tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
J Korean Med Sci
. 2024 Jul 8;39(26):e220.
doi: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e220. A Causality Assessment Framework for COVID-19 Vaccines and Adverse Events at the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center
Seyoung Kim[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Jeong Ah Kim[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 3 [/SUP], Hyesook Park[SUP] 1 4 [/SUP], Sohee Park[SUP] 1 5 [/SUP], Sanghoon Oh[SUP] 1 6 [/SUP], Seung Eun Jung[SUP] 1 7 [/SUP], Hyoung-Shik Shin[SUP] 1 8 [/SUP], Jong Koo Lee[SUP] 1 9 [/SUP], Hee Chul Han[SUP] 1 10 [/SUP], Jun Hee Woo[SUP] 1 11 [/SUP], Byung-Joo Park[SUP] 1 12 [/SUP], Nam-Kyong Choi[SUP] 1 13 [/SUP], Dong-Hyun Kim[SUP] 1 14 [/SUP]
Affiliations
During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024. This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels-high, moderate, limited, or insufficient-while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as "convincingly supports" ("evidence established" in the 2024 NASEM report), "favors acceptance," "favors rejection," or "inadequate to accept or reject." The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weight-of-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-of-evidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.
Keywords: Adverse Events; COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center; COVID-19 Vaccines; Causality; National Academy of Medicine of Korea.
. 2024 Jul 8;39(26):e220.
doi: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e220. A Causality Assessment Framework for COVID-19 Vaccines and Adverse Events at the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center
Seyoung Kim[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Jeong Ah Kim[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 3 [/SUP], Hyesook Park[SUP] 1 4 [/SUP], Sohee Park[SUP] 1 5 [/SUP], Sanghoon Oh[SUP] 1 6 [/SUP], Seung Eun Jung[SUP] 1 7 [/SUP], Hyoung-Shik Shin[SUP] 1 8 [/SUP], Jong Koo Lee[SUP] 1 9 [/SUP], Hee Chul Han[SUP] 1 10 [/SUP], Jun Hee Woo[SUP] 1 11 [/SUP], Byung-Joo Park[SUP] 1 12 [/SUP], Nam-Kyong Choi[SUP] 1 13 [/SUP], Dong-Hyun Kim[SUP] 1 14 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 38978490
- PMCID: PMC11231440
- DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e220
During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024. This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels-high, moderate, limited, or insufficient-while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as "convincingly supports" ("evidence established" in the 2024 NASEM report), "favors acceptance," "favors rejection," or "inadequate to accept or reject." The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weight-of-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-of-evidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.
Keywords: Adverse Events; COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center; COVID-19 Vaccines; Causality; National Academy of Medicine of Korea.