Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30648923›Full record

Observational studyHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2019

Enhanced passive surveillance of influenza vaccination in England, 2016-2017- an observational study using an adverse events reporting card.

Simon de Lusignan, Filipa Ferreira, Silvia Damaso, Rachel Byford, Sameera Pathirannehelage, Anne Yeakey, Ivelina Yonova, Anne Schuind, Gael Dos Santos

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Simon de Lusignana Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine , University of Surrey , Guildford , UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8553-2641
Filipa Ferreiraa Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine , University of Surrey , Guildford , UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7717-8486
Silvia Damasob Biostatistics EPI , GSK , Wavre , Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4851-4396
Rachel Byforda Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine , University of Surrey , Guildford , UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4792-8995
Sameera Pathirannehelagea Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine , University of Surrey , Guildford , UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5112-8296
Anne Yeakeyc Clinical Safety & Pharmacovigilance , GSK , Rockville , MD , USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3691-3445
Ivelina Yonovaa Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine , University of Surrey , Guildford , UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4856-3075
Anne Schuindd Clinical R&D , GSK , Rockville, MD , USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3544-0682
Gael Dos Santose Clinical R&D , GSK , Wavre , Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8623-3478

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Influenza is a major public health burden, mainly prevented by vaccination. Recommendations on influenza vaccine composition are updated annually and constant benefit-risk monitoring is therefore needed. We conducted near-real-time enhanced passive surveillance (EPS) for the influenza vaccine, Fluarix Tetra, according to European Medicines Agency guidance, in 10 volunteer general practices in England using Fluarix Tetra as their principal influenza vaccine brand, from 1-Sep to 30-Nov-2016. The EPS method used a combination of routinely collected data from electronic health records (EHR) and a customized adverse events reporting card (AERC) distributed to participants vaccinated with Fluarix Tetra. For participants vaccinated with a different influenza vaccine, data were derived exclusively from the EHR. We reported weekly and cumulative incidence of pre-defined adverse events of interest (AEI) occurring within 7 days post-vaccination, adjusted for clustering effect. Of the 97,754 eligible participants, 19,334 (19.8%) received influenza vaccination, of whom 13,861 (71.7%) received Fluarix Tetra. A total of 1,049 participants receiving Fluarix Tetra reported AEIs; 703 (67%) used the AERC (adjusted cumulative incidence rate 4.96% [95% CI: 3.92-6.25]). Analysis by individual pre-specified AEI categories identified no safety signal for Fluarix Tetra. A total of 62 individuals reported an AEI with a known brand of non-GSK influenza vaccine and 54 with an unknown brand (adjusted cumulative incidence rate 2.59% [1.93-3.47] and 1.77% [1.42-2.20], respectively). In conclusion, the study identified no safety signal for Fluarix Tetra and showed that the AERC was a useful tool that complemented routine pharmacovigilance by allowing more comprehensive capture of AEIs.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolData CollectionElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansIncidenceInfantInfant, NewbornInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesfluarixInfluenza VaccinesVaccines, Inactivatedadverse drug reaction reporting systemsadverse effectsdrug-related side effects and adverse reactionsinfluenza, humaninfluenza vaccinesmedical record systems, computerized[MeSH]: General practicepharmacovigilancerecords as topic

Identifiers

PMID30648923
PMCPMC6605873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.