|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
SRFETY
R
ESR
Kathleen Stratton, Alicia Gable, and
Marie C. McCormick, Eclitors
Immunization Safety Review Committee
Boa rcl on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
OCR for page R2
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS · 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. · Washington,
DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing
Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of
the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Insti-
tute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen
for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
Support for this project was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
tion and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes
of Health as part of a National Institutes of Health Task Order No. 74. The views presented
in this report are those of the Institute of Medicine Immunization Safety Review Committee
and are not necessarily those of the funding agencies.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-07636-6
Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academy
Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Box 285, Washington, DC 20055. Call 800-624-
6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area), or visit the NAP's home
page at www.nap.edu.
For more information about the Institute of Medicine, visit the IOM home page at
www.iom.edu. For more information regarding this report and other reports to be issued
by this committee, visit the IOM project web page at www.iom.edu/imsafety.
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
The serpent has been a symbol of long life, healing, and knowledge among almost
all cultures and religions since the beginning of recorded history. The serpent adopted as
a logotype by the Institute of Medicine is a relief carving from ancient Greece, now held
by the Staatliche Museen in Berlin.
OCR for page R3
1(nouJiny is not enough; we must apply.
dribbing is not enough; we must do.
Goethe
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
Shaping the Future for Health
OCR for page R4
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Mecl~cine
FJationai Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of
distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the
furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate
that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr.
Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is
autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government.
The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at
meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of
Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences
to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination
of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the re-
sponsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be
an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of
medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of
Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in
1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's
purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become
the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the Na-
tional Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are
chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
OCR for page R5
IMMUNIZATION SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE
MARIE C. McCORMICK, M.D., Sc.D., (Chair), Professor and Chair, De-
partment of Maternal and Child Health, Harvard School of Public Health
RONALD BAYER, Ph.D., Professor, Division of Sociomedical Sciences,
School of Public Health, Columbia University
ALFRED BERG, M.D., M.P.H., Professor and Chair, Department of Family
Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine
ROSEMARY CASEY, M.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Jefferson
Medical College and Director, Lankenau Faculty Pediatrics, Wynnewood,
Pennsylvania
JOSHUA COHEN, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Harvard Center for Risk
Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health
CONSTANTINE GATSONIS, Ph.D., Professor of Medical Science and Ap-
plied Math, and Director, Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University
MICHAEL KABACK, M.D., Professor, Pediatrics and Reproductive Medi-
cine, University of California, San Diego
GERALD MEDOFF, M.D., Professor, Department of Internal Medicine,
Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis
REBECCA PARKIN, Ph.D., Associate Research Professor, Department of
Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health and
Health Services, George Washington University
BENNETT SHAYWITZ, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics and Neurology, Co-
Director, Yale Center for the Study of Learning and Attention
CHRISTOPHER WILSON, M.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Immu-
nology, University of Washington
The following individuals are members of the Immunization Safety Review
Committee but were unable to attend the meeting on the topic of this report:
VERNICE DAVIS-ANTHONY, M.P.H., Senior Vice President, Corporate
Affairs and Community Health, St. John Health System, Detroit, Michigan
BETSY FOXMAN, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Epidemiology, School of
Public Health, University of Michigan
STEVEN GOODMAN, M.D., M.H.S., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Depart-
ment of Oncology, Division of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins School of
Medicine
ELLEN HORAK, M.S.N., Chief of Local Services, Office of Local and Rural
Health, Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Board Liaison
RICHARD B. JOHNSTON, Jr., M.D., Professor of Pediatrics, Department of
Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine and National Jewish
Medical and Research Center
v
OCR for page R6
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Board Chair
ROBERT WALLACE, M.D., Irene Ensminger Stecher Professor of Epide-
miology and Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Colleges of Public
Health and Medicine
Study Staff
KATHLEEN STRATTON, Ph.D., Study Director
ALICIA GABLE, M.P.H., Program Officer
PADMA SHETTY, M.D., Program Officer
DONNA ALMARIO, M.P.H., Research Associate
KYSA CHRISTIE, Research Assistant
ANN ST. CLAIRE, Senior Project Assistant
KATRINA LAWRENCE, M.S., Senior Project Assistant
MARGARET GALLOGLY, Intern
ROSE MARIE MARTINEZ, Sc.D., Director, Board on Health Promotion and
Disease Prevention
Contract Writer
JANE S. DURCH, M.A., Freelance Writer and Editor, Arlington, Virginia
Contract Editor
STEVEN J. MARCUS, Ph.D., Freelance Editor, Brookline, Massachusetts
V1
OCR for page R7
REVIEWERS
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their
diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures ap-
proved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independ-
ent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institu-
tion in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the
report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness
to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confi-
dential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the
following individuals for their review of this report:
Thomas F. Anders, M.D., University of California at Davis
Michael Aschner, Ph.D., Wake Forest University
Ann Bostrom, Ph.D., Georgia Institute of Technology
Thomas Clarkson, Ph.D., University of Rochester
Samuel L. Katz, M.D., Duke University
Marcel Kinsbourne, M.D., New School University
Lynda P. Knobeloch, Ph.D., Wisconsin Division of Public Health
Linda Linville, M.S., R.N., Texas Department of Health
Edgar K. Marcuse, M.D., M.P.H., University of Washington
Katherine Mathews, M.D., University of Iowa
Craig J. Newschaffer, Ph.D., M.S., Johns Hopkins University
Scott Ratzan, M.D., M.P.A., The George Washington University, Tufts
University, Yale University
Richard Rheingans, Ph.D., Emory University
Patricia Rodier, Ph.D., University of Rochester
Brian Ward, M.D., McGill University
Paul M. Wax, M.D., Good Samaritan Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona
Roberta F. White, Ph.D., A.B.P.P., Boston University
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive com-
ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or rec-
ommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The
review of this report was overseen by Robert Lawrence, Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity and Charles Carpenter, Brown University. Appointed by the National Re-
search Council and Institute of Medicine, they were responsible for making cer-
tain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance
with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully consid-
ered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the
authoring committee and the institution.
. .
V11
OCR for page R8
. . .
V111
FOREWORD
The rationale for imposing these stringent criteria was twofold. First, given growing public concern
about vaccine safety and the public scrutiny surrounding this committee's work, it was important to es-
tablish standards that would preclude any real or perceived conflict of interest or bias on part of the
committee members. While the committee members all share a belief in the benefits of vaccines to the
public health, none of them has any vested interest in any of the vaccine safety issues that will come be-
fore them. Second, the IOM wanted to ensure consistency in the committee membership and avoid hav-
ing members recuse themselves from the deliberations because they had participated in the development
or evaluation of a vaccine under study.
Thus, the IOM has convened a distinguished panel of ~ 5 members who possess significant breadth
and depth of expertise in a number of fields, including pediatrics, neurology, immunology, internal
medicine, infectious diseases, genetics, epidemiology, biostatistics, risk perception and communication,
decision analysis, public health, nursing, and ethics. The committee members were chosen because they
are leading authorities in their respective fields, are well-respected by their colleagues, and have no con-
flicts of interest. This committee brought a fresh perspective to these critically important issues and ap-
proached its charge with impartiality and scientific rigor.
The IOM does not propose the use of the criteria it has laid out above in selecting members for federal
vaccine advisory committees. The IOM committee was convened for a very different purpose from the
usual federal vaccine advisory committees and, as such, required different standards.
As with all reports from the IOM, the committee's work was reviewed by an independent panel of
experts. The purpose of the review process is to enhance the clarity, cogency, and accuracy of the final
report and to ensure that the authors and the IOM are creditably represented by the report published in
their names. The report review process is overseen by the National Research Council's (NRC) Report
Review Committee (RRC), comprised of approximately 30 members of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, National Academy of Engineering, and IOM. The IOM, in conjunction with the RRC appoints a
panel of reviewers with a diverse set of perspectives on key issues considered in the report. Unlike the
selection criteria for committee membership (discussed above), many reviewers will have strong opin-
ions and biases about the report topic. The composition of the review panel is not disclosed to the com-
mittee until after the report is approved for release. While the committee must consider and evaluate all
comments Tom reviewers, it is not obligated to change its report in response to the reviewers' com-
ments. The committee must, however, justify its responses to the reviewers' comments to the satisfac-
tion of the RRC's review monitor and the TOM's review coordinator. A report may not be released to the
sponsors or the public, nor may its findings be disclosed, until after the review process has been satis-
factorily completed and all authors have approved the revised draft.
This report represents the unanimous conclusions and recommendations of that dedicated committee
whose members deliberated a critical health issue. The report's conclusions and recommendations should
be of value to all concerned about these important matters.
Kenneth I. Shine
President, [nstitute of Medicine
OCR for page R9
Foreword
Vaccines are among the greatest public health accomplishments of the past
century. In recent years, however, a number of concerns have been raised about
the safety of, and need for, certain immunizations. Indeed, immunization safety is
a contentious area of public health policy, with discourse around it having become
increasingly polarized and exceedingly difficult. The numerous controversies and
allegations surrounding immunization safety signify an erosion of public trust in
those responsible for vaccine research, development, licensure, schedules, and
policymaking. Because vaccines are so widely used and because state laws re-
quire that children be vaccinated to enter daycare and school, in part to protect
others immunization safety concerns should be vigorously pursued in order to
restore this trust.
It is in this context that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) was approached
more than a year ago by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
National Institutes of Health to convene an independent committee that could
provide timely and objective assistance to the Department of Health and Human
Services in reviewing emerging immunization-safety concerns.
The IOM was chartered by the National Academy of Sciences in 1970 to
serve as an adviser to the federal government on issues affecting the public's
health, as well as to act independently in identifying important issues of medical
care, research, and education. The IOM thus brings to this mission three decades
of experience in conducting independent analyses of significant public health
policy issues. In particular, as described in more detail in this report, the IOM
has a long history of involvement in vaccine safety. The IOM published its first
1X
OCR for page R10
x
FOREWORD
major vaccine-safety report in 1977, followed by a subsequent report in 1988,
both focused on the safety of polio vaccines. Two subsequent major reports,
published in 1991 and 1994, examined the adverse events of childhood vaccines.
Since then, the IOM has conducted several smaller studies and workshops fo-
cused on various vaccine-safety topics. These studies were all well received by
both the public and policy makers, and previous IOM committees on vaccine
safety issues have been viewed as objective and credible.
Given the sensitive nature of the present immunization safety review study,
the IOM felt it was especially critical to establish strict criteria for committee
membership. These criteria prevented participation by anyone with financial ties
to vaccine manufacturers or their parent companies, previous service on major
vaccine-advisory committees, or prior expert testimony or publications on issues
of vaccine safety.
The rationale for imposing these stringent criteria was twofold. First, given
growing public concern about vaccine safety and the public scrutiny surrounding
this committee's work, it was important to establish standards that would pre-
clude any real or perceived conflict of interest or bias on the part of the com-
mittee members. While the committee members all share a belief in the benefits
of vaccines to the public health, none of them has any vested interest in any of
the vaccine safety issues that will come before them. Second, the IOM wanted to
ensure consistency in the committee membership and avoid having members
recuse themselves from the deliberations because they had participated in the
development or evaluation of a vaccine under study.
Thus, the IOM has convened a distinguished panel of 15 members who pos-
sess significant breadth and depth of expertise in a number of fields, including
pediatrics, neurology, immunology, internal medicine, infectious diseases, ge-
netics, epidemiology, biostatistics, risk perception and communication, decision
analysis, public health, nursing, and ethics. The committee members were cho-
sen because they are leading authorities in their respective fields, are well re-
spected by their colleagues, and have no conflicts of interest. This committee
brought a fresh perspective to these critically important issues and approached
its charge with impartiality and scientific rigor.
The IOM does not propose the use of the criteria it has laid out above in se-
lecting members for federal vaccine advisory committees. The IOM committee
was convened for a very different purpose from the usual federal vaccine advisory
committees and, as such, required different standards.
As with all reports from the IOM, the committee's work was reviewed by
an independent panel of experts. The purpose of the review process is to en-
hance the clarity, cogency, and accuracy of the final report and to ensure that the
authors and the IOM are creditably represented by the report published in their
names. The report review process is overseen by the National Research Coun-
cil's (NRC) Report Review Committee (RRC), comprised of approximately 30
members of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engi-
OCR for page R11
FOREWORD
X1
peering, and IOM. The IOM, in conjunction with the RRC, appoints a panel of
reviewers with a diverse set of perspectives on key issues considered in the re-
port. Unlike the selection criteria for committee membership (discussed above),
many reviewers will have strong opinions and biases about the report topic. The
composition of the review panel is not disclosed to the committee until after the
report is approved for release. While the committee must consider and evaluate
all comments from reviewers, it is not obligated to change its report in response
to the reviewers' comments. The committee must, however, justify its responses
to the reviewers' comments to the satisfaction of the RRC's review monitor and
the IOM's review coordinator. A report may not be released to the sponsors or
the public, nor may its findings be disclosed, until after the review process has
been satisfactorily completed and all authors have approved the revised draft.
This report represents the unanimous conclusions and recommendations of
that dedicated committee whose members deliberated a critical health issue. The
report's conclusions and recommendations should be of value to all concerned
about these important matters.
Kenneth I. Shine
President, Institute of Medicine
OCR for page R12
Acknowledgments
The committee would like to acknowledge the many speakers and attendees
at its open meeting held on July 16 in Boston. The discussions were informative
and helpful. The committee would also like to thank those people who have
submitted information to the committee through the mail or e-mail. Finally, the
committee would like to thank the IOM staff for their dedication to this project.
Without their commitment, attention to detail, creativity, sensitivity, and hard
work, this project would be unworkable.
x~
OCR for page R13
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Immunization Safety Review:
Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Origins of the Immunization Safety Review Project .........................
The Charge to the Committee
The Study Process ............
The Framework for Assessing Causality ..
Under Review: Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Plausibility Assessment
Causality Argument ....
Significance Assessment .....
Recommendations Regarding the Public Health Response .................
Summary . . .
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
.19
20
. 22
23
.23
27
38
65
66
75
. 82
........ 86
95
107
111
117
. . .
X111
OCR for page R14
