Child Safety

Interview: WHO’s revised norms are allowing the use of unsafe vaccines

Dr Jacob Puliyel is one of the two doctors to have challenged the revised the definition of an ‘Adverse Event Following Immunisation’.

Even as India plans to introduce new vaccines into its national immunisation programme, two public health experts have flagged serious flaws in international standards adopted in 2013 to assess deaths that may occur from adverse reactions to vaccinations.

An Adverse Event Following Immunisation or AEFI is an untoward medical occurrence that follows immunisation. In the old system of classification of AEFIs, called the Brighton classification, if illness or death occurred soon after a vaccine was administered and no other cause of death could be found, then the death was termed as “possibly” or “probably” caused by the vaccine. The World Health Organisation has revised the definition of AEFIs to say that an event can only be related to vaccination if there is previous epidemiological evidence that such a reaction was caused by the vaccine. In the case of newly introduced vaccines this means the reaction must have been seen in the small randomised trials done in a few thousand children. Some reactions are rare and to pick them up Phase 4 trials are done which is otherwise called post marketing surveillance. Here the vaccine is given to the general population and rarer reactions are picked up in post marketing surveillance. The new guidelines will allow all deaths after vaccinations seen in post marketing surveillance to be classified as “coincidental” or “unclassifiable”.

Dr Jacob Puliyel from St Stephens Hospital in Delhi and Dr Anant Phadke who works with the All India Drug Action Network have written a letter in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics that points out that according to these revised AEFI guidelines an event can be attributable to vaccine if there is no other intervening factor. Puliyel pointed out that by this criteria, deaths after vaccination in children with malnutrition can all be ignored and cannot be “solely attributable to vaccine with no other factor intervening”.

“This would mean that AEFI in children with an underlying heart disease who may develop symptoms of cardiac decompensation after vaccination, the cardiac decompensation would not be considered causally related to the vaccine as before, although vaccination contributed to cardiac failure in this specific situation.” Cardiac decompensation is an elevation in temperature or stress caused by a local reaction at the site of vaccination.

Puliyel and Phadke say that this will encourage the use of unsafe vaccines, which is dangerous in countries like India where post-marketing surveillance – surveillance after clinical trials, regulatory clearance and marketing of the vaccine – is already poor. The authors cite data from India’s health ministry, which states that between 2012 and 2016, India’s National AEFI committee recorded 132 serious AEFI cases, in which 78 people were hospitalised and survived but 54 died. About 50% of those who survived were classified as having had reactions to the vaccine. Not a single death was recorded as being related to the vaccine.

Puliyel spoke to Scroll.in on the need for a transparency in classifying deaths following immunisation. Here are excerpts of that conversation.

How is the WHO classification for vaccine-related death flawed?
In the old scheme called the Brighton classification of Adverse Events Following Immunisation, if A (AEFI) happens soon after B (vaccination) and there is no alternate explanation for A having happened, then A was considered “probably” related to B. It is simple common sense.

Phase 3 trials of vaccines are usually done as randomised placebo-controlled clinical studies, in a limited number of patients – probably a few thousands. However, it is well known that serious AEFIs – deaths, for example – are very rare and less than one person in 1,000 dies of such a reaction. No statistically significant increase in such serious AEFIs may be seen during the small phase 3 trials, if your study population is only 1,000.

In the new scheme all such reactions seen in the larger phase 4 trials will be classified as mere “coincidental” events if they were not seen in the phase 3 trials. Therefore, such AEFIs will never be attributed to the drug, according to their new and completely flawed reasoning. It is as if post marketing surveillance has suddenly been made redundant.

How should we assess a death following vaccination? We regularly hear claims that vaccine was not a cause for the death as other children who took the vaccine are alive.
Every time there is a death after vaccination, we have WHO-trained experts saying that because the other children who received vaccine from the same vial did not die, this death cannot be due to the vaccine. This is illogical but this seems to satisfy the lay press.

If you eat at a hotel and everyone on the table starts vomiting soon afterwards, we understand it may be food poisoning. Suppose shell-fish was served and one person in a group of ten has an allergic reaction and collapses while the others have no reaction, would you say that because the other nine did not react to the shell-fish the shell-fish cannot be the cause of the anaphylaxis

Deaths due to vaccines are a form of allergic reaction. Not everyone reacts the same way and an adverse reaction may be seen only in one person among a thousand. If 9 children receiving vaccine from one vial had no reaction to the drug, it does not mean the one person who died is merely faking the reaction. He has died of an adverse reaction to the drug and these needs to be acknowledged.

What are the limitations of the new WHO classification?
Parents of children who died after administration of the pentavalent vaccine have reported to me of their children crying inconsolably soon after vaccination and then having seizures – continuous and intractable seizures – before they died. Convulsions are a known adverse reaction to vaccination. If a child survives, the convulsions are attributed to the vaccine because convulsions are acknowledged as a known adverse reaction to the vaccine. If a child died due to continuous convulsion , it is labelled as a “coincidental death” (and not a death related to vaccine) because death is not an acknowledged side effect of the vaccine. This has happened repeatedly but each death is erased as “not related” and then health authorities can claim that no death has ever been reported related to the vaccine, even after extensive phase 4 trials in millions of children.

Why would the WHO allow a system of classification that does not allow any death to be attributed to vaccines?
That is a question you need to ask the WHO. What we know is that the new AEFI classification acknowledges right at the beginning that it borrows concepts and definitions of the CIOMS WHO committee on pharmacovigilance. (CIOMS is the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences). Nineteen of 40 members of the CIOMS WHO committee on pharmacovigilance who wrote this report were merely representatives of the vaccine manufacturers. There is a need to check who constituted this committee so ridden with conflicts of interest.

I am aware vaccines helped eradicate smallpox. I am a pro-vaccine person myself. But vaccine must be safe. Vaccines are given to healthy kids and not sick children. It is not acceptable that a perfectly healthy child should die getting a vaccine for a relatively minor disease like Haemophilius pneumonia which is eminently treatable with antibiotics.

Now if you admit that the vaccine can kill 1 healthy child in 10,000, suddenly you will find there is no enthusiasm among people to get their children vaccinated – definitely not for vaccines against mild diseases like Rotavirus and Haemophilius pneumonia. . This is why they perhaps feel the need to hide the truth of these deaths. But that is not honest science and not fair to the parents.

If the new classification continues, will it allow the entry of unsafe vaccines in the community?
It already has. That is what the analysis of the 132 AEFIs shows.

Scroll.in has reached out to WHO for a response on the points raised by Puliyel and Phadke in their letter and had not received a response at the time that this interview was published.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

What hospitals can do to drive entrepreneurship and enhance patient experience

Hospitals can perform better by partnering with entrepreneurs and encouraging a culture of intrapreneurship focused on customer centricity.

At the Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, visitors don’t have to worry about navigating their way across the complex hospital premises. All they need to do is download wayfinding tools from the installed digital signage onto their smartphone and get step by step directions. Other hospitals have digital signage in surgical waiting rooms that share surgery updates with the anxious families waiting outside, or offer general information to visitors in waiting rooms. Many others use digital registration tools to reduce check-in time or have Smart TVs in patient rooms that serve educational and anxiety alleviating content.

Most of these tech enabled solutions have emerged as hospitals look for better ways to enhance patient experience – one of the top criteria in evaluating hospital performance. Patient experience accounts for 25% of a hospital’s Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) score as per the US government’s Centres for Medicare and Mediaid Services (CMS) programme. As a Mckinsey report says, hospitals need to break down a patient’s journey into various aspects, clinical and non-clinical, and seek ways of improving every touch point in the journey. As hospitals also need to focus on delivering quality healthcare, they are increasingly collaborating with entrepreneurs who offer such patient centric solutions or encouraging innovative intrapreneurship within the organization.

At the Hospital Leadership Summit hosted by Abbott, some of the speakers from diverse industry backgrounds brought up the role of entrepreneurship in order to deliver on patient experience.

Getting the best from collaborations

Speakers such as Dr Naresh Trehan, Chairman and Managing Director - Medanta Hospitals, and Meena Ganesh, CEO and MD - Portea Medical, who spoke at the panel discussion on “Are we fit for the world of new consumers?”, highlighted the importance of collaborating with entrepreneurs to fill the gaps in the patient experience eco system. As Dr Trehan says, “As healthcare service providers we are too steeped in our own work. So even though we may realize there are gaps in customer experience delivery, we don’t want to get distracted from our core job, which is healthcare delivery. We would rather leave the job of filling those gaps to an outsider who can do it well.”

Meena Ganesh shares a similar view when she says that entrepreneurs offer an outsider’s fresh perspective on the existing gaps in healthcare. They are therefore better equipped to offer disruptive technology solutions that put the customer right at the center. Her own venture, Portea Medical, was born out of a need in the hitherto unaddressed area of patient experience – quality home care.

There are enough examples of hospitals that have gained significantly by partnering with or investing in such ventures. For example, the Children’s Medical Centre in Dallas actively invests in tech startups to offer better care to its patients. One such startup produces sensors smaller than a grain of sand, that can be embedded in pills to alert caregivers if a medication has been taken or not. Another app delivers care givers at customers’ door step for check-ups. Providence St Joseph’s Health, that has medical centres across the U.S., has invested in a range of startups that address different patient needs – from patient feedback and wearable monitoring devices to remote video interpretation and surgical blood loss monitoring. UNC Hospital in North Carolina uses a change management platform developed by a startup in order to improve patient experience at its Emergency and Dermatology departments. The platform essentially comes with a friendly and non-intrusive way to gather patient feedback.

When intrapreneurship can lead to patient centric innovation

Hospitals can also encourage a culture of intrapreneurship within the organization. According to Meena Ganesh, this would mean building a ‘listening organization’ because as she says, listening and being open to new ideas leads to innovation. Santosh Desai, MD& CEO - Future Brands Ltd, who was also part of the panel discussion, feels that most innovations are a result of looking at “large cultural shifts, outside the frame of narrow business”. So hospitals will need to encourage enterprising professionals in the organization to observe behavior trends as part of the ideation process. Also, as Dr Ram Narain, Executive Director, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, points out, they will need to tell the employees who have the potential to drive innovative initiatives, “Do not fail, but if you fail, we still back you.” Innovative companies such as Google actively follow this practice, allowing employees to pick projects they are passionate about and work on them to deliver fresh solutions.

Realizing the need to encourage new ideas among employees to enhance patient experience, many healthcare enterprises are instituting innovative strategies. Henry Ford System, for example, began a system of rewarding great employee ideas. One internal contest was around clinical applications for wearable technology. The incentive was particularly attractive – a cash prize of $ 10,000 to the winners. Not surprisingly, the employees came up with some very innovative ideas that included: a system to record mobility of acute care patients through wearable trackers, health reminder system for elderly patients and mobile game interface with activity trackers to encourage children towards exercising. The employees admitted later that the exercise was so interesting that they would have participated in it even without a cash prize incentive.

Another example is Penn Medicine in Philadelphia which launched an ‘innovation tournament’ across the organization as part of its efforts to improve patient care. Participants worked with professors from Wharton Business School to prepare for the ideas challenge. More than 1,750 ideas were submitted by 1,400 participants, out of which 10 were selected. The focus was on getting ideas around the front end and some of the submitted ideas included:

  • Check-out management: Exclusive waiting rooms with TV, Internet and other facilities for patients waiting to be discharged so as to reduce space congestion and make their waiting time more comfortable.
  • Space for emotional privacy: An exclusive and friendly space for individuals and families to mourn the loss of dear ones in private.
  • Online patient organizer: A web based app that helps first time patients prepare better for their appointment by providing check lists for documents, medicines, etc to be carried and giving information regarding the hospital navigation, the consulting doctor etc.
  • Help for non-English speakers: Iconography cards to help non-English speaking patients express themselves and seek help in case of emergencies or other situations.

As Arlen Meyers, MD, President and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs, says in a report, although many good ideas come from the front line, physicians must also be encouraged to think innovatively about patient experience. An academic study also builds a strong case to encourage intrapreneurship among nurses. Given they comprise a large part of the front-line staff for healthcare delivery, nurses should also be given the freedom to create and design innovative systems for improving patient experience.

According to a Harvard Business Review article quoted in a university study, employees who have the potential to be intrapreneurs, show some marked characteristics. These include a sense of ownership, perseverance, emotional intelligence and the ability to look at the big picture along with the desire, and ideas, to improve it. But trust and support of the management is essential to bringing out and taking the ideas forward.

Creating an environment conducive to innovation is the first step to bringing about innovation-driven outcomes. These were just some of the insights on healthcare management gleaned from the Hospital Leadership Summit hosted by Abbott. In over 150 countries, Abbott, which is among the top 100 global innovator companies, is working with hospitals and healthcare professionals to improve the quality of health services.

To read more content on best practices for hospital leaders, visit Abbott’s Bringing Health to Life portal here.

This article was produced on behalf of Abbott by the Scroll.in marketing team and not by the Scroll.in editorial staff.