In low-income countries, infectious diseases still account for a large proportion of deaths, highlighting health inequities largely caused by economic differences. Vaccination can cut health-care costs and reduce these inequities. Disease control, elimination or eradication can save billions of US dollars for communities and countries. Vaccines have lowered the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and will control cervical cancer. Travellers can be protected against "exotic" diseases by appropriate vaccination. Vaccines are considered indispensable against bioterrorism. They can combat resistance to antibiotics in some pathogens. Noncommunicable diseases, such as ischaemic heart disease, could also be reduced by influenza vaccination. Immunization programmes have improved the primary care infrastructure in developing countries, lowered mortality in childhood and empowered women to better plan their families, with consequent health, social and economic benefits. Vaccination helps economic growth everywhere, because of lower morbidity and mortality. The annual return on investment in vaccination has been calculated to be between 12% and 18%. Vaccination leads to increased life expectancy. Long healthy lives are now recognized as a prerequisite for wealth, and wealth promotes health. Vaccines are thus efficient tools to reduce disparities in wealth and inequities in health.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/2/07-040089.pdf

Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide.

Since 1998, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been exploring new automated and rapid Bayesian data mining techniques. These techniques have been used to systematically screen the FDA’s huge MedWatch database of voluntary reports of adverse drug events for possible events of concern.

Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher-than-expected combinations of drugs and events in the US FDA's spontaneous reports database.

ContextNational vaccine recommendations in the United States target an increasing number of vaccine-preventable diseases for reduction, elimination, or eradication.ObjectiveTo compare morbidity and mortality before and after widespread implementation of national vaccine recommendations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases for which recommendations were in place prior to 2005.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsFor the United States, prevaccine baselines were assessed based on representative historical data from primary sources and were compared to the most recent morbidity (2006) and mortality (2004) data for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella (including congenital rubella syndrome), invasive Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), acute hepatitis B, hepatitis A, varicella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and smallpox.Main Outcome MeasuresNumber of cases, deaths, and hospitalizations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases. Estimates of the percent reductions from baseline to recent were made without adjustment for factors that could affect vaccine-preventable disease morbidity, mortality, or reporting.ResultsA greater than 92% decline in cases and a 99% or greater decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by vaccines recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, and tetanus. Endemic transmission of poliovirus and measles and rubella viruses has been eliminated in the United States; smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Declines were 80% or greater for cases and deaths of most vaccine-preventable diseases targeted since 1980 including hepatitis A, acute hepatitis B, Hib, and varicella. Declines in cases and deaths of invasive S pneumoniae were 34% and 25%, respectively.ConclusionsThe number of cases of most vaccine-preventable diseases is at an all-time low; hospitalizations and deaths have also shown striking decreases.

/pdf/historical-comparisons-of-morbidity-and-mortality-for-4g73aqfcz1.pdf

Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States.

HEPATITIS B VIRUS (HBV) IS TRANSMITTED VIA BLOOD OR SEXUAL CONTACT. PERSONS WITH CHRONIC HBV INFECTION ARE AT INCREASED RISK FOR CIRRHOSIS AND LIVER CANCER AND REQUIRE MEDICAL CARE. THIS REPORT UPDATES AND SUMMARIZES PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP) AND CDC REGARDING THE PREVENTION OF HBV INFECTION IN THE UNITED STATES. ACIP RECOMMENDS TESTING ALL PREGNANT WOMEN FOR HEPATITIS B SURFACE ANTIGEN (HBSAG), AND TESTING HBSAG-POSITIVE PREGNANT WOMEN FOR HEPATITIS B VIRUS DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID (HBV DNA); ADMINISTRATION OF HEPB VACCINE AND HEPATITIS B IMMUNE GLOBULIN (HBIG) FOR INFANTS BORN TO HBV-INFECTED WOMEN WITHIN 12 HOURS OF BIRTH, FOLLOWED BY COMPLETION OF THE VACCINE SERIES AND POSTVACCINATION SEROLOGIC TESTING; UNIVERSAL HEPATITIS B VACCINATION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BIRTH, FOLLOWED BY COMPLETION OF THE VACCINE SERIES; AND VACCINATION OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS AGED <19 YEARS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN VACCINATED PREVIOUSLY. ACIP RECOMMENDS VACCINATION OF ADULTS AT RISK FOR HBV INFECTION, INCLUDING UNIVERSAL VACCINATION OF ADULTS IN SETTINGS IN WHICH A HIGH PROPORTION HAVE RISK FACTORS FOR HBV INFECTION AND VACCINATION OF ADULTS REQUESTING PROTECTION FROM HBV WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A SPECIFIC RISK FACTOR. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ALSO PROVIDE CDC GUIDANCE FOR POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS FOLLOWING OCCUPATIONAL AND OTHER EXPOSURES. THIS REPORT ALSO BRIEFLY SUMMARIZES PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF LIVER DISEASEST GUIDELINES FOR MATERNAL ANTIVIRAL THERAPY TO REDUCE PERINATAL HBV TRANSMISSION.

/pdf/prevention-of-hepatitis-b-virus-infection-in-the-united-3jm1iyuwch.pdf

Prevention of Hepatitis B Virus Infection in the United States: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

Context In June 2006, the Food and Drug Administration licensed the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) recombinant vaccine (qHPV) in the United States for use in females aged 9 to 26 years; the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices then recommended qHPV for routine vaccination of girls aged 11 to 12 years. Objective To summarize reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following receipt of qHPV. Design, Setting, and Participants Review and describe adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) reported to VAERS, a national, voluntary, passive surveillance system, from June 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008. Additional analyses were performed for some AEFIs in prelicensure trials, those of unusual severity, or those that had received public attention. Statistical data mining, including proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) and empirical Bayesian geometric mean methods, were used to detect disproportionality in reporting. Main Outcome Measures Numbers of reported AEFIs, reporting rates (reports per 100 000 doses of distributed vaccine or per person-years at risk), and comparisons with expected background rates. Results VAERS received 12 424 reports of AEFIs following qHPV distribution, a rate of 53.9 reports per 100 000 doses distributed. A total of 772 reports (6.2% of all reports) described serious AEFIs, including 32 reports of death. The reporting rates per 100 000 qHPV doses distributed were 8.2 for syncope; 7.5 for local site reactions; 6.8 for dizziness; 5.0 for nausea; 4.1 for headache; 3.1 for hypersensitivity reactions; 2.6 for urticaria; 0.2 for venous thromboembolic events, autoimmune disorders, and Guillain-Barre syndrome; 0.1 for anaphylaxis and death; 0.04 for transverse myelitis and pancreatitis; and 0.009 for motor neuron disease. Disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events was noted with data mining methods. Conclusions Most of the AEFI rates were not greater than the background rates compared with other vaccines, but there was disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events. The significance of these findings must be tempered with the limitations (possible underreporting) of a passive reporting system.

/pdf/postlicensure-safety-surveillance-for-quadrivalent-human-1nggukldf8.pdf

Postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine.

Problem/condition Vaccines are usually administered to healthy persons who have substantial expectations for the safety of the vaccines. Adverse events after vaccinations occur but are generally rare. Some adverse events are unlikely to be detected in prelicensure clinical trials because of their low frequency, the limited numbers of enrolled subjects, and other study limitations. Therefore, postmarketing monitoring of adverse events after vaccinations is essential. The cornerstone of monitoring safety is review and analysis of spontaneously reported adverse events. Reporting period covered This report summarizes the adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from January 1, 1991, through December 31, 2001. Description of systems VAERS was established in 1990 under the joint administration of CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to accept reports of suspected adverse events after administration of any vaccine licensed in the United States. VAERS is a passive surveillance system: reports of events are voluntarily submitted by those who experience them, their caregivers, or others. Passive surveillance systems (e.g., VAERS) are subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, reporting of temporal associations or unconfirmed diagnoses, and lack of denominator data and unbiased comparison groups. Because of these limitations, determining causal associations between vaccines and adverse events from VAERS reports is usually not possible. Vaccine safety concerns identified through adverse event monitoring nearly always require confirmation using an epidemiologic or other (e.g., laboratory) study. Reports may be submitted by anyone suspecting that an adverse event might have been caused by vaccination and are usually submitted by mail or fax. A web-based electronic reporting system has recently become available. Information from the reports is entered into the VAERS database, and new reports are analyzed weekly. VAERS data stripped of personal identifiers can be reviewed by the public by accessing http://www.vaers.org. The objectives of VAERS are to 1) detect new, unusual, or rare vaccine adverse events; 2) monitor increases in known adverse events; 3) determine patient risk factors for particular types of adverse events; 4) identify vaccine lots with increased numbers or types of reported adverse events; and 5) assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines. Results During 1991-2001, VAERS received 128,717 reports, whereas >1.9 billion net doses of human vaccines were distributed. The overall dose-based reporting rate for the 27 frequently reported vaccine types was 11.4 reports per 100,000 net doses distributed. The proportions of reports in the age groups /= years were 18.1%, 26.7%, 8.0%, 32.6%, and 4.9%, respectively. In all of the adult age groups, a predominance among the number of women reporting was observed, but the difference in sex was minimal among children. Overall, the most commonly reported adverse event was fever, which appeared in 25.8% of all reports, followed by injection-site hypersensitivity (15.8%), rash (unspecified) (11.0%), injection-site edema (10.8%), and vasodilatation (10.8%). A total of 14.2% of all reports described serious adverse events, which by regulatory definition include death, life-threatening illness, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, or permanent disability. Examples of the uses of VAERS data for vaccine safety surveillance are included in this report. Interpretation As a national public health surveillance system, VAERS is a key component in ensuring the safety of vaccines. VAERS data are used by CDC, FDA, and other organizations to monitor and study vaccine safety. CDC and FDA use VAERS data to respond to public inquiries regarding vaccine safety, and both organizations have published and presented vaccine safety studies based on VAERS data. VAERS data are also used by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to evaluate possible adverse events after vaccinations and to develop recommendations for precautions and contraindications to vaccinations. Reviews of VAERS reports and the studies based on VAERS reports during 1991-2001 have demonstrated that vaccines are usually safe and that serious adverse events occur but are rare. Public health actions Through continued reporting of adverse events after vaccination to VAERS by health-care providers, public health professionals, and the public and monitoring of reported events by the VAERS working group, the public health system will continue to be able to detect rare but potentially serious consequences of vaccination. This knowledge facilitates improvement in the safety of vaccines and the vaccination process.

/pdf/surveillance-for-safety-after-immunization-vaccine-adverse-uftyk4y9qx.pdf

Surveillance for safety after immunization: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)--United States, 1991-2001.

The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is charged with vigilance for detecting vaccine-related safety issues, faces an increasingly complex immunisation environment. Since 1990, steady increases in vaccine licensing and distribution have resulted in increasing numbers of reports to VAERS. Prominent features of current reports include more routine vaccine co-administration and frequent reports of new postvaccination clinical syndromes. Data-mining methods, based on disproportionality analyses, are one strategy being pursued by VAERS researchers to increase the utility of its complex database. The types of analyses used include proportional reporting ratios, association rule discovery, and various 'historic limits' methods that compare observed versus expected event counts. The use of such strategies in VAERS has been primarily supplemental and retrospective. Signals for inactivated influenza, typhoid and tetanus toxoid-containing vaccines have been successfully identified. Concerns flagged through data mining should always be subject to clinical case review as a first evaluation step. Persistent issues should be subject to formal hypothesis testing in large linked databases or other controlled-study settings. Automated data-mining techniques for prospective use are currently undergoing development and evaluation within VAERS. Their use (as one signal-detection tool among many) by trained medical evaluators who are aware of system limitations is one legitimate approach to improving the ability of VAERS to generate vaccine-safety hypotheses. Such approaches are needed as more new vaccines continue to be licensed.

Data mining in the US using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Purpose

There is currently no systematically available information available on how rapidly a specific lot of vaccine is used once distributed. We used data from reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to develop a proxy means of surveillance for the lifecycle of selected vaccine lots.



Methods

A convenience sample, consisting of selected lots of: diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), Hepatitis B, and varicella vaccines, was selected for lifecycle analysis. Assuming that circulation of a vaccine lot is proportional to vaccine-specific adverse event (AE) reporting for that vaccine type, we constructed Gamma distributed usage models and compared them with lot-specific VAERS reports to estimate the actual lifecycle of lots in the system.



Results

Evidence of lot circulation was detected within 1–2 months, and a peak was observed 3–4 months after the vaccine release date for most of the study vaccines. Ninety percent of the vaccine doses in each lot were estimated to be used within 5–9 months of distribution. The length of time a vaccine lot was in use ranged from 5 to 17 months from earliest vaccination date.



Conclusions

Our modeled and inferred administration of the selected lots of different vaccines were concordant. This method may be useful for spatial and temporal tracking of vaccine lot utilization. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Tracking vaccine lot lifecycles using reports to the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS).

Motivation Evaluation of vaccine program safety is a crucial priority in fulfilling responsibility to the public trust. Scientific studies and approaches to this may take on many forms. Given the weight of this responsibility, the approaches should comprise every form that may be of any utility. An overlooked vaccine safety incident could negate years of programmatic development and progress in established population coverage as well as cause unnecessary harm to people. Problem solving is more flexible and likely to be successful when there are more than one means to address solutions and to acquire knowledge from evidence in data. Uses of data mining approaches have generated interest and successes in many fields (Hand, 1998 and Berry, 2000). This suggests that creative application of the methods may be useful in ensuring vaccine safety. It is unreasonable to expect pre-licensure safety testing and clinical trials to fully characterize all possible safety aspects of medical products (Teutsch, 2000; Wassilak, 1995). This is especially true when there are events of interest with relatively small rates of occurrence as is the case in vaccine safety surveillance (Plotkin and Orenstein, 1999). It is therefore prudent to consider and implement modern data mining methods in efforts to ensure post-licensure vaccine safety.

Roseanne English-Bullard

Papers

Surveillance for safety after immunization: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)--United States, 1991-2001.

Data mining in the US using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Tracking vaccine lot lifecycles using reports to the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS).

Data Mining for Post-Licensure Vaccine Safety and Policy Implications for Using Results