoms (AS) reported to public health were reviewed to estimate the incidence of anaphylaxis following AS03-adjuvanted H1N1pdm09 vaccine.

Results

Among 752 reports of allergic symptoms, 33 were initially reported as anaphylaxis of which 20/33 (60%) met the Brighton definition (19/20 with certainty levels 1 or 2). A total of 38 additional cases with onset within 1 h of vaccination also met the Brighton definition of anaphylaxis (27 (71%) with certainty levels 1 or 2). The 58 cases meeting Brighton Level 1 or 2 criteria for anaphylaxis represent a 75% increase over the 33 passively reported and an incidence of 13 per million doses administered.

Conclusion

A substantial number of patients with early-onset allergic symptoms met the most specific levels of the Brighton case definition but were not reported as anaphylaxis. Based on this specific case definition, the incidence of anaphylaxis after AS03-adjuvanted H1N1pdm09 vaccine substantially exceeded that reported with seasonal influenza vaccines, a signal that warrants better understanding.