Serious neurological adverse events have been reported from large scale community-based ivermectin treatment campaigns against Onchocerciasis volvulus in Africa. The mechanism of these events has been debated in the literature, largely focusing on the role of concomitant infection with Loa loa versus the presence of mdr-1 gene variants in humans allowing ivermectin penetration into the central nervous system. A case series of serious neurological adverse events occurring with the use of ivermectin outside of the onchocerciasis indication has been identified in VigiBase, an international database of suspected adverse drug reactions. Forty-eight cases have been reported from multiple countries in which ivermectin has been prescribed for multiple indications; clinical review excluded 20 cases with more probable explanations or other exclusion criteria. Within the remaining 28 cases, there is supportive evidence for a causative role of ivermectin including presence of the drug in brain tissue in one case and recurrence of symptoms on repeated exposure in three cases. This series suggests that serious neurological adverse events observed with the use of ivermectin in the treatment of onchocerciasis may not be entirely explained by concomitant high burden loiasis infections. By comparison with the extensive post marketing experience with ivermectin in the successful treatment of parasitic infections, the number of reported cases suggests that such events are likely rare. However, elucidation of individual-level risk factors could contribute to therapeutic decisions that can minimize harms. Further investigation into the potential for drug–drug interactions and explorations of polymorphisms in the mdr-1 gene are recommended.

Introduction A number of safety signals—complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)—have emerged with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, which share a similar pattern of symptomatology. Previous signal evaluations and epidemiological studies have largely relied on traditional methodologies and signals have been considered individually. Objective The aim of this study was to explore global reporting patterns for HPV vaccine for subgroups of reports with similar adverse event (AE) profiles. Methods All individual case safety reports (reports) for HPV vaccines in VigiBase^® until 1 January 2015 were identified. A statistical cluster analysis algorithm was used to identify natural groupings based on AE profiles in a data-driven exploratory analysis. Clinical assessment of the clusters was performed to identify clusters relevant to current safety concerns. Results Overall, 54 clusters containing at least five reports were identified. The four largest clusters included 71 % of the analysed HPV reports and described AEs included in the product label. Four smaller clusters were identified to include case reports relevant to ongoing safety concerns (total of 694 cases). In all four of these clusters, the most commonly reported AE terms were headache and dizziness and fatigue or syncope; three of these four AE terms were reported in >50 % of the reports included in the clusters. These clusters had a higher proportion of serious cases compared with HPV reports overall (44–89 % in the clusters compared with 24 %). Furthermore, only a minority of reports included in these clusters included AE terms of diagnoses to explain these symptoms. Using proportional reporting ratios, the combination of headache and dizziness with either fatigue or syncope was found to be more commonly reported in HPV vaccine reports compared with non-HPV vaccine reports for females aged 9–25 years. This disproportionality remained when results were stratified by age and when those countries reporting the signals of CRPS (Japan) and POTS (Denmark) were excluded. Conclusions Cluster analysis reveals additional reports of AEs following HPV vaccination that are serious in nature and describe symptoms that overlap those reported in cases from the recent safety signals (POTS, CRPS, and CFS), but which do not report explicit diagnoses. While the causal association between HPV vaccination and these AEs remains uncertain, more extensive analyses of spontaneous reports can better identify the relevant case series for thorough signal evaluation.

Introduction In the treatment of the individual patient, a vision is to achieve the best possible balance between benefit and harm. Such tailored therapy relies upon the identification and characterisation of risk factors for adverse drug reactions. Information relevant to risk factor considerations can be captured in adverse event reports and could be utilised in statistical signal detection. Objective The aim of this study was to explore whether statistical screening of a broad range of risk factors within a global database of adverse event reports could uncover signals of risk groups for adverse drug reactions. Methods Subgroup disproportionality analysis was applied to 15.4 million reports entered in VigiBase, the World Health Organization (WHO) global database of individual case safety reports, up to August 2017. Disproportionality analyses for drug–adverse event pairs were performed (1) in the full database and (2) across a range of subgroups defined by the following covariates: patient age, sex, body mass index, pregnancy, underlying condition, reporting country, and geographical region. Drug–adverse event pairs disproportionately over-reported in such subgroups, but not in the full database, and with a substantial difference between the two observed-to-expected ratios, were highlighted as statistical signals. These were further prioritised, through filtering and sorting, for clinical assessment, whereafter clinically relevant signals were communicated to the pharmacovigilance community and the public. Results Assessments were performed for 354 prioritised statistical signals, resulting in seven communicated signals describing previously unrecognised potential risk groups related to age (elderly), sex (male and female), body mass index (underweight and obese), and geographical region (Asia), all except one for already established adverse drug reactions. Important aspects considered in the assessments included an evaluation of the disproportionate over-reporting in the subgroup by reviewing alternative explanations and reporting patterns for similar drugs/adverse events/subgroups, and a search for plausible mechanisms to support the risk hypothesis. Conclusions This study reveals that it is possible to uncover signals of risk groups for adverse drug reactions through incorporation of broad risk factor screening into statistical signal detection in a global database of adverse event reports. Our findings suggest the potential to use such statistical methodologies for risk characterisation in subpopulations of concern.

Introduction Patient reporting in pharmacovigilance is important and contributes to signal detection. However, descriptions of methodologies for using patient reports in signal detection are scarce, and published experiences of how patient reports are used in pharmacovigilance are limited to a few individual countries. Objective Our objective was to explore the contribution of patient reports to global signal detection in VigiBase. Methods Data were retrieved from VigiBase in September 2016. Drug–event-combination series were restricted to those with >50% patient reports, defined as reporter type “Consumer/non-health professional” per E2B reporting standard. vigiRank was applied to patient reports to prioritize combinations for assessment. Product information for healthcare professionals (HCPs) as well as patient information leaflets (PILs) were used as reference for information on adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Staff from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre and the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb categorized the combinations. Potential signals proceeded to a more in-depth clinical review to determine whether the safety concern should be communicated as a “signal.” Results Of the 212 combinations assessed, 20 (9%) resulted in eight signals communicated within the World Health Organization (WHO) programme for international drug monitoring. Review of PILs revealed insufficient ADR descriptions for patients and examples of poor consistency with product information for HCPs. Patient narratives provided details regarding the experience and impact of ADRs and evidence that patients make causality and personal risk assessments. Conclusions Safety concerns described in patient reports can be identified in a global database including previously unknown ADRs as well as new aspects of known ADRs. Patient reports provide unique information valuable in signal assessment and should be included in signal detection. Novel approaches to highlighting patient reports in statistical signal detection can further improve the contribution of patient reports to pharmacovigilance.

Evolution of the current infrastructure for surveillance of vaccine safety will be essential to meet our commitments to the public in the deployment of a vaccine (or vaccines) to COVID-19. The incorporation of concepts and tools within the fields of data science and systems immunology can be used to propel vaccine safety monitoring into the twenty-first century. Rebecca Chandler from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre discusses how the COVID-19 pandemic could be the catalyst that propels vaccine safety surveillance into the twenty-first century.