ArticleClinical epidemiology2024
Development of Real-Time Surveillance for Serious Adverse Events in a Pragmatic Clinical Trial Using National Registers in Finland.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We developed a hybrid safety surveillance approach for a large, pragmatic clinical trial of a high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD), using both active and passive data collection methods. Here, we present the methods and results for the passive register-based surveillance of serious adverse events (SAEs), which replaced conventional SAE reporting during the trial. Patients and Methods: The trial recruited over 33,000 older adults of whom 50% received the QIV-HD while the rest received a standard-dose vaccine (QIV-SD) as a control vaccine. We collected diagnoses related to all acute hospitalizations during the six months following vaccination from national registers. During the blinded phase of the trial, we utilized a cohort study design and compared the incidences of 1811 ICD10 diagnosis groups (SAE categories) between the trial population and older adults vaccinated with the QIV-SD outside the trial, either during the study or the previous influenza season. Based on a real-time probabilistic comparison, we flagged SAE categories with higher incidence in the trial population and then evaluated possible causal associations between each flagged category and the trial intervention. Results: Our novel approach to safety surveillance provided information, which we could evaluate in real-time during the trial. The trial participants experienced 1217 hospitalizations related to any SAE categories, contributed by 941 patients. We flagged 10 SAE categories for further analysis during the study but based on further data review, none presented strong evidence of causality with vaccination. Conclusion: Safety signals can be detected and evaluated in real-time during a pragmatic vaccine trial with register-based follow-up, utilizing passive data collection and population level comparison. Compared to conventional methods of safety follow-up, this method is likely to be more comprehensive, objective and resource effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.