Search

The landscape of research on the benefits of influenza vaccines and antivirals to protect pregnant persons and infants has increased in recent years, while influenza vaccination rates and antiviral usage have declined. Pregnant people and infants <6 months of age are at increased risk of hospitalization with influenza, making protection of this population essential. Maternal influenza vaccination at any time during pregnancy is the best way to reduce the risk of influenza and severe influenza in both pregnant people and their infants <6 months of age. Influenza antiviral medications for pregnant people and infants are also recommended as early as possible if influenza is confirmed or suspected. This report will update on the current research on the benefits of influenza vaccination during pregnancy and influenza antiviral medication for the pregnant person and infant, current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations for influenza vaccination in pregnancy and vaccination coverage rates, current influenza antiviral medication guidance and usage rates in pregnancy and among infants, and future directions for influenza pregnancy research. With over half a century of maternal influenza vaccination in the United States, we have improved protection for pregnant persons and infants against influenza, but we still have room for improvement and optimization with new challenges to overcome following the COVID-19 pandemic. By continuing to fill research gaps and increase vaccination coverage and antiviral usage, there is potential for significant reductions in the domestic and global burden of influenza in pregnant persons and infants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High-dose, adjuvanted, and recombinant influenza vaccines may offer improved effectiveness among older adults compared with standard-dose, unadjuvanted, inactivated vaccines. However, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) only recently recommended preferential use of these "higher-dose or adjuvanted" vaccines. One concern was that individuals might delay or decline vaccination if a preferred vaccine is not readily available. Methods: We mathematically model how a recommendation for preferential use of higher-dose or adjuvanted vaccines in adults ≥65 years might impact influenza burden in the United States during exemplar "high-" and "low-"severity seasons. We assume higher-dose or adjuvanted vaccines are more effective than standard vaccines and that such a recommendation would increase uptake of the former but could cause (i) delays in administration of additional higher-dose or adjuvanted vaccines relative to standard vaccines and/or (ii) reductions in overall coverage if individuals only offered standard vaccines forego vaccination. Results: In a best-case scenario, assuming no delay or coverage reduction, a new recommendation could decrease hospitalizations and deaths in adults ≥65 years by 0%–4% compared with current uptake. However, intermediate and worst-case scenarios, with assumed delays of 3 or 6 weeks and/or 10% or 20% reductions in coverage, included projections in which hospitalizations and deaths increased by over 7%. Conclusions: We estimate that increased use of higher-dose or adjuvanted vaccines could decrease influenza burden in adults ≥65 in the United States provided there is timely and adequate access to these vaccines, and that standard vaccines are administered when they are unavailable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) are metrics commonly reported to compare absolute VE (aVE) of 2 vaccine products. Methods Estimates of rVE for enhanced influenza vaccines (eIV) vs standard inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) have been assessed across different seasons, influenza-specific endpoints, and nonspecific endpoints (eg, all-cause cardiovascular hospitalizations). To illustrate the challenges of comparability across studies, we conducted a scenario analysis to evaluate the effects of varying absolute VE (aVE) of IIV (ie, as compared with placebo) on the interpretation of rVE of eIV vs IIV. Results We show that estimates of rVE might not be comparable across studies because additional benefits commensurate with a given estimate of rVE are dependent on the aVE for the comparator vaccine, which can depend on factors such as host response to vaccine, virus type, and clinical endpoint evaluated. Conclusions These findings have implications for interpretation of rVE across studies and for sample size considerations in future trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months. Using data from four vaccine effectiveness (VE) networks during the 2023-24 influenza season, interim influenza VE was estimated among patients aged ≥6 months with acute respiratory illness-associated medical encounters using a test-negative case-control study design. Among children and adolescents aged 6 months-17 years, VE against influenza-associated outpatient visits ranged from 59% to 67% and against influenza-associated hospitalization ranged from 52% to 61%. Among adults aged ≥18 years, VE against influenza-associated outpatient visits ranged from 33% to 49% and against hospitalization from 41% to 44%. VE against influenza A ranged from 46% to 59% for children and adolescents and from 27% to 46% for adults across settings. VE against influenza B ranged from 64% to 89% for pediatric patients in outpatient settings and from 60% to 78% for all adults across settings. These findings demonstrate that the 2023-24 seasonal influenza vaccine is effective at reducing the risk for medically attended influenza virus infection. CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months who have not yet been vaccinated this season get vaccinated while influenza circulates locally., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Emmanuel B. Walter reports institutional support from Pfizer, Moderna, Seqiris, Clinetic, and Najit Technologies Inc., consulting fees from ILiAD Biotechnologies, payment from the College of Diplomates of the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry, travel support from the American Academy of Pediatrics, and paid compensation for participation on the Vaxcyte Scientific Advisory Board. Yuwei Zhu reports participation on a Vanderbilt University Medical Center Data Safety Monitoring Board. Sara Y. Tartof reports institutional support from Pfizer and Genentech. Samantha M. Olson reports travel support from the Gates Foundation. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Sanofi Pasteur, Merck, Pfizer, Seqirus, and GlaxoSmithKline; membership on an expert panel for a planned hepatitis E Phase II vaccine clinical trial among pregnant women in Pakistan; membership in Western States COVID-19 Scientific Safety Review Workgroup, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and National Vaccine Advisory Committee Safety Subcommittee. Manjusha Gaglani reports receipt of honorarium for educational webinar presentation on respiratory viruses from the Texas Pediatric Society, Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and serving as co-chair of the Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee and Chair of the Texas Respiratory Syncytial Virus Taskforce, Texas Pediatric Society. Kevin W. Gibbs reports grants or contracts from the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and service as chair of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Data Safety Monitoring Board. Adit A. Ginde reports institutional support from the NIH, the Department of Defense, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals, consulting fees (paid to institution) from Biomeme and Seastar, and participation on data safety monitoring boards for the NIH and Emory University. Richard K. Zimmerman reports institutional support from the NIH and Sanofi Pasteur, and honorarium from Clinical Educational Alliance. Mary A. Staat reports institutional support from NIH, Pfizer, and Merck and royalties for Up-to-Date chapter on International Adoption. Stacey House reports institutional support from Seegene, Inc., Abbot, Healgen, Roche, CorDx, Hologic, Cepheid, Janssen, and Wondfo Biotech. Geoffrey A. Weinberg reports institutional support from the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute, consulting fees from Inhalon Biopharma for participation on a Scientific Advisory Board, and honoraria from Merck & Company for textbook chapters. Marian G. Michaels reports institutional support from the National Institute on Allergy and Infectious Diseases and complimentary meeting attendance for presentation at the American Transplant Congress on respiratory viruses. Emily T. Martin reports receipt of grants or contracts from Merck. Natasha B. Halasa reports receipt of grants from Sanofi, Quidell, and Merck. Elie A. Saade reports institutional support from Protein Sciences Corporation, consulting fees, honoraria, and travel support from Johnson & Johnson and participation on a Johnson & Johnson Data Safety Monitoring Board. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.