VAccine beNefit-risk Research Articles

The Brighton collaboration standardized module for vaccine benefit-risk assessment

Vaccine Benefit-Risk (B-R) assessment consists of evaluating the benefits and risks of a vaccine and making a judgment whether the expected key benefits outweigh the potential key risks associated with its expected use. B-R supports regulatory and public health decision-making throughout the vaccine’s lifecycle. In August 2021, the Brighton Collaboration’s Benefit-Risk Assessment of VAccines by TechnolOgy (BRAVATO) Benefit-Risk Assessment Module working group was established to develop a standard module to support the planning, conduct and evaluation of structured B-R assessments for vaccines from different platforms, based on data from clinical trials, post-marketing studies and real-world evidence. It enables sharing of relevant information via value trees, effects tables and graphical depictions of B-R trade-offs. It is intended to support vaccine developers, funders, regulators and policy makers in high-, middle- or low-income countries to help inform decision-making and facilitate transparent communication concerning development, licensure, deployment and other lifecycle decisions.

A targeted approach to vaccine hesitancy

Abstract This short communication makes the case for targeted vaccine research when attempting to counter hesitancy, especially amongst vulnerable or rarefied patient groups. Far from disincentivizing vaccination, the freedom to research and publicize the limitations of these technologies for certain groups and personalizing dosing, pacing, adjuvants, and time-sensitive alternatives in response is essential for optimizing health outcomes while neutralizing the vaccine research landscape itself. Vaccine evangelism only arouses suspicion when it is not tempered by rigorous research into differential vaccine benefit-risk in this way. That said, the long-standing politicization of vaccination—a topic vulnerable to misinterpretation and media sensationalism—along with the commercial incentives associated with universal adoption makes more comparative and critical research difficult to fund and promote in practice. Likewise, a prescriptive approach to vaccination does little to address the issues of vaccine inequality that contribute to both hesitancy and conspiracy globally and will likely prove financially prohibitive in certain markets. These obstacles are not insurmountable, however, provided that comparative research is centrally subsidized, regulations ensure that vaccine development trials explore differentiated outcomes, especially amongst high-risk or rare groups, and findings are used to prioritize global vaccine allocation to those that stand to benefit most from them.

Effectiveness and Safety of ANTI SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Transplant Patients Treated with Immunosuppressants: A Real-World Pilot Study with a 1-Year Follow-Up

SARS-CoV-2 is a betacoronavirus, which induced a severe pandemic infectious disease around the world. Even if several drugs have been suggested for its treatment, to date, the only strategy to reduce the severity of disease is represented by the use of vaccine. However, the lack of pre-marketing evidence in frail patients suggests the necessity of the real-world study of a vaccine benefit–risk profile. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a cohort of 33 patients treated with an immunosuppressant after solid organ transplant. Both CLIA and LS/MS analysis were used to evaluate the levels of immunoglobulin (Ig)G anti SARS-CoV-2 and the therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressant drugs. We documented that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination induced a dose- and gender-related serological response. In particular, in 63.6% of the enrolled patients, we documented a significant serological response at T2, and after a time related decrease, the booster dose induced a serological response in 72.7% of enrolled patients. In conclusion, the vaccine anti SARS-CoV-2 is immunogenic in patients under immunosuppression, and is not related to the development of ADRs. We also suggest that the booster dose could be used to increase the efficacy of the vaccination, particularly in women.

An introduction of the Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) Project

The vaccine benefit-risk assessment entails comprehensive and systematic evaluation of the major benefits and risks of vaccine based on information after a marketing authorization. In 2009, the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic led to the licensing of new H1N1 vaccines in many countries including Europe. The post-marketing evaluation and monitoring of H1N1 vaccines was carried out based on a project previously conducted in Europe. In 2013, the Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) project was launched with the support of Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) to address the limitations reported in the previous project. ADVANCE consisted of seven Work Packages (WPs), each indicating the vaccine benefitrisk monitoring readiness across four areas: Governance, Data source, Methods, and Study. First, a model for vaccine surveillance and governance with various functions such as decision making, quality management, execution, and financial administration was established. Also, the project developed a tool to identify, collect, and link the data sources available for vaccine surveillance. In addition, various methodologies were reviewed to assess the infectious disease burden, vaccine coverage, and benefit-risk based on linked data sources in Europe. Guidelines were proposed for real-world vaccine surveillance studies. Accordingly, a variety of tools and programs were developed, including a code of conduct related to the benefit-risk assessment of vaccines, ADVANCE International Research Readiness (AIRR), CodeMapper, and VaccO. Since the end of the ADVANCE project in 2019, the Vaccine Monitoring Collaboration for Europe (VAC4EU) has been conducting effective and sustainable vaccine benefit-risk monitoring programs based on the vision and ideology of ADVANCE. This study explains the contents and findings of ADVANCE with emphasis on WPs and proposes directions for establishing a vaccine benefit-risk assessment system in Korea.

Accounting for indirect protection in the benefit-risk ratio estimation of rotavirus vaccination in children under the age of 5 years, France, 2018.

BackgroundRotavirus is a major cause of severe gastroenteritis in children worldwide. The disease burden has been substantially reduced in countries where rotavirus vaccines are used. Given the risk of vaccine-induced intussusception, the benefit–risk balance of rotavirus vaccination has been assessed in several countries, however mostly without considering indirect protection effects.AimWe performed a benefit–risk analysis of rotavirus vaccination accounting for indirect protection in France among the 2018 population of children under the age of 5 years.MethodsTo incorporate indirect protection effects in the benefit formula, we adopted a pseudo-vaccine approach involving mathematical approximation and used a simulation design to provide uncertainty intervals. We derived background incidence distributions from quasi-exhaustive health claim data. We examined different coverage levels and assumptions regarding the waning effects and intussusception case fatality rate.ResultsWith the current vaccination coverage of < 10%, the indirect effectiveness was estimated at 6.4% (+/− 0.4). For each hospitalisation for intussusception, 277.0 (95% uncertainty interval: (165.0–462.1)) hospitalisations for rotavirus gastroenteritis were prevented. Should 90% of infants be vaccinated, indirect effectiveness would reach 57.9% (+/− 3.7) and the benefit–risk ratio would be 192.4 (95% uncertainty interval: 116.4–321.3). At a coverage level of 50%, indirect protection accounted for 27% of the prevented rotavirus gastroenteritis cases. The balance remained in favour of the vaccine even in a scenario with a high assumption for intussusception case fatality.ConclusionsThese findings contribute to a better assessment of the rotavirus vaccine benefit–risk balance.

ADVANCE system testing: Estimating the incidence of adverse events following pertussis vaccination in healthcare databases with incomplete exposure data

The Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public–private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid vaccine benefit-risk monitoring using existing European healthcare databases. Incidence rate (IR) estimates of vaccination-associated adverse events that are needed to model vaccination risks can be calculated from existing healthcare databases when vaccination (exposure) data are available. We assessed different methods to derive IRs in risk periods following vaccination when exposure data are missing in one database, using estimated IRs and IRRs from other databases for febrile seizures, fever and persistent crying. IRs were estimated for children aged 0–5 years in outcome-specific risk and non-risk periods following the first dose of acellular pertussis (aP) vaccination in four primary care databases and one hospital database. We compared derived and observed IRs in each database using three methods: 1) multiplication of non-risk period IR for database i by IR ratio (IRR) obtained from meta-analysis of IRRs estimated using the self-controlled case-series method, from databases other than i; 2) same method as 1, but multiplying with background IR; and 3) meta-analyses of observed IRs from databases other than i. IRs for febrile seizures were lower in primary care databases than the hospital database. The derived IR for febrile seizures using data from primary care databases was lower than that observed in the hospital database, and using data from the hospital database gave a higher derived IR than that observed in the primary care database. For fever and persistent crying the opposite was observed. We demonstrated that missing IRs for a post-vaccination period can be derived but that the type of database and the method of event data capture can have an impact on potential bias. We recommend IRs are derived using data from similar database types (hospital or primary care) with caution as even this can give heterogeneous results.

Age-specific vaccination coverage estimates for influenza, human papillomavirus and measles containing vaccines from seven population-based healthcare databases from four EU countries – The ADVANCE project

BackgroundThe Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public–private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk monitoring of vaccines using existing healthcare databases in Europe. We estimated vaccine coverage from electronic healthcare databases as part of a fit-for-purpose assessment for vaccine benefit-risk studies. MethodsA retrospective dynamic cohort study was conducted through a distributed network approach. Coverage with measles-vaccine for birth year 2006, human papillomavirus (HPV)-vaccine for birth years 1990–2000 and influenza-vaccine for birth years 1920–1950 was estimated using period-prevalence and inverse probability weighting methods. Seven databases from four countries participated: Italy (Pedianet, Val Padana), Spain (BIFAP, SIDIAP), UK (RCGP-RSC, THIN), Denmark (SSI/AUH). Database access providers extracted the data, transformed it into a common structure and ran an R-script locally. The created output tables were shared and pooled at a central server. ResultsThe total study population comprised 274,616 persons for measles-vaccine, 2,011,666 persons for HPV-vaccine and 14,904,033 persons for influenza-vaccine. Measles-vaccine coverage varied from 84.3% (Denmark) to 96.5% (Italy, Val Padana) for the first dose and from 82.8% (Italy, Val Padana) to 90.9% (UK) for the second dose at the age of 7 years. The HPV-vaccine coverage, aggregated over birth years 1997–2000, ranged from 60% (UK) to 88.3% (Denmark) at the age of 15 years. The influenza-vaccine coverage for the influenza seasons from 2009 to 2015 for persons aged 65 years and more was roughly stable around 43% in Denmark and around 68% in the UK while a decrease from 58 to 50% was observed in Catalonia (Spain). ConclusionsWe obtained detailed, age-specific coverage estimates though a common procedure. We discussed between database comparability and comparability to published national estimates.

An Introduction of the Active Vaccine Safety Surveillance System in Foreign Countries

Vaccines require higher safety standards than most other medicinal products because they are given to healthy individuals, including infants, children, and elderly. Despite various activities by national agencies, public concern about vaccine safety often arises. Post-marketing activities for vaccine safety can be broadly classified into passive and active surveillances. Many countries as well as Korea operate passive vaccine safety surveillance systems that report adverse events related to vaccines. However, the active surveillance systems operate only in several countries, such as the United States of America (USA), Europe, Canada and Australia. In the US, Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and Post-Licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring (PRISM) were developed in 1990 and 2009 respectively for monitoring vaccine actively. In the case of Europe, the Vaccine Adverse Event Surveillance and Communication (VAESCO) consortium was launched in 2008. After the end of VAESCO, the Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) was organized to establish a vaccine benefit-risk monitoring framework in 2013. Canada has been operating a vaccine active monitoring system known as the Canadian Immunization Monitoring Program, ACTive (IMPACT) since 1991. The objective of this review was to describe and compare background, databases, and analysis systems of various vaccine active surveillance systems in the US, Europe, and Canada. We described the examples of studies on the safety of influenza A (H1N1) vaccines carried out in each system. This review could help provide directions for the future development of the ideal active vaccine safety surveillance system in Korea. Key words: Vaccine, Safety, Active vaccine surveillance system, Database, H1N1 influenza virus vaccine

Quantifying outcome misclassification in multi-database studies: The case study of pertussis in the ADVANCE project

BackgroundThe Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public-private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk (B/R) monitoring of vaccines using European healthcare databases. Event misclassification can result in biased estimates. Using different algorithms for identifying cases of Bordetella pertussis (BorPer) infection as a test case, we aimed to describe a strategy to quantify event misclassification, when manual chart review is not feasible. MethodsFour participating databases retrieved data from primary care (PC) setting: BIFAP: (Spain), THIN and RCGP RSC (UK) and PEDIANET (Italy); SIDIAP (Spain) retrieved data from both PC and hospital settings. BorPer algorithms were defined by healthcare setting, data domain (diagnoses, drugs, or laboratory tests) and concept sets (specific or unspecified pertussis). Algorithm- and database-specific BorPer incidence rates (IRs) were estimated in children aged 0–14 years enrolled in 2012 and 2014 and followed up until the end of each calendar year and compared with IRs of confirmed pertussis from the ECDC surveillance system (TESSy). Novel formulas were used to approximate validity indices, based on a small set of assumptions. They were applied to approximately estimate positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity in SIDIAP. ResultsThe number of cases and the estimated BorPer IRs per 100,000 person-years in PC, using data representing 3,173,268 person-years, were 0 (IR = 0.0), 21 (IR = 4.3), 21 (IR = 5.1), 79 (IR = 5.7), and 2 (IR = 2.3) in BIFAP, SIDIAP, THIN, RCGP RSC and PEDIANET respectively. The IRs for combined specific/unspecified pertussis were higher than TESSy, suggesting that some false positives had been included. In SIDIAP the estimated IR was 45.0 when discharge diagnoses were included. The sensitivity and PPV of combined PC specific and unspecific diagnoses for BorPer cases in SIDIAP were approximately 85% and 72%, respectively. ConclusionRetrieving BorPer cases using only specific concepts has low sensitivity in PC databases, while including cases retrieved by unspecified concepts introduces false positives, which were approximately estimated to be 28% in one database. The share of cases that cannot be retrieved from a PC database because they are only seen in hospital was approximately estimated to be 15% in one database. This study demonstrated that quantifying the impact of different event-finding algorithms across databases and benchmarking with disease surveillance data can provide approximate estimates of algorithm validity.

ADVANCE: Towards near real-time monitoring of vaccination coverage, benefits and risks using European electronic health record databases

BackgroundThe Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public-private partnership aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk (B/R) monitoring of vaccines using European electronic health record (eHR) databases. This proof-of-concept study aimed to test the feasibility of near real-time (NRT) monitoring of vaccination coverage, benefits and risks based on multiple European eHR databases, using acellular pertussis vaccination in children aged <6 years as test case. MethodsA qualitative feasibility assessment on NRT monitoring was carried out using a survey and face-to-face discussion with ADVANCE data partners. Subsequently, a dynamic cohort study was conducted containing two distinct observation periods: a first period to establish a baseline (Jan 2014 to Mar 2018) and a subsequent 3-month period to test the actual feasibility of weekly NRT monitoring, based on which data latencies were calculated. An interactive web-application was additionally developed to facilitate the visual monitoring of vaccination coverage, the vaccine preventable disease incidence rates (benefits) and the incidence rates of adverse events (risks). ResultsNine databases from four countries (Denmark, Italy, Spain and UK) participated in the qualitative feasibility assessment. Of them, five databases took part in the dynamic cohort study, with 5 databases providing baseline data and 3 databases participating to the NRT monitoring, providing data extractions on an almost weekly basis. The median data latency (time between event date and data release date) was between 1 and 2 weeks except for the benefit and risk events in one of the databases (latency 16 weeks). ConclusionThree European eHR databases successfully demonstrated the feasibility of providing data for weekly NRT monitoring, with short data latencies of 1–2 weeks for most events.

ADVANCE system testing: Benefit-risk analysis of a marketed vaccine using multi-criteria decision analysis and individual-level state transition modelling

BackgroundThe Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public-private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk (B/R) monitoring of vaccines using electronic health record (eHR) databases in Europe. Proof-of-concept studies were designed to assess the proposed processes and system for generating the required evidence to perform B/R assessment and near-real time monitoring of vaccines. We aimed to test B/R methodologies for vaccines, using the comparison of the B/R profiles of whole-cell (wP) and acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine formulations in children as an example. MethodsWe used multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to structure the B/R assessment combined with individual-level state transition modelling to build the B/R effects table. In the state transition model, we simulated the number of events in two hypothetical cohorts of 1 million children followed from first pertussis dose till pre-school-entry booster (or six years of age, whichever occurred first), with one cohort receiving wP, and the other aP. The benefits were reductions in pertussis incidence and complications. The risks were increased incidences of febrile convulsions, fever, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes, injection-site reactions and persistent crying. Most model parameters were informed by estimates (coverage, background incidences, relative risks) from eHR databases from Denmark (SSI), Spain (BIFAP and SIDIAP), Italy (Pedianet) and the UK (RCGP-RSC and THIN). Preferences were elicited from clinical and epidemiological experts. ResultsUsing state transition modelling to build the B/R effects table facilitated the comparison of different vaccine effects (e.g. immediate vaccine risks vs long-term vaccine benefits). Estimates from eHR databases could be used to inform the simulation model. The model results could be easily combined with preference weights to obtain B/R scores. ConclusionExisting B/R methodology, modelling and estimates from eHR databases can be successfully used for B/R assessment of vaccines.

ADVANCE system testing: Can coverage of pertussis vaccination be estimated in European countries using electronic healthcare databases: An example

IntroductionThe Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public-private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk (B/R) monitoring of vaccines, using existing healthcare databases in Europe. The objective of this paper was to assess the feasibility of using electronic healthcare databases to estimate dose-specific acellular pertussis (aP) and whole cell pertussis (wP) vaccine coverage. MethodsSeven electronic healthcare databases in four European countries (Denmark (n = 2), UK (n = 2), Spain (n = 2) and Italy (n = 1)) participated in this study. Children were included from birth and followed up to age six years. Vaccination exposure was obtained from the databases and classified by type (aP or wP), and dose 1, 2 or 3. Coverage was estimated using period prevalence. For the 2006 birth cohort, two estimation methods for pertussis vaccine coverage, period prevalence and cumulative incidence were compared for each database. ResultsThe majority of the 2,575,576 children included had been vaccinated at the country-specific recommended ages. Overall, the estimated dose 3 coverage was 88–97% in Denmark (birth cohorts from 2003 to 2014), 96–100% in the UK (2003–2014), 95–98% in Spain (2004–2014) and 94% in Italy (2006–2007). The estimated dose 3 coverage per birth cohort in Denmark and the UK differed by 1–6% compared with national estimates, with our estimates mostly higher. The estimated dose 3 coverage in Spain differed by 0–2% with no consistent over- or underestimation. In Italy, the estimates were 3% lower compared with the national estimates. Except for Italy, for which the two coverage estimation methods generated the same results, the estimated cumulative incidence coverages were consistently 1–10% lower than period prevalence estimates. ConclusionThis study showed that it was possible to provide consistent estimates of pertussis immunisation coverage from the electronic healthcare databases included, and that the estimates were comparable with the national estimates.

Estimation of vaccination coverage from electronic healthcare records; methods performance evaluation - A contribution of the ADVANCE-project.

IntroductionThe Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk (B/R) monitoring of vaccines, using existing electronic healthcare record (eHR) databases in Europe.Part of the data in such sources is missing due to incomplete follow-up hampering the accurate estimation of vaccination coverage. We compared different methods for coverage estimation from eHR databases; naïve period prevalence, complete case period prevalence, period prevalence adjusted for follow-up time, Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis and (adjusted) inverse probability weighing (IPW).MethodsWe created simulation scenarios with different proportions of completeness of follow-up. Both completeness independent and dependent from vaccination date and status were considered. The root mean squared error (RMSE) and relative difference between the estimated and true coverage were used to assess the performance of the different methods for each of the scenarios. We included data examples on the vaccination coverage of human papilloma virus and pertussis component containing vaccines from the Spanish BIFAP database.ResultsUnder completeness independent from vaccination date or status, several methods provided estimates with bias close to zero. However, when dependence between completeness of follow-up and vaccination date or status was present, all methods generated biased estimates. The IPW/CDF methods were generally the least biased. Preference for a specific method should be based on the type of censoring and type of dependence between completeness of follow-up and vaccination. Additional insights into these aspects, might be gained by applying several methods.

A tool for evaluating scientific independence, integrity and transparency in observational studies of vaccine effectiveness

Introduction Observational studies are widely used to evaluate the impact of vaccines. They are being conducted by a variety of institutions and collaborations, including public-private partnerships (PPPs). The European Union promotes PPPs through the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI): examples of its vaccine-related IMI PPPs include the ADVANCE and DRIVE consortia (respectively, Accelerated Development of VAccine benefit–risk Collaboration in Europe & Development of Robust and Innovative Vaccine Effectiveness). However, practices and attitudes towards PPPs in the public health field differ, and concerns over their scientific independence have been put forth. While there have been efforts to evaluate and strengthen the methodology and reporting of observational studies, clear and comprehensive guidelines on how to evaluate their scientific independence, integrity and transparency (especially in the presence of diverse governance and funding models) are lacking. Methods A review of existing guidelines touching upon the topics of scientific independence, integrity and/or transparency in the context of observational studies was performed (consisting of a literature search and screening of the reference lists of retrieved documents). Key indicators of scientific independence, integrity and transparency were identified with the focus on relevance and measurability. Based on these, a checklist for evaluating individual studies and study protocols has been compiled. Results Several guidelines include recommendations on topics related to scientific independence, integrity and transparency that can be applied to observational studies of vaccines’ impact. The ADVANCE Code of Conduct was selected as the pivotal reference as it already considered relevant guidelines during its preparation; examples of these include the International Epidemiological Association's Good Epidemiological Practice (GEP) and the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) Checklist for Study Protocols. We present an overview of the various definitions and principles, as well as a checklist-based tool for evaluating the scientific independence, integrity and transparency of observational studies. The tool can be applied by independent reviewers to assess studies retrospectively as well as by study teams to inform the planning of new ones. Conclusions Questions of scientific independence, integrity and transparency are central in evaluating evidence from observational studies of vaccines. Our tool aims to provide a systematic way to address these topics; the next step will be to validate it in relation to existing protocols.

Challenges in conducting post-authorisation safety studies (PASS): A vaccine manufacturer's view

Post-authorisation safety studies (PASS) of vaccines assess or quantify the risk of adverse events following immunisation that were not identified or could not be estimated pre-licensure. The aim of this perspective paper is to describe the authors’ experience in the design and conduct of twelve PASS that contributed to the evaluation of the benefit-risk of vaccines in real-world settings. We describe challenges and learnings from selected PASS of rotavirus, malaria, influenza, human papillomavirus and measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccines that assessed or identified potential or theoretical risks, which may lead to changes to risk management plans and/or to label updates. Study settings include the use of large healthcare databases and de novo data collection. PASS methodology is influenced by the background incidence of the outcome of interest, vaccine uptake, availability and quality of data sources, identification of the at-risk population and of suitable comparators, availability of validated case definitions, and the frequent need for case ascertainment in large databases. Challenges include the requirement for valid exposure and outcome data, identification of, and access to, adequate data sources, and mitigating limitations including bias and confounding. Assessing feasibility is becoming a key step to confirm that study objectives can be met in a timely manner. PASS provide critical information for regulators, public health agencies, vaccine manufacturers and ultimately, individuals. Collaborative approaches and synergistic efforts between vaccine manufacturers and key stakeholders, such as regulatory and public health agencies, are needed to facilitate access to data, and to drive optimal study design and implementation, with the aim of generating robust evidence.

Roadmap for the international collaborative epidemiologic monitoring of safety and effectiveness of new high priority vaccines

With the advent of new vaccines targeted to highly endemic diseases in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and with the expansion of vaccine manufacturing globally, there is an urgent need to establish an infrastructure to evaluate the benefit-risk profiles of vaccines in LMIC. Fortunately the usual decade(s)-long time gap between introduction of new vaccines in high and low income countries is being significantly reduced or eliminated due to initiatives such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) and the Decade of Vaccines for the implementation of the Global Vaccine Action Plan. While hoping for more rapid disease control, this time shift may potentially add risk, unless appropriate capacity for reliable and timely evaluation of vaccine benefit-risk profiles in some LMIC's are developed with external assistance from regional or global level. An ideal vaccine safety and effectiveness monitoring system should be flexible and sustainable, able to quickly detect possible vaccine-associated events, distinguish them from programmatic errors, reliably and quickly evaluate the suspected event and its association with vaccination and, if associated, determine the benefit-risk of vaccines to inform appropriate action. Based upon the demonstrated feasibility of active surveillance in LMIC as shown by the Burkina Faso assessment of meningococcal A conjugate vaccine or that of rotavirus vaccine in Mexico and Brazil, and upon the proof of concept international GBS study, we suggest a sustainable, flexible, affordable and timely international collaborative vaccine safety monitoring approach for vaccines being newly introduced. While this paper discusses only the vaccine component, the same system could also be eventually used for monitoring drug effectiveness (including the use of substandard drugs) and drug safety.