Maternal safety of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in pregnant women

Safety of the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in 2 Successive Pregnancies

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.

Do pregnant persons want influenza vaccines? Knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and practices toward influenza vaccines in 8 low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

While vaccination is the most effective way to prevent influenza infection and adverse outcomes, and despite WHO recommendations to vaccinate pregnant persons, access to seasonal influenza vaccines remains low. We explored knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pregnant persons about seasonal influenza vaccines to inform actions to improve vaccine uptake among this priority population.

METHODS

We pooled individual-level data from cross-sectional surveys assessing pregnant persons' attitudes toward seasonal influenza vaccines in eight low- and middle-income countries during 2018-2019. The eight countries used a standard protocol and questionnaire to measure attitudes and intents toward influenza vaccination. We stratified by country-level (presence/absence of a national influenza vaccination program, country income group, geographic region) and individual-level factors.

FINDINGS

Our analysis included 8,556 pregnant persons from eight low- and middle-income countries with and without seasonal influenza vaccination programs. Most pregnant persons (6,323, 74%) were willing to receive influenza vaccine if it was offered for free. Willingness differed by presence of an existing influenza vaccination program; acceptance was higher in countries without influenza vaccination programs (2,383, 89%) than in those with such programs (3,940, 67%, p < 0.001).

INTERPRETATION

Most pregnant persons in middle-income countries, regardless of influenza vaccination program status, were willing to be vaccinated against influenza if the vaccine was provided free of charge. National investments in influenza vaccination programs may be well-received by pregnant persons, leading to averted illness both in pregnant persons themselves and in their newborn babies.

FUNDING

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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.

Vaccine Hesitancy in Women's Health

The development of vaccines is considered one of the greatest breakthroughs of modern medicine, saving millions of lives around the world each year. Despite vaccines' proven success, vaccine hesitancy remains a major issue affecting vaccine uptake. Common themes exist in patients' apprehension to receive vaccines. Women's health providers possess an important role in addressing these concerns and dispelling common misconceptions that may increase vaccine hesitancy thereby reduce vaccine uptake. This review aims to explore many of these topics as they are related to women's health and provide strategies for providers to implement which may reduce vaccine hesitancy among our patients.

A multi-country investigation of influenza vaccine coverage in pregnant individuals, 2010-2016

BACKGROUND

Many countries recommend influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Despite this recommendation, influenza vaccine among pregnant individuals remains under-utilized and uptake varies by country. Factors associated with influenza vaccine uptake during pregnancy may also vary across countries.

METHODS

As members of the Pregnancy Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (PREVENT), five sites from four countries (Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United States) retrospectively identified cohorts of individuals aged 18-50 years who were pregnant during pre-defined influenza seasons. Influenza vaccine coverage estimates were calculated for the 2010-11 through 2015-16 northern hemisphere and the 2012 through 2015 southern hemisphere influenza seasons, by site. Sites used electronic health records, administrative data, and immunization registries to collect information on pregnancy, health history, demographics, and vaccination status. Each season, vaccination coverage was calculated as the percentage of individuals who received influenza vaccine among the individuals in the cohort that season. Characteristics were compared between those vaccinated and unvaccinated, by site.

RESULTS

More than two million pregnancies were identified over the study period. Influenza vaccination coverage ranged from 5% to 58% across sites and seasons. Coverage increased consistently over the study period at three of the five sites (Western Australia, Alberta, and Israel), and was highest in all seasons at the United States study site (39-58%). Associations with vaccination varied by country and across seasons; where available, parity >0, presence of a high-risk medical condition, and urban residence were consistently associated with increased likelihood of vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Though increasing, uptake of influenza vaccine among pregnant individuals remains lower than recommended. Coverage varied substantially by country, suggesting an ongoing need for targeted strategies to improve influenza vaccine uptake in this population.

Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization in the United States: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Understanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines recommended for children, adults, and pregnant women in the United States.

METHODS

We searched the literature in November 2020 to update a 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review by integrating newly available data. Studies of vaccines that used a comparator and reported the presence or absence of key adverse events were eligible. Adhering to Evidence-based Practice Center methodology, we assessed the strength of evidence (SoE) for all evidence statements. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180089).

RESULTS

Of 56,603 reviewed citations, 338 studies reported in 518 publications met inclusion criteria. For children, SoE was high for no increased risk of autism following measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. SoE was high for increased risk of febrile seizures with MMR. There was no evidence of increased risk of  intussusception with rotavirus vaccine at the latest follow-up (moderate SoE), nor of diabetes (high SoE). There was no evidence of increased risk or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for newer vaccines such as 9-valent human papillomavirus and meningococcal B vaccines. For adults, there was no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for the new adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine and recombinant adjuvanted zoster vaccine. We found no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) for key adverse events among pregnant women following tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, including stillbirth (moderate SoE).

CONCLUSIONS

Across a large body of research we found few associations of vaccines and serious key adverse events; however, rare events are challenging to study. Any adverse events should be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.

The Fifth International Neonatal and Maternal Immunization Symposium (INMIS 2019): Securing Protection for the Next Generation

Despite significant progress in reaching some milestones of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, neonatal and early infant morbidity and mortality remain high, and maternal health remains suboptimal in many countries. Novel and improved preventative strategies with the potential to benefit pregnant women and their infants are needed, with maternal and neonatal immunization representing effective approaches. Experts from immunology, vaccinology, infectious diseases, clinicians, industry, public health, and vaccine-related social sciences convened at the 5th International Neonatal and Maternal Immunization Symposium (INMIS) in Vancouver, Canada, from 15 to 17 September 2019. We critically evaluated the lessons learned from recent clinical studies, presented cutting-edge scientific progress in maternal and neonatal immunology and vaccine development, and discussed maternal and neonatal immunization in the broader context of infectious disease epidemiology and public health. Focusing on practical aspects of research and implementation, we also discussed the safety, awareness, and perception of maternal immunization as an existing strategy to address the need to improve maternal and neonatal health worldwide. The symposium provided a comprehensive scientific and practical primer as well as an update for all those with an interest in maternal and neonatal infection, immunity, and vaccination. The summary presented here provides an update of the current status of progress in maternal and neonatal immunization.

Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunisation (MI4MI) study: a protocol for an implementation study of a clinician vaccine communication intervention for prenatal care settings

INTRODUCTION

Vaccination against influenza and pertussis in pregnancy offers a 'two-for-one' opportunity to protect mother and child. Pregnant patients have increased risk of severe disease from influenza and newborns have increased risk of severe disease from both influenza and pertussis. Obstetricians need communication tools to support their self-efficacy and effectiveness in communicating the importance of immunisation during pregnancy and ultimately improving maternal vaccination rates.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We describe the protocol for a pragmatic study testing the feasibility and potential impact of a clinician communication strategy on maternal vaccination uptake. This study will be conducted in five prenatal care settings in Colorado, USA. The Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunisation strategy involves training prenatal care providers to use motivational interviewing in the vaccine conversation with pregnant patients. Our primary outcomes will be the adoption and implementation of the intervention measured using the Enhanced RE-AIM/Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model for dissemination and implementation. Secondary outcomes will include provider time spent, fidelity to Motivational Interviewing and self-efficacy measured through audio recorded visits and provider surveys, patients' visit experience based on audio recorded visits and follow-up interviews, and maternal vaccine uptake as measured through chart reviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the following institutional review boards: Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed manuscripts and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04302675.

Safety and immunogenicity of three seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines among pregnant women and antibody persistence in their infants

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.

Impact of media reports regarding influenza vaccine on obstetricians' vaccination practices

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.

Are all vaccines safe for the pregnant traveller? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pregnant travellers and their offspring are vulnerable to severe outcomes following a wide range of infections. Vaccine-preventable diseases can have a particularly severe course in pregnant women, but little is known about the safety of travel vaccines in pregnant women. We performed a systematic review of all published literature concerning the safety of vaccines frequently given to travellers such as yellow fever, MMR (mumps, measles and rubella), influenza, Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis), meningococcus, hepatitis A and B, rabies, polio, typhoid fever, tick-borne encephalitis and Japanese encephalitis vaccines. We included case series, cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the meta-analysis, we included only RCTs that compared the administration of a vaccine to placebo or to no vaccine. Outcome measures included severe systemic adverse events, maternal outcomes related to the course of pregnancy, neonatal outcomes and local adverse events. We calculated the risk ratio and its 95% confidence interval as the summary measure. The safety of influenza vaccine is supported by high-quality evidence. For Tdap vaccine, no evidence of any harm was found in the meta-analysis of RCTs. A slight increase in chorioamnionitis rate was reported in 3 out of 12 observational studies. However, this small possible risk is far outweighed by a much larger benefit in terms of infant morbidity and mortality. Meningococcal vaccines are probably safe during pregnancy, as supported by RCTs comparing meningococcal vaccines to other vaccines. Data from observational studies support the safety of hepatitis A, hepatitis B and rabies vaccines, as well as that of the live attenuated yellow fever vaccine. We found little or no data about the safety of polio, typhoid, Japanese encephalitis, tick-borne encephalitis and MMR vaccines during pregnancy.

MiRNA Targeted NP Genome of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccines Provide Cross-Protection against a Lethal Influenza Virus Infection

The miRNA-based strategy has been used to develop live attenuated influenza vaccines. In this study, the nucleoprotein (NP) genome segment of the influenza virus was inserted by different perfect miRNA-192-5p target sites, and the virus was rescued by standard reverse genetics method, so as to verify the virulence and protective efficacy of live attenuated vaccine in cells and mice. The results showed there was no significant attenuation in 192t virus with one perfect miRNA-192-5p target site, and 192t-3 virus with three perfect miRNA target sites. However, 192t-6 virus with 6 perfect miRNA target sites and 192t-9 virus with 9 perfect miRNA target sites were both significantly attenuated after infection, and their virulence were similar to that of temperature-sensitive (TS) influenza A virus (IAV) which is a temperature-sensitive live attenuated influenza vaccine. Mice were immunized with different doses of 192t-6, 192t-9, and TS IAV. Four weeks after immunization, the IgG in serum and IgA in lung homogenate were increased in the 192t-6, 192t-9, and TS IAV groups, and the numbers of IFN-γ secreting splenocytes were also increased in a dose-dependent manner. Finally, 192t-6, and 192t-9 can protect the mice against the challenge of homologous PR8 H1N1 virus and heterosubtypic H3N2 influenza virus. MiRNA targeted viruses 192t-6 and 192t-9 were significantly attenuated and showed the same virulence as TS IAV and played a role in the cross-protection.

Vaccinating pregnant women against influenza needs to be a priority for all countries: An expert commentary

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.

Predictors for influenza vaccination among Thai pregnant woman: The role of physicians in increasing vaccine uptake

BACKGROUND

Physician recommendation and attitudes and beliefs of pregnant women toward influenza and vaccination may influence vaccine uptake during pregnancy. We examined how physician recommendation and health beliefs of pregnant women may jointly affect influenza vaccination during pregnancy.

METHODS

Thai pregnant women aged ≥18 years and >13 gestational weeks attending antenatal care (ANC) clinics, and ANC physicians were recruited during May-August 2015. Women and physicians, linked using unique identifiers, provided data on demographic, health and work history, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward influenza and vaccination, based on Health Belief Model constructs. Physicians also provided data on their practices in recommending influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Prevalence ratios for the association between knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of pregnant women, physician recommendation and documented receipt of vaccination within 30 days of the visit were calculated.

RESULTS

Among 610 women, the median age was 27 years; 266 (44%) and 344 (56%) were in the second and third trimesters, respectively. Twenty-one (3%) had pre-existing conditions. Of 60 physicians with the median years of practice of 5; 17 (28%) reported frequently/usually/always recommending influenza vaccine to their pregnant patients, while 43 (72%) reported never/rarely/sometimes recommending the vaccine. Controlling for the pregnant women's knowledge and beliefs, pregnant women whose physician recommended influenza vaccination were 2.3 times (95% confidence interval 1.4-3.8) more likely to get vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, physician recommendation was the only significant factor associated with influenza vaccine uptake among Thai pregnant women. Understanding physicians' motivation/barrier to recommending influenza vaccination to pregnant women may increase coverage.

Maternal tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) and influenza immunization: an overview

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.

Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Strategies to Address Vaccine Refusal Among Pregnant Women

OBJECTIVE

To describe 1) obstetrician-gynecologists' (ob-gyns') perceptions of the frequency of vaccine refusal among pregnant patients and perceived reasons for refusal and 2) ob-gyns' strategies used when encountering vaccine refusal and perceived effectiveness of those strategies.

METHODS

We conducted an email and mail survey among a nationally representative network of ob-gyns from March 2016 to June 2016.

RESULTS

The response rate was 69% (331/477). Health care providers perceived that pregnant women more commonly refused influenza vaccine than tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine: 62% of respondents reported 10% or greater of pregnant women they care for in a typical month refused influenza vaccine compared with 32% reporting this for Tdap vaccine. The most commonly reported reasons for vaccine refusal were patients' belief that influenza vaccine makes them sick (48%), belief they are unlikely to get a vaccine-preventable disease (38%), general worries about vaccines (32%), desire to maintain a natural pregnancy (31%), and concern that their child could develop autism as a result of maternal vaccination (25%). The most commonly reported strategies ob-gyns used to address refusal were stating that it is safe to receive vaccines in pregnancy (96%), explaining that not getting the vaccine puts the fetus or newborn at risk (90%), or that not getting the vaccine puts the pregnant woman's health at risk (84%). The strategy perceived as most effective was stating that not getting vaccinated puts the fetus or newborn at risk.

CONCLUSION

Ob-gyns perceive vaccine refusal among pregnant women as common and refusal of influenza vaccine as more common than refusal of Tdap vaccine. Emphasizing the risk of disease to the fetus or newborn may be an effective strategy to increase vaccine uptake.

Efficacy of a Web-Based Intervention to Increase Uptake of Maternal Vaccines: An RCT

INTRODUCTION

Tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) and influenza vaccines are recommended for pregnant women in each pregnancy, yet uptake is suboptimal. This study tested the efficacy of an online vaccine resource in increasing uptake of Tdap and influenza vaccines among pregnant women.

STUDY DESIGN

RCT.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

This study was conducted among women in the third trimester of pregnancy in an integrated healthcare system in Colorado in September 2013-July 2016, with data analysis in 2017-2018.

INTERVENTION

Women were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 arms: website with vaccine information and interactive social media components, website with vaccine information only, or usual care. Participants in the website with vaccine information and interactive social media components and website with vaccine information only arms had access to the same base vaccine content. The website with vaccine information and interactive social media components also included a blog, discussion forum, and "Ask a Question" portal.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Tdap and influenza vaccination. These outcomes were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

For influenza (n=289), women in both the website with vaccine information and interactive social media components (OR=2.19, 95% CI=1.06, 4.53) and website with vaccine information only (OR=2.20, 95% CI=1.03, 4.69) arms had higher vaccine uptake than the usual care arm. The proportions of women receiving the influenza vaccine were 57%, 55%, and 36% in the website with vaccine information and interactive social media components, website with vaccine information only, and usual care arms, respectively. For Tdap (n=173), there were no significant differences in vaccine uptake between study arms. The proportions of women receiving Tdap were 71%, 69%, and 68% in the website with vaccine information and interactive social media components, website with vaccine information only, and usual care arms, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Web-based vaccination information sent to pregnant women can positively influence maternal influenza vaccine uptake. Because of potential scalability, the impact of robust vaccination information websites should be studied in other settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01873040.

Does the availability of influenza vaccine at prenatal care visits and of immediate vaccination improve vaccination coverage of pregnant women?

Introduction

Although vaccination against influenza is recommended for pregnant women in France because it exposes them to a risk of death and severe respiratory complications, their vaccination coverage in 2016 was estimated at 7%. This study's principal objective was to assess the association between the availability of influenza vaccination at prenatal care visits and vaccination coverage.

Material and methods

This multicenter survey took place in 3 Paris-area public hospital (AP-HP) maternity wards (A, B, and C). Only maternity ward A offered the vaccine and vaccination without charge at prenatal visits. Data were collected from parturients during 10 days in January 2017 by a self-administered anonymous questionnaire.

Results

Data from 248 women showed overall vaccination coverage of 19.4% (48/248): 35.4% (46/130) in maternity unit A, 2.7% (2/75) in B, and 0% (0/43) in C (P<0.01). After adjustment for socio-demographic characteristics, women at maternity ward A were significantly more likely to be vaccinated than those at B and C (aOR 25.52, 95%CI [5.76–113.10]). Other factors significantly associated with higher vaccination coverage were the mother’s French birth (aOR 2.37 CI [1.03–5.46]) and previous influenza vaccination (aOR 3.13, 95%CI [1.25–7.86]). Vaccinated women generally considered they had received adequate information (aOR 4.15 CI [2.10–8.22]), principally from the professional providing their prenatal care. Nonvaccination was attributed to the absence of an offer of vaccination (81.5%), fear of fetal side effects (59.5%), and inadequate information (51.4%).

Conclusion

Our results show that availability of influenza vaccination, free of charge, at prenatal consultations at the maternity ward increases vaccination coverage significantly.

Use of routinely collected electronic healthcare data for postlicensure vaccine safety signal detection: a systematic review

Background

Concerns regarding adverse events following vaccination (AEFIs) are a key challenge for public confidence in vaccination. Robust postlicensure vaccine safety monitoring remains critical to detect adverse events, including those not identified in prelicensure studies, and to ensure public safety and public confidence in vaccination. We summarise the literature examined AEFI signal detection using electronic healthcare data, regarding data sources, methodological approach and statistical analysis techniques used.

Methods

We performed a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Five databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science) were searched for studies on AEFIs monitoring published up to 25 September 2017. Studies were appraised for methodological quality, and results were synthesised narratively.

Result

We included 47 articles describing AEFI signal detection using electronic healthcare data. All studies involved linked diagnostic healthcare data, from the emergency department, inpatient and outpatient setting and immunisation records. Statistical analysis methodologies used included non-sequential analysis in 33 studies, group sequential analysis in two studies and 12 studies used continuous sequential analysis. Partially elapsed risk window and data accrual lags were the most cited barriers to monitor AEFIs in near real-time.

Conclusion

Routinely collected electronic healthcare data are increasingly used to detect AEFI signals in near real-time. Further research is required to check the utility of non-coded complaints and encounters, such as telephone medical helpline calls, to enhance AEFI signal detection.

Trial registration number

CRD42017072741.

Infant Hospitalizations and Mortality After Maternal Vaccination

BACKGROUND

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices currently recommends pregnant women receive influenza and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines. There are limited studies of the long-term safety in infants for vaccines administered during pregnancy. We evaluate whether maternal receipt of influenza and Tdap vaccines increases the risk of infant hospitalization or death in the first 6 months of life.

METHODS

We included singleton, live birth pregnancies in the Vaccine Safety Datalink between 2004 and 2014. Outcomes were infant hospitalizations and mortality in the first 6 months of life. We performed a case-control study matching case patients and controls 1:1 and used conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios for maternal exposure to influenza and/or Tdap vaccines in pregnancy.

RESULTS

There were 413 034 live births in our population. Of these, 25 222 infants had hospitalizations and 157 infants died in the first 6 months of life. We found no association between infant hospitalization and maternal influenza (adjusted odds ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-1.04) or Tdap (adjusted odds ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.88-1.01) vaccinations. We found no association between infant mortality and maternal influenza (adjusted odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.54-1.69) or Tdap (adjusted odds ratio: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.17-1.13) vaccinations.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no association between vaccination during pregnancy and risk of infant hospitalization or death in the first 6 months of life. These findings support the safety of current recommendations for influenza and Tdap vaccination during pregnancy.

Immunization Practices of U.S. Obstetrician/Gynecologists for Pregnant Patients

INTRODUCTION

U.S. obstetrician/gynecologists play a critical role as vaccinators of pregnant women. However, little is known about their current immunization practices. Thus, study objectives were to determine (1) practices related to assessment of vaccination status and vaccine delivery for pregnant patients; (2) barriers to stocking and administering vaccines; and (3) factors associated with administering both influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines.

METHODS

An e-mail and mail survey among a national sample of obstetrician/gynecologists conducted July-October 2015 (analysis August 2016-August 2017).

RESULTS

The response rate was 73.2% (353/482). Among obstetrician/gynecologists caring for pregnant women (n=324), vaccination status was most commonly assessed for influenza (97%), Tdap (92%), and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines (88%). Vaccines most commonly administered included influenza (85%) and Tdap (76%). Few respondents reported administering other vaccines to pregnant patients. More physicians reported using standing orders for influenza (66%) than Tdap (39%). Other evidence-based strategies for increasing vaccine uptake were less frequently used (electronic decision support, 42%; immunization information system to record [13%] or assess vaccination status [11%]; reminder/recall, 7%). Barriers most commonly reported were provider financial barriers, yet provider attitudinal barriers were rare. Providers who administered both influenza and Tdap vaccines were more likely to be female, perceive fewer financial and practice barriers, less likely to be in private practice, and perceive more patient barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most obstetrician/gynecologists administer some vaccines to pregnant women, the focus remains on influenza and Tdap. Financial barriers and infrequent use of evidence-based strategies for increasing vaccination uptake may be hindering delivery of a broader complement of adult vaccines in obstetrician/gynecologist offices.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

The consequences of influenza in adults are mainly time off work. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally. This is an update of a review published in 2014. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated due to their lack of influence on the review conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults, including pregnant women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1990 to 31 December 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017), as well as checking the bibliographies of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. Previous versions of this review included observational comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms cohort and case-control studies. Due to the uncertain quality of observational (i.e. non-randomised) studies and their lack of influence on the review conclusions, we decided to update only randomised evidence. The searches for observational comparative studies are no longer updated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence for key outcomes (influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospitalisation, and adverse effects) using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 people assessing the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccines. We have presented findings from 25 studies comparing inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine against placebo or do-nothing control groups as the most relevant to decision-making. The studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in North America, South America, and Europe between 1969 and 2009. We did not consider studies at high risk of bias to influence the results of our outcomes except for hospitalisation.Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.47; 71,221 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 25,795 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; 71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza, and 29 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing an ILI). The difference between the two number needed to vaccinate (NNV) values depends on the different incidence of ILI and confirmed influenza among the study populations. Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalisation in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1%, but the CI is wide and does not rule out a large benefit (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.08; 11,924 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vaccines may lead to little or no small reduction in days off work (-0.04 days, 95% CI -0.14 days to 0.06; low-certainty evidence). Inactivated vaccines cause an increase in fever from 1.5% to 2.3%.We identified one RCT and one controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of vaccination in pregnant women. The efficacy of inactivated vaccine containing pH1N1 against influenza was 50% (95% CI 14% to 71%) in mothers (NNV 55), and 49% (95% CI 12% to 70%) in infants up to 24 weeks (NNV 56). No data were available on efficacy against seasonal influenza during pregnancy. Evidence from observational studies showed effectiveness of influenza vaccines against ILI in pregnant women to be 24% (95% CI 11% to 36%, NNV 94), and against influenza in newborns from vaccinated women to be 41% (95% CI 6% to 63%, NNV 27).Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to an NNV of 46. The performance of one- or two-dose whole-virion 1968 to 1969 pandemic vaccines was higher (NNV 16) against ILI and (NNV 35) against influenza. There was limited impact on hospitalisations in the 1968 to 1969 pandemic (NNV 94). The administration of both seasonal and 2009 pandemic vaccines during pregnancy had no significant effect on abortion or neonatal death, but this was based on observational data sets.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1% (moderate-certainty evidence). They also probably experience less ILI following vaccination, but the degree of benefit when expressed in absolute terms varied across different settings. Variation in protection against ILI may be due in part to inconsistent symptom classification. Certainty of evidence for the small reductions in hospitalisations and time off work is low. Protection against influenza and ILI in mothers and newborns was smaller than the effects seen in other populations considered in this review.Vaccines increase the risk of a number of adverse events, including a small increase in fever, but rates of nausea and vomiting are uncertain. The protective effect of vaccination in pregnant women and newborns is also very modest. We did not find any evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies considered in this review. Fifteen included RCTs were industry funded (29%).

Vaccines in pregnancy: The dual benefit for pregnant women and infants

Maternal immunization has the potential to reduce the burden of infectious diseases in the pregnant woman and her infant. Many countries now recommend immunization against influenza at any stage of pregnancy and against pertussis in the third trimester. Despite evidence of the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines when administered during pregnancy, uptake generally remains low for influenza and moderate for pertussis vaccine. Enhancing confidence in both immunization providers and pregnant women by increasing the evidence-base for the safety and effectiveness of vaccines during pregnancy, improving communication and access by incorporating immunization into standard models of antenatal care are likely to improve uptake. Developing a framework for implementation of vaccines for pregnant women which is cognizant of local and national cultural, epidemiological, behavioral and societal factors will enable a smooth transition and high uptake for new vaccines currently in development for pregnant women.

Feasibility of Text Message Influenza Vaccine Safety Monitoring During Pregnancy

INTRODUCTION

The feasibility and accuracy of text messaging to monitor events after influenza vaccination throughout pregnancy and the neonatal period has not been studied, but may be important for seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines and future maternal vaccines.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was conducted during 2013-2014 and analyzed in 2015-2016. Enrolled pregnant women receiving inactivated influenza vaccination at a gestational age <20 weeks were sent text messages intermittently through participant-reported pregnancy end to request fever, health events, and neonatal outcomes. Text message response rates, Day 0-2 fever (≥100.4°F), health events, and birth/neonatal outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Most (80.2%, n=166) eligible women enrolled. Median gestational age was 8.9 (SD=3.9) weeks at vaccination. Response rates remained high (80.0%-95.2%). Only one Day 0-2 fever was reported. Women reported via text both pregnancy- and non-pregnancy-specific health events, not all associated with medical visits. Most pregnancy-specific events in the electronic medical record (EMR) were reported via text message. Of all enrollees, 84.9% completed the study (131 reported live birth, ten reported pregnancy loss). Two losses reported via text were not medically attended; there was one additional EMR-identified loss. Gestational age and weight at birth were similar between text message-reported and EMR-abstracted data and 95% CIs were overlapping for proportions of prematurity, low birth weight, small for gestational age, and major birth defects, as identified by text message-reported versus EMR-abstracted plus text message-reported versus EMR-abstracted data only.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the feasibility of text messaging for influenza vaccine safety surveillance sustained throughout pregnancy. In these women receiving inactivated influenza vaccination during pregnancy, post-vaccination fever was infrequent and a typical pattern of maternal and neonatal health outcomes was observed.

Seropositivity of influenza A H1NI in mothers and infants following maternal vaccination with trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine after the 2009 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To assess H1N1 antibody titers between vaccinated and nonvaccinated maternal and cord blood sera after the 2009 pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Antibody titers were measured in maternal blood and cord sera from three groups of pregnant women in this prospective study. Group 1 comprised women who received a trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine before conception, Group 2 comprised women who received a single injection of monovalent H1N1 vaccine during pregnancy, and Group 3 comprised women who were nonvaccinated. A seropositive or seroprotective hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay was defined as titer ≥ 1:40.

RESULTS

In this study, 500 healthy women were enrolled, of which 44 women were in the trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine group, 41 women were in the monovalent vaccine group, and 415 women were in the nonvaccinated group. The seropositive HAI titers in the three groups of mothers were 48%, 78%, and 12%, respectively. The HAI titers in the vaccinated groups were significantly higher than those in the nonvaccinated group. The HAI titers of the cord blood samples of the three groups were comparable to their respective maternal samples.

CONCLUSION

Seroprotection after the 2009 HIN1 pandemic was generally low in pregnant women. Vaccination during pregnancy yielded best seropositivity, whereas receiving a trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine before conception can offer better seroprotection to mothers and newborns than no vaccination.

First Trimester Influenza Vaccination and Risks for Major Structural Birth Defects in Offspring

OBJECTIVE

To examine risks for major structural birth defects in infants after first trimester inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) exposures.

STUDY DESIGN

In this observational study, we used electronic health data from 7 Vaccine Safety Datalink sites to examine risks for selected major structural defects in infants after maternal IIV exposure. Vaccine exposures for women with continuous insurance enrollment through pregnancy who delivered singleton live births between 2004 and 2013 were identified from standardized files. Infants with continuous insurance enrollment were followed to 1 year of age. We excluded mother-infant pairs with other exposures that potentially increased their background risk for birth defects. Selected cardiac, orofacial or respiratory, neurologic, ophthalmologic or otologic, gastrointestinal, genitourinary and muscular or limb defects were identified from diagnostic codes in infant medical records using validated algorithms. Propensity score adjusted generalized estimating equations were used to estimate prevalence ratios (PRs).

RESULTS

We identified 52 856 infants with maternal first trimester IIV exposure and 373 088 infants whose mothers were unexposed to IIV during first trimester. Prevalence (per 100 live births) for selected major structural birth defects was 1.6 among first trimester IIV exposed versus 1.5 among unexposed mothers. The adjusted PR was 1.02 (95% CI 0.94-1.10). Organ system-specific PRs were similar to the overall PR.

CONCLUSION

First trimester maternal IIV exposure was not associated with an increased risk for selected major structural birth defects in this large cohort of singleton live births.

Use of existing systematic reviews for evidence assessments in infectious disease prevention: a comparative case study

BACKGROUND

Given limited resources and time constraints, the use of existing systematic reviews (SR) for the development of evidence-based public health recommendations has become increasingly important. Recently, a five-step approach for identifying, analyzing, appraising and using existing SRs based on recent guidance by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was proposed within the Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT). However, case studies are needed to test whether this approach is useful, what challenges arise and how problems can be solved.

METHODS

In two case studies, the five-step approach was applied to integrate existing SRs in the development of evidence-based public health recommendations. Case study A focused on the role of neonatal sepsis as a risk factor for adverse neurodevelopmental outcome. Case study B examined the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccination during pregnancy. For each step, we report the approach of the review team, discuss challenges and describe solutions.

RESULTS

For case study A, one existing SR was identified, while in case study B four SRs were eligible for analysis. We found that comparison of inclusion criteria alone was sufficient to judge on relevance of SRs in case study A, but not B. Although methodological quality of all identified SRs was acceptable, risk of bias assessments of individual studies included in the SRs had to be repeated in both case studies. Particular challenges appeared in case study B where multiple SRs addressed the same research question. With the help of spreadsheets comparing the characteristics of the existing SR we decided to use the most comprehensive one for our evidence synthesis and supplemented the results with those from the other SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

In both case studies using the complete SR was not possible. The five-step approach provided useful and structured guidance and should be routinely applied when using existing SRs as a basis for evidence-based recommendations in public health. In situations where more than one SR has to be considered, the development of spreadsheets comparing characteristics, inclusion criteria, risk of bias, included studies and outcomes seems useful.

Surveillance systems and methods for monitoring the post-marketing safety of influenza vaccines at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

INTRODUCTION

Annual influenza vaccine safety monitoring is an important component of the influenza vaccination program in the United States to ensure that vaccines are safe, which is important for maintaining public trust in the national vaccination program. This is specially the case for influenza vaccines since the antigen composition of the viruses of which the vaccine is made often changes from one season to the next, based on the circulating strain of influenza virus.

AREAS COVERED

This review describes the two surveillance systems used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to monitor the safety of influenza vaccines: 1) the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); and 2) the Vaccine Safety datalink (VSD).

EXPERT OPINION

VAERS and VSD are used routinely to monitor the safety of influenza vaccines in the United States, and over the years they have demonstrated their value in monitoring vaccine safety since their implementation in 1990. Both systems, although different, complemented each other well to study febrile seizures in young children following influenza vaccination during the 2010-2011 influenza season. Other examples of potential safety concerns after influenza vaccines are also presented and discussed.

The safety of maternal immunization

Maternal vaccination offers the opportunity to protect pregnant women and their infants against potentially serious disease. As both pregnant women and their newborns are vulnerable to severe illness, the potential public health impact of mass maternal vaccination programs is remarkable. Several high-income countries recommend seasonal influenza and acellular pertussis vaccines, and many developing countries recommend immunization against tetanus during pregnancy. There is a significant amount of literature supporting the safety of vaccination during pregnancy. As other vaccines are newly introduced for pregnant women, routine systems for monitoring vaccine safety in pregnant women are needed. To facilitate meta-analyses and comparison across systems and studies, future research and surveillance initiatives should utilize the same criteria for defining adverse events following immunization among pregnant women. At least 2 areas require further exploration: 1) identification of pregnancy outcomes associated with concomitant and closely spaced vaccines; 2) evaluation of possible improvement in birth outcomes associated with maternal vaccination. Given the public health impact of maternal vaccination, the existing evidence supporting the safety of vaccination during pregnancy should be used to reassure pregnant women and their providers and improve vaccine uptake in pregnancy.

A systematic review of ethical issues in vaccine studies involving pregnant women

BACKGROUND

Immunization during pregnancy can provide protection for mother and child. However, there have been only a limited number of studies documenting the efficacy and safety of this strategy.

AIMS

To determine the extent and nature of subject matter related to ethics in maternal immunization by systematically documenting the spectrum of ethical issues in vaccine studies involving pregnant women.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic literature review of published works pertaining to vaccine and therapeutic studies involving pregnant women through searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We selected literature meeting the inclusion criteria published between 1988 and June 2014. We systematically abstracted subject matter pertaining to ethical issues in immunization studies during pregnancy. Immunization-specific ethical issues were matched and grouped into major categories and subcategories.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven published articles met the inclusion criteria. Published articles reported findings on data that had been collected in 26 countries, the majority of which were classified as high-income or upper-middle-income nations according to World Bank criteria. Review of these publications produced 60 immunization-specific ethical issues, grouped into six major categories. Notably, many studies demonstrated limited acknowledgment of key ethical issues including the rights and welfare of participants. Additionally, there was no discussion pertaining to the ethics of program implementation, including integration of maternal immunization programs into existing routine immunization programs.

CONCLUSION

This review of ethical issues in immunization studies of pregnant women can be used to help inform future vaccine trials in this important population. Consistent documentation of these ethical issues by investigators will facilitate a broader and more nuanced discussion of ethics in immunization of pregnant women - offering new and valuable insights for programs developed to prevent disease in newborn children in low- and middle-income countries.

Risk of Preterm or Small-for-Gestational-Age Birth After Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: Caveats When Conducting Retrospective Observational Studies

Vaccines are increasingly targeted toward women of reproductive age, and vaccines to prevent influenza and pertussis are recommended during pregnancy. Prelicensure clinical trials typically have not included pregnant women, and when they are included, trials cannot detect rare events. Thus, postmarketing vaccine safety assessments are necessary. However, analysis of observational data requires detailed assessment of potential biases. Using data from 8 Vaccine Safety Datalink sites in the United States, we analyzed the association of monovalent H1N1 influenza vaccine (MIV) during pregnancy with preterm birth (<37 weeks) and small-for-gestational-age birth (birth weight < 10th percentile). The cohort included 46,549 pregnancies during 2009-2010 (40% of participants received the MIV). We found potential biases in the vaccine-birth outcome association that might occur due to variable access to vaccines, the time-dependent nature of exposure to vaccination within pregnancy (immortal time bias), and confounding from baseline differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated women. We found a strong protective effect of vaccination on preterm birth (relative risk = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.74, 0.85) when we ignored potential biases and no effect when accounted for them (relative risk = 0.91; 95% confidence interval: 0.83, 1.0). In contrast, we found no important biases in the association of MIV with small-for-gestational-age birth. Investigators conducting studies to evaluate birth outcomes after maternal vaccination should use statistical approaches to minimize potential biases.

Maternal vaccination for the prevention of influenza: current status and hopes for the future

Influenza is an important cause of morbidity and mortality among pregnant women and young infants, and influenza infection during pregnancy has also been associated with adverse obstetric and birth outcomes. There is substantial evidence - from randomized trials and observational studies - that maternal influenza immunization can protect pregnant women and their infants from influenza disease. In addition, there is compelling observational evidence that prevention of influenza in pregnant women can also protect against certain adverse pregnancy outcomes, including stillbirth and preterm birth. In this article we will review and evaluate the literature on both the burden of influenza disease in pregnant women and infants, as well as the multiple potential benefits of maternal influenza immunization for mother, fetus, and infant. We will also review key clinical aspects of maternal influenza immunization, as well as identify remaining knowledge gaps, and discuss avenues for future investigation.

Safety of Tetanus Toxoid, Reduced Diphtheria Toxoid, and Acellular Pertussis and Influenza Vaccinations in Pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of coadministering tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) and influenza vaccines during pregnancy by comparing adverse events after concomitant and sequential vaccination.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of pregnant women aged 14-49 years in the Vaccine Safety Datalink from January 1, 2007, to November 15, 2013. We compared medically attended acute events (fever, any acute reaction) and adverse birth outcomes (preterm delivery, low birth weight, small for gestational age) in women receiving concomitant Tdap and influenza vaccination and women receiving sequential vaccination.

RESULTS

Among 36,844 pregnancies in which Tdap and influenza vaccines were administered, the vaccines were administered concomitantly in 8,464 (23%) pregnancies and sequentially in 28,380 (77%) pregnancies. Acute adverse events after vaccination were rare. We found no statistically significant increased risk of fever or any medically attended acute adverse event in pregnant women vaccinated concomitantly compared with sequentially. When analyzing women at 20 weeks of gestation or greater during periods of influenza vaccine administration, there were no differences in preterm delivery, low-birth-weight, or small-for-gestational-age neonates between women vaccinated concomitantly compared with sequentially in pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Concomitant administration of Tdap and influenza vaccines during pregnancy was not associated with a higher risk of medically attended adverse acute outcomes or birth outcomes compared with sequential vaccination.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Maternal Tdap vaccination: Coverage and acute safety outcomes in the vaccine safety datalink, 2007-2013

INTRODUCTION

Since October 2012, the combined tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) has been recommended in the United States during every pregnancy.

METHODS

In this observational study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, we describe receipt of Tdap during pregnancy among insured women with live births across seven health systems. Using a retrospective matched cohort, we evaluated risks for selected medically attended adverse events in pregnant women, occurring within 42 days of vaccination. Using a generalized estimating equation, we calculated adjusted incident rate ratios (AIRR).

RESULTS

Our vaccine coverage cohort included 438,487 live births between January 1, 2007 and November 15, 2013. Across the coverage cohort, 14% received Tdap during pregnancy. By 2013, Tdap was administered during pregnancy in 41.7% of live births, primarily in the 3rd trimester. Our vaccine safety cohort included 53,885 vaccinated and 109,253 matched unvaccinated pregnant women. There was no increased risk for a composite outcome of medically attended acute adverse events within 3 days of vaccination. Similarly, across the safety cohort, over a 42 day window, incident neurologic events, thrombotic events, and new onset proteinuria did not differ by maternal receipt of Tdap. Among women receiving Tdap at 20 weeks gestation or later, as compared to their matched controls, there was no increased risk for gestational diabetes or cardiac events while venous thromboembolic events and thrombocytopenia were diagnosed within 42 days of vaccination at slightly decreased rates.

CONCLUSION

Tdap coverage during pregnancy increased from 2007 through 2013, but was still below 50%. No acute maternal safety signals were detected in this large cohort.

A systematic review of adverse events following immunization during pregnancy and the newborn period

In 2013, the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) requested WHO to develop a process and a plan to move the maternal immunization agenda forward in support of an increased alignment of data safety evidence, public health needs, and regulatory processes. A key challenge identified was the continued need for harmonization of maternal adverse event following immunization (AEFI) research and surveillance efforts within developing and developed country contexts. We conducted a systematic review as a preliminary step in the development of standardized AEFI definitions for use in maternal and neonatal clinical trials, post-licensure surveillance, and other vaccine studies. We documented the current extent and nature of variability in AEFI definitions and adverse event reporting among 74 maternal immunization studies, which reported a total of 240 different types of adverse events. Forty-nine studies provided explicit AEFI case definitions describing 35 separate types of AEFIs. We identified variability in how AEFIs were determined to be present, in how AEFI definitions were applied, and in the ways that AEFIs were reported. Definitions for key maternal/neonatal AEFIs differed on four discrete attributes: overall level of detail, physiological and temporal boundaries and cut-offs, severity strata, and standards used. Our findings suggest that investigators may proactively address these inconsistencies through comprehensive and consistent reporting of AEFI definitions and outcomes in future publications. In addition, efforts to develop standardized AEFI definitions should generate definitions of sufficient detail and consistency of language to avoid the ambiguities we identified in reviewed articles, while remaining practically applicable given the constraints of low-resource contexts such as limited diagnostic capacity and high patient throughput.

Association of Tdap Vaccination With Acute Events and Adverse Birth Outcomes Among Pregnant Women With Prior Tetanus-Containing Immunizations

IMPORTANCE

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends the tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine for pregnant women during each pregnancy, regardless of prior immunization status. However, safety data on repeated Tdap vaccination in pregnancy is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether receipt of Tdap vaccine during pregnancy administered in close intervals from prior tetanus-containing vaccinations is associated with acute adverse events in mothers and adverse birth outcomes in neonates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study in 29,155 pregnant women aged 14 through 49 years from January 1, 2007, through November 15, 2013, using data from 7 Vaccine Safety Datalink sites in California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin.

EXPOSURES

Women who received Tdap in pregnancy following a prior tetanus-containing vaccine less than 2 years before, 2 to 5 years before, and more than 5 years before.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Acute adverse events (fever, allergy, and local reactions) and adverse birth outcomes (small for gestational age, preterm delivery, and low birth weight) were evaluated. Women who were vaccinated with Tdap in pregnancy and had a prior tetanus-containing vaccine more than 5 years before served as controls.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in rates of medically attended acute adverse events or adverse birth outcomes related to timing since prior tetanus-containing vaccination. [table: see text].

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among women who received Tdap vaccination during pregnancy, there was no increased risk of acute adverse events or adverse birth outcomes for those who had been previously vaccinated less than 2 years before or 2 to 5 years before compared with those who had been vaccinated more than 5 years before. These findings suggest that relatively recent receipt of a prior tetanus-containing vaccination does not increase risk after Tdap vaccination in pregnancy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's public health response to monitoring Tdap safety in pregnant women in the United States

In 2010, in response to a widespread pertussis outbreak and neonatal deaths, California became the first state to recommend routine administration of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during pregnancy. In 2011, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) followed with a similar recommendation for Tdap vaccination during pregnancy for previously unvaccinated women. In 2012, this recommendation was expanded to include Tdap vaccination of every pregnant woman during each pregnancy. These recommendations were based on urgent public health needs and available evidence on the safety of other inactivated vaccines during pregnancy. However, there were limited data on the safety of Tdap during pregnancy. In response to the new ACIP recommendations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) implemented ongoing collaborative studies to evaluate whether vaccination with Tdap during pregnancy adversely affects the health of mothers and their offspring and provide the committee with regular updates. The current commentary describes the public health actions taken by CDC to respond to the ACIP recommendation to study and monitor the safety of Tdap vaccines in pregnant women and describes the current state of knowledge on the safety of Tdap vaccines in pregnant women. Data from the various monitoring activities support the safety of Tdap use during pregnancy.

The Global Influenza Initiative recommendations for the vaccination of pregnant women against seasonal influenza

There is a heavy disease burden due to seasonal influenza in pregnant women, their fetuses, and their newborns. The main aim of this study was to review and analyze current evidence on safety, immunogenicity, and clinical benefits of the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in pregnant women. Current evidence shows that in pregnant women, the seasonal and pandemic IIVs are safe and well tolerated. After vaccination, pregnant women have protective concentrations of anti-influenza antibodies, conferring immunogenicity in newborns. The best evidence, to date, suggests that influenza vaccination confers clinical benefits in both pregnant women and their newborns. Vaccination with either the seasonal or pandemic vaccine has been shown to be cost-effective in pregnancy. There are scarce data from randomized clinical trials; fortunately, new phase 3 clinical trials are under way. In the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, data suggest that the greatest clinical benefit for infants occurs if the IIV is administered within the first weeks of availability of the vaccine, at the beginning of the influenza season, regardless of the pregnancy trimester. The optimal timing to vaccinate pregnant women who live in tropical regions is unclear. Based on evaluation of the evidence, the Global Influenza Initiative (GII) recommends that to prevent seasonal influenza morbidity and mortality in infants and their mothers, all pregnant women, regardless of trimester, should be vaccinated with the IIV. For countries where vaccination against influenza is starting or expanding, the GII recommends that pregnant women have the highest priority.

Influenza virus infection in pregnancy: a review

BACKGROUND

Influenza virus infection is very common and a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in specific populations like pregnant women. Following the 2009 pandemic, several reports on the effects of influenza virus infection on maternal health and pregnancy outcome have been published. Also the safety and efficacy of antiviral treatment and vaccination of pregnant women have been studied. In this review, we have analyzed and summarized these data.

OBJECTIVE

To provide information on the influence of influenza virus infection during pregnancy on maternal health and pregnancy outcome and on the effect of treatment and vaccination.

DATA SOURCES

We have searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. We used influenza, influenz*, pregnancy and pregnan* as search terms.

STUDY SELECTION

In total, 294 reports were reviewed and judged according to the STROBE guidelines or CONSORT statement. In all, 100 studies, published between 1961 and 2015, were included.

RESULTS

Compared to the general population, pregnant women are more often hospitalized and admitted to an intensive care unit due to influenza virus infection. For hospitalized patients, increased rates of preterm birth and fetal/neonatal death are reported. Early treatment with oseltamivir is associated with a reduced risk of severe disease. Vaccination of pregnant women is safe and reduces maternal and neonatal morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

There is level 2b evidence that maternal health and pregnancy outcome can be severely affected by influenza virus infection. Antiviral treatment may diminish these effects and vaccination protects pregnant women and neonates from infection (level of evidence 2b and 1b, respectively).

A prospective cohort study comparing the reactogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine in pregnant and non-pregnant women

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination during pregnancy can prevent serious illness in expectant mothers and provide protection to newborns; however, historically uptake has been limited due to a number of factors, including safety concerns. Symptomatic complaints are common during pregnancy and may be mistakenly associated with reactions to trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). To investigate this, we compared post-vaccination events self-reported by pregnant women to events reported by non-pregnant women receiving TIV.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 1,086 pregnant women and 314 non-pregnant female healthcare workers (HCWs) who received TIV between March-May 2014 were followed-up seven days post-vaccination to assess local and systemic adverse events following immunisation (AEFIs). Women were surveyed by text message regarding perceived reactions to TIV. Those reporting an AEFI completed an interview by telephone or mobile phone to ascertain details. Logistic regression models adjusting for age and residence were used to compare reactions reported by pregnant women and non-pregnant HCWs.

RESULTS

Similar proportions of pregnant women and non-pregnant, female HCWs reported ≥1 reaction following vaccination with TIV (13.0% and 17.3%, respectively; OR = 1.2 [95% CI: 0.8-1.8]). Non-pregnant, female HCWs were more likely to report fever or headache compared to pregnant women (OR: 4.6 [95% CI 2.1-10.3] and OR: 2.2 [95% CI 1.0-4.6], respectively). No other significant differences in reported symptoms were observed. No serious vaccine-associated adverse events were reported, and less than 2% of each group sought medical advice for a reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence suggesting pregnant women are more likely to report adverse events following influenza vaccination when compared to non-pregnant female HCWs of similar age, and in some cases, pregnant women reported significantly fewer adverse events. These results further support the safety of TIV administered in pregnant women.

Influenza vaccination during pregnancy and its usefulness to mothers and their young infants

The current approach to protecting pregnant women from influenza infection and serious influenza-related complications is vaccination. It is, therefore, critical to evaluate the vaccine's safety, immunogenicity, and protection efficacy during pregnancy. However, because it is affected by previous influenza vaccination or infection, the efficacy of the seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine is difficult to evaluate in pregnant women. The A/H1N1pdm pandemic in 2009 provided us with the opportunity to evaluate the immunogenicity of the influenza vaccine unaffected by previous vaccinations or infections. Vaccination with inactivated influenza virus during pregnancy elicited neutralizing antibody titers that were sufficient and comparable to those of naturally infected individuals. Furthermore, post-pandemic surveys provided a wealth of definitive information on vaccine efficacy and safety. In addition, transplacental transfer of antibodies following vaccination protected newborn infants against influenza infection. With reports showing the effectiveness of influenza vaccine during pregnancy, it is suggested that influenza vaccination benefits both mothers and their young infants.

Evaluation of the association of maternal pertussis vaccination with obstetric events and birth outcomes

IMPORTANCE

In 2010, due to a pertussis outbreak and neonatal deaths, the California Department of Health recommended that the tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) be administered during pregnancy. Tdap is now recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for all pregnant women, preferably between 27 and 36 weeks' gestation. Limited data exist on Tdap safety during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether maternal Tdap vaccination during pregnancy is associated with increased risks of adverse obstetric events or adverse birth outcomes.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective, observational cohort study using administrative health care databases from 2 California Vaccine Safety Datalink sites.

PARTICIPANTS AND EXPOSURES

Of 123,494 women with singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth between January 1, 2010, and November 15, 2012, 26,229 (21%) received Tdap during pregnancy and 97,265 did not.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Risks of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births (<10th percentile), chorioamnionitis, preterm birth (<37 weeks' gestation), and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were evaluated. Relative risk (RR) estimates were adjusted for site, receipt of another vaccine during pregnancy, and propensity to receive Tdap during pregnancy. Cox regression was used for preterm delivery, and Poisson regression for other outcomes.

RESULTS

Vaccination was not associated with increased risks of adverse birth outcomes: crude estimates for preterm delivery were 6.3% of vaccinated and 7.8% of unvaccinated women (adjusted RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97-1.09); 8.4% of vaccinated and 8.3% of unvaccinated had an SGA birth (adjusted RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06). Receipt of Tdap before 20 weeks was not associated with hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (adjusted RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99-1.20); chorioamnionitis was diagnosed in 6.1% of vaccinated and 5.5% of unvaccinated women (adjusted RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.13-1.26).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort of women with singleton pregnancies that ended in live birth, receipt of Tdap during pregnancy was not associated with increased risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy or preterm or SGA birth, although a small but statistically significant increased risk of chorioamnionitis diagnosis was observed.