A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
Development of Real-Time Surveillance for Serious Adverse Events in a Pragmatic Clinical Trial Using National Registers in Finland
Authors: Nieminen, Tuomo A.; Palmu, Arto A.; Auvinen, Raija; Kulathinal, Sangita; Auranen, Kari; Syrjänen, Ritva K.; Nieminen, Heta; Moore, Tamala Mallett; Pepin, Stephanie; Jokinen, Jukka
Publisher: DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
Publishing place: ALBANY
Publication year: 2024
Journal: Clinical Epidemiology
Journal name in source: CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Journal acronym: CLIN EPIDEMIOL
Volume: 16
First page : 901
Last page: 915
Number of pages: 15
eISSN: 1179-1349
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S483034
Web address : https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S483034
Self-archived copy’s web address: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/478101651
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.
Downloadable publication This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |
Funding information in the publication:
This study was funded by Sanofi.