Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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
R[FTV lIEU NTR NE END 1 ER Immunization Safety Review Committee Boa rc] on Health Promotion ant] Disease Prevention Kathleen Stratton, Donna A. Alamario, ant] Marie C. McCormick, Editors INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.ec~u

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 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 Prevention 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 Commit- tee and are not necessarily those of the funding agencies. International Standard Book Number 0-309-08610-8 (book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-51717-6 (PDF) Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334- 3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. For more information about the Institute of Medicine, visit the IOM home page at: www.iom.edu. Copyright 2003 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 R1
aI(nowin,g is not eno~,~h; we must apply. Wil{lingis not enou~h;wem~st do." Goethe ... ....... ....... . ....... ..... . .. . . ........ . INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Shaping the Future for Health

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAl ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Scienre, Engineering, ~ndMedirine 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 . . ~ngmeermg. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services ot emment members ot appropriate professions In the exammatlon 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. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Insti- tute 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 chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
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 JOSHUA COHEN, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health BETSY FOXMAN, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan CONSTANTINE GATSONIS, Ph.D., Professor of Medical Science and Ap- plied Math, and Director, Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University STEVEN GOODMAN, M.D., M.H.S., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Depart- ment of Oncology, Division of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine MICHAEL KABACK, M.D., Professor, Pediatrics and Reproductive Medi- cine, University of California, San Diego 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 B. WILSON, M.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Immunology, University of Washington The following members of the Immunization Safety Review Committee were unable to attend the meeting on the topic of this report: 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 ELLEN HORAK, M.S.N., Education and Nurse Consultant, Public Manage- ment Center, University of Kansas GERALD MEDOFF, M.D., Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Board Liaison RICHARD B. JOHNSTON, Jr., M.D., Professor of Pediatrics, Associate Dean for Research Development, University of Colorado School of Medicine and National Jewish Medical and Research Center v

OCR for page R1
Study Staff KATHLEEN STRATTON, Ph.D., Study Director JANE S. DURCH, M.A., Senior Program Officer DONNA ALMARIO, M.P.H., Research Associate KYSA CHRISTIE, Research Assistant KATRINA J. LAWRENCE, M.S., Senior Project Assistant ROSE MARIE MARTINEZ, Sc.D., Director, Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Contract Editor STEPHEN J. MARCUS, Ph.D. l V1

OCR for page R1
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: Robert Garcea, M.D., University of Colorado Peter Howley, M.D., Harvard Medical School Samuel L. Katz, M.D., Duke University Medical Center Gerald Mandell, M.D., University of Virginia Edgar K Marcuse, M.D., M.P.H., Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center, Seattle, WA John Menkes, M.D., Cedars Sinai Medical Center, University of California, Los Angeles Peter H. Meyers, J.D., The George Washington University Harvey Pass, M.D., Wayne State University Diana B. Pedffl, M.D., Kaiser Permanente Brian Ward, M.D., McGill University - Montreal General Hospital Research Institute Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Floyd Bloom, M.D., The Scripps Research Institute, appointed by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examina- tion of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. . . VII

OCR for page R1
. . . V111 FOREWORD having members recuse themselves from the deliberations because they had participated in the develop- ment or evaluation of a vaccine under study. Thus, the TOM has convened a distinguished pane! 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 TOM does not propose the use of the criteria it has laid out above in selecting members for federal vaccine advisory committees. The lOM 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 TOM, the committee's work was reviewer} by an independent pane] 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 TOM 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 TOM. The TOM, in conjunction with the RRC, appoints a pane! 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 pane} is not disclosed to the com- mittee 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' 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 satisfac- torily 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 cntical health issue. The report's conclusions and recommendations should be of value to all concerned about these important matters. Harvey V. Fineberg President, Institute of Medicine

OCR for page R1
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 both the safety of and the need for certain immunizations. Indeed, immunization safety is a contentious area of public health policy, with discourse around it hav- ing become increasingly polarized and exceedingly difficult. The numerous con- troversies and allegations surrounding immunization safety signify an erosion of public trust in those responsible for vaccine research, development, licensure, schedules, and policy making. Because vaccines are so widely used and be- cause state laws require 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 major vaccine safety report in 1977, followed by a subsequent report in 1988, 1X

OCR for page R1
x FOREWORD 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 commit- tee 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 to 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 advi- sory 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 ARCS, comprised of approximately 30 members of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineer

OCR for page R1
FOREWORD . Xl ing, and IOM. The IOM, in conjunction with the RRC, appoints a panel of re- viewers 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 opinions and biases about the report topic. The com- position of the review panel is not disclosed to the committee until after the re- port 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 concemed about these important matters. Harvey V. Fineberg President, Institute of Medicine

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments The committee would like to acknowledge the many speakers and attendees at its open meeting held on July 11, 2002, in Washington, DC. The discussions were informative and helpful. The committee would also like to thank those people who submitted information to the committee through the mail or via e- mail. Finally, the committee would like to thank the IOM staff for their dedica- tion to this project. Without their commitment, attention to detail, creativity, sensitivity, and hard work, this project would be unworkable. . . . x~

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents Executive ~llmm~r lmmun~zat~on Satety Review: SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer l9 The Charge to the Committee 19 The Studv Process 21 The Framework for Scientific Assessment Under Review: SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer 27 Scientific Assessment 33 Significance Assessment 69 Recommendations for Public Health Response Summary References Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C 75 78 .85 ..96 .............. 98 xv

OCR for page R1