6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Trends in Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Safety Concerns and Adverse Event Reporting in the United States

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Does public sentiment of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine safety align with spontaneous HPV vaccine adverse event reporting data?

          Findings

          This cross-sectional analysis of the 2015 to 2018 National Immunization Survey indicates a 79.9% increase in the proportion of parents who refused the HPV vaccine for their adolescents due to safety concerns. In contrast, estimates from the national vaccine safety surveillance system found that the HPV vaccine adverse event reporting rate per 100 000 doses distributed decreased from 44.7 in 2015 to 29.4 in 2018.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest an urgent need to combat safety concerns about the HPV vaccine in the US.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study investigates trends in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine adverse event reporting and trends in HPV vaccine safety concerns among caregivers of vaccine-eligible US adolescents from 2015 to 2018.

          Abstract

          Importance

          In the US, safety concern has been identified as a primary barrier to initiating the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. It is unclear if the public’s sentiment concerning HPV vaccine safety aligns with postmarketing vaccine safety surveillance data.

          Objective

          To perform a parallel assessment of trends in HPV vaccine safety concerns and HPV vaccine adverse event (AE) reporting.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This study was a cross-sectional analysis of the National Immunization Survey (NIS) and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Participants in the NIS were adolescents aged 13 to 17 years. AEs were reported to VAERS by patients, health care clinicians, or other sources. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2020 to May 2021.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Secular trends in HPV vaccine safety concerns and spontaneous AE reporting for HPV vaccination from 2015 to 2018.

          Results

          Caregivers of 39 364 unvaccinated adolescents with a mean (SD) age of 15.57 (0.08) years (26 996 White adolescents [62.9%], 22 707 male adolescents [56.1%], 11 392 privately insured [62.6%], and 32 674 above the poverty level [79.3%]) reported their reasons for not initiating the HPV vaccine series in the 2015-2018 NIS. Citing safety concerns as the primary reason for not initiating the HPV vaccine series increased from 13.0% (95% CI, 12.1%-14.0%) in 2015 to 23.4% (95% CI, 21.8%-25.0%) in 2018 ( P for trend < .001), equating to a change from 170 046 to 259 157 US adolescents not initiating the vaccine because of safety concerns. The proportion of parents citing safety concerns as the main reason for HPV vaccine hesitancy increased in 30 states. The largest increases (more than 200%) were observed in California, Hawaii, South Dakota, and Mississippi. During 2015 to 2018, 16 621 AE reports following HPV vaccination were reported to VAERS. The AE reporting rate per 100 000 doses distributed decreased from 44.7 in 2015 to 29.4 in 2018 ( P for trend < .001). The serious AE reporting rate, including those leading to hospitalizations, disability, life-threatening condition, or death did not change.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this descriptive cross-sectional study, a rise in citing safety concerns was observed among parents with HPV vaccine hesitancy, contrary to the nonserious and serious AE reporting trends. These findings suggest an urgent need to combat the rising sentiment of safety concerns among caregivers to increase HPV vaccine confidence.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm--an overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement.

          A Kata (2012)
          Websites opposing vaccination are prevalent on the Internet. Web 2.0, defined by interaction and user-generated content, has become ubiquitous. Furthermore, a new postmodern paradigm of healthcare has emerged, where power has shifted from doctors to patients, the legitimacy of science is questioned, and expertise is redefined. Together this has created an environment where anti-vaccine activists are able to effectively spread their messages. Evidence shows that individuals turn to the Internet for vaccination advice, and suggests such sources can impact vaccination decisions - therefore it is likely that anti-vaccine websites can influence whether people vaccinate themselves or their children. This overview examines the types of rhetoric individuals may encounter online in order to better understand why the anti-vaccination movement can be convincing, despite lacking scientific support for their claims. Tactics and tropes commonly used to argue against vaccination are described. This includes actions such as skewing science, shifting hypotheses, censoring dissent, and attacking critics; also discussed are frequently made claims such as not being "anti-vaccine" but "pro-safe vaccines", that vaccines are toxic or unnatural, and more. Recognizing disingenuous claims made by the anti-vaccination movement is essential in order to critically evaluate the information and misinformation encountered online. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A 9-valent HPV vaccine against infection and intraepithelial neoplasia in women.

            The investigational 9-valent viruslike particle vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) includes the HPV types in the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine (6, 11, 16, and 18) and five additional oncogenic types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58). Here we present the results of a study of the efficacy and immunogenicity of the 9vHPV vaccine in women 16 to 26 years of age.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Safety monitoring in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

              The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conduct post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a spontaneous (or passive) reporting system. This means that after a vaccine is approved, CDC and FDA continue to monitor safety while it is distributed in the marketplace for use by collecting and analyzing spontaneous reports of adverse events that occur in persons following vaccination. Various methods and statistical techniques are used to analyze VAERS data, which CDC and FDA use to guide further safety evaluations and inform decisions around vaccine recommendations and regulatory action. VAERS data must be interpreted with caution due to the inherent limitations of passive surveillance. VAERS is primarily a safety signal detection and hypothesis generating system. Generally, VAERS data cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event. VAERS data interpreted alone or out of context can lead to erroneous conclusions about cause and effect as well as the risk of adverse events occurring following vaccination. CDC makes VAERS data available to the public and readily accessible online. We describe fundamental vaccine safety concepts, provide an overview of VAERS for healthcare professionals who provide vaccinations and might want to report or better understand a vaccine adverse event, and explain how CDC and FDA analyze VAERS data. We also describe strengths and limitations, and address common misconceptions about VAERS. Information in this review will be helpful for healthcare professionals counseling patients, parents, and others on vaccine safety and benefit-risk balance of vaccination.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                17 September 2021
                September 2021
                17 September 2021
                : 4
                : 9
                : e2124502
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center for Healthcare Data, Department of Management, Policy, and Community Health, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, Texas
                [2 ]Center for Health Services Research, Department of Management, Policy, and Community Health, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, Texas
                [3 ]Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, Texas
                [4 ]Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
                [5 ]Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, School of Public Health, UT Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
                [6 ]Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
                [7 ]Center for Immunization and Infection Research in Cancer, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: July 4, 2021.
                Published: September 17, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.24502
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Sonawane K et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Kalyani Sonawane, PhD, Center for Healthcare Data, Department of Management, Policy and Community Health, UTHealth School of Public Health, 1200 Pressler St, RAS-E 1013, Houston, TX ( Kalyani.B.Sonawane@ 123456uth.tmc.edu ).
                Author Contributions : Dr Sonawane had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Sonawane, Deshmukh.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Sonawane, Yueh-Yun Lin, Fernandez, Deshmukh.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Sonawane, Yueh-Yun Lin, Zhu, Li, Ying Lin.
                Obtained funding: Sonawane, Deshmukh.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Damgacioglu, Fernandez, Deshmukh.
                Supervision: Sonawane, Fernandez, Ganduglia-Cazaban, Deshmukh.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Giuliano has received financial support from Merck, outside the submitted work, for her role as a member of several advisory boards and as a speaker at conference symposia. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities under award number K01MD016440 and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01CA232888.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
                Article
                zoi210716
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.24502
                8449282
                34533574
                07af4d3c-acd2-4b4e-906b-b747f51bee08
                Copyright 2021 Sonawane K et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 6 April 2021
                : 4 July 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Public Health

                Comments

                Comment on this article