Safety of influenza vaccination on adverse birth outcomes among pregnant women: A prospective cohort study in Japan

Maternal influenza vaccination and associated risk of fetal loss: A claims-based prospective cohort study

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.

Defining and reporting adverse events of special interest in comparative maternal vaccine studies: a systematic review

Introduction

The GAIA (Global Alignment on Immunisation Safety Assessment in Pregnancy) consortium was established in 2014 with the aim of creating a standardised, globally coordinated approach to monitoring the safety of vaccines administered in pregnancy. The consortium developed twenty-six standardised definitions for classifying obstetric and infant adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the current state of adverse event reporting in maternal vaccine trials following the publication of the case definitions by GAIA, and the extent to which these case definitions have been adopted in maternal vaccine safety research.

Methods

A comprehensive search of published literature was undertaken to identify maternal vaccine research studies. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched using a combination of MeSH terms and keyword searches to identify observational or interventional studies that examined vaccine safety in pregnant women with a comparator group. A two-reviewer screening process was undertaken, and a narrative synthesis of the results presented.

Results

14,737 titles were identified from database searches, 435 titles were selected as potentially relevant, 256 were excluded, the remaining 116 papers were included. Influenza vaccine was the most studied (25.0%), followed by TDaP (20.7%) and SARS-CoV-2 (12.9%).Ninety-one studies (78.4%) were conducted in high-income settings. Forty-eight (41.4%) utilised electronic health-records. The majority focused on reporting adverse events of special interest (AESI) in pregnancy (65.0%) alone or in addition to reactogenicity (27.6%). The most frequently reported AESI were preterm birth, small for gestational age and hypertensive disorders. Fewer than 10 studies reported use of GAIA definitions. Gestational age assessment was poorly described; of 39 studies reporting stillbirths 30.8% provided no description of the gestational age threshold.

Conclusions

Low-income settings remain under-represented in comparative maternal vaccine safety research. There has been poor uptake of GAIA case definitions. A lack of harmonisation and standardisation persists limiting comparability of the generated safety data.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women and their neonatal outcome: a narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Even through the fact that pregnant women are more and more severely infected with COVID-19 disease, there are still doubts about vaccinating these people due to the lack of sufficient evidence base information. So in this systematic review, we decided to study vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women regarding maternal, fetal and neonatal complications and outcomes.

THE STRATEGY OF SEARCHING

Between 30 December 2019 and 15 October 2021, electronic searches were performed on the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library by searching in English and free full text. Keywords searched included these: maternal outcome, neonatal outcome, pregnancy, and COVID-19 vaccination. Among 451 articles, finally, seven studies were included to study pregnancy outcomes in vaccinated women compared to unvaccinated for systematic review purposes.

RESULTS

In this study 30257 vaccinated women in their third trimester compared to 132339 unvaccinated women in terms of age, the root of delivery, neonatal adverse outcomes. There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of: IUFD, and 1 min Apgar score, C/S rate, and NICU admission between the two groups, however, the rate of SGA, IUFD, and also neonatal jaundice, asphyxia, and hypoglycemia was more significant in the unvaccinated group comparing to the vaccinated group as a result. Among them, the chance of preterm labor pain was reported more among vaccinated patients. Emphasizing that, except 7.3% of the case population, everyone in the second and third trimesters had been vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccination during the second and third trimesters appears to be the right choice due to the immediate impact of COVID-19 antibodies on the developing fetus and formation of neonatal prophylaxis, as well as the absence of adverse outcomes for both the fetus and mothers.

Safety of influenza vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate associations between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes and maternal non-obstetric serious adverse events (SAEs), taking into consideration confounding and temporal biases.

METHODS

Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase Classic+Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched to June 2021 for observational studies assessing associations between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and maternal non-obstetric SAEs and adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, small-for-gestational-age birth and congenital anomalies. Studies of live attenuated vaccines, single-arm cohort studies and abstract-only publications were excluded. Records were screened using a liberal accelerated approach initially, followed by a dual independent approach for full-text screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted, where two or more studies met methodological criteria for inclusion. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence certainty.

RESULTS

Of 9443 records screened, 63 studies were included. Twenty-nine studies (24 cohort and 5 case-control) evaluated seasonal influenza vaccination (trivalent and/or quadrivalent) versus no vaccination and were the focus of our prioritised syntheses; 34 studies of pandemic vaccines (2009 A/H1N1 and others), combinations of pandemic and seasonal vaccines, and seasonal versus seasonal vaccines were also reviewed. Control for confounding and temporal biases was inconsistent across studies, limiting pooling of data. Meta-analyses for preterm birth, spontaneous abortion and small-for-gestational-age birth demonstrated no significant associations with seasonal influenza vaccination. Immortal time bias was observed in a sensitivity analysis of meta-analysing risk-based preterm birth data. In descriptive summaries for stillbirth, congenital anomalies and maternal non-obstetric SAEs, no significant association with increased risk was found in any studies. All evidence was of very low certainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of very low certainty suggests that seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with adverse birth outcomes or maternal non-obstetric SAEs. Appropriate control of confounding and temporal biases in future studies would improve the evidence base.

Maternal vaccination to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes: An underutilized molecular immunological intervention?

Adverse pregnancy outcomes including maternal mortality, stillbirth, preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction cause millions of deaths each year. More effective interventions are urgently needed. Maternal immunization could be one such intervention protecting the mother and newborn from infection through its pathogen-specific effects. However, many adverse pregnancy outcomes are not directly linked to the infectious pathogens targeted by existing maternal vaccines but rather are linked to pathological inflammation unfolding during pregnancy. The underlying pathogenesis driving such unfavourable outcomes have only partially been elucidated but appear to relate to altered immune regulation by innate as well as adaptive immune responses, ultimately leading to aberrant maternal immune activation. Maternal immunization, like all immunization, impacts the immune system beyond pathogen-specific immunity. This raises the possibility that maternal vaccination could potentially be utilised as a pathogen-agnostic immune modulatory intervention to redirect abnormal immune trajectories towards a more favourable phenotype providing pregnancy protection. In this review we describe the epidemiological evidence surrounding this hypothesis, along with the mechanistic plausibility and present a possible path forward to accelerate addressing the urgent need of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

The association between maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes in the United States: Pregnancy risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS)

OBJECTIVE

Influenza vaccination during pregnancy is highly recommended. We examined the association between maternal influenza vaccination and adverse birth outcomes.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) during 2012-2017. The primary exposure was the receipt of influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Low birth weight (LBW), preterm birth (PTB), and small for gestational age (SGA) were the primary outcomes. We conducted multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Covariates used to adjust confounding included maternal age, marital status, education, race and ethnicity, insurance status before pregnancy, and smoking status. For a subgroup in 2012-2015, we analyzed the association between influenza vaccination in each trimester and adverse birth outcomes.

RESULTS

During 2012-2017, compared with unvaccinated women, women vaccinated during pregnancy had a lower risk of LBW and PTB. During 2012-2015, maternal influenza vaccination in the 1st and 3rd trimesters was associated with a reduced risk of LBW and PTB, and vaccination in the 3rd trimester had a greater protective effect than in the 1st trimester. Influenza vaccination was not associated with SGA regardless of trimester.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that influenza vaccination during pregnancy is a safe and effective way to protect newborns.

Maternal vaccination-current status, challenges, and opportunities

AIM

Maternal vaccination is a promising strategy for protecting pregnant women and newborns against severe infections. This review aims to describe the current status and challenges associated with maternal vaccination against seasonal influenza, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (Tdap/DTaP), and novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in Japan and other countries, mainly the United States and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed and other public websites (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to obtain information on maternal vaccination.

RESULTS

Inactivated vaccines are recommended for pregnant women by gynecologic societies in Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Among pregnant Japanese women, the influenza and COVID-19 (two doses) vaccine coverage rates were 27.0%-53.5% (six studies) and 73.6% (one study), respectively; there are no studies on maternal vaccination with DTaP. Concerns regarding vaccine safety are a major barrier to maternal vaccination across countries. Maternal vaccination is effective in preventing severe disease in pregnant women and protecting infants aged <6 months, is generally safe, and does not increase the risk of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Providing accurate information regarding vaccination through healthcare providers and the government and government funding for vaccines may help improve maternal vaccination rates in Japan.

CONCLUSION

Current coverage for maternal vaccination is still low globally mainly because of vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women. The government, drug-regulatory authorities, and healthcare professionals must educate pregnant women about the effectiveness and safety of maternal vaccines and encourage vaccination when the benefits outweigh the risks.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of influenza vaccination during pregnancy in Japan

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women and infants are known as high risk groups for influenza. WHO recommend pregnant women be vaccinated with inactivated influenza vaccine. In Japan, some municipalities started to give subsidy to encourage pregnant women to receive a shot on their own accord, which has made the introduction of seasonal antepartum maternal vaccination program (AMVP) into the routine vaccination list a current topic in health policy and has raised the need to evaluate the value for money of such possibility.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the efficiency of conducting AMVP in Japan. A decision tree model was adopted taking into consideration the duration of single-year vaccine effectiveness for infants and for mothers. The program targeted pregnant women aged 20-49 years old at or over 12 weeks gestation during October 1 through March 30. Estimated probabilities of treatments received due to influenza for pregnant/postpartum women or their infants varied by calendar time, vaccination status, and/or gestational age. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared with current no-AMVP from societal perspective was calculated. Transition probabilities, utility weights to estimate quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and disease treatment costs were either calculated or extracted from literature. Costs per vaccination was assumed at ¥3,529/US$32.1.

RESULTS

AMVP reduces disease treatment costs, while the reduction cannot offset the vaccination cost. Incremental QALYs were at 0.00009, among them 84.2% were from infants. ICER was ¥7,779,356/US$70,721 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that vaccine effectiveness for infant and costs per shot were the two main key variables affecting the ICER.

CONCLUSION

We found that vaccinating pregnant women with influenza vaccine to prevent unvaccinated infants and pregnant/postpartum women from influenza-associated disease in Japan can be cost-effective from societal perspective, under the WHO-suggested "cost-effective" criteria (1-3 times of GDP).

Global Perspectives on Immunization During Pregnancy and Priorities for Future Research and Development: An International Consensus Statement

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.