Analysis of pregnancy and infant health outcomes among women in the National Smallpox Vaccine in Pregnancy Registry who received Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed

Maternal vaccination: a review of current evidence and recommendations

Maternal vaccination is an effective means of protecting pregnant women, their fetuses, and infants from vaccine-preventable infections. Despite the availability of sufficient safety data to support the use of vaccines during pregnancy, maternal immunization remains an underutilized method of disease prevention, often because of concerns from both healthcare providers and pregnant women about vaccine safety. Such concerns have been reflected in the low uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine among pregnant women seen in many parts of the world. Here, we present an update of the current recommendations for the use of vaccines during pregnancy, including the evidence supporting the use of novel vaccine platforms. We also provide an overview of the data supporting the use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy and an update of the status of vaccines that are currently under development for use in pregnant women.

Seasonal influenza vaccine exposure in pregnancy: 5-year results from a pregnancy registry

The World Health Organization recommends that all pregnant women receive seasonal influenza vaccine. Under a post-authorization safety study protocol (NCT02148211), a pregnancy exposure registry was established in the United States to monitor spontaneously reported pregnancy outcomes in women vaccinated with GSK’s seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs). From 1 June 2014 to 31 May 2019, 507 pregnancies were prospectively reported: 352 (69.4%) were lost to follow-up and 40 (7.9%) were ongoing. Reported outcomes for the remaining 115 were: 101 (87.8%) live births without congenital anomalies; 3 (2.6%) live births with congenital anomalies; 2 (1.7%) spontaneous abortions with no congenital anomalies; 1 (0.9%) spontaneous abortion with a congenital anomaly; 1 stillbirth with no apparent congenital anomaly; 7 (6.1%) ‘Unknown’. Results from 493 prospective reports received via worldwide spontaneous, passive surveillance showed similar outcomes. All cases with congenital anomaly were assessed as not likely/unlikely/unrelated to vaccination. Despite the limited number of cases and outcomes, no safety signal was identified. The study findings are aligned with previously published data and should be confirmed with other robust data sources.

What is the context?

The pneumococcus bacterium can cause infections of the meninges, blood, lung, middle ear and sinuses.

Two vaccins, Synflorix (GSK) and Prevnar 13 (Pfizer Inc.), are widely used to protect young children against these infections.

The vaccines’ compositions differ: Synflorix includes antigens from 10 pneumococcus strains (or “serotypes”) and Prevnar 13 from 13 serotypes.

However, both have a similar effect on the total pneumococcal disease burden in children.

What does this commentary highlight?

This commentary summarizes the evidence beihnd the two vaccines’ comparable impact on pneumococcal disase.

It also looks at why the vaccines have a similar effect on the total pneumococcal disease burden despite their different compositions.

What is the impact on current thinking?

Given that Synflorix and Prevnar 13 have a comparable impact on pneumococcal disease, a country’s choice between the two vaccines will depend on vaccine supply, cost, logistical factors (e.g., transport, storage, training requirements of health workers) and the local pneumococcal epidemiology.

Use of Anthrax Vaccine in the United States: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 2019

This report updates the 2009 recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding use of anthrax vaccine in the United States (Wright JG, Quinn CP, Shadomy S, Messonnier N. Use of anthrax vaccine in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP)], 2009. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59[No. RR-6]). The report 1) summarizes data on estimated efficacy in humans using a correlates of protection model and safety data published since the last ACIP review, 2) provides updated guidance for use of anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and in conjunction with antimicrobials for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), 3) provides updated guidance regarding PrEP vaccination of emergency and other responders, 4) summarizes the available data on an investigational anthrax vaccine (AV7909), and 5) discusses the use of anthrax antitoxins for PEP.

Changes from previous guidance in this report include the following: 1) a booster dose of AVA for PrEP can be given every 3 years instead of annually to persons not at high risk for exposure to Bacillus anthracis who have previously received the initial AVA 3-dose priming and 2-dose booster series and want to maintain protection; 2) during a large-scale emergency response, AVA for PEP can be administered using an intramuscular route if the subcutaneous route of administration poses significant materiel, personnel, or clinical challenges that might delay or preclude vaccination; 3) recommendations on dose-sparing AVA PEP regimens if the anthrax vaccine supply is insufficient to vaccinate all potentially exposed persons; and 4) clarification on the duration of antimicrobial therapy when used in conjunction with vaccine for PEP.

These updated recommendations can be used by health care providers and guide emergency preparedness officials and planners who are developing plans to provide anthrax vaccine, including preparations for a wide-area aerosol release of B. anthracis spores. The recommendations also provide guidance on dose-sparing options, if needed, to extend the supply of vaccine to increase the number of persons receiving PEP in a mass casualty event.

Countering vaccine hesitancy through immunization information systems, a narrative review

Immunization is one of the most important public health interventions to contrast infectious disease; however, many people nowadays refuse vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is due to several factors that influence the complex decision-making process. Information technology tools might play an important role in vaccination programs. In particular, immunization information systems (IISs) have the potential to improve performance of vaccination programs and to increase vaccine uptake. This review aimed to present IIS functionalities in order to counter VH. In detail, we analyzed the automatic reminder/recall system, the interoperability of the system, the decision support system, the web page interface and the possibility to record adverse events following immunization. IIS could concretely represent a valid instrument to increase vaccine confidence, especially trust in both health-care workers and decision makers. There are not enough trials aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IIS to counter VH. Further researches might focalize on this aspect.

Deployment and Preterm Birth Among US Army Soldiers

With increasing integration of women into combat roles in the US military, it is critical to determine whether deployment, which entails unique stressors and exposures, is associated with adverse reproductive outcomes. Few studies have examined whether deployment increases the risk of preterm birth; no studies (to our knowledge) have examined a recent cohort of servicewomen. We therefore used linked medical and administrative data from the Stanford Military Data Repository for all US Army soldiers with deliveries between 2011 and 2014 to estimate the associations of prior deployment, recency of deployment, and posttraumatic stress disorder with spontaneous preterm birth (SPB), adjusting for sociodemographic, military-service, and health-related factors. Of 12,877 deliveries, 6.1% were SPBs. The prevalence was doubled (11.7%) among soldiers who delivered within 6 months of their return from deployment. Multivariable discrete-time logistic regression models indicated that delivering within 6 months of return from deployment was strongly associated with SPB (adjusted odds ratio = 2.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.5, 2.9). Neither multiple past deployments nor posttraumatic stress disorder was significantly associated with SPB. Within this cohort, timing of pregnancy in relation to deployment was identified as a novel risk factor for SPB. Increased focus on servicewomen's pregnancy timing and predeployment access to reproductive counseling and effective contraception is warranted.

Safety of inadvertent anthrax vaccination during pregnancy: An analysis of birth defects in the U.S. military population, 2003-2010

BACKGROUND

Anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) vaccination is compulsory for United States military servicemembers with operational indicators. As the number of female military servicemembers has increased, so has the chance of inadvertent AVA vaccination during pregnancy. Building upon past analyses assessing AVA vaccination during pregnancy and birth defects risk, this study sought to determine if inadvertent AVA vaccination during pregnancy is significantly associated with risk of birth defects after adjusting for other potential risk factors.

METHODS

The study population included 126,839 liveborn infants in the Department of Defense Birth and Infant Health Registry (2003-2010). Mothers were categorized by AVA vaccination exposure timing in relation to pregnancy. Infant medical records were assessed for birth defect diagnoses within the first year of life. Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Infants of first trimester AVA vaccinated mothers versus receipt at any other time point (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.93-1.29) were not at higher odds of birth defects in adjusted models. Infants of mothers vaccinated prepregnancy versus postpregnancy had a 1.11 (95% CI, 1.01-1.22) higher odds of having a birth defect. Vaccination postpregnancy versus never vaccinated revealed a 10% lower odds of birth defects (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

No strong associations between inadvertent AVA vaccination during pregnancy and birth defects risk were observed. Marginal associations between prepregnancy vaccination or never vaccinated women and birth defects risk was observed when compared to postpregnancy vaccination. These findings may be due to self-selection and/or reverse causation bias when assessing comparisons with postpregnancy vaccination, and a "healthy worker" effect when assessing comparisons with women never vaccinated.

Dismantling the Taboo against Vaccines in Pregnancy

Vaccinating pregnant women in order to protect them, the fetus, and the child has become universal in no way at all. Prejudice in health professionals add to fears of women and their families. Both these feelings are not supported by even the smallest scientific data. Harmlessness for the mother and the child has been observed for seasonal, pandemic, or quadrivalent influenza, mono, combined polysaccharide or conjugated meningococcal or pneumococcal, tetanus toxoid, acellular pertussis, human papillomavirus, cholera, hepatitis A, Japanese encephalitis, rabies, anthrax, smallpox, yellow fever, mumps, measles and rubella combined, typhoid fever, inactivated or attenuated polio vaccines, and Bacillus Calmétte Guerin vaccines. Instead, the beneficial effects of influenza vaccine for the mother and the child as well as of pertussis vaccine for the child have been demonstrated. Obstetrician-gynecologists, general practitioners, and midwives must incorporate vaccination into their standard clinical care. Strong communication strategies effective at reducing parental vaccine hesitancy and approval of regulatory agencies for use of vaccines during pregnancy are needed. It must be clear that the lack of pre-licensure studies in pregnant women and, consequently, the lack of a statement about the use of the vaccine in pregnant women does not preclude its use in pregnancy.

Recent developments in the understanding and use of anthrax vaccine adsorbed: achieving more with less

Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA, BioThrax™) is the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccine for the prevention of anthrax in humans. Recent improvements in pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use of AVA include intramuscular (IM) administration and simplification of the priming series to three doses over 6 months. Administration IM markedly reduced the frequency, severity and duration of injection site reactions. Refinement of animal models for inhalation anthrax, identification of immune correlates of protection and cross-species modeling have created opportunities for reductions in the PrEP booster schedule and were pivotal in FDA approval of a post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) indication. Clinical and nonclinical studies of accelerated PEP schedules and divided doses may provide prospects for shortening the PEP antimicrobial treatment period. These data may assist in determining feasibility of expanded coverage in a large-scale emergency when vaccine demand may exceed availability. Enhancements to the AVA formulation may broaden the vaccine's PEP application.