4.5 Article

Passive surveillance of adverse events of an MF59-adjuvanted H1N1v vaccine during the pandemic mass vaccinations

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 539-548

出版社

LANDES BIOSCIENCE
DOI: 10.4161/hv.7.5.14821

关键词

safety; H1N1; MF59; adjuvant; vaccine; influenza

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Systemic safety surveillance is an essential component of vaccination programs to elucidate the full safety profile of a vaccine and to detect previously unrecognized adverse reactions that might be related to new vaccines. This article summarizes the spontaneous adverse drug reactions (ADR) from approximately 12 million administered doses of the pandemic MF59-adjuvanted H1N1v vaccine (Focetria (R), Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics) from the mass vaccination programs in Europe. Results: In the reporting period we received a total of 5,315 pandemic vaccine ADR reports, of which 19.9% were serious. The reporting rate was higher after H1N1 pandemic vaccines, i.e., 44.3 cases/100,000 doses, than for seasonal influenza vaccines covering the same time period, i.e., 1.7 cases/100,000 doses. The majority of reports included expected local and systemic postvaccination reactions. Rates for adverse events of special interest, for example, Guillain-Barre syndrome, anaphylaxis and convulsions showed no signs of disproportionality between the pandemic and the seasonal vaccines. There were 36 deaths reported after use of the pandemic vaccine; however, no evidence for a causal relationship with the vaccine was found. Methods: All ADR reports from October 2009 to March 2010 were included in the analyses and classified according to Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. Adverse events of special interest were compared with pooled spontaneous case reports for seasonal influenza vaccines and signal detection analyses were performed. Conclusion: The analyses of the spontaneously reported adverse events support the good safety profile of the MF59-adjuvanted H1N1v pandemic influenza vaccine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据