4.2 Article

Comparison of military and civilian reporting rates for smallpox vaccine adverse events

Journal

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 597-604

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1349

Keywords

adverse events; smallpox vaccine; reporting rates

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction US smallpox vaccination (SMA) started most recently in December 2002. Military and civilian personnel report adverse events (AEs) to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a surveillance system that relies on spontaneous reports. Although reported rates of probable myo/pericarditis after SMA in the literature are similar between military personnel and civilian healthcare workers, some civilian AE reporting rates after SMA appeared higher than those in the military. Objective Determine if SMA-associated reporting rates are different in civilians than in the military, considering age, sex, seriousness, and expectedness of the AE, as well as self-reporting. Methods Numerators were SMA reports in VAERS from 12/12/02 to 3/1/04. Limitations of VAERS include underreporting and lack of diagnostic confirmation. Denominators were number of military and civilian vaccinees. Results Reporting rates stratified by age and sex of serious and non-serious AEs were significantly higher in civilian than military personnel ages <55 years (rate ratios 4-27). These rate ratios decreased with increasing age. Conclusions Reporting rates in VAERS differed significantly and substantially in civilians compared to military personnel <55 years of age. Differences in stimulated passive surveillance systems, and AE reporting practices, including the 'threshold' for reporting most likely explain these findings. These results suggest that in the case of smallpox vaccine AEs, there may be systematic differences in reporting completeness between the civilian and military sectors, and that passive surveillance data should be interpreted with caution. Copyright (C) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available