1
|
Dakiniewich A, Graham S, Dyda A, McHugh L. Pregnancy loss <28 weeks gestation in maternal influenza and COVID-19 vaccination studies: a review of data sources, 2009-2024. Public Health 2025; 243:105733. [PMID: 40305976 DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2025.105733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2024] [Revised: 03/31/2025] [Accepted: 04/11/2025] [Indexed: 05/02/2025]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To address gaps in maternal vaccination and pregnancy loss research, large, complex datasets are needed. We aimed to identify and evaluate data sources and data collection methods currently used to capture pregnancy losses <28 weeks following maternal influenza and COVID-19 vaccination research. STUDY DESIGN Narrative Review. METHODS PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science were used to identify studies that investigated pregnancy loss <28 gestational weeks following influenza and COVID-19 vaccinations from January 1st, 2009, to March 19th, 2024. Within the resulting studies, the data source(s) used to capture exposure and outcome data were identified and categorised. The capacity to capture and measure exposures, outcomes, and missing data within categories was investigated. RESULTS 28 articles met the inclusion criteria, representing 1,113,878 participants. Most articles (n = 19) used multiple data sources within the one study, often obtaining exposure and outcome data from separate data sources. Categories of data sources included: registries, adverse reporting systems, medical records, and survey or interview methods. CONCLUSION Current data collection practices and existing data sources are adversely impacting data quality, and the ability to combine large datasets necessary for analysing early pregnancy loss risk factors. This also hinders our ability to evaluate the safety of early maternal vaccination and subsequent miscarriage. Establishing pregnancy loss registries using standardised data collection and coding practices, consistent terminology, and accurate exposure and outcome timing is critical. In the absence of registries, we propose an alternative source to capture both pregnancy loss and maternal vaccination data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexa Dakiniewich
- School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
| | - Sarah Graham
- School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Amalie Dyda
- School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Lisa McHugh
- School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Regan AK, Sullivan SG, Arah OA. Maternal influenza vaccination and associated risk of fetal loss: A claims-based prospective cohort study. Vaccine 2024; 42:126256. [PMID: 39260053 PMCID: PMC11911014 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126256] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2024] [Revised: 07/26/2024] [Accepted: 08/20/2024] [Indexed: 09/13/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although numerous studies support the safety of influenza vaccination during pregnancy, fewer studies have evaluated the risk of miscarriage or considered the effect of prior immunization. METHODS Using national de-identified administrative claims data from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse, we conducted a claims-based cohort study of 117,626 pregnancies between January 2009 and December 2018. We identified pandemic A(H1N1)pdm09 and seasonal influenza vaccinations using CPT codes. Fetal loss was defined as miscarriage, medical termination, or stillbirth as identified by ICD-10-CM diagnostic codes. Cox proportional hazard models treating influenza vaccination as a time-varying exposure, weighted for loss-to-follow-up and stratified by baseline probability of vaccination, were used to model the risk of fetal loss by exposure to influenza vaccine. RESULTS About 31.4 % of the cohort had a record of influenza vaccination; 10.0 % were vaccinated before pregnancy only, 17.8 % during pregnancy only, and 3.6 % before and during pregnancy. The risk of miscarriage was 39 % lower among those vaccinated during pregnancy compared to unvaccinated (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 0.61; 95 % CI 0.50, 0.74) and was similar for medical termination or stillbirth (HR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.45, 1.03 and aHR 0.99; 95 % CI 0.76, 1.30, respectively). Similar results were observed for women who received the vaccine before and during pregnancy. We observed little to no association between vaccination before pregnancy and risk of miscarriage (HR 0.98; 95 % CI 0.76, 1.26), medical termination (HR 1.02; 95 % CI 0.46, 2.24), or stillbirth (HR 1.14, 95 % CI 0.77, 1.69). DISCUSSION Influenza vaccination was not associated with an increased risk of fetal loss. These results support the safety of influenza vaccine administration even when administered before or early during pregnancy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annette K Regan
- School of Nursing and Health Professions, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
| | - Sheena G Sullivan
- Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States; WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, Royal Melbourne Hospital, and Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Melbourne, at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Onyebuchi A Arah
- Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States; Department of Statistics and Data Science, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States; Practical Causal Inference Lab, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States; Department of Public Health, Research Unit for Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vanders RL, Gomez HM, Daly K, Wark PA, Horvat JC, Hansbro PM. Immune checkpoints are suppressed during pregnancy following influenza A virus infection. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2024; 327:L890-L904. [PMID: 39254092 DOI: 10.1152/ajplung.00391.2023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2023] [Revised: 08/26/2024] [Accepted: 09/02/2024] [Indexed: 09/11/2024] Open
Abstract
Influenza A virus (IAV) infection is a major health risk during pregnancy. Although vaccination and antiviral agents are widely used and reduce IAV-induced symptoms, they are not sufficient to control IAV infections in pregnancy, especially during pandemics. Respiratory viruses like IAV exploit immune alterations that occur during pregnancy, including the upregulation of immune checkpoint proteins (ICPs) like programmed death ligand-1 (PDL1), programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD1), and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4). We hypothesize that blocking expression of PDL1 on innate immune cells will improve maternal immunity following IAV infection. We used murine models of IAV infection during pregnancy with and without treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), a-PDL1. Pregnant and nonpregnant mice were infected with mouse-adapted IAV (A/PR/8) and assessed at 3 days post infection (3 dpi). Lung cells were analyzed using flow cytometry. Lung mRNA expression of inflammatory and antiviral markers and histology was measured. Protein concentrations of inflammatory and antiviral markers, as well as viral titers were measured from lung bronchiolar lavage fluid (BALF). Lung function was also assessed. Following IAV infection, immune cells from pregnant mice had significant increases in the ICPs, PDL1, PD1, and CTLA4. a-PDL1 treatment effectively suppressed these ICPs and increased the activation marker, CD86. a-PDL1 treatment also reduced lung inflammatory cell infiltration and viral titers, increased antiviral responses, and improved lung function. Overall, IAV infection in pregnancy activates key inhibitory ICPs, leading to worsened disease outcomes. a-PDL1 treatment during IAV infection in pregnancy is an effective method to reduce ICP expression and improve overall immune cell responses.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Influenza infection worsens disease outcomes during pregnancy; however, treatment with anti-PDL1 can restore immune function during pregnancy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Vanders
- Immune Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Henry M Gomez
- Immune Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Katie Daly
- Immune Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Peter A Wark
- Immune Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jay C Horvat
- Immune Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Philip M Hansbro
- Faculty of Science, School of Life Sciences, Centre for Inflammation, Centenary Institute, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
O’Leary ST, Campbell JD, Ardura MI, Bryant KA, Caserta MT, Espinosa C, Frenck RW, Healy CM, John CC, Kourtis AP, Milstone A, Myers A, Pannaraj P, Ratner AJ, Bryant KA, Hofstetter AM, Chaparro JD, Michel JJ, Kimberlin DW, Banerjee R, Barnett ED, Lynfield R, Sawyer MH, Barton-Forbes M, Cardemil CV, Farizo KM, Kafer LM, Moore D, Okeke C, Prestel C, Patel M, Starke JR, Thompson J, Torres JP, Wharton M, Woods CR, Gibbs G. Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2024-2025: Technical Report. Pediatrics 2024; 154:e2024068508. [PMID: 39183667 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2024-068508] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2024] [Revised: 07/26/2024] [Accepted: 07/26/2024] [Indexed: 08/27/2024] Open
Abstract
This technical report accompanies the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics for the routine use of influenza vaccine and antiviral medications in the prevention and treatment of influenza in children during the 2024 to 2025 season. The rationale for the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation for annual influenza vaccination of all children without medical contraindications starting at 6 months of age is provided. Influenza vaccination is an important strategy for protecting children and the broader community against influenza. This technical report summarizes recent influenza seasons, morbidity and mortality in children, vaccine effectiveness, and vaccination coverage and provides detailed guidance on vaccine storage, administration, and implementation. The report also provides a brief background on inactivated (nonlive) and live attenuated influenza vaccines, available vaccines for the 2024-2025 influenza season, vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding, diagnostic testing for influenza, and antiviral medications for treatment and chemoprophylaxis. Strategies to promote vaccine uptake are emphasized.
Collapse
|
5
|
Getahun D, Liu ILA, Sy LS, Glanz JM, Zerbo O, Vazquez-Benitez G, Nelson JC, Williams JT, Hambidge SJ, McLean HQ, Irving SA, Weintraub ES, Qian L. Safety of the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in 2 Successive Pregnancies. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e2434857. [PMID: 39298167 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34857] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/21/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Although influenza vaccination has been found to be safe in pregnancy, few studies have assessed repeated influenza vaccination over successive pregnancies, including 2 vaccinations in a year, in terms of adverse perinatal outcomes. Objective To examine the association of seasonal influenza vaccination across successive pregnancies with adverse perinatal outcomes and whether the association varies by interpregnancy interval (IPI) and vaccine type (quadrivalent or trivalent). Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study included individuals with at least 2 successive singleton live-birth pregnancies between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2018. Data were collected from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and integrated health care organizations. Data analysis was performed between January 8, 2021, and July 17, 2024. Exposures Influenza vaccination was identified using vaccine administration codes. The vaccinated cohort consisted of people who received influenza vaccines during the influenza season (August 1 through April 30) in 2 successive pregnancies. The comparator cohort consisted of people identified as unvaccinated during both pregnancies. Main Outcomes and Measures Main outcomes were risk of preeclampsia or eclampsia, placental abruption, fever, preterm birth, preterm premature rupture of membranes, chorioamnionitis, and small for gestational age among individuals with and without vaccination in both pregnancies. Adjusted relative risks (RRs) from Poisson regression were used to assess the magnitude of associations. The associations with adverse outcomes by IPI and vaccine type were evaluated. Results Of 82 055 people with 2 singleton pregnancies between 2004 and 2018, 44 879 (54.7%) had influenza vaccination in successive pregnancies. Mean (SD) age at the start of the second pregnancy was 32.2 (4.6) years for vaccinated individuals and 31.2 (5.0) years for unvaccinated individuals. Compared with individuals not vaccinated in both pregnancies, vaccination in successive pregnancies was not associated with increased risk of preeclampsia or eclampsia (adjusted RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.21), placental abruption (adjusted RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.21), fever (adjusted RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.47-1.59), preterm birth (adjusted RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), preterm premature rupture of membranes (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.94-1.06), chorioamnionitis (adjusted RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90-1.18), or small for gestational age birth (adjusted RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05). IPI and vaccine type did not modify the observed associations. Conclusions and Relevance In this large cohort study of successive pregnancies, influenza vaccination was not associated with increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes, irrespective of IPI and vaccine type. Findings support recommendations to vaccinate pregnant people or those who might be pregnant during the influenza season.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Darios Getahun
- Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena
- Department of Health Systems Science, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California
| | - In-Lu Amy Liu
- Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena
| | - Lina S Sy
- Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena
| | - Jason M Glanz
- Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver
| | - Ousseny Zerbo
- Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland
| | | | - Jennifer C Nelson
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| | | | | | - Huong Q McLean
- Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, Marshfield, Wisconsin
| | | | - Eric S Weintraub
- Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Lei Qian
- Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Rick AM, Beigi R. Maternal Immunizations: Past, Present, and Future. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2024; 67:605-619. [PMID: 38899806 DOI: 10.1097/grf.0000000000000882] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/21/2024]
Abstract
Maternal vaccines during pregnancy offer crucial protection against infections for both the pregnant person and their newborn. Vaccines against influenza, pertussis, coronavirus disease 2019, and respiratory syncytial virus are routinely recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to safeguard pregnant women and their infants from potentially severe complications. Administering these vaccines during pregnancy helps transfer protective antibodies from the mother to the baby, enhancing immunity during the vulnerable early months of life. Extensive research supports the safety and efficacy of maternal vaccines, with numerous studies demonstrating their protective benefits for both pregnant people and newborns.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne-Marie Rick
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of General Academic Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
| | - Richard Beigi
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
- UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Grohskopf LA, Ferdinands JM, Blanton LH, Broder KR, Loehr J. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2024-25 Influenza Season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2024; 73:1-25. [PMID: 39197095 PMCID: PMC11501009 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7305a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/30/2024] Open
Abstract
This report updates the 2023-24 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2022;72[No. RR-2]:1-24). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3s), trivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3), and trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV3) are expected to be available. All persons should receive an age-appropriate influenza vaccine (i.e., one approved for their age), with the exception that solid organ transplant recipients aged 18 through 64 years who are receiving immunosuppressive medication regimens may receive either high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3) or adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3) as acceptable options (without a preference over other age-appropriate IIV3s or RIV3). Except for vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed and recommended vaccine is available. ACIP recommends that adults aged ≥65 years preferentially receive any one of the following higher dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccines: trivalent high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3), trivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3), or trivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3). If none of these three vaccines is available at an opportunity for vaccine administration, then any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine should be used.Primary updates to this report include the following two topics: the composition of 2024-25 U.S. seasonal influenza vaccines and updated recommendations for vaccination of adult solid organ transplant recipients. First, following a period of no confirmed detections of wild-type influenza B/Yamagata lineage viruses in global surveillance since March 2020, 2024-25 U.S. influenza vaccines will not include an influenza B/Yamagata component. All influenza vaccines available in the United States during the 2024-25 season will be trivalent vaccines containing hemagglutinin derived from 1) an influenza A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); 2) an influenza A/Thailand/8/2022 (H3N2)-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Massachusetts/18/2022 (H3N2)-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); and 3) an influenza B/Austria/1359417/2021 (Victoria lineage)-like virus. Second, recommendations for vaccination of adult solid organ transplant recipients have been updated to include HD-IIV3 and aIIV3 as acceptable options for solid organ transplant recipients aged 18 through 64 years who are receiving immunosuppressive medication regimens (without a preference over other age-appropriate IIV3s or RIV3).This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2024-25 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/acip-recs/hcp/vaccine-specific/flu.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.
Collapse
|
8
|
Siu W, Sinilaite A, Papenburg J. Summary of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) Updated Guidance on Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy. CANADA COMMUNICABLE DISEASE REPORT = RELEVE DES MALADIES TRANSMISSIBLES AU CANADA 2024; 50:86-92. [PMID: 38716409 PMCID: PMC11073834 DOI: 10.14745/ccdr.v50i34a01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2024]
Abstract
Background Seasonal influenza infection can lead to serious complications and adverse outcomes for pregnant individuals, the developing fetus and infants younger than six months of age. This supplemental statement provides an evidence summary on the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccination in pregnant individuals, and the benefits and risks to the pregnant person, the developing fetus and infants younger than six months of age. Methods A systematic review was conducted on the effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccination in pregnancy. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI)'s evidence-based process was used to assess the quality of eligible studies, summarize and analyze the findings, and apply an ethics, equity, feasibility and acceptability lens to develop recommendations. Results The evidence suggests that influenza vaccination during pregnancy is effective in reducing the risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection and hospitalization in both pregnant individuals and their infants up to six months postpartum. The evidence also suggests that influenza vaccination during pregnancy does not increase the risk of non-obstetric serious adverse events in pregnant persons, infant death, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birth weight and congenital anomalies. Conclusion Based on this body of evidence, NACI reaffirms the safety and importance of influenza vaccination during pregnancy. NACI recommends that individuals at any stage of pregnancy should receive an age-appropriate inactivated, unadjuvanted or recombinant influenza vaccine each influenza season. Influenza vaccination may be given at the same time as, or at any time before or after administration of another vaccine, including the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or pertussis vaccines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Winnie Siu
- Centre for Immunization Programs, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
| | - Angela Sinilaite
- Centre for Immunization Programs, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON
| | - Jesse Papenburg
- NACI Influenza Working Group Chair
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Montréal Children's Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC
- Division of Microbiology, Department of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, OPTILAB Montréal-McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC
- Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, School of Population and Global Health, McGill University, Montréal, QC
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Quincer EM, Cranmer LM, Kamidani S. Prenatal Maternal Immunization for Infant Protection: A Review of the Vaccines Recommended, Infant Immunity and Future Research Directions. Pathogens 2024; 13:200. [PMID: 38535543 PMCID: PMC10975994 DOI: 10.3390/pathogens13030200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2024] [Revised: 02/12/2024] [Accepted: 02/17/2024] [Indexed: 04/01/2024] Open
Abstract
Prenatal maternal immunization is an effective tool to protect mothers and infants from poor health outcomes due to infectious diseases. We provide an overview of the rationale for the use of prenatal vaccines, discuss the immunologic environment of the maternal-fetal interface including the impact of maternal vaccines prenatally and subsequently on the infant's immune response, and review vaccines currently recommended in pregnancy and landscape for the future of maternal vaccination. This review aims to provide an understanding of the recent history and progress made in the field and highlight the importance of continued research and development into new vaccines for pregnant populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth M. Quincer
- Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
| | - Lisa M. Cranmer
- Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
| | - Satoshi Kamidani
- Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
O’Leary ST, Campbell JD, Ardura MI, Banerjee R, Bryant KA, Caserta MT, Frenck RW, Gerber JS, John CC, Kourtis AP, Myers A, Pannaraj P, Ratner AJ, Shah SS, Bryant KA, Hofstetter AM, Chaparro JD, Michel JJ, Kimberlin DW, Barnett ED, Lynfield R, Sawyer MH, Bernstein HH, Cardemil CV, Farizo KM, Kafer LM, Kim D, López Medina E, Moore D, Panagiotakopoulos L, Romero JR, Sauvé L, Starke JR, Thompson J, Wharton M, Woods CR, Frantz JM, Gibbs G. Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2023-2024. Pediatrics 2023; 152:e2023063773. [PMID: 37641884 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2023-063773] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/28/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023] Open
Abstract
This technical report accompanies the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics for the routine use of influenza vaccine and antiviral medications in the prevention and treatment of influenza in children during the 2023-2024 season. The rationale for the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation for annual influenza vaccination of all children without medical contraindications starting at 6 months of age is provided. Influenza vaccination is an important strategy for protecting children and the broader community against influenza. This technical report summarizes recent influenza seasons, morbidity and mortality in children, vaccine effectiveness, and vaccination coverage, and provides detailed guidance on vaccine storage, administration, and implementation. The report also provides a brief background on inactivated and live-attenuated influenza vaccines, available vaccines this season, vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding, diagnostic testing for influenza, and antiviral medications for treatment and chemoprophylaxis. Strategies to promote vaccine uptake are emphasized.
Collapse
|
11
|
Regan AK, Wesselink AK, Wang TR, Savitz DA, Yland JJ, Rothman KJ, Hatch EE, Wise LA. Risk of Miscarriage in Relation to Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Before or During Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 142:625-635. [PMID: 37535959 PMCID: PMC10424825 DOI: 10.1097/aog.0000000000005279] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2022] [Revised: 03/10/2023] [Accepted: 04/20/2023] [Indexed: 08/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between seasonal influenza vaccination and miscarriage using data from an ongoing, prospective cohort study. METHODS We analyzed 2013-2022 data from PRESTO (Pregnancy Study Online), a prospective prepregnancy cohort study of female pregnancy planners and their male partners in the United States and Canada. Female participants completed a baseline questionnaire and then follow-up questionnaires every 8 weeks until pregnancy, during early and late pregnancy, and during the postpartum period. Vaccine information was self-reported on all questionnaires. Miscarriage was identified from self-reported information during follow-up. Male partners were invited to complete a baseline questionnaire only. We used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI for the association between vaccination less than 3 months before pregnancy detection through the 19th week of pregnancy and miscarriage, with gestational weeks as the time scale. We modeled vaccination as a time-varying exposure and used propensity-score fine stratification to control for confounding from seasonal and female partner factors. RESULTS Of 6,946 pregnancies, 23.3% of female partners reported exposure to influenza vaccine before or during pregnancy: 3.2% during pregnancy (gestational age 4-19 weeks) and 20.1% during the 3 months before pregnancy detection. The miscarriage rate was 16.2% in unvaccinated and 17.0% among vaccinated participants. Compared with no vaccine exposure, influenza vaccination was not associated with increased rate of miscarriage when administered before (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81-1.20) or during (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.47-1.47) pregnancy. Of the 1,135 couples with male partner vaccination data available, 10.8% reported vaccination less than 3 months before pregnancy. The HR for the association between male partner vaccination and miscarriage was 1.17 (95% CI 0.73-1.90). CONCLUSION Influenza vaccination before or during pregnancy was not associated with miscarriage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annette K Regan
- School of Nursing and Health Professions, University of San Francisco, Orange, and Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; and Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Grohskopf LA, Blanton LH, Ferdinands JM, Chung JR, Broder KR, Talbot HK. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — United States, 2023–24 Influenza Season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2023; 72:1-25. [PMCID: PMC10468199 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7202a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 38.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/31/2023] Open
Abstract
This report updates the 2022–23 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States ( MMWR Recomm Rep 2022;71[No. RR-1]:1–28). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. All seasonal influenza vaccines expected to be available in the United States for the 2023–24 season are quadrivalent, containing hemagglutinin (HA) derived from one influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, one influenza A(H3N2) virus, one influenza B/Victoria lineage virus, and one influenza B/Yamagata lineage virus. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. For most persons who need only 1 dose of influenza vaccine for the season, vaccination should ideally be offered during September or October. However, vaccination should continue after October and throughout the season as long as influenza viruses are circulating and unexpired vaccine is available. Influenza vaccines might be available as early as July or August, but for most adults (particularly adults aged ≥65 years) and for pregnant persons in the first or second trimester, vaccination during July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that vaccination later in the season might not be possible. Certain children aged 6 months through 8 years need 2 doses; these children should receive the first dose as soon as possible after vaccine is available, including during July and August. Vaccination during July and August can be considered for children of any age who need only 1 dose for the season and for pregnant persons who are in the third trimester during these months if vaccine is available ACIP recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications receive a licensed and age-appropriate seasonal influenza vaccine. With the exception of vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. ACIP recommends that adults aged ≥65 years preferentially receive any one of the following higher dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccines: quadrivalent high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV4), quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), or quadrivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV4). If none of these three vaccines is available at an opportunity for vaccine administration, then any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine should be used Primary updates to this report include the following two topics: 1) the composition of 2023–24 U.S. seasonal influenza vaccines and 2) updated recommendations regarding influenza vaccination of persons with egg allergy. First, the composition of 2023–24 U.S. influenza vaccines includes an update to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 component. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain HA derived from 1) an influenza A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); 2) an influenza A/Darwin/9/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Darwin/6/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); 3) an influenza B/Austria/1359417/2021 (Victoria lineage)-like virus; and 4) an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Second, ACIP recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months with egg allergy should receive influenza vaccine. Any influenza vaccine (egg based or nonegg based) that is otherwise appropriate for the recipient’s age and health status can be used. It is no longer recommended that persons who have had an allergic reaction to egg involving symptoms other than urticaria should be vaccinated in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions if an egg-based vaccine is used. Egg allergy alone necessitates no additional safety measures for influenza vaccination beyond those recommended for any recipient of any vaccine, regardless of severity of previous reaction to egg. All vaccines should be administered in settings in which personnel and equipment needed for rapid recognition and treatment of acute hypersensitivity reactions are available This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2023–24 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html . These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website ( https://www.cdc.gov/flu ). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.
Collapse
|
13
|
Shaikh H, Koli P, Undale V, Pardeshi A, Asalkar M, Sahastrabuddhe S, Kawade A, Upasani C. Safety and Protective Effects of Influenza Vaccination in Pregnant Women on Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes in Pune, India: A Cross-Sectional Study. Vaccines (Basel) 2023; 11:1034. [PMID: 37376423 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11061034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2023] [Revised: 05/19/2023] [Accepted: 05/25/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Maternal influenza vaccination provides effective protection against influenza infections in pregnant women and their newborns. In India, the influenza vaccine has not yet been offered through immunization programs, owing to the lack of sufficient safety data for pregnant Indian women. METHODS This cross-sectional observational study enrolled 558 women admitted to the obstetrics ward of a civic hospital in Pune. Study-related information was obtained from the participants through hospital records and interviews using structured questionnaires. Univariate and multivariable analysis was used, and the chi-square test with adjusted odds ratio was estimated to account for vaccine exposure and the temporal nature of each outcome, respectively. RESULTS Women not vaccinated against influenza during pregnancy had a higher risk of delivering very LBW infants, and possible protective effects were suggested (AOR 2.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 5.58, p = 0.03). No association was observed between maternal influenza vaccination for Caesarean section (LSCS) (AOR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.78, 1.85), stillbirth (AOR 1.8, 95% CI 0.18, 24.64) and NICU admission (AOR, 0.87, 0.29 to 2.85), and congenital anomaly (AOR, 0.81, 0.10 to 3.87). INTERPRETATION These results show that the influenza vaccine administered during pregnancy is safe and might lower the risk of negative birth outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanif Shaikh
- Department of Pharmacology, SNJB's Shriman Suresh Dada Jain College of Pharmacy, Chandwad 423101, India
- International Vaccine Institute, SNU Research Park, Gwanak ro, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
| | - Pranesha Koli
- Department of Pharmacology, Dr. D. Y. Patil Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, Pune 411018, India
| | - Vaishali Undale
- Department of Pharmacology, Dr. D. Y. Patil Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, Pune 411018, India
| | - Anil Pardeshi
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth G.S. Medical College, KEM Hospital, Mumbai 400012, India
| | - Mahesh Asalkar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation's Postgraduate Institute, Yashwantrao Chavan Memorial Hospital, Pune 411018, India
| | - Sushant Sahastrabuddhe
- International Vaccine Institute, SNU Research Park, Gwanak ro, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
| | - Anand Kawade
- Vadu Rural Health Program, KEM Hospital Research Centre, Pune 412216, India
| | - Chandrashekhar Upasani
- Department of Pharmacology, SNJB's Shriman Suresh Dada Jain College of Pharmacy, Chandwad 423101, India
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
McHugh L, Regan AK, Sarna M, Moore HC, Van Buynder P, Pereira G, Blyth CC, Lust K, Andrews RM, Crooks K, Massey P, Binks MJ. Inequity of antenatal influenza and pertussis vaccine coverage in Australia: the Links2HealthierBubs record linkage cohort study, 2012-2017. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2023; 23:314. [PMID: 37150828 PMCID: PMC10164451 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-05574-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2022] [Accepted: 04/04/2023] [Indexed: 05/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pregnancy and early infancy are increased risk periods for severe adverse effects of respiratory infections. Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (respectfully referred to as First Nations) women and children in Australia bear a disproportionately higher burden of respiratory diseases compared to non-Indigenous women and infants. Influenza vaccines and whooping cough (pertussis) vaccines are recommended and free in every Australian pregnancy to combat these infections. We aimed to assess the equity of influenza and/or pertussis vaccination in pregnancy for three priority groups in Australia: First Nations women; women from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds; and women living in remote areas or socio-economic disadvantage. METHODS We conducted individual record linkage of Perinatal Data Collections with immunisation registers/databases between 2012 and 2017. Analysis included generalised linear mixed model, log-binomial regression with a random intercept for the unique maternal identifier to account for clustering, presented as prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% compatibility intervals (95%CI). RESULTS There were 445,590 individual women in the final cohort. Compared with other Australian women (n = 322,848), First Nations women (n = 29,181) were less likely to have received both recommended antenatal vaccines (PR 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.71) whereas women from CALD backgrounds (n = 93,561) were more likely to have (PR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10-1.13). Women living in remote areas were less likely to have received both vaccines (PR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.78), and women living in the highest areas of advantage were more likely to have received both vaccines (PR 1.44, 95% CI 1.40-1.48). CONCLUSIONS Compared to other groups, First Nations Australian families, those living in remote areas and/or families from lower socio-economic backgrounds did not receive recommended vaccinations during pregnancy that are the benchmark of equitable healthcare. Addressing these barriers must remain a core priority for Australian health care systems and vaccine providers. An extension of this cohort is necessary to reassess these study findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa McHugh
- School of Public Health, Division of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, 4001, Australia.
| | - Annette K Regan
- Curtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
- School of Nursing and Health Professions, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Wesfarmers Centre for Vaccines & Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Mohinder Sarna
- Curtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
- Wesfarmers Centre for Vaccines & Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Hannah C Moore
- Curtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
- Wesfarmers Centre for Vaccines & Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Paul Van Buynder
- School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia
| | - Gavin Pereira
- Curtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
- enAble Institute, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
- Centre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - Christopher C Blyth
- Wesfarmers Centre for Vaccines & Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, WA, Australia
- School of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Department of Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia
- Department of Microbiology, PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Karin Lust
- Women's and Newborn Service, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Department of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane Queensland, Australia
| | - Ross M Andrews
- Australian National University Canberra, Canberra, Australia
| | - Kristy Crooks
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, Australia
| | - Peter Massey
- College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia
| | - Michael J Binks
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Abstract
This technical report accompanies the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics for the routine use of influenza vaccine and antiviral medications in the prevention and treatment of influenza in children during the 2022 to 2023 season. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends annual influenza vaccination of all children without medical contraindications starting at 6 months of age. Influenza vaccination is an important strategy for protecting children and the broader community as well as reducing the overall burden of respiratory illnesses when other viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2, are cocirculating. This technical report summarizes recent influenza seasons, morbidity and mortality in children, vaccine effectiveness, and vaccination coverage, and provides detailed guidance on storage, administration, and implementation. The report also provides a brief background on inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccine recommendations, vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding, diagnostic testing, and antiviral medications for treatment and chemoprophylaxis. Updated information is provided about the 2021 to 2022 influenza season, influenza immunization rates, the effectiveness of influenza vaccination on hospitalization and mortality, available vaccines, guidance for patients with history of severe allergic reactions to prior influenza vaccinations, and strategies to promote vaccine uptake.
Collapse
|
16
|
Grohskopf LA, Blanton LH, Ferdinands JM, Chung JR, Broder KR, Talbot HK, Morgan RL, Fry AM. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022-23 Influenza Season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2022; 71:1-28. [PMID: 36006864 PMCID: PMC9429824 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7101a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 179] [Impact Index Per Article: 59.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
This report updates the 2021–22 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2021;70[No. RR-5]:1–24). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used.With the exception of vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. All seasonal influenza vaccines expected to be available in the United States for the 2022–23 season are quadrivalent, containing hemagglutinin (HA) derived from one influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, one influenza A(H3N2) virus, one influenza B/Victoria lineage virus, and one influenza B/Yamagata lineage virus. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. Trivalent influenza vaccines are no longer available, but data that involve these vaccines are included for reference. Influenza vaccines might be available as early as July or August, but for most persons who need only 1 dose of influenza vaccine for the season, vaccination should ideally be offered during September or October. However, vaccination should continue after October and throughout the season as long as influenza viruses are circulating and unexpired vaccine is available. For most adults (particularly adults aged ≥65 years) and for pregnant persons in the first or second trimester, vaccination during July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that vaccination later in the season might not be possible. Certain children aged 6 months through 8 years need 2 doses; these children should receive the first dose as soon as possible after vaccine is available, including during July and August. Vaccination during July and August can be considered for children of any age who need only 1 dose for the season and for pregnant persons who are in the third trimester if vaccine is available during those months Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 20, 2021; January 12, 2022; February 23, 2022; and June 22, 2022. Primary updates to this report include the following three topics: 1) the composition of 2022–23 U.S. seasonal influenza vaccines; 2) updates to the description of influenza vaccines expected to be available for the 2022–23 season, including one influenza vaccine labeling change that occurred after the publication of the 2021–22 ACIP influenza recommendations; and 3) updates to the recommendations concerning vaccination of adults aged ≥65 years. First, the composition of 2022–23 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H3N2) and influenza B/Victoria lineage components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain HA derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture–based or recombinant vaccines); an influenza A/Darwin/9/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Darwin/6/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for cell culture–based or recombinant vaccines); an influenza B/Austria/1359417/2021 (Victoria lineage)-like virus; and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Second, the approved age indication for the cell culture–based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), was changed in October 2021 from ≥2 years to ≥6 months. Third, recommendations for vaccination of adults aged ≥65 years have been modified. ACIP recommends that adults aged ≥65 years preferentially receive any one of the following higher dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccines: quadrivalent high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV4), quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), or quadrivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV4). If none of these three vaccines is available at an opportunity for vaccine administration, then any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine should be used This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2022–23 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.
Collapse
|
17
|
Romano CJ, Hall C, Khodr ZG, Bukowinski AT, Gumbs GR, Conlin AMS. History of pandemic H1N1-containing influenza vaccination and risk for spontaneous abortion and birth defects. Vaccine 2021; 39:6553-6562. [PMID: 34598819 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2021] [Revised: 08/25/2021] [Accepted: 09/01/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND One recent study suggested an association between receipt of pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1)-containing vaccines in consecutive influenza seasons and spontaneous abortion, but corroborating scientific evidence is limited. In the present study, we leveraged a population of vaccine-compliant pregnant military women to examine history of pH1N1-containing influenza vaccination and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Because seasonal influenza vaccination is compulsory for military service, safety concerns regarding repeat vaccination are particularly relevant in this population. METHODS Pregnancies and live births from Department of Defense Birth and Infant Health Research program data were linked with military personnel immunization records to identify women vaccinated with a pH1N1-containing vaccine in pregnancy prior to 21 6/7 weeks' gestation, October 2009-April 2015. Cox and modified Poisson regression models estimated associations between vaccination with pH1N1- versus non-pH1N1-containing influenza vaccine in the season prior to the index pregnancy, and spontaneous abortion and birth defects, respectively. Cox models were calculated for two periods of follow-up: through (1) 21 6/7 weeks' gestation and (2) 28 days postvaccination. RESULTS Of 26,264 pregnancies, 21,736 (82.8%) were among women who received a dose of pH1N1-containing vaccine in the prior influenza season and 4,528 (17.2%) were among women who received non-pH1N1-containing vaccine in the prior influenza season. Among 23,121 infants, 19,365 (83.8%) and 3,756 (16.2%) had mothers exposed and unexposed to pH1N1-containing vaccine in the prior influenza season, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for spontaneous abortion approximated 1.0 across the complete follow-up period (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.13) and was slightly elevated when censored at 28 days postvaccination, though the CI was imprecise (aHR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.97-1.46). No associations with birth defects were observed. CONCLUSION This work lends additional safety evidence and support for vaccination against pH1N1 in pregnancy, regardless of the vaccine received in the prior influenza season.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celeste J Romano
- Deployment Health Research Department, Naval Health Research Center, 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106, USA; Leidos, Inc., 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106, USA.
| | - Clinton Hall
- Deployment Health Research Department, Naval Health Research Center, 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106, USA; Leidos, Inc., 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106, USA
| | - Zeina G Khodr
- Deployment Health Research Department, Naval Health Research Center, 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106, USA; Leidos, Inc., 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106, USA
| | - Anna T Bukowinski
- Deployment Health Research Department, Naval Health Research Center, 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106, USA; Leidos, Inc., 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106, USA
| | - Gia R Gumbs
- Deployment Health Research Department, Naval Health Research Center, 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106, USA; Leidos, Inc., 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106, USA
| | - Ava Marie S Conlin
- Deployment Health Research Department, Naval Health Research Center, 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Abstract
This technical report accompanies the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics for the routine use of the influenza vaccine and antiviral medications in the prevention and treatment of influenza in children during the 2021-2022 season. Influenza vaccination is an important intervention to protect vulnerable populations and reduce the burden of respiratory illnesses during circulation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which is expected to continue during this influenza season. In this technical report, we summarize recent influenza seasons, morbidity and mortality in children, vaccine effectiveness, vaccination coverage, and detailed guidance on storage, administration, and implementation. We also provide background on inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccine recommendations, vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding, diagnostic testing, and antiviral medications for treatment and chemoprophylaxis.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use
- Breast Feeding
- Child
- Contraindications, Drug
- Drug Resistance, Viral
- Drug Storage
- Female
- Hospitalization
- Humans
- Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage
- Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects
- Influenza, Human/drug therapy
- Influenza, Human/epidemiology
- Influenza, Human/mortality
- Influenza, Human/prevention & control
- Mass Vaccination
- Risk Factors
- United States/epidemiology
- Vaccines, Attenuated/administration & dosage
- Vaccines, Attenuated/adverse effects
- Vaccines, Inactivated/administration & dosage
- Vaccines, Inactivated/adverse effects
Collapse
|
19
|
Grohskopf LA, Alyanak E, Ferdinands JM, Broder KR, Blanton LH, Talbot HK, Fry AM. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2021-22 Influenza Season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2021; 70:1-28. [PMID: 34448800 PMCID: PMC8407757 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7005a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 212] [Impact Index Per Article: 53.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
This report updates the 2020-21 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69[No. RR-8]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. During the 2021-22 influenza season, the following types of vaccines are expected to be available: inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4).The 2021-22 influenza season is expected to coincide with continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. Recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html, and additional clinical guidance is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 28, 2020; February 25, 2021; and June 24, 2021. Primary updates to this report include the following six items. First, all seasonal influenza vaccines available in the United States for the 2021-22 season are expected to be quadrivalent. Second, the composition of 2021-22 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2) components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines), an influenza A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 (H3N2)-like virus, an influenza B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)-like virus, and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Third, the approved age indication for the cell culture-based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), has been expanded from ages ≥4 years to ages ≥2 years. Fourth, discussion of administration of influenza vaccines with other vaccines includes considerations for coadministration of influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. Providers should also consult current ACIP COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and CDC guidance concerning coadministration of these vaccines with influenza vaccines. Vaccines that are given at the same time should be administered in separate anatomic sites. Fifth, guidance concerning timing of influenza vaccination now states that vaccination soon after vaccine becomes available can be considered for pregnant women in the third trimester. As previously recommended, children who need 2 doses (children aged 6 months through 8 years who have never received influenza vaccine or who have not previously received a lifetime total of ≥2 doses) should receive their first dose as soon as possible after vaccine becomes available to allow the second dose (which must be administered ≥4 weeks later) to be received by the end of October. For nonpregnant adults, vaccination in July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that later vaccination might not be possible. Sixth, contraindications and precautions to the use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 have been modified, specifically with regard to persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to an influenza vaccine. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, LAIV, or RIV of any valency is a precaution to use of ccIIV4. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, ccIIV, or LAIV of any valency is a precaution to use of RIV4. Use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 in such instances should occur in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under supervision of a provider who can recognize and manage a severe allergic reaction; providers can also consider consulting with an allergist to help identify the vaccine component responsible for the reaction. For ccIIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any ccIIV of any valency or any component of ccIIV4 is a contraindication to future use of ccIIV4. For RIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any RIV of any valency or any component of RIV4 is a contraindication to future use of RIV4. This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2021-22 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu); vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.
Collapse
|
20
|
Kitt E, Burt S, Price SM, Satchell L, Offit PA, Sammons JS, Coffin SE. Implementation of a Mandatory Influenza Vaccine Policy: A 10-Year Experience. Clin Infect Dis 2021; 73:e290-e296. [PMID: 33372217 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa782] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) has been recommended for more than 30 years. In 2009, HCWs were designated as a priority group by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Current HCW vaccination rates are 78% across all settings and reach approximately 92% among those employed in hospital settings. Over the last decade, it has become clear that mandatory vaccine policies result in maximal rates of HCW immunization. METHODS In this observational 10-year study, we describe the implementation of a mandatory influenza vaccination policy in a dedicated quaternary pediatric hospital setting by a multidisciplinary team. We analyzed 10 years of available data from deidentified occupational health records from 2009-2010 through the 2018-2019 influenza seasons. Descriptive statistics were performed using Stata v15 and Excel. RESULTS Sustained increases in HCW immunization rates above 99% were observed in the 10 years postimplementation, in addition to a reduction in exemption requests and healthcare-associated influenza. In the year of implementation, 145 (1.6%) HCWs were placed on temporary suspension for failure to receive the vaccine without documentation of an exemption, with 9 (0.06%) subsequently being terminated. Since then, between 0 and 3 HCWs are terminated yearly for failure to receive the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of our mandatory influenza vaccination program succeeded in successfully increasing the proportion of immunized HCWs at a quaternary care children's hospital, reducing annual exemption requests with a small number of terminations secondary to vaccine refusal. Temporal trends suggest a positive impact on the safety of our patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eimear Kitt
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Sharon Burt
- Department of Occupational Health, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Susan M Price
- Department of Occupational Health, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Lauren Satchell
- Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Paul A Offit
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Vaccine Education Center, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Julia S Sammons
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Susan E Coffin
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Philadelphia Department of Public Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Lasky T, McMahon AW, Hua W, Forshee R. Methodologic approaches in studies using real-world data (RWD) to measure pediatric safety and effectiveness of vaccines administered to pregnant women: A scoping review. Vaccine 2021; 39:3814-3824. [PMID: 34090699 PMCID: PMC8500552 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.05.071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2021] [Revised: 05/18/2021] [Accepted: 05/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This scoping review mapped studies using real-world data (RWD) to measure pediatric safety and effectiveness of vaccines administered to pregnant women. INTRODUCTION In the US, two vaccines are recommended for all pregnant women to prevent illness in the infant: inactivated influenza vaccine (recommended since 2004), and the combined tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine (recommended since 2013). This scoping review maps the studies conducted to date that address questions about pediatric safety and effectiveness of vaccines administered during pregnancy and provides a knowledge base for evaluating the use of RWD to study this issue. METHODS The scoping review was conducted following a published protocol. Methods included an electronic search of PubMed and Embase, screening of titles and abstracts by two reviewers, and double extraction of data for summary and synthesis. Studies that reported on pregnant women and the effectiveness or safety outcomes in their infants were included. RESULTS Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria of the scoping review protocol using RWD to assess safety or effectiveness of influenza or pertussis vaccinations administered to pregnant women with respect to pregnancy, infant or child outcomes. Detailed information about data sources, linkage of maternal and infant data, and operational definitions for gestational age were largely absent from the majority of studies raising concerns about reproducibility and validity of study findings. CONCLUSIONS A body of literature is available from which to plan and design future studies of vaccination in pregnant women using RWD. This is of intense importance as new vaccines, such as those for COVID-19, become available to the general population via approval or authorization without inclusion of pregnant women in the clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tamar Lasky
- US Food and Drug Administration, Office of the Commissioner, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
| | - Ann W McMahon
- US Food and Drug Administration, Office of the Commissioner, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Wei Hua
- US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drugs Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Richard Forshee
- US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Hong K, Lindley MC, Zhou F. Coverage and Timing of Influenza Vaccination Among Privately Insured Pregnant Women in the United States, 2010-2018. Public Health Rep 2021; 137:739-748. [PMID: 34161183 DOI: 10.1177/00333549211026779] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Pregnant women are at increased risk of serious complications from influenza and are recommended to receive an influenza vaccination during pregnancy. The objective of this study was to assess trends, timing patterns, and associated factors of influenza vaccination among pregnant women. METHODS We used 2010-2018 MarketScan data on 1 286 749 pregnant women aged 15-49 who were privately insured to examine trends and timing patterns of influenza vaccination coverage. We examined descriptive statistics and identified factors associated with vaccination uptake by using multivariate log-binomial and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS In-plan influenza vaccination coverage before delivery increased from 22.0% during the 2010-2011 influenza season to 33.2% during the 2017-2018 influenza season. About two-thirds of vaccinated women received the vaccine in September or October during each influenza season. For women who delivered in September through May, influenza vaccination coverage increased rapidly at the beginning of influenza season and flattened after October. For women who delivered in June through August, influenza vaccination coverage increased gradually until February and flattened thereafter. Most vaccinated women who delivered before January received the vaccine in the third trimester. Increased likelihood of being vaccinated was associated with age 31-40, living in a metropolitan statistical area, living outside the South, enrollment in a consumer-driven or high-deductible health plan, being spouses or dependents of policy holders, and delivery in November through January. CONCLUSIONS Despite increases during the past several years, vaccination uptake is still suboptimal, particularly after October. Health care provider education on timing of vaccination and recommendations throughout influenza seasons are needed to improve influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kai Hong
- 1242 Immunization Services Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Megan C Lindley
- 1242 Immunization Services Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Fangjun Zhou
- 1242 Immunization Services Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Krubiner CB, Faden RR, Karron RA, Little MO, Lyerly AD, Abramson JS, Beigi RH, Cravioto AR, Durbin AP, Gellin BG, Gupta SB, Kaslow DC, Kochhar S, Luna F, Saenz C, Sheffield JS, Tindana PO. Pregnant women & vaccines against emerging epidemic threats: Ethics guidance for preparedness, research, and response. Vaccine 2021; 39:85-120. [PMID: 31060949 PMCID: PMC7735377 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.01.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 117] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2018] [Accepted: 01/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Zika virus, influenza, and Ebola have called attention to the ways in which infectious disease outbreaks can severely - and at times uniquely - affect the health interests of pregnant women and their offspring. These examples also highlight the critical need to proactively consider pregnant women and their offspring in vaccine research and response efforts to combat emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Historically, pregnant women and their offspring have been largely excluded from research agendas and investment strategies for vaccines against epidemic threats, which in turn can lead to exclusion from future vaccine campaigns amidst outbreaks. This state of affairs is profoundly unjust to pregnant women and their offspring, and deeply problematic from the standpoint of public health. To ensure that the needs of pregnant women and their offspring are fairly addressed, new approaches to public health preparedness, vaccine research and development, and vaccine delivery are required. This Guidance offers 22 concrete recommendations that provide a roadmap for the ethically responsible, socially just, and respectful inclusion of the interests of pregnant women in the development and deployment of vaccines against emerging pathogens. The Guidance was developed by the Pregnancy Research Ethics for Vaccines, Epidemics, and New Technologies (PREVENT) Working Group - a multidisciplinary, international team of 17 experts specializing in bioethics, maternal immunization, maternal-fetal medicine, obstetrics, pediatrics, philosophy, public health, and vaccine research and policy - in consultation with a variety of external experts and stakeholders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carleigh B Krubiner
- Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, 1809 Ashland Avenue, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Ruth R Faden
- Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, 1809 Ashland Avenue, Baltimore, MD, USA; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Ruth A Karron
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Margaret O Little
- Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., USA
| | - Anne D Lyerly
- University of North Carolina Center for Bioethics, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Jon S Abramson
- Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Richard H Beigi
- Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | | | - Anna P Durbin
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Carla Saenz
- Pan American Health Organization, Washington, D.C., USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Wang H. Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis, Vaccination and Virus. Curr Pharm Des 2020; 25:4579-4588. [PMID: 31820697 DOI: 10.2174/1381612825666191210155059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2019] [Accepted: 11/21/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate (Anti-NMDA) receptor encephalitis is an acute autoimmune disorder. The symptoms range from psychiatric symptoms, movement disorders, cognitive impairment, and autonomic dysfunction. Previous studies revealed that vaccination might induce this disease. A few cases were reported to be related to H1N1 vaccine, tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis and polio vaccine, and Japanese encephalitis vaccine. Although vaccination is a useful strategy to prevent infectious diseases, in a low risk, it may trigger serious neurological symptoms. In addition to anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, other neurological diseases were reported to be associated with a number of vaccines. In this paper, the anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis cases related to a number of vaccines and other neurological symptoms that might be induced by these vaccines were reviewed. In addition, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis cases that were induced by virus infection were also reviewed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hsiuying Wang
- Institute of Statistics, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Grohskopf LA, Alyanak E, Broder KR, Blanton LH, Fry AM, Jernigan DB, Atmar RL. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2020-21 Influenza Season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2020; 69:1-24. [PMID: 32820746 PMCID: PMC7439976 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr6908a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 231] [Impact Index Per Article: 46.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
This report updates the 2019–20 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2019;68[No. RR-3]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. Most influenza vaccines available for the 2020–21 season will be quadrivalent, with the exception of MF59-adjuvanted IIV, which is expected to be available in both quadrivalent and trivalent formulations. Updates to the recommendations described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP held on October 23, 2019; February 26, 2020; and June 24, 2020. Primary updates to this report include the following two items. First, the composition of 2020–21 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, influenza A(H3N2), and influenza B/Victoria lineage components. Second, recent licensures of two new influenza vaccines, Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent and Fluad Quadrivalent, are discussed. Both new vaccines are licensed for persons aged ≥65 years. Additional changes include updated discussion of contraindications and precautions to influenza vaccination and the accompanying Table, updated discussion concerning use of LAIV4 in the setting of influenza antiviral medication use, and updated recommendations concerning vaccination of persons with egg allergy who receive either cell culture–based IIV4 (ccIIV4) or RIV4. The 2020–21 influenza season will coincide with the continued or recurrent circulation of SARS-CoV-2 (the novel coronavirus associated with coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]). Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient illnesses, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2020–21 season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used within Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.
Collapse
|
26
|
Munoz FM, Patel SM, Jackson LA, Swamy GK, Edwards KM, Frey SE, Petrie CR, Sendra EA, Keitel WA. Safety and immunogenicity of three seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines among pregnant women and antibody persistence in their infants. Vaccine 2020; 38:5355-5363. [PMID: 32571718 PMCID: PMC10803065 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/03/2020] [Revised: 05/10/2020] [Accepted: 05/16/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Inactivated influenza virus vaccines (IIVs) are recommended for all pregnant women in the United States. We conducted a prospective, randomized, double blind study of three licensed seasonal trivalent IIVs (IIV3s) to assess their safety and immunogenicity in pregnant women and determine the level and persistence of passively transferred maternal antibody in infants. STUDY DESIGN 139 pregnant women ages 18-39 years and 14-33 weeks' gestation, and 44 non-pregnant women, were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a single intramuscular dose of one of three licensed IIV3s (Agriflu®, Fluzone®, or Fluarix®) prior to the 2010-2011 influenza season. Reactogenicity, adverse events (AEs) and pregnancy outcomes were documented. Serum samples for hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and neutralization antibody assays were collected prior to and 28 and 180 days after immunization. Maternal sera and cord blood were collected at the time of delivery and sera were obtained from 44 infants at 6 weeks of age. RESULTS Pregnant and non-pregnant women experienced similar frequency of injection site (92% and 86%, respectively) and systemic (95% and 87%, respectively) reactions, the majority of which were mild. There were no vaccine-associated maternal or infant serious AEs. Antibody responses to the three vaccine antigens were not different between pregnant and non-pregnant women. The ratios of cord blood (infant) to maternal HAI antibody titers at delivery ranged between 1.1 and 1.7 for each of the vaccine antigens. Influenza antibody concentrations in infants were 70-40% of the birth titer by 6 weeks of age. CONCLUSIONS The three IIV3s were well tolerated in pregnant women. Antibody responses were comparable in pregnant and non-pregnant women, and after second or third trimester vaccination. Transplacental transfer of maternal antibodies to the infant was efficient. However, antibody titers decline rapidly in the first 6 weeks of life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Flor M Munoz
- Department of Pediatrics, Houston, TX, United States; Department of Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Houston, TX, United States.
| | - Shital M Patel
- Department of Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Houston, TX, United States; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Lisa A Jackson
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Geeta K Swamy
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Kathryn M Edwards
- Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program, Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States
| | - Sharon E Frey
- Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States
| | | | - Eli A Sendra
- The EMMES Company, LLC, Rockville, MD, United States
| | - Wendy A Keitel
- Department of Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Houston, TX, United States; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Thompson MG, Kwong JC, Regan AK, Katz MA, Drews SJ, Azziz-Baumgartner E, Klein NP, Chung H, Effler PV, Feldman BS, Simmonds K, Wyant BE, Dawood FS, Jackson ML, Fell DB, Levy A, Barda N, Svenson LW, Fink RV, Ball SW, Naleway A. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing Influenza-associated Hospitalizations During Pregnancy: A Multi-country Retrospective Test Negative Design Study, 2010-2016. Clin Infect Dis 2020; 68:1444-1453. [PMID: 30307490 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy737] [Citation(s) in RCA: 114] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2018] [Accepted: 10/05/2018] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To date, no study has examined influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations during pregnancy. METHODS The Pregnancy Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (PREVENT) consisted of public health or healthcare systems with integrated laboratory, medical, and vaccination records in Australia, Canada (Alberta and Ontario), Israel, and the United States (California, Oregon, and Washington). Sites identified pregnant women aged 18 through 50 years whose pregnancies overlapped with local influenza seasons from 2010 through 2016. Administrative data were used to identify hospitalizations with acute respiratory or febrile illness (ARFI) and clinician-ordered real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing for influenza viruses. Overall IVE was estimated using the test-negative design and adjusting for site, season, season timing, and high-risk medical conditions. RESULTS Among 19450 hospitalizations with an ARFI discharge diagnosis (across 25 site-specific study seasons), only 1030 (6%) of the pregnant women were tested for influenza viruses by rRT-PCR. Approximately half of these women had pneumonia or influenza discharge diagnoses (54%). Influenza A or B virus infections were detected in 598/1030 (58%) of the ARFI hospitalizations with influenza testing. Across sites and seasons, 13% of rRT-PCR-confirmed influenza-positive pregnant women were vaccinated compared with 22% of influenza-negative pregnant women; the adjusted overall IVE was 40% (95% confidence interval = 12%-59%) against influenza-associated hospitalization during pregnancy. CONCLUSION Between 2010 and 2016, influenza vaccines offered moderate protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations during pregnancy, which may further inform the benefits of maternal influenza vaccination programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark G Thompson
- Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Jeffrey C Kwong
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.,Public Health Ontario.,Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto.,Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto.,University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Annette K Regan
- School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth.,Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Mark A Katz
- Chief Physician's Office, Clalit Health Services, Clalit Research Institute, Tel Aviv.,School of Public Health, Medical School for International Health, Ben Gurion University, Bersheva, Israel.,University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor
| | - Steven J Drews
- University of Alberta.,ProvLab Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | | | - Nicola P Klein
- Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland
| | | | - Paul V Effler
- Communicable Disease Control Directorate, Department of Health Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - Becca S Feldman
- Chief Physician's Office, Clalit Health Services, Clalit Research Institute, Tel Aviv
| | - Kimberley Simmonds
- Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary.,Alberta Health, Edmonton, Canada
| | | | - Fatimah S Dawood
- Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Michael L Jackson
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| | - Deshayne B Fell
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.,School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa.,Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Avram Levy
- Department of Microbiology, QEII Medical Centre, PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Noam Barda
- Chief Physician's Office, Clalit Health Services, Clalit Research Institute, Tel Aviv
| | - Lawrence W Svenson
- Alberta Health, Edmonton, Canada.,Division of Preventive Medicine.,School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton.,Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | | | | | - Allison Naleway
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Abu-Raya B, Maertens K, Edwards KM, Omer SB, Englund JA, Flanagan KL, Snape MD, Amirthalingam G, Leuridan E, Damme PV, Papaevangelou V, Launay O, Dagan R, Campins M, Cavaliere AF, Frusca T, Guidi S, O'Ryan M, Heininger U, Tan T, Alsuwaidi AR, Safadi MA, Vilca LM, Wanlapakorn N, Madhi SA, Giles ML, Prymula R, Ladhani S, Martinón-Torres F, Tan L, Michelin L, Scambia G, Principi N, Esposito S. Global Perspectives on Immunization During Pregnancy and Priorities for Future Research and Development: An International Consensus Statement. Front Immunol 2020; 11:1282. [PMID: 32670282 PMCID: PMC7326941 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2020] [Accepted: 05/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Immunization during pregnancy has been recommended in an increasing number of countries. The aim of this strategy is to protect pregnant women and infants from severe infectious disease, morbidity and mortality and is currently limited to tetanus, inactivated influenza, and pertussis-containing vaccines. There have been recent advancements in the development of vaccines designed primarily for use in pregnant women (respiratory syncytial virus and group B Streptococcus vaccines). Although there is increasing evidence to support vaccination in pregnancy, important gaps in knowledge still exist and need to be addressed by future studies. This collaborative consensus paper provides a review of the current literature on immunization during pregnancy and highlights the gaps in knowledge and a consensus of priorities for future research initiatives, in order to optimize protection for both the mother and the infant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bahaa Abu-Raya
- Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Kirsten Maertens
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Kathryn M. Edwards
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, United States
| | - Saad B. Omer
- Department of Internal Medicine (Infectious Diseases), Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, United States
| | - Janet A. Englund
- Department of Pediatrics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Katie L. Flanagan
- Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia
- School of Health and Biomedical Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Immunology and Pathology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Matthew D. Snape
- Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Gayatri Amirthalingam
- Immunisation and Countermeasures Division, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom
| | - Elke Leuridan
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Pierre Van Damme
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Vana Papaevangelou
- Third Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital ATTIKON, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Odile Launay
- Université de Paris, Inserm, CIC 1417, F-CRIN I REIVAC, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Ron Dagan
- The Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
| | - Magda Campins
- Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology Department, Hospital Universitario Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Anna Franca Cavaliere
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Tiziana Frusca
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, University of Parma, Parma, Italy
| | - Sofia Guidi
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Miguel O'Ryan
- Microbiology and Mycology Program, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Biomedical Sciences and Associate Researcher, Millennium Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | - Ulrich Heininger
- Pediatric Infectious Diseases, University of Basel Children's Hospital, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Tina Tan
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Ahmed R. Alsuwaidi
- Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
| | - Marco. A. Safadi
- Department of Pediatrics, Santa Casa de São Paulo School of Medical Sciences, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Luz M. Vilca
- Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Buzzi Hospital - ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Nasamon Wanlapakorn
- Center of Excellence in Clinical Virology, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Shabir A. Madhi
- Department of Science and Technology/National Research Foundation: Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
- Medical Research Council: Respiratory and Meningeal Pathogens Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - Michelle L. Giles
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Roman Prymula
- School of Medicine Hradec Kralove, Institute of Social Medicine, Charles University Prague, Prague, Czechia
| | - Shamez Ladhani
- Immunisation and Countermeasures Division, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom
| | - Federico Martinón-Torres
- Translational Pediatrics and Infectious Diseases, Pediatrics Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - Litjen Tan
- Immunization Action Coalition, St. Paul, MN, United States
| | - Lessandra Michelin
- Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology Division, Health Sciences Post Graduation Program, University of Caxias Do Sul, Caxias Do Sul, Brazil
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Susanna Esposito
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Pediatric Clinic, Pietro Barilla Children's Hospital, University of Parma, Parma, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
O'Leary ST, Cataldi JR, Lindley MC, Hurley LP, Riley LE, Brtnikova M, Crane LA, Beaty B, Stokley S, Fisher A, Kempe A. Impact of media reports regarding influenza vaccine on obstetricians' vaccination practices. Vaccine 2020; 38:3474-3479. [PMID: 32204941 PMCID: PMC9987339 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.02.051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2019] [Revised: 02/14/2020] [Accepted: 02/18/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2017, three media stories regarding influenza vaccine may have impacted obstetricians' (OB) influenza vaccination practices: reports of reduced influenza vaccine effectiveness, a severe influenza season, and a possible increased risk of miscarriage among pregnant women receiving 2009 H1N1 vaccine in the 1st trimester who had received H1N1 vaccine the previous season (later disproven). OBJECTIVE Describe OB's: (1) awareness of; (2) attitudes and experiences related to; and (3) reported alterations in practice as a result of these reports. METHODS A survey among a nationally representative sample of OBs April to June 2018. RESULTS Response rate was 65% (302/468). 88% of OBs were "very aware" of the severe season, 74% of lower effectiveness, and 25% of the miscarriage study (47% "completely unaware" of miscarriage study). Among those aware, 58%, 57%, and 16% reported ≥10% of pregnant patients initiated discussions about the severe season, lower effectiveness, and miscarriage study, respectively. Most (83%) agreed reports about increased severity increased their enthusiasm for recommending influenza vaccine; fewer agreed reports about the miscarriage study (18%) and lower vaccine effectiveness (12%) decreased their enthusiasm for recommending influenza vaccine. Providers were more likely to initiate discussion with patients about increased severity of the season than the other reports. However, 35% agreed the miscarriage study reports increased their concerns about influenza vaccine safety; 18% (n = 48) reported changing the way they recommended influenza vaccine. Of those, 17 (6% of all respondents) reported not recommending influenza vaccine to women during the 1st trimester and 26 (10% of all respondents) recommended it but were willing to delay until the 2nd trimester. CONCLUSIONS During a season in which media stories could have influenced OB influenza vaccination behaviors in different directions, reports underscoring importance of influenza vaccine may have had more impact on OBs' recommendations than reports questioning vaccine safety or effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean T O'Leary
- Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States; Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
| | - Jessica R Cataldi
- Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States; Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - Megan C Lindley
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - Laura P Hurley
- Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States; Division of General Internal Medicine, Denver Health, Denver, CO, United States
| | - Laura E Riley
- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Michaela Brtnikova
- Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States; Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - Lori A Crane
- Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States; Department of Community and Behavioral Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - Brenda Beaty
- Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - Shannon Stokley
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - Allison Fisher
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - Allison Kempe
- Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States; Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Rasmussen SA, Kancherla V, Conover E. Joint position statement on vaccines from the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists. Birth Defects Res 2020; 112:527-534. [PMID: 32270605 DOI: 10.1002/bdr2.1674] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2020] [Revised: 03/11/2020] [Accepted: 03/11/2020] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Sonja A Rasmussen
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA.,Department of Epidemiology, University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions and College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - Vijaya Kancherla
- Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Elizabeth Conover
- Department of Genetic Medicine, Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
McHugh L, Marshall HS, Perrett KP, Nolan T, Wood N, Lambert SB, Richmond P, Ware RS, Binks P, Binks MJ, Andrews RM. The Safety of Influenza and Pertussis Vaccination in Pregnancy in a Cohort of Australian Mother-Infant Pairs, 2012-2015: The FluMum Study. Clin Infect Dis 2020; 68:402-408. [PMID: 30475988 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy517] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2018] [Accepted: 06/17/2018] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and pertussis vaccination are recommended in pregnancy. Limited safety data exist for women who received IIV vaccine during the first trimester of pregnancy or received both vaccines in pregnancy. We assessed adverse birth outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnancies. Methods Among prospectively enrolled Australian "FluMum" participants (2012-2015), primary exposure was receipt and timing of IIV during pregnancy. Primary outcomes included preterm birth, low birthweight at term (LBWT), and small for gestational age (SGA). We compared birth outcomes for IIV in pregnancy with women unvaccinated in pregnancy using Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Adjusted HRs (aHRs) controlled for potential confounding variables. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in a subgroup of women who received pertussis vaccination during pregnancy to assess whether associations between IIV and adverse outcomes were maintained after adjusting for pertussis vaccination. Results Among 8827 participants in our study, women who received IIV in pregnancy did not have an elevated risk of an adverse birth outcome compared with unvaccinated pregnant women: preterm births (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, .92-1.31]; P = .28); LBWT (HR, 1.05 [95% CI, .76-1.44]; P = .77); or SGA (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, .86-1.15]; P = .94). Adjustment for pertussis vaccination during pregnancy yielded similar results: preterm births (aHR, 1.05 [95% CI, .82-1.34]; P = .69); LBWT (aHR, 0.81 [95% CI, .50-1.29]; P = .37); SGA (aHR, 0.92 [95% CI, .74-1.14]; P = .43). There was no evidence of elevated risk by trimester of IIV. Conclusions No significant associations were found between maternal IIV or pertussis vaccination in pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes, regardless of the trimester of pregnancy a vaccination was given compared to unvaccinated pregnancies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa McHugh
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Tiwi, Northern Territory
| | - Helen S Marshall
- Women's and Children's Health Network, Robinson Research Institute and Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, South Australia
| | - Kirsten P Perrett
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital and School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria
| | - Terry Nolan
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital and School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria
| | - Nicholas Wood
- National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales
| | - Stephen B Lambert
- Child Health Research Centre, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane
| | - Peter Richmond
- University of Western Australia, Division of Paediatrics and Vaccine Trials Group, Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, Western Australia
| | - Robert S Ware
- Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane
| | - Paula Binks
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Tiwi, Northern Territory
| | - Michael J Binks
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Tiwi, Northern Territory
| | - Ross M Andrews
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Tiwi, Northern Territory.,National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Abstract
Vaccines administered to women during pregnancy can provide protection against serious infectious diseases for the mother, for the newborn, or both. Maternal immunization boosts the concentration of maternal antibodies that can be transferred across the placenta to directly protect infants too young to be immunized. In addition, indirect protection through prevention of maternal infection and through breast milk antibodies can be achieved through maternal immunization. In general, inactivated vaccines are considered safe for pregnant women and their fetuses, whereas live vaccines are avoided owing to the theoretical potential risk to the fetus. However, the risks and benefits of vaccination must be carefully weighed and whenever possible, protection to the mother and her infant should be prioritized. Influenza and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines are routinely recommended for all pregnant women in the United States. Seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended for all pregnant women in any trimester of pregnancy, mainly to protect the mother, but there is growing evidence that infants benefit from passive antibody protection against influenza complications. The Tdap vaccine is recommended during the third trimester of each pregnancy to provide optimal protection to infants who are at particularly high risk of pertussis complications and mortality in the first 3 months of life. The effects of maternal immunization on the prevention of maternal and infant disease have been demonstrated in observational and prospective studies of influenza and pertussis disease in the United States and worldwide. Maternal immunization has the potential to improve the health of mothers and young infants and therefore, other diseases of relevance during this period are now targets of active research and vaccine development, including group B streptococcus and respiratory syncytial virus. Similarly, several vaccines can be administered during pregnancy in special circumstances, when maternal health, travel, or other special situations arise. This article reviews the current recommendations for vaccination of women during pregnancy.
Collapse
|
33
|
Buchy P, Badur S, Kassianos G, Preiss S, Tam JS. Vaccinating pregnant women against influenza needs to be a priority for all countries: An expert commentary. Int J Infect Dis 2019; 92:1-12. [PMID: 31863875 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2019.12.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2019] [Revised: 12/12/2019] [Accepted: 12/13/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2012, the World Health Organization recommended influenza vaccination for all pregnant women worldwide and the prioritisation of pregnant women in national influenza vaccination programmes. Nevertheless, vaccination rates in pregnant women often remain much lower than national targets. OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and risks associated with influenza infection and vaccination during pregnancy, and to consider obstacles that work against influenza vaccine uptake during pregnancy. RESULTS There is strong evidence that maternal and foetal outcomes can be compromised if women develop influenza infections during pregnancy. Influenza vaccines have been administered to millions of pregnant women and have demonstrated benefits in terms of disease prevention in mothers and their infants. There is a consensus amongst several recommending authorities that influenza vaccines may be safely administered during all stages of pregnancy. Healthcare professionals are recognised as the most important influencers of vaccine uptake, being well placed to recommend vaccination and directly address safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS Despite data supporting the value of influenza vaccination during pregnancy, vaccine uptake remains low globally. Low uptake appears to be largely due to ineffective communication with pregnant women about the risks and benefits of influenza vaccination. A graphical abstract is available online.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Selim Badur
- GSK, Büyükdere Caddesi No:173 1. Levent Plaza B Blok, 34394 Istanbul, Turkey
| | - George Kassianos
- President of the British Global & Travel Health Association, Chairman of RAISE Pan- European Committee on Influenza, National Immunisation Lead Royal College of General Practitioners, United Kingdom, Board Director of the European Working Group on Influenza
| | | | - John S Tam
- Chairman of the Asia Pacific Alliance for the control of influenza (APACI); Adjunct Professor, Department of Applied Biology and Chemical Technology, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 11 Yuk Choi Rd, Hung Hom, Hong Kong
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Regan AK, Håberg SE, Fell DB. Current Perspectives on Maternal Influenza Immunization. CURRENT TROPICAL MEDICINE REPORTS 2019. [DOI: 10.1007/s40475-019-00188-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
|
35
|
O'Leary ST, Maldonado YA, Kimberlin DW. Update From the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 2019; 8:379-383. [PMID: 31367738 DOI: 10.1093/jpids/piz045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a group of medical and public health experts, meets 3 times per year to develop recommendations for vaccine use in the United States. The group usually has 15 voting members, each of whom is appointed to a 4-year term. ACIP members and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff discuss the epidemiology of vaccine-preventable diseases and vaccine research, effectiveness, safety data, and clinical trial results. Representatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics (Y. A. M. and D. W. K.) and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (S. T. O.) are present as liaisons to the ACIP. The ACIP met February 27 to 28, 2019, to discuss hepatitis A (HepA) vaccination of human immunodeficiency virus-infected persons, pneumococcal vaccination among adults aged 65 years or older, influenza vaccine effectiveness and safety, anthrax vaccination in the setting of a mass exposure, human papillomavirus vaccine, zoster vaccines, and Japanese encephalitis vaccine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean T O'Leary
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora
| | - Yvonne A Maldonado
- Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, California
| | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Dhakal S, Klein SL. Host Factors Impact Vaccine Efficacy: Implications for Seasonal and Universal Influenza Vaccine Programs. J Virol 2019; 93:e00797-19. [PMID: 31391269 PMCID: PMC6803252 DOI: 10.1128/jvi.00797-19] [Citation(s) in RCA: 88] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Influenza is a global public health problem. Current seasonal influenza vaccines have highly variable efficacy, and thus attempts to develop broadly protective universal influenza vaccines with durable protection are under way. While much attention is given to the virus-related factors contributing to inconsistent vaccine responses, host-associated factors are often neglected. Growing evidences suggest that host factors including age, biological sex, pregnancy, and immune history play important roles as modifiers of influenza virus vaccine efficacy. We hypothesize that host genetics, the hormonal milieu, and gut microbiota contribute to host-related differences in influenza virus vaccine efficacy. This review highlights the current insights and future perspectives into host-specific factors that impact influenza vaccine-induced immunity and protection. Consideration of the host factors that affect influenza vaccine-induced immunity might improve influenza vaccines by providing empirical evidence for optimizing or even personalizing vaccine type, dose, and use of adjuvants for current seasonal and future universal influenza vaccines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Santosh Dhakal
- Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Sabra L Klein
- Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Host Factors Impact Vaccine Efficacy: Implications for Seasonal and Universal Influenza Vaccine Programs. J Virol 2019. [PMID: 31391269 DOI: 10.1128/jvi.00797‐19] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Influenza is a global public health problem. Current seasonal influenza vaccines have highly variable efficacy, and thus attempts to develop broadly protective universal influenza vaccines with durable protection are under way. While much attention is given to the virus-related factors contributing to inconsistent vaccine responses, host-associated factors are often neglected. Growing evidences suggest that host factors including age, biological sex, pregnancy, and immune history play important roles as modifiers of influenza virus vaccine efficacy. We hypothesize that host genetics, the hormonal milieu, and gut microbiota contribute to host-related differences in influenza virus vaccine efficacy. This review highlights the current insights and future perspectives into host-specific factors that impact influenza vaccine-induced immunity and protection. Consideration of the host factors that affect influenza vaccine-induced immunity might improve influenza vaccines by providing empirical evidence for optimizing or even personalizing vaccine type, dose, and use of adjuvants for current seasonal and future universal influenza vaccines.
Collapse
|
38
|
Brillo E, Tosto V, Giardina I, Buonomo E. Maternal tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) and influenza immunization: an overview. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 34:3415-3444. [PMID: 31645152 DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1680633] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Maternal tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) and influenza immunization for women during pregnancy (the so-called "maternal immunization") has been introduced in several countries, and recently also in Italy, to protect mother and fetus during pregnancy, infant in his first months of life and mother during postpartum period. However, very low vaccination coverage rates have been reached due to several variables. METHODS A literature search was conducted on PubMed and Embase, including any experimental or observational studies, to assesses existing evidence on the effectiveness, efficacy, safety and optimal timing of administration of Tdap and influenza immunization in pregnancy for mothers and their infants. The search was finalized in August 2019. RESULTS Reviewing the literature, we identified only a few studies that, among several maternal and infant outcomes, found sporadic significant associations with maternal influenza immunization and even less with Tdap immunization. Moreover, most of the authors of these studies explained these findings as a result of residual confounding effect. The effectiveness of maternal influenza immunization is more complicated to prove than the effectiveness of Tdap immunization because of several reasons. Not all nations recommend and offer vaccines in the same weeks of pregnancy and this one manifests the complexity in defining the best timing for Tdap or influenza immunization. CONCLUSIONS The safety of maternal Tdap or influenza immunization is supported by the evidence so far, however, regular surveillance should be maintained, especially with regard to the influenza vaccine that changes in formulation each year. There is a need to optimize the timing of vaccination in pregnancy and to have a national system of detection of maternal immunization in each country.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eleonora Brillo
- Center for Research in Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.,Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
| | - Valentina Tosto
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Irene Giardina
- Center for Research in Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Ersilia Buonomo
- Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Abstract
This statement updates the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics for the routine use of influenza vaccines and antiviral medications in the prevention and treatment of influenza in children during the 2019-2020 season. The American Academy of Pediatrics continues to recommend routine influenza immunization of all children without medical contraindications, starting at 6 months of age. Any licensed, recommended, age-appropriate vaccine available can be administered, without preference of one product or formulation over another. Antiviral treatment of influenza with any licensed, recommended, age-appropriate influenza antiviral medication continues to be recommended for children with suspected or confirmed influenza, particularly those who are hospitalized, have severe or progressive disease, or have underlying conditions that increase their risk of complications of influenza.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Adolescent
- Age Factors
- Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage
- Antiviral Agents/adverse effects
- Breast Feeding
- Cause of Death
- Child
- Child, Hospitalized
- Child, Preschool
- Contraindications
- Disease Progression
- Drug Resistance, Viral
- Egg Hypersensitivity
- Female
- Humans
- Immunocompromised Host
- Infant
- Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology
- Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype/immunology
- Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage
- Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects
- Influenza, Human/complications
- Influenza, Human/drug therapy
- Influenza, Human/epidemiology
- Influenza, Human/prevention & control
- Pediatrics
- Pregnancy
- United States/epidemiology
- Vaccines, Inactivated/administration & dosage
Collapse
|
40
|
Risk of Spontaneous Abortion After Inadvertent Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 132:35-44. [PMID: 29889760 DOI: 10.1097/aog.0000000000002694] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/14/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the risk of spontaneous abortion after quadrivalent human papillomavirus (4vHPV) vaccination before and during pregnancy across seven integrated health systems within the Vaccine Safety Datalink. METHODS Within a retrospective observational cohort, we compared risks for spontaneous abortion after 4vHPV in three exposure windows: distal (16-22 weeks before the last menstrual period [LMP]), peripregnancy (within 6 weeks before the LMP), and during pregnancy (LMP through 19 weeks of gestation). Women 12-27 years of age with a pregnancy between 2008 and 2014, with continuous insurance enrollment 8 months before and through pregnancy end, and with a live birth, stillbirth, or spontaneous abortion were included. Pregnancies were identified through validated algorithms. Spontaneous abortions and stillbirths were verified by chart review with spontaneous abortions adjudicated by clinical experts. We excluded multiple gestations, spontaneous abortions before 6 weeks of gestation, and women using medications increasing risk of spontaneous abortion. Spontaneous abortion risk after 4vHPV during pregnancy was compared with distal vaccination using time-dependent covariate Cox models. Spontaneous abortion risk for peripregnancy compared with distal vaccination was evaluated with standard Cox models. RESULTS We identified 2,800 pregnancies with 4vHPV exposure in specified risk windows: 919 (33%) distal, 986 (35%) peripregnancy, and 895 (32%) during pregnancy. Mean age was 22.4 years in distal and peripregnancy groups compared with 21.4 years among women vaccinated during pregnancy. Among women with distal 4vHPV exposure, 96 (10.4%) experienced a spontaneous abortion. For peripregnancy and during pregnancy exposures, spontaneous abortions occurred in 110 (11.2%) and 77 (8.6%), respectively. The risk of spontaneous abortion was not increased among women who received 4vHPV during pregnancy (adjusted hazard ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.81-1.51) or peripregnancy 1.07 (0.81-1.41). CONCLUSION Inadvertent 4vHPV exposure during or peripregnancy was not significantly associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion.
Collapse
|
41
|
Donahue JG, Kieke BA, King JP, Mascola MA, Shimabukuro TT, DeStefano F, Hanson KE, McClure DL, Olaiya O, Glanz JM, Hechter RC, Irving SA, Jackson LA, Klein NP, Naleway AL, Weintraub ES, Belongia EA. Inactivated influenza vaccine and spontaneous abortion in the Vaccine Safety Datalink in 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. Vaccine 2019; 37:6673-6681. [PMID: 31540812 PMCID: PMC6906603 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.09.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2019] [Revised: 08/16/2019] [Accepted: 09/09/2019] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Introduction: A recent study reported an association between inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and spontaneous abortion (SAB), but only among women who had also been vaccinated in the previous influenza season. We sought to estimate the association between IIV administered in three recent influenza seasons and SAB among women who were and were not vaccinated in the previous influenza season. Methods: We conducted a case-control study over three influenza seasons (2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15) in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). Cases (women with SAB) and controls (women with live births) were matched on VSD site, date of last menstrual period, age group, and influenza vaccination status in the previous influenza season. Of 1908 presumptive cases identified from the electronic record, 1236 were included in the main analysis. Administration of IIV was documented in several risk windows, including 1–28, 29–56, and >56 days before the SAB date. Results: Among 627 matched pairs vaccinated in the previous season, no association was found between vaccination in the 1–28 day risk window and SAB (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6–1.5). The season-specific aOR ranged from 0.5 to 1.7 with all CIs including the null value of 1.0. Similarly, no association was found among women who were not vaccinated in the previous season; the season-specific aOR in the 1–28 day risk window ranged from 0.6 to 0.7 and the 95% CI included 1.0 in each season. There was no association found between SAB and influenza vaccination in the other risk windows, or when vaccine receipt was analyzed relative to date of conception. Conclusion: During these seasons we found no association between IIV and SAB, including among women vaccinated in the previous season. These findings lend support to current recommendations for influenza vaccination at any time during pregnancy, including the first trimester.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James G Donahue
- Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, 1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449, United States.
| | - Burney A Kieke
- Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, 1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449, United States.
| | - Jennifer P King
- Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, 1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449, United States.
| | - Maria A Mascola
- Marshfield Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449, United States.
| | - Tom T Shimabukuro
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Immunization Safety Office, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS V18-4 Atlanta, GA 30329, United States.
| | - Frank DeStefano
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Immunization Safety Office, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS V18-4 Atlanta, GA 30329, United States.
| | - Kayla E Hanson
- Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, 1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449, United States.
| | - David L McClure
- Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, 1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449, United States.
| | - Oluwatosin Olaiya
- Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, 1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449, United States.
| | - Jason M Glanz
- Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 10065 E Harvard Ave, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80231, United States.
| | - Rulin C Hechter
- Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 100 S Los Robles Ave., 2nd Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101, United States.
| | - Stephanie A Irving
- Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227, United States.
| | - Lisa A Jackson
- Kaiser Permanente Washington, 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, United States.
| | - Nicola P Klein
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 1 Kaiser Plaza, 16th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612, United States.
| | - Allison L Naleway
- Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227, United States.
| | - Eric S Weintraub
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Immunization Safety Office, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS V18-4 Atlanta, GA 30329, United States.
| | - Edward A Belongia
- Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, 1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
McHugh L, Crooks K, Creighton A, Binks M, Andrews RM. Safety, equity and monitoring: a review of the gaps in maternal vaccination strategies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2019; 16:371-376. [PMID: 31368832 PMCID: PMC7062431 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2019.1649552] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2019] [Revised: 07/11/2019] [Accepted: 07/18/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Influenza and pertussis infections are disproportionately higher among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their infants compared to other Australians. These infections are potentially preventable through vaccination in pregnancy; however, there is a lack of systematic monitoring and therefore knowledge of vaccine uptake, safety and effectiveness in Australia, and specifically among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. The limited data available suggest there is a lower uptake of maternal vaccination among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women compared to non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, and this review seeks to explore potential reasons and the knowledge gaps in this regard. Other key gaps include the equitable access to quality antenatal care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women; and pregnancy loss <20 weeks gestation. Furthermore, our review highlights the importance of addressing these gaps in maternal vaccination strategies in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa McHugh
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Tiwi, Northern Territory, Australia
| | - Kristy Crooks
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Tiwi, Northern Territory, Australia
- Hunter New England Local Health District, Population Health, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Amy Creighton
- Hunter New England Local Health District, Population Health, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michael Binks
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Tiwi, Northern Territory, Australia
| | - Ross M Andrews
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Tiwi, Northern Territory, Australia
- Department of Population Health, National Centre for Epidemiology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Grohskopf LA, Alyanak E, Broder KR, Walter EB, Fry AM, Jernigan DB. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2019-20 Influenza Season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2019; 68:1-21. [PMID: 31441906 PMCID: PMC6713402 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr6803a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 307] [Impact Index Per Article: 51.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
This report updates the 2018-19 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2018;67[No. RR-3]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. A licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) are expected to be available for the 2019-20 season. Standard-dose, unadjuvanted, inactivated influenza vaccines will be available in quadrivalent formulations (IIV4s). High-dose (HD-IIV3) and adjuvanted (aIIV3) inactivated influenza vaccines will be available in trivalent formulations. Recombinant (RIV4) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) will be available in quadrivalent formulations.Updates to the recommendations described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP held on October 25, 2018; February 27, 2019; and June 27, 2019. Primary updates in this report include the following two items. First, 2019-20 U.S. trivalent influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin (HA) derived from an A/Brisbane/02/2018 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus, an A/Kansas/14/2017 (H3N2)-like virus, and a B/Colorado/06/2017-like virus (Victoria lineage). Quadrivalent influenza vaccines will contain HA derived from these three viruses, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (Yamagata lineage). Second, recent labeling changes for two IIV4s, Afluria Quadrivalent and Fluzone Quadrivalent, are discussed. The age indication for Afluria Quadrivalent has been expanded from ≥5 years to ≥6 months. The dose volume for Afluria Quadrivalent is 0.25 mL for children aged 6 through 35 months and 0.5 mL for all persons aged ≥36 months (≥3 years). The dose volume for Fluzone Quadrivalent for children aged 6 through 35 months, which was previously 0.25 mL, is now either 0.25 mL or 0.5 mL. The dose volume for Fluzone Quadrivalent is 0.5 mL for all persons aged ≥36 months (≥3 years).This report focuses on the recommendations for use of vaccines for the prevention and control of influenza during the 2019-20 season in the United States. A brief summary of these recommendations and a Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used within Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.
Collapse
|
44
|
Rolfes MA, Vonglokham P, Khanthamaly V, Chitry B, Pholsena V, Chitranondh V, Mirza SA, Moen A, Bresee JS, Xeuatvongsa A, Olsen SJ. Measurement of birth outcomes in analyses of the impact of maternal influenza vaccination. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2019; 13:547-555. [PMID: 31424627 PMCID: PMC6800304 DOI: 10.1111/irv.12673] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2018] [Revised: 07/19/2019] [Accepted: 07/23/2019] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The estimated association of maternal influenza vaccination and birth outcomes may be sensitive to methods used to define preterm birth or small‐for‐gestational age (SGA). Methods In a cohort of pregnant women in Lao People's Democratic Republic, we estimated gestational age from: (a) date of last menstrual period (LMP), (b) any prenatal ultrasound, (c) first trimester ultrasound, (d) Ballard Score at delivery, and (e) an algorithm combining LMP and ultrasound. Infants were classified as SGA at birth using a Canadian, global, and equation‐based growth reference. We estimated the association of maternal influenza vaccination and birth outcomes, by influenza activity, using multivariable log‐binomial regression and Cox proportional hazards regression with vaccination as a time‐varying exposure. Results The frequency of preterm birth in the cohort varied by method to estimate gestational age, from 5% using Ballard Score to 15% using any ultrasound. Using LMP, any ultrasound, or the algorithm, we found statistically significant reductions in preterm birth among vaccinated women during periods of high influenza activity and statistically significant increases in SGA, using a Canadian growth reference. We did not find statistically significant associations with SGA when using global or equation‐based growth references. Conclusions The association of maternal influenza vaccination and birth outcomes was most affected by the choice of a growth reference used to define SGA at birth. The association with pre‐term birth was present and consistent across multiple statistical approaches. Future studies of birth outcomes, specifically SGA, should carefully consider the potential for bias introduced by measurement choice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa A Rolfes
- Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | | | - Viengphone Khanthamaly
- Influenza Program, U.S. CDC-Lao PDR, American Embassy, Vientiane, Lao People's Democratic Republic
| | - Bounlap Chitry
- Mother and Child Hospital, Vientiane, Lao People's Democratic Republic
| | | | - Visith Chitranondh
- Luang Prabang Provincial Hospital, Luang Prabang, Lao People's Democratic Republic
| | - Sara A Mirza
- Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Ann Moen
- Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Joseph S Bresee
- Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | | | - Sonja J Olsen
- Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Tan J, Xiong YQ, He Q, Liu YM, Wang W, Chen M, Zou K, Liu XH, Sun X. Peri-conceptional or pregnancy exposure of HPV vaccination and the risk of spontaneous abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019; 19:302. [PMID: 31426762 PMCID: PMC6699066 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2425-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2019] [Accepted: 07/24/2019] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background To assess whether the peri-conceptional or pregnancy exposure of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination would increase the risk of spontaneous abortion. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials and observational studies that investigated the association between exposure of HPV vaccines (2vHPV, 4vHPV or 9vHPV) during peri-conceptional period or pregnancy and spontaneous abortion before 28 gestational weeks. We pooled data from 2vHPV, 4vHPV and 9vHPV separately. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to data sources, and raw data or adjusted data. Results Seven observational studies were eligible and all studies were low risk of bias. Meta-analyses suggested that 2vHPV vaccination did not increase the risk of spontaneous abortion regardless of exposure period during 90 days before last menstrual period (LMP) or pregnancy: risk ratio, 95% confidence intervals (RR, 95% CI), 1.15 (0.95–1.39), and 45 days before LMP or pregnancy: 1.28 (0.96–1.70). However, 2vHPV vaccination during Pre-45 days to LMP seemed to increase the risk of spontaneous abortion: 1.59 (1.04–2.45). The current evidence did not support the association between 4vHPV vaccination and spontaneous abortion regardless of exposure period during 45 days before LMP or pregnancy: 0.88 (0.73–1.06); and 45 days before LMP: 1.00 (0.80–1.24). Additionally, 9vHPV during within 30 days of conception also seemed to increase the risk: 2.04 (1.28–3.24). Conclusions The association between peri-conceptional or pregnancy exposure of HPV vaccine and spontaneous abortion is still uncertain, and additional research is warranted to assess the impact of exposure of HPV vaccination on spontaneous abortion. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-019-2425-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jing Tan
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre and CREAT Group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Yi-Quan Xiong
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre and CREAT Group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Qiao He
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre and CREAT Group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Yan-Mei Liu
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre and CREAT Group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Wen Wang
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre and CREAT Group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Meng Chen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Kang Zou
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre and CREAT Group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Xing-Hui Liu
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Xin Sun
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre and CREAT Group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Jeong S, Jang EJ, Jo J, Jang S. Effects of maternal influenza vaccination on adverse birth outcomes: A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0220910. [PMID: 31412058 PMCID: PMC6693758 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220910] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2019] [Accepted: 07/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although pregnant women are a priority group for influenza vaccination, its effect on birth outcomes has long been debated. Numerous observational studies and a few randomized controlled studies have been conducted, with inconsistent results. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the association of influenza vaccination in pregnancy with adverse birth outcomes. DATA SOURCE The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA This analysis included randomized placebo-controlled studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies, in which inactivated influenza vaccination was given during pregnancy and fetal adverse birth outcomes were assessed. PARTICIPANTS & INTERVENTION Women who received inactivated influenza vaccine during pregnancy and their offspring. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS Two independent reviewers and a third reviewer collaborated in study selection and data extraction. A Bayesian 3-level random-effects model was utilized to assess the impact of maternal influenza vaccination on birth outcomes, which were presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credible interval (CrIs). Bayesian outcome probabilities (P) of an OR<1 were calculated, and values of at least 90% (0.9) were deemed to indicate a significant result. RESULTS Among the 6,249 identified publications, 48 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis, including 2 randomized controlled trials, 41 cohort studies, and 5 case-control studies. The risk of none of the following adverse birth outcomes decreased significantly: preterm birth (OR = 0.945, 95% CrI: 0.736-1.345, P = 73.3%), low birth weight (OR = 0.928, 95% CrI: 0.432-2.112, P = 76.7%), small for gestational age (OR = 0.971, 95% CrI: 0.249-4.217,P = 63.3%), congenital malformation (OR = 1.026, 95% CrI: 0.687-1.600, P = 38.0%), and fetal death (OR = 0.942, 95% CrI: 0.560-1.954, P = 61.6%). Summary estimates including only cohort studies showed significantly decreased risks for preterm birth, small for gestational age and fetal death. However, after adjusting for season at the time of vaccination and countries' income level, only fetal death remained significant. CONCLUSION This Bayesian meta-analysis did not find a protective effect of maternal influenza vaccination against adverse birth outcomes, as reported in previous studies. In fact, our results showed evidence of null associations between maternal influenza vaccination and adverse birth outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sohyun Jeong
- Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, Jangan-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
| | - Eun Jin Jang
- Department of Information Statistics, Andong National University, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea
| | - Junwoo Jo
- Department of Statistics, Kyungpook National University, Bukgu, Daegu, Korea
| | - Sunmee Jang
- College of Pharmacy and Gachon Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Gachon University, Incheon, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Abstract
Since 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have recommended routine influenza vaccination for all pregnant women in any trimester. Maternal influenza vaccination has been shown to decrease the risk of influenza and its complications among pregnant women and their infants in the first 6 months of life. In a recent article published in Vaccine, Donahue and colleagues reported a possible association between influenza vaccination when given very early in the first trimester and spontaneous abortion. There are limited conclusions that should be drawn from this study given the case-control design as well as the small number of patients included in the subanalysis that is the basis for the report. A prior first-trimester safety study from this group, using a similar study design, had not observed any association with spontaneous abortion, and other reports of first-trimester vaccine safety have not observed an association. The lack of a biologically plausible mechanism for the suggested association between previous influenza vaccination and early pregnancy loss is of concern. The study's reported observation is not definitive and needs be replicated in appropriately designed studies before changing clinical practice. Pregnant women are at high risk for severe influenza-related complications, including death, and health care providers have an obligation to their patients to continue to recommend and provide influenza vaccinations.
Collapse
|
48
|
Rodríguez-Blanco N, Tuells J. Knowledge and Attitudes about the Flu Vaccine among Pregnant Women in the Valencian Community (Spain). ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019; 55:medicina55080467. [PMID: 31405260 PMCID: PMC6723429 DOI: 10.3390/medicina55080467] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2019] [Revised: 07/31/2019] [Accepted: 08/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Background and Objectives: To describe the knowledge and attitudes related to the acceptance of the flu vaccine during pregnancy in women, from two Health Departments of the Valencian Community (VC), during the 2015–2016 season, after receiving prenatal care. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted during the annual vaccine season of women ascribed to prenatal care. A midwife offered flu vaccine advice and afterwards conducted a telephone poll of a representative sample, in order to find out the reason for accepting or rejecting the vaccine. Results: Of the 1017 expectant women who received advice about the vaccine, 77.4% (95% CI: 74.8–79.9%) declared their intention to vaccinate. After the recommendation, the vaccine coverage was 61.6%, with a percentage of accordance of 98.8% (95% CI: 98.0–99.6%) between the coverage declared and the Nominal Vaccination Registry (NVR) of the VC. Additionally, 67.2% of the expectant women were interviewed (n = 683). Most were aware of the recommendation and identified the health center and the midwife as the main sources of information. The internet was a consistent source in favor of vaccination 80.8% (n = 42). The obstetric variables (risk during the pregnancy, end of pregnancy, and feeding the newborn) did not have a statistically significant relationship with the vaccination. The women declared a high adherence to the vaccinations present in the child vaccination calendar, but rejected (31.3%) the flu vaccine, as they had not received it previously and did not want it because of their expectant state. Conclusions: The women positively evaluated the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines. However, with the flu vaccine, “not being previously vaccinated” and the “doubts about its safety” represented more than half of the reasons put forth for its rejection. Ensuring that the flu vaccine is perceived as more effective and acceptable through the messages directed towards the expectant mothers, directly through the midwives or through the communication media and social networks, will result in an increase of vaccine coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noelia Rodríguez-Blanco
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Universitario del Vinalopó, Spain C/Tonico Sansano Mora, 14, 03293 Elche, Spain
- Department of Nursing Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera. Plaza Reyes Católicos, 19, 03204 Elche, Spain
| | - José Tuells
- Cátedra Balmis de Vacunología. University of Alicante. Campus de San Vicente Raspeig. Ap.99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Abstract
Influenza vaccination is an essential element of prepregnancy, prenatal, and postpartum care because influenza can result in serious illness, including a higher chance of progressing to pneumonia, when it occurs during the antepartum or postpartum period. In addition to hospitalization, pregnant women with influenza are at increased risk of intensive care unit admission and adverse perinatal and neonatal outcomes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend that all adults receive an annual influenza vaccine and that women who are or will be pregnant during influenza season receive an inactivated influenza vaccine as soon as it is available. In the United States, the influenza season typically occurs from October to May. Ideally, an influenza vaccination should be given before the end of October, but vaccination throughout the influenza season is encouraged to ensure protection during the period of circulation. Any of the licensed, recommended, age-appropriate, inactivated influenza vaccines can be given safely during any trimester. Therefore, it is critically important that obstetrician-gynecologists and other obstetric care providers recommend and advocate for the influenza vaccine. Obstetrician-gynecologists are encouraged to stock and administer the influenza vaccine to their pregnant patients in their offices, and should get the influenza vaccine themselves every season. If the influenza vaccine cannot be offered in a practice, obstetrician-gynecologists and obstetric care providers should refer patients to another health care provider, pharmacy, or community vaccination center. This updated Committee Opinion includes more recent data on the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination during pregnancy and recommendations for treatment and postexposure chemoprophylaxis.
Collapse
|
50
|
Psarris A, Sindos M, Daskalakis G, Chondrogianni ME, Panayiotou S, Antsaklis P, Loutradis D. Immunizations during pregnancy: How, when and why. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019; 240:29-35. [PMID: 31226574 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.06.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2019] [Accepted: 06/13/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Maternal immunization during pregnancy provide protection for the mother and the fetus against certain pathogens. Immunizations during pregnancy are divided to routine immunizations recommended for all pregnant women, immunizations for certain medical indications and vaccines that are potentially harmful during pregnancy and should be avoided. We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature regarding immunizations during pregnancy. The search terms used were immunization, vaccine, pregnancy, influenza, pertussis, safety and efficacy. We gathered all available guidelines on vaccination during pregnancy. Generally, vaccines are allowed during pregnancy when the benefits outweigh the risks. Tdap and inactivated flu vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy. Vaccines containing live attenuated viruses are contraindicated during pregnancy. These are LAIV influenza, MMR, Varicella, Zoster, BCG and smallpox pre-exposure. All other vaccines are given when medically indicated and the possible benefits outweigh the risks. Obstetricians and gynecologists should be familiar with the indications of vaccination during pregnancy. Vaccination coverage of pregnant women with routinely recommended vaccines has increased but further efforts are needed. Our aim is to review vaccination practices during pregnancy, demonstrate the benefits and dangers of different vaccines, evaluate their effectiveness and define the proper timing of vaccination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandros Psarris
- 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "Alexandra" Maternity Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 80 Vas. Sophias Av., 115 28, Athens, Greece.
| | - Michael Sindos
- 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "Alexandra" Maternity Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 80 Vas. Sophias Av., 115 28, Athens, Greece
| | - Georgios Daskalakis
- 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "Alexandra" Maternity Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 80 Vas. Sophias Av., 115 28, Athens, Greece
| | - Maria Eleni Chondrogianni
- 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "Alexandra" Maternity Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 80 Vas. Sophias Av., 115 28, Athens, Greece
| | - Stefani Panayiotou
- 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "Alexandra" Maternity Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 80 Vas. Sophias Av., 115 28, Athens, Greece
| | - Panagiotis Antsaklis
- 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "Alexandra" Maternity Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 80 Vas. Sophias Av., 115 28, Athens, Greece
| | - Dimitrios Loutradis
- 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "Alexandra" Maternity Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 80 Vas. Sophias Av., 115 28, Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|