Drug Safety

, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp 1105–1109 | Cite as

Restoring Confidence in Vaccines by Explaining Vaccine Safety Monitoring

Is a Targeted Approach Needed?
Commentary

Abstract

Public trust in childhood vaccines is crucial to achieving adequate immunisation coverage to ensure population-level immunity. However, in the UK, immunisation uptake has been adversely affected by vaccine safety scares, such as those surrounding whooping cough and measles, mumps and rubella (MMR). It is our belief that greater public awareness of safety surveillance schemes may play a key role in improving trust in vaccine safety.

Many parents of vaccination-age children are unaware of the procedures in place for postmarketing surveillance of vaccines. Thus, we propose specific steps for generating such awareness, such as assisting parents to report suspected adverse reactions directly to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) via the Yellow Card scheme, providing information about adverse reaction reporting with vaccination information packs, and displaying posters and leaflets to convey the message that patient concerns and experiences are taken seriously by the MHRA and to generate further awareness about the scheme. In addition, healthcare staff should be encouraged to report suspected adverse reactions relating to vaccine products.

Unresolved issues about the scientific usefulness of data reported by parents and the potential for these steps to increase parental concern and expectations require further investigation.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Wellcome Trust provided funding for the research in the form of a Public Engagement with Science research studentship (Grant number 068868); however, both authors are independent of the funding source. The funding source had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication. AR Cox is also employed on a part-time basis at Yellow Card Centre West Midlands, a regional education centre of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

The viewpoints expressed in this commentary are those of the authors and not necessarily endorsed by the MHRA. Ethical approval for the interviews described in this paper was given by the Durham University Ethics Advisory Committee in July 2002 (Application Number 01 EAC 87).

References

  1. 1.
    Rawlins MD. Trading risk for benefit. In: Mann RD, ed. Risk and consent to risk in medicine. Lancs: Parthenon Publishing Group, 1989: 202Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hazel L, Shakir SAW. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006; 29(5): 385–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker JP. The pertussis vaccine controversy in Great Britain, 1974-1986. Vaccine. 2003; 21: 4003–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elliman D, Bedford H. MMR vaccine: the continuing saga. BMJ 2001 27 January; 322: 183–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wakefield A, Murch S, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998; 351: 637–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murch SH, Anthony A, Casson DH, et al. Retraction of an interpretation. Lancet 2004; 363(9411): 750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, et al. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(19): 1477–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Afzal MA, Ozoemena LC, O’Hare A, et al. Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK. J Med Virol 2006 May; 78(5): 623–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Souza Y, Fombonne E, Ward BJ. No evidence of persisting measles virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from children with autistic spectrum disorder. Pediatrics 2006: 118(4): 1664–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis J, Speers T. Science and society: misleading media reporting? The MMR story. Nat Rev Immunol 2003; 3(11): 913–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Casiday R, Cresswell T, Panter-Brick C, et al. A survey of UK parental attitudes to the MMR vaccine and trust in medical authority. Vaccine 2006; 24(2): 177–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bedford H, Elliman D. MMR: the onslaught continues. BMJ 2003 29 March; 326: 718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alfredsson R, Svensson E, Trollfors B, et al. Why do parents hesitate to vaccinate their children against measles, mumps and rubella? Acta Paediatrica 2004 Sep; 93(9): 1232–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gellatly J, McVittie C, Tiliopoulos N. Predicting parents’ decisions on MMR immunisation: a mixed method investigation. Fam Pract 2005 Dec; 22(6): 658–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casiday R. Risk conceptualisation, trust and decision-making in the face of contradictory information: the case of MMR. Durham: University of Durham, 2005Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Egberts TCG, Smulders M, deKoning FHP, et al. Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. BMJ 1996 Aug; 313(7056): 530–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Medawar C, Herxheimer A, Bell A, et al. Paroxetine, panorama and user reporting of ADRs: consumer intelligence matters in clinical practice and post-marketing surveillance. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 2002; 15: 161–9Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    MHRA. Report of an independent review of access to the Yellow Card scheme [online]. Available from URL: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/comms-ic/documents/websiteresources/con2015008.pdf [Accessed 2006 Oct 17]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ekins-Daukes S, Irvine D, Wise L, et al. The Yellow Card scheme: evaluation of patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15(Suppl. 1): S105Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Grootheest K, de Jong-van den Berg L. Patients’ role in reporting adverse drug reactions. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2004; 3(4): 363–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Henderson M. Doctor’s drug ignorance putting lives at risk. Home News. The Times 2006 Jul 19Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cox AR, Marriott JF, Wilson KA, et al. Adverse drug reaction teaching in UK undergraduate medical and pharmacy programmes. J Clin Pharm Ther 2004; 29: 31–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School for Health, Centre for Integrated Health Care Research, Wolfson Research InstituteDurham University Queen’s Campus, University BoulevardStockton-on-TeesUK
  2. 2.Aston Pharmacy School, School of Life and Health SciencesAston UniversityBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations