Schumm Walter R
BMC Med. 2006 Nov 10;4:27. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-4-27.
Accurate reporting of adverse events occurring after vaccination is an important component of determining risk-benefit ratios for vaccinations. Controversy has developed over alleged underreporting of adverse events within U.S. military samples. This report examines the accuracy of adverse event rates recently published for headaches, and examines the issue of underreporting of headaches as a function of civilian or military sources and as a function of passive versus active surveillance.
A report by Sejvar et al was examined closely for accuracy with respect to the reporting of neurologic adverse events associated with smallpox vaccination in the United States. Rates for headaches were reported by several scholarly sources, in addition to Sejvar et al, permitting a comparison of reporting rates as a function of source and type of surveillance.
Several major errors or omissions were identified in Sejvar et al. The count of civilian subjects vaccinated and the totals of both civilians and military personnel vaccinated were reported incorrectly by Sejvar et al. Counts of headaches reported in VAERS were lower (n = 95) for Sejvar et al than for Casey et al (n = 111) even though the former allegedly used 665,000 subjects while the latter used fewer than 40,000 subjects, with both using approximately the same civilian sources. Consequently, rates of nearly 20 neurologic adverse events reported by Sejvar et al were also incorrectly calculated. Underreporting of headaches after smallpox vaccination appears to increase for military samples and for passive adverse event reporting systems.
Until revised or corrected, the rates of neurologic adverse events after smallpox vaccinated reported by Sejvar et al must be deemed invalid. The concept of determining overall rates of adverse events by combining small civilian samples with large military samples appears to be invalid. Reports of headaches as adverse events after smallpox vaccination appear to be have occurred much less frequently using passive surveillance systems and by members of the U.S. military compared to civilians, especially those employed in healthcare occupations. Such concerns impact risk-benefit ratios associated with vaccines and weigh against making vaccinations mandatory, without informed consent, even among military members. Because of the issues raised here, adverse event rates derived solely or primarily from U.S. Department of Defense reporting systems, especially passive surveillance systems, should not be used, given better alternatives, for making public health policy decisions.
准确报告疫苗接种后发生的不良事件是确定疫苗风险效益比的重要组成部分。关于美国军方样本中不良事件报告不足的指控引发了争议。本报告审查了最近公布的头痛不良事件发生率的准确性,并探讨了头痛报告不足问题与 civilian 或军方来源以及被动监测与主动监测的关系。
仔细审查了 Sejvar 等人关于美国天花疫苗接种相关神经不良事件报告的准确性。除了 Sejvar 等人之外,还有几个学术来源报告了头痛发生率,从而可以比较报告率与来源和监测类型的关系。
在 Sejvar 等人的报告中发现了几个重大错误或遗漏。Sejvar 等人错误地报告了接种疫苗的 civilian 受试者数量以及 civilian 和军方人员的总数。即使前者据称使用了 665,000 名受试者,而后者使用的受试者少于 40,000 名,且两者使用的 civilian 来源大致相同,但 Sejvar 等人报告的 VAERS 中头痛病例数(n = 95)比 Casey 等人(n = 111)少。因此,Sejvar 等人报告的近 20 种神经不良事件发生率也计算错误。天花疫苗接种后头痛报告不足的情况在军方样本和被动不良事件报告系统中似乎有所增加。
在修订或更正之前,Sejvar 等人报告的天花疫苗接种后神经不良事件发生率必须被视为无效。将少量 civilian 样本与大量军方样本相结合来确定不良事件总体发生率的概念似乎是无效的。与 civilian 相比,尤其是从事医疗保健职业的 civilian,使用被动监测系统以及美国军方人员报告的天花疫苗接种后头痛作为不良事件的情况似乎要少得多。这些担忧影响了与疫苗相关的风险效益比,不利于在未经知情同意的情况下强制接种疫苗,即使在军方人员中也是如此。由于此处提出的问题,鉴于有更好的选择,不应仅使用或主要使用美国国防部报告系统,特别是被动监测系统得出的不良事件发生率来制定公共卫生政策决策。