Comparative study on application efficacy of different surveillance methods in postmarketing safety evaluation of group A and C meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine
10.3760/cma.j.cn114015-20241011-00087
- VernacularTitle:不同监测方式在A群C群脑膜炎球菌多糖疫苗安全性评估中应用效果的比较研究
- Author:
Xiaowen SHI
1
;
Chang LI
1
;
Wenjian FANG
1
;
Lin DU
1
Author Information
1. 北京智飞绿竹生物制药有限公司药物警戒部，北京 100176
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Meningitis, meningococcal;
Product surveillance, postmarketing;
Group A and C meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine;
Adverse events following immunization
- From:
Adverse Drug Reactions Journal
2025;27(5):288-295
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare and analyze the application efficacy of active surveillance versus passive surveillance in post-marketing safety monitoring of the group A and C meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine(MPSV-AC).Methods:Safety data for MPSV-AC from its market launch in November 2011 to June 2024 were collected from Beijing Zhifei Lyuzhu Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and categorized into active and passive surveillance data based on acquisition methods. Active surveillance data were derived from adverse events cases observed in the company′s phase Ⅳ clinical trial. Passive surveillance data were carried out by the Pharmacovigilance Department through the drug adverse reaction direct reporting system, which downloaded all adverse events following immunization(AEFI) case reports. Cases of adverse events under active surveillance that were "definitely related", "probably related", "possibly related", or "possibly unrelated" were classified as adverse reaction cases, and cases of passive surveillance that were classified as "general reaction" or "abnormal reaction" were classified as adverse reaction cases, and were counted according to the number of cases. For cases where different clinical manifestations of adverse reactions or preferred terminology were present in the same one patient, the number was counted separately. Descriptive epidemiological methods were used to describe the incidence of adverse reaction reports, the distribution of clinical manifestations, adverse reactions recorded and not recorded in the instructions and adverse reactions outcomes of two monitoring methods. The differences in the incidence of reported adverse reactions between active and passive surveillance were compared and analysed.Results:A total of 922 patients with MPSV-AC adverse reaction reports were obtained through two monitoring modes, and 1 308 adverse reactions were occurred. In the active surveillance, the number of vaccination doses was 9 999, and 579 patients with adverse reactions were reported with 911 adverse reactions. In the passive surveillance, the number of vaccination doses was 4 185 800, and 343 patients with adverse reactions were reported with 397 adverse reactions. The incidence of reported adverse reactions in the passive surveillance was lower than in the active surveillance, and the difference was statistically significant [0.008% (343/4 185 800) vs. 5.791% (579/9 999), P<0.001]. The age range for active surveillance was ≥2 to<7 years old; the age range of passive surveillance was 0-15 years old, with the highest proportion of those aged ≥2 to<7 years old [79.30% (273/343)]. The clinical manifestation that topped the composition ratio of major adverse reactions for both surveillanceme thods was fever, but systemic symptoms such as malaise and anorexia were more frequently reported in active surveillance, whereas signs visible on the surface such as allergic rash, erythema and hard nodules were reported in passive surveillance. The proportion of serious adverse reactions from active surveillance was 0.22%(2/922), which were upper respiratory tract infection and febrile convulsions. Of the adverse reactions not included in the specification, those from active surveillance mainly involved infections and invasive diseases [77.32% (75/97)], and those from passive surveillance mainly involved diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissues(6/12). All 579 patients in the active surveillance adverse reaction reports were monitored until cured; in the passive surveillance, 199 cases (50.13%, 199/397) were cured, 168 cases (42.32%, 168/397) were improved, and 30 cases (7.56%, 30/397) were unknown. Conclusions:Active surveillance is irreplaceable for postmarketing safety evaluation of vaccines, as it comprehensively captures safety signals, indicating good safety of MPSV-AC. A multi-source data integration platform could be established in the future.
