Search

With recent advances in U.S. clinical trials for norovirus vaccines, it is an opportune time to examine what is known about the public receptivity to this novel vaccine. From October 2016-September 2017, we surveyed Kaiser Permanente Northwest members in Portland, Oregon, to ask their level of agreement on a 5-point scale with statements about the need for and willingness to get a potential norovirus vaccine for themselves or their child and analyzed their responses according to age, occupational status, prior vaccine uptake, and history of prior norovirus diagnoses. The survey response rate was 13.5% ( n  = 3,894); 807 (21%) responded as legal guardians, on behalf of a child <18 y of age and 3,087 (79%) were adults aged 18+ y. The majority of respondents were in agreement about getting the norovirus vaccine, if available (60% of legal guardians, 52% of adults aged 18-64 y, and 55% of adults aged 65+ y). Prior vaccination for influenza and rotavirus (among children) was the only correlate significantly associated with more positive attitudes toward receiving norovirus vaccine. Pre-pandemic attitudes in our all-ages study population reveal generally positive attitudes toward willingness to get a norovirus vaccine, particularly among those who previously received influenza or rotavirus vaccines.

Background: The 2022-2023 United States influenza season had unusually early influenza activity with high hospitalization rates. Vaccine-matched A(H3N2) viruses predominated, with lower levels of A(H1N1)pdm09 activity also observed., Methods: Using the test-negative design, we evaluated influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the 2022-2023 season against influenza A-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and hospitalizations from October 2022 to March 2023 among adults (aged ≥18 years) with acute respiratory illness (ARI). VE was estimated by comparing odds of seasonal influenza vaccination among case-patients (influenza A test positive by molecular assay) and controls (influenza test negative), applying inverse-propensity-to-be-vaccinated weights., Results: The analysis included 85 389 ED/UC ARI encounters (17.0% influenza A positive; 37.8% vaccinated overall) and 19 751 hospitalizations (9.5% influenza A positive; 52.8% vaccinated overall). VE against influenza A-associated ED/UC encounters was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40%-47%) overall and 45% and 41% among adults aged 18-64 and ≥65 years, respectively. VE against influenza A-associated hospitalizations was 35% (95% CI, 27%-43%) overall and 23% and 41% among adults aged 18-64 and ≥65 years, respectively., Conclusions: VE was moderate during the 2022-2023 influenza season, a season characterized with increased burden of influenza and co-circulation with other respiratory viruses. Vaccination is likely to substantially reduce morbidity, mortality, and strain on healthcare resources., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. During the conduct of the study, all Westat- and Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research–affiliated authors reported receiving contractual support from the CDC via payments made to their respective institutions. Additionally, all authors affiliated with Baylor Scott & White Health, Children's Minnesota, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, HealthPartners Institute, Intermountain Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Regenstrief Institute, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and Vanderbilt University Medical Center reported receiving contractual support from the CDC during the conduct of the study, via subcontracts from Westat, Inc, with payments made to their respective institutions. Unrelated to the submitted work, the following disclosures were reported from the past 36 months: A. L. N. received grants from Pfizer and Vir Biotechnology; M. N. received grants directly from CDC and from CDC via subcontracts from Abt Associates and Vanderbilt University Medical Center to her institution; C. E. M. received grants AstraZeneca; S. R. received grants from GSK; and N. P. K. received research support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Seqirus. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

Objective: To assess the validity of electronic health record (EHR)-based influenza vaccination data among adults in a multistate network., Methods: Following the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 influenza seasons, surveys were conducted among a random sample of adults who did or did not appear influenza-vaccinated (per EHR data) during the influenza season. Participants were asked to report their influenza vaccination status; self-report was treated as the criterion standard. Results were combined across survey years., Results: Survey response rate was 44.7% (777 of 1740) for the 2018-2019 influenza season and 40.5% (505 of 1246) for the 2019-2020 influenza season. The sensitivity of EHR-based influenza vaccination data was 75.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.1, 81.1), specificity 98.4% (95% CI 92.9, 99.9), and negative predictive value 73.9% (95% CI 68.0, 79.3)., Conclusions: In a multistate research network across two recent influenza seasons, there was moderate concordance between EHR-based vaccination data and self-report., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In September 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended updated 2023-2024 (monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months to prevent COVID-19, including severe disease. As with past COVID-19 vaccines, additional doses may be considered for persons with immunocompromising conditions, who are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 and might have decreased response to vaccination. In this analysis, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was evaluated during September 2023-February 2024 using data from the VISION VE network. Among adults aged ≥18 years with immunocompromising conditions, VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 38% in the 7-59 days after receipt of an updated vaccine dose and 34% in the 60-119 days after receipt of an updated dose. Few persons (18%) in this high-risk study population had received updated COVID-19 vaccine. All persons aged ≥6 months should receive updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination; persons with immunocompromising conditions may get additional updated COVID-19 vaccine doses ≥2 months after the last recommended COVID-19 vaccine., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Brian E. Dixon reports institutional support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and royalties from Elsevier, Inc. for a book on health information technology and from Springer Nature for a book on health information technology. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Sanofi Pasteur, Merck, Pfizer, Seqiris, and GSK; uncompensated membership on an expert panel for a planned Hepatitis E Phase II vaccine clinical trial among pregnant women in Pakistan, sponsored by the International Vaccine Institute; unpaid membership on the Western States COVID-19 Scientific Safety Review Workgroup, the Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and the National Vaccine Advisory Committee Safety Subcommittee. Charlene E. McEvoy reports grants or contracts from NIH, the Department of Defense, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Astra Zeneca, and GSK; payment or honorarium from Pri-Med for a lecture on incorporation of ACT and CAT into electronic health records to improve outcomes in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and uncompensated participation on the American Lung Association of Minnesota Board, the Minnesota Department of Health Long COVID Advisory Committee, and the Minnesota Department of Health Asthma Care Advisory Committee. Tamara Sheffield reports uncompensated membership on CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Influenza Vaccine Work Group, chairmanship of the Utah Adult Immunization Coalition vaccine quality improvement and advocacy group, and membership on the Utah Department of Health and Human Services Scientific Advisory Committee on Vaccines. Ousseny Zerbo reports a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Suchitra Rao reports grants from Biofire and GSK. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: During the 2022-2023 influenza season, the United States experienced the highest influenza-associated pediatric hospitalization rate since 2010-2011. Influenza A/H3N2 infections were predominant., Methods: We analyzed acute respiratory illness (ARI)-associated emergency department or urgent care (ED/UC) encounters or hospitalizations at 3 health systems among children and adolescents aged 6 months-17 years who had influenza molecular testing during October 2022-March 2023. We estimated influenza A vaccine effectiveness (VE) using a test-negative approach. The odds of vaccination among influenza-A-positive cases and influenza-negative controls were compared after adjusting for confounders and applying inverse-propensity-to-be-vaccinated weights. We developed overall and age-stratified VE models., Results: Overall, 13 547 of 44 787 (30.2%) eligible ED/UC encounters and 263 of 1862 (14.1%) hospitalizations were influenza-A-positive cases. Among ED/UC patients, 15.2% of influenza-positive versus 27.1% of influenza-negative patients were vaccinated; VE was 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44-52%) overall, 53% (95% CI, 47-58%) among children aged 6 months-4 years, and 38% (95% CI, 30-45%) among those aged 9-17 years. Among hospitalizations, 17.5% of influenza-positive versus 33.4% of influenza-negative patients were vaccinated; VE was 40% (95% CI, 6-61%) overall, 56% (95% CI, 23-75%) among children ages 6 months-4 years, and 46% (95% CI, 2-70%) among those 5-17 years., Conclusions: During the 2022-2023 influenza season, vaccination reduced the risk of influenza-associated ED/UC encounters and hospitalizations by almost half (overall VE, 40-48%). Influenza vaccination is a critical tool to prevent moderate-to-severe influenza illness in children and adolescents., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . N. P. K. reports research support from Sanofi Pasteur and Seqirus for unrelated adult influenza vaccine effectiveness studies, and from Pfizer, Merck, and GlaxoSmithKline for unrelated studies. S. R. received funds from GlaxoSmithKline. M. G. reports a research grant and contract for the CDC Ambulatory US Flu/COVID VE Network, a grant for HAIVEN Adult Inpatient Flu/COVID VE, a contract for SYNERGY FLU/COVID study, and subcontracts for the IVY COVID/FLU VE PHS project and RECOVER-PROTECT COVID Cohort studies. D.-H. Y., L. K., M. M. D., S. W. B., and Z. A. W. report payments made to Westat via CDC contract number 200-2019-F-06819. A. B. K., A. L. N., J. A., K. D., K. N., M. B. D., M. G., N. G., P. J. E., S. A. I, S. J. G., S. R., and T. C. O. report payments made to their institution by CDC via Westat. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

Repeat vaccination with egg-based influenza vaccines could preferentially boost antibodies targeting the egg-adapted epitopes and reduce immunogenicity to circulating viruses. In this randomized trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03722589), sera pre- and post-vaccination with quadrivalent inactivated egg-based (IIV4), cell culture-based (ccIIV4), and recombinant (RIV4) influenza vaccines were collected from healthcare personnel (18-64 years) in 2018-19 (N = 723) and 2019-20 (N = 684) influenza seasons. We performed an exploratory analysis. Vaccine egg-adapted changes had the most impact on A(H3N2) immunogenicity. In year 1, RIV4 induced higher neutralizing and total HA head binding antibodies to cell- A(H3N2) virus than ccIIV4 and IIV4. In year 2, among the 7 repeat vaccination arms (IIV4-IIV4, IIV4-ccIIV4, IIV4-RIV4, RIV4-ccIIV4, RIV4-RIV4, ccIIV4-ccIIV4 and ccIIV4-RIV4), repeat vaccination with either RIV4 or ccIIV4 further improved antibody responses to circulating viruses with decreased neutralizing antibody egg/cell ratio. RIV4 also had higher post-vaccination A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) HA stalk antibodies in year 1, but there was no significant difference in HA stalk antibody fold rise among vaccine groups in either year 1 or year 2. Multiple seasons of non-egg-based vaccination may be needed to redirect antibody responses from immune memory to egg-adapted epitopes and re-focus the immune responses towards epitopes on the circulating viruses to improve vaccine effectiveness., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Test-negative-design COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies use symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals as cases and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals as controls to evaluate COVID-19 VE. To evaluate the potential bias introduced by the correlation of COVID-19 and influenza vaccination behaviors, we assessed changes in estimates of VE of bivalent vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters when considering influenza vaccination status or including or excluding influenza-positive controls using data from the multi-state VISION vaccine effectiveness network. Analyses included encounters during October 2022 - February 2023, a period of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza cocirculation. When considering influenza vaccination status or including or excluding influenza-positive controls, COVID-19 VE estimates were robust, with most VE estimates against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and ED/UC encounters changing less than 5 percentage points. Higher proportions of influenza-positive patients among controls, influenza vaccination coverage, or VE could impact these findings; the potential bias should continue to be assessed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy and from Vir Biotechnology for an unrelated influenza study.  Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GSK, Sanofi Pasteur, and Seqirus.  Manjusha Gaglani reports institutional funding from CDC for the Ambulatory US Flu/COVID VE Network and the HAIVEN Adult Inpatient Flu/COVID VE study and institutional subcontracts for the IVY-3 PHS project and RECOVER study.  All other authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women in the United States have been documented. This study assessed the contribution of vaccine-related attitudes to coverage disparities., Methods: Surveys were conducted following the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 influenza seasons in a US research network. Using electronic health record data to identify pregnant women, random samples were selected for surveying; non-Hispanic Black women and influenza-unvaccinated women were oversampled. Regression-based decomposition analyses were used to assess the contribution of vaccine-related attitudes to racial and ethnic differences in influenza vaccination. Data were combined across survey years, and analyses were weighted and accounted for survey design., Results: Survey response rate was 41.2% (721 of 1748) for 2019-2020 and 39.3% (706 of 1798) for 2020-2021. Self-reported influenza vaccination was higher among non-Hispanic White respondents (79.4% coverage, 95% CI 73.1%-85.7%) than Hispanic (66.2% coverage, 95% CI 52.5%-79.9%) and non-Hispanic Black (55.8% coverage, 95% CI 50.2%-61.4%) respondents. For all racial and ethnic groups, a high proportion (generally >80%) reported being seen for care, recommended for influenza vaccination, and offered vaccination. In decomposition analyses, vaccine-related attitudes (e.g., worry about vaccination causing influenza; concern about vaccine safety and effectiveness) explained a statistically significant portion of the observed racial and ethnic disparities in vaccination. Maternal age, education, and health status were not significant contributors after controlling for vaccine-related attitudes., Conclusions: In a setting with relatively high influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women, racial and ethnic disparities in coverage were identified. Vaccine-related attitudes were associated with the disparities observed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the United States, annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for all people ages ≥ 6 months. Vaccination coverage assessments can identify populations less protected from influenza morbidity and mortality and help to tailor vaccination efforts. Within the Vaccine Safety Datalink population ages ≥ 6 months, we report influenza vaccination coverage for the 2017-18 through 2022-23 seasons., Methods: Across eight health systems, we identified influenza vaccines administered from August 1 through March 31 for each season using electronic health records linked to immunization registries. Crude vaccination coverage was described for each season, overall and by self-reported sex; age group; self-reported race and ethnicity; and number of separate categories of diagnoses associated with increased risk of severe illness and complications from influenza (hereafter referred to as high-risk conditions). High-risk conditions were assessed using ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes assigned in the year preceding each influenza season., Results: Among individual cohorts of more than 12 million individuals each season, overall influenza vaccination coverage increased from 41.9 % in the 2017-18 season to a peak of 46.2 % in 2019-20, prior to declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Coverage declined over the next three seasons, coincident with widespread SARS-CoV-2 circulation, to a low of 40.3 % in the 2022-23 season. In each of the six seasons, coverage was lowest among males, 18-49-year-olds, non-Hispanic Black people, and those with no high-risk conditions. While decreases in coverage were present in all age groups, the declines were most substantial among children: 2022-23 season coverage for children ages six months through 8 years and 9-17 years was 24.5 % and 22.4 % (14 and 10 absolute percentage points), respectively, less than peak coverage achieved in the 2019-20 season., Conclusions: Crude influenza vaccination coverage increased from 2017 to 18 through 2019-20, then decreased to the lowest level in the 2022-23 season. In this insured population, we identified persistent disparities in influenza vaccination coverage by sex, age, and race and ethnicity. The overall low coverage, disparities in coverage, and recent decreases in coverage are significant public health concerns., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Allison Naleway reports financial support was provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lisa Jackson reports a relationship with Pfizer that includes: funding grants.]., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized use of mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccines on August 31, 2022. Currently, CDC's clinical guidance states that COVID-19 and other vaccines may be administered simultaneously. At time of authorization and recommendations, limited data existed describing simultaneous administration of COVID-19 bivalent booster and other vaccines. We describe simultaneous influenza and mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine administration between August 31-December 31, 2022, among persons aged ≥6 months in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) by COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine type, influenza vaccine type, age group, sex, and race and ethnicity. Of 2,301,876 persons who received a COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine, 737,992 (32.1%) received simultaneous influenza vaccine, majority were female (53.1%), aged ≥18 years (91.4%), and non-Hispanic White (55.7%). These findings can inform future VSD studies on simultaneous influenza and COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine safety and coverage, which may have implications for immunization service delivery., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Kayla E. Hanson reports financial support was provided by Seqirus Srl. Nicola P. Klein reports financial support was provided by Pfizer. Nicola P. Klein reports financial support was provided by Sanofi Pasteur Inc. Nicola P. Klein reports financial support was provided by Merck & Co Inc. Nicola P. Klein reports financial support was provided by GlaxoSmithKline Inc. Allison L. Naleway reports financial support was provided by Pfizer. Allison L. Naleway reports financial support was provided by Vir Biotechnology Inc. Lisa A. Jackson reports financial support was provided by Pfizer., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Following historically low influenza activity during the 2020-2021 season, the United States saw an increase in influenza circulating during the 2021-2022 season. Most viruses belonged to the influenza A(H3N2) 3C.2a1b 2a.2 subclade., Methods: We conducted a test-negative case-control analysis among adults ≥18 years of age at 3 sites within the VISION Network. Encounters included emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits or hospitalizations with ≥1 acute respiratory illness (ARI) discharge diagnosis codes and molecular testing for influenza. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated by comparing the odds of influenza vaccination ≥14 days before the encounter date between influenza-positive cases (type A) and influenza-negative and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-negative controls, applying inverse probability-to-be-vaccinated weights, and adjusting for confounders., Results: In total, 86 732 ED/UC ARI-associated encounters (7696 [9%] cases) and 16 805 hospitalized ARI-associated encounters (649 [4%] cases) were included. VE against influenza-associated ED/UC encounters was 25% (95% confidence interval (CI), 20%-29%) and 25% (95% CI, 11%-37%) against influenza-associated hospitalizations. VE against ED/UC encounters was lower in adults ≥65 years of age (7%; 95% CI, -5% to 17%) or with immunocompromising conditions (4%; 95% CI, -45% to 36%)., Conclusions: During an influenza A(H3N2)-predominant influenza season, modest VE was observed. These findings highlight the need for improved vaccines, particularly for A(H3N2) viruses that are historically associated with lower VE., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. S. R. received grants from GlaxoSmithKline. A. L. N. received grants from Pfizer and Vir Biotechnology. C. M. received grants from AstraZeneca. N. P. K. received grants from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Pasteur. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

Objectives: Having accurate influenza vaccination coverage estimates can guide public health activities. The objectives of this study were to (1) validate the accuracy of electronic health record (EHR)-based influenza vaccination data among pregnant women compared with survey self-report and (2) assess whether survey respondents differed from survey nonrespondents by demographic characteristics and EHR-based vaccination status., Methods: This study was conducted in the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a network of 8 large medical care organizations in the United States. Using EHR data, we identified all women pregnant during the 2018-2019 or 2019-2020 influenza seasons. Surveys were conducted among samples of women who did and did not appear vaccinated for influenza according to EHR data. Separate surveys were conducted after each influenza season, and respondents reported their influenza vaccination status. Analyses accounted for the stratified design, sampling probability, and response probability., Results: The survey response rate was 50.5% (630 of 1247) for 2018-2019 and 41.2% (721 of 1748) for 2019-2020. In multivariable analyses combining both survey years, non-Hispanic Black pregnant women had 3.80 (95% CI, 2.13-6.74) times the adjusted odds of survey nonresponse; odds of nonresponse were also higher for Hispanic pregnant women and women who had not received (per EHR data) influenza vaccine during current or prior influenza seasons. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of EHR documentation of influenza vaccination compared with self-report were ≥92% for both survey years combined. The negative predictive value of EHR-based influenza vaccine status was 80.5% (95% CI, 76.7%-84.0%)., Conclusions: EHR-based influenza vaccination data among pregnant women were generally concordant with self-report. New data sources and novel approaches to mitigating nonresponse bias may be needed to enhance influenza vaccination surveillance efforts.

Background: Antibody responses to non-egg-based standard-dose cell-culture influenza vaccine (containing 15 µg hemagglutinin [HA]/component) and recombinant vaccine (containing 45 µg HA/component) during consecutive seasons have not been studied in the United States., Methods: In a randomized trial of immunogenicity of quadrivalent influenza vaccines among healthcare personnel (HCP) aged 18-64 years over 2 consecutive seasons, HCP who received recombinant-HA influenza vaccine (RIV) or cell culture-based inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV) during the first season (year 1) were re-randomized the second season of 2019-2020 (year 2 [Y2]) to receive ccIIV or RIV, resulting in 4 ccIIV/RIV combinations. In Y2, hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers against reference cell-grown vaccine viruses were compared in each ccIIV/RIV group with titers among HCP randomized both seasons to receive egg-based, standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) using geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Y2 post-vaccination titers., Results: Y2 data from 414 HCP were analyzed per protocol. Compared with 60 IIV/IIV recipients, 74 RIV/RIV and 106 ccIIV/RIV recipients showed significantly elevated GMT ratios (Bonferroni corrected P < .007) against all components except A(H3N2). Post-vaccination GMT ratios for ccIIV/ccIIV and RIV/ccIIV were not significantly elevated compared with IIV/IIV except for RIV/ccIIV against A(H1N1)pdm09., Conclusions: In adult HCP, receipt of RIV in 2 consecutive seasons or the second season was more immunogenic than consecutive egg-based IIV for 3 of the 4 components of quadrivalent vaccine. Immunogenicity of ccIIV/ccIIV was similar to that of IIV/IIV. Differences in HA antigen content may play a role in immunogenicity of influenza vaccination in consecutive seasons., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03722589., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. M. G. reports grants from the unrelated CDC (US Ambulatory Flu/COVID Vaccine Effectiveness Network, Hospitalized Adult Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network [HAIVEN], Refining Effectiveness Estimates of Influenza Vaccines Synergizing Epidemiolgy and Incidence Methods for Influenza and Other Acute Respiratory Viral Illness [SYNERGY] Studies), unrelated CDC-Abt Associates (Research on the Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Essential Response Personnel [RECOVER] and Pediatric Research Observing Trends and Exposures in COVID-19 Timelines [PROTECT] cohort studies), unrelated CDC–Vanderbilt University Medical Center (Influenza and Other Viruses in the Acutely Ill [IVY] Study), unrelated CDC-Westat (Virtual Network: Investigating the Risk of COVID-19-Associated Outcomes and COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Using Integrated Medical and Public Health Records [VISION-COVID] Study), unrelated Janssen (RSV Severity Birth Cohort Study), and unrelated Pfizer (Education for Men B Vaccine in Adolescents); being the co-chair of the Texas Pediatric Society's (Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics) Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee (2016–2022). A. L. N. reports funding from Pfizer and Vir Biotechnology for unrelated studies. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Healthcare personnel (HCP) are a priority group for annual influenza vaccination. Few studies have assessed the validity of recall of prior influenza vaccination status among HCP, especially for more than one preceding season., Methods: Using data from a randomized controlled trial of influenza vaccination among 947 HCP from two US healthcare systems, we assessed agreement between participant self-report and administrative record documentation of influenza vaccination status during the preceding five influenza seasons; kappa coefficients and sensitivity values were calculated. Administrative record documentation was considered the gold standard. Documented vaccination sources included electronic medical records, employee health records, outside immunization providers, and the state immunization information system., Results: Among 683 HCP with prior influenza immunization information, 89.7% (95% CI: 87.2%, 91.9%) of HCP were able to self-report their vaccination status for the season preceding the survey. By the fifth preceding season, 82.6% (95% CI: 79.5%, 85.3%) of HCP were able to self-report. Among HCP who self-reported their vaccination status, agreement between self-report and documented vaccination status ranged from 81.9% (95% CI: 77.2%, 86.7%) for the fifth season to 90.5% (95% CI: 87.2%, 93.9%) for the season preceding interview. HCP who received vaccine for only some of the preceding five seasons (18.3%) more commonly had ≥2 errors in their recall compared with those vaccinated all five preceding seasons (55.7% vs. 4.3%)., Conclusions: Self-reported vaccination status is a reliable source for historical influenza vaccination information among HCP who are consistently vaccinated but less reliable for those with a history of inconsistent vaccination., (© 2022 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Importance: Pregnant people are at high risk for severe COVID-19 but were excluded from mRNA vaccine trials; data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) are needed., Objective: To evaluate the estimated effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against medically attended COVID-19 among pregnant people during Delta and Omicron predominance., Design, Setting, and Participants: This test-negative, case-control study was conducted from June 2021 to June 2022 in a network of 306 hospitals and 164 emergency department and urgent care (ED/UC) facilities across 10 US states, including 4517 ED/UC encounters and 975 hospitalizations among pregnant people with COVID-19-like illness (CLI) who underwent SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing., Exposures: Two doses (14-149 and ≥150 days prior) and 3 doses (7-119 and ≥120 days prior) of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (≥1 dose received during pregnancy) vs unvaccinated., Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounter or hospitalization, based on the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for prior vaccination; VE was calculated as (1 - aOR) × 100%., Results: Among 4517 eligible CLI-associated ED/UC encounters and 975 hospitalizations, 885 (19.6%) and 334 (34.3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive, respectively; the median (IQR) patient age was 28 (24-32) years and 31 (26-35) years, 537 (12.0%) and 118 (12.0%) were non-Hispanic Black and 1189 (26.0%) and 240 (25.0%) were Hispanic. During Delta predominance, the estimated VE against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 84% (95% CI, 69% to 92%) for 2 doses within 14 to 149 days, 75% (95% CI, 5% to 93%) for 2 doses 150 or more days prior, and 81% (95% CI, 30% to 95%) for 3 doses 7 to 119 days prior; estimated VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 99% (95% CI, 96% to 100%), 96% (95% CI, 86% to 99%), and 97% (95% CI, 79% to 100%), respectively. During Omicron predominance, for ED/UC encounters, the estimated VE of 2 doses within 14 to 149 days, 2 doses 150 or more days, 3 doses within 7 to 119 days, and 3 doses 120 or more days prior was 3% (95% CI, -49% to 37%), 42% (95% CI, -16% to 72%), 79% (95% CI, 59% to 89%), and -124% (95% CI, -414% to 2%), respectively; for hospitalization, estimated VE was 86% (95% CI, 41% to 97%), 64% (95% CI, -102% to 93%), 86% (95% CI, 28% to 97%), and -53% (95% CI, -1254% to 83%), respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, maternal mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, including booster dose, was associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19. VE estimates were higher against COVID-19-associated hospitalization than ED/UC visits and lower against the Omicron variant than the Delta variant. Protection waned over time, particularly during Omicron predominance.

The Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was first identified in the United States in November 2021, with the BA.1 sublineage (including BA.1.1) causing the largest surge in COVID-19 cases to date. Omicron sublineages BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 emerged later and by late April 2022, accounted for most cases.* Estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) can be reduced by newly emerging variants or sublineages that evade vaccine-induced immunity (1), protection from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated persons (2), or increasing time since vaccination (3). Real-world data comparing VE during the periods when the BA.1 and BA.2/BA.2.12.1 predominated (BA.1 period and BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period, respectively) are limited. The VISION network † examined 214,487 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and 58,782 hospitalizations with a COVID-19-like illness § diagnosis among 10 states during December 18, 2021-June 10, 2022, to evaluate VE of 2, 3, and 4 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) compared with no vaccination among adults without immunocompromising conditions. VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization 7-119 days and ≥120 days after receipt of dose 3 was 92% (95% CI = 91%-93%) and 85% (95% CI = 81%-89%), respectively, during the BA.1 period, compared with 69% (95% CI = 58%-76%) and 52% (95% CI = 44%-59%), respectively, during the BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period. Patterns were similar for ED/UC encounters. Among adults aged ≥50 years, VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization ≥120 days after receipt of dose 3 was 55% (95% CI = 46%-62%) and ≥7 days (median = 27 days) after a fourth dose was 80% (95% CI = 71%-85%) during BA.2/BA.2.12.1 predominance. Immunocompetent persons should receive recommended COVID-19 booster doses to prevent moderate to severe COVID-19, including a first booster dose for all eligible persons and second booster dose for adults aged ≥50 years at least 4 months after an initial booster dose. Booster doses should be obtained immediately when persons become eligible. ¶ ., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Stephanie A. Irving reports institutional support from Westat. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science, unrelated to the current work, and institutional support from Pfizer for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for a study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy, unrelated to the current work. Charlene McEvoy reports institutional support from AstraZeneca for an AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine trial. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥18 years receive a single COVID-19 vaccine booster dose ≥2 months after receipt of an Ad.26.COV2.S (Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) adenovirus vector-based primary series vaccine; a heterologous COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is preferred over a homologous (matching) Janssen vaccine for booster vaccination. This recommendation was made in light of the risks for rare but serious adverse events following receipt of a Janssen vaccine, including thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome and Guillain-Barré syndrome † (1), and clinical trial data indicating similar or higher neutralizing antibody response following heterologous boosting compared with homologous boosting (2). Data on real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) of different booster strategies following a primary Janssen vaccine dose are limited, particularly during the period of Omicron variant predominance. The VISION Network § determined real-world VE of 1 Janssen vaccine dose and 2 alternative booster dose strategies: 1) a homologous booster (i.e., 2 Janssen doses) and 2) a heterologous mRNA booster (i.e., 1 Janssen dose/1 mRNA dose). In addition, VE of these booster strategies was compared with VE of a homologous booster following mRNA primary series vaccination (i.e., 3 mRNA doses). The study examined 80,287 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits ¶ and 25,244 hospitalizations across 10 states during December 16, 2021-March 7, 2022, when Omicron was the predominant circulating variant.** VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 24% after 1 Janssen dose, 54% after 2 Janssen doses, 79% after 1 Janssen/1 mRNA dose, and 83% after 3 mRNA doses. VE for the same vaccination strategies against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were 31%, 67%, 78%, and 90%, respectively. All booster strategies provided higher protection than a single Janssen dose against ED/UC visits and hospitalizations during Omicron variant predominance. Vaccination with 1 Janssen/1 mRNA dose provided higher protection than did 2 Janssen doses against COVID-19-associated ED/UC visits and was comparable to protection provided by 3 mRNA doses during the first 120 days after a booster dose. However, 3 mRNA doses provided higher protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations than did other booster strategies during the same time interval since booster dose. All adults who have received mRNA vaccines for their COVID-19 primary series vaccination should receive an mRNA booster dose when eligible. Adults who received a primary Janssen vaccine dose should preferentially receive a heterologous mRNA vaccine booster dose ≥2 months later, or a homologous Janssen vaccine booster dose if mRNA vaccine is contraindicated or unavailable. Further investigation of the durability of protection afforded by different booster strategies is warranted., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Manjusha Gaglani reports support from Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) for the Baylor Scott & White Health respiratory syncytial virus observational cohort study and uncompensated service as co-chair of the Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee of the Texas Pediatric Society, Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Sciences (now Sanofi Pasteur) for unrelated studies, and institutional support from Pfizer for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy and research funding from Vir Biotechnology. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Naleway and Dr. Katz each report unrelated research support from Pfizer. Dr. Klein reports unrelated research support from Sanofi Pasteur, Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur), GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co, and Pfizer. All additional authors have no conflicts to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: RIV4 and cell-culture based inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV4) have not been compared to egg-based IIV4 in healthcare personnel, a population with frequent influenza vaccination that may blunt vaccine immune responses over time. We conducted a randomized trial among healthcare personnel (HCP) aged 18-64 years to compare humoral immune responses to ccIIV4 and RIV4 to IIV4., Methods: During the 2018-2019 season, participants were randomized to receive ccIIV4, RIV4, or IIV4 and had serum samples collected prevaccination, 1 and 6 months postvaccination. Serum samples were tested by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) for influenza A/H1N1, B/Yamagata, and B/Victoria and microneutralization (MN) for A/H3N2 against cell-grown vaccine reference viruses. Primary outcomes at 1 month were seroconversion rate (SCR), geometric mean titers (GMT), GMT ratio, and mean fold rise (MFR) in the intention-to-treat population., Results: In total, 727 participants were included (283 ccIIV4, 202 RIV4, and 242 IIV4). At 1 month, responses to ccIIV4 were similar to IIV4 by SCR, GMT, GMT ratio, and MFR. RIV4 induced higher SCRs, GMTs, and MFRs than IIV4 against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B/Yamagata. The GMT ratio of RIV4 to egg-based vaccines was 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-1.9) for A/H1N1, 3.0 (95% CI: 2.4-3.7) for A/H3N2, 1.1 (95% CI: .9-1.4) for B/Yamagata, and 1.1 (95% CI: .9-1.3) for B/Victoria. At 6 months, ccIIV4 recipients had similar GMTs to IIV4, whereas RIV4 recipients had higher GMTs against A/H3N2 and B/Yamagata., Conclusions: RIV4 resulted in improved antibody responses by HI and MN compared to egg-based vaccines against 3 of 4 cell-grown vaccine strains 1 month postvaccination, suggesting a possible additional benefit from RIV4., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03722589., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

Objective: To evaluate whether the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended influenza and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccinations in pregnancy are associated with increased risk of stillbirth., Methods: We performed a case-control study in the Vaccine Safety Datalink that was matched 1:4 on site, month, and year of last menstrual period, comparing the odds of vaccination in pregnancies that ended in stillbirth (defined as fetal loss at or after 20 weeks of gestation) compared with those that ended in live birth from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2015. We included patients with singleton pregnancies that ended in stillbirth or live birth who had at least one prenatal care visit, pregnancy dating information, and continuous health plan enrollment for the duration of pregnancy. Medical records for all stillbirths were reviewed. We were statistically powered to detect an odds ratio (OR) of 1.37 when evaluating the association between influenza or Tdap vaccination and stillbirth. We also examined stillbirth rates in pregnant patients aged 14-49 years in the Vaccine Safety Datalink between 2007 and 2015., Results: In our matched analysis of 795 confirmed stillbirths in the case group and 3,180 live births in the control group, there was no significant association between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and stillbirth (343/795 [43.1%] stillbirths in the case group vs 1,407/3,180 [44.3%] live births in the control group, OR 0.94, adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.14, P=.54) and no significant association between Tdap vaccination during pregnancy and stillbirth (184/795 [23.1%] stillbirths in the case group vs 746/3,180 [23.5%] live births in the control group, OR 0.97, aOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76-1.28, P=.91). From 2007 to 2015, the stillbirth rate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink was 5.2 per 1,000 live births and stillbirths., Conclusion: No association was found between vaccination during pregnancy and the odds of stillbirth. These findings support the safety of ACIP recommendations for vaccination during pregnancy.

Objective: Despite recommendations by professional organizations that all pregnant women receive inactivated influenza vaccine, safety concerns remain a barrier. Our objective was to assess the effect of trivalent influenza vaccines (IIV3) during pregnancy on parent report 6-month infant development., Methods: We conducted a multi-site prospective birth cohort study during the 2010-2011 influenza season and followed pregnant women and their newborns through 6 months of age. Information on IIV3 during pregnancy was ascertained from the EHR and self-report. The Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3 (ASQ-3) was completed by the mother to assess 6-month infant neurodevelopment in five domains (communication, gross motor, fine motor, problem-solving, and personal adaptive skills). Scores for each domain above the cut-off point indicating typical development were categorized as "on schedule" while scores in the zones indicating the need for either monitoring or further assessment were categorized as "not on schedule". Multivariable logistic regression was conducted., Results: Of the 1225 infant-mother pairs, 65% received IIV3 during pregnancy. In bivariate analysis, infants of women who received IIV3 during pregnancy were moderately-less likely to need monitoring or further assessment in the personal social domain compared with infants of unvaccinated women (10.0% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.033; crude OR (cOR): 0.68(95%CI:0.48,0.97)). However, after controlling for potential confounders, the findings were no longer statistically significant (aOR:0.72,95%CI: 0.49,1.06,p = 0.46). No significant unadjusted or adjusted associations emerged in any other ASQ-3 domain., Conclusion: There was no significant association between IIV3 exposure during pregnancy and 6-month infant development. Studies of IIV3 during pregnancy to assess longer-term developmental outcomes are indicated., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women in the United States is suboptimal. We surveyed women who were pregnant during the 2016-17 influenza season to assess knowledge and attitudes regarding influenza vaccination., Methods: We identified and sampled pregnant women to include approximately equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated women from strata defined by vaccination status and trimester from four integrated health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). Potential participants were contacted via mail and telephone to complete a standardized survey. Characteristics and responses of women vaccinated and unvaccinated during pregnancy were compared., Results: The survey was completed by 510 (48%) of 1062 contacted women; 500 were included in the analysis. Vaccine receipt while pregnant was associated with primigravida status (p = 0.02), college degree (p = 0.01), employment in health care (p < 0.01), and history of routine annual influenza vaccination (p < 0.01). Among 330 vaccinated women, the primary reasons for vaccination included protection of self and baby from influenza (n = 233, 71%), and medical professional recommendation (n = 46, 14%). Multiple reasons were given for nonvaccination, but concern about 'negative effects' was cited most often (n = 44, 29%). Vaccinated women were significantly more likely to believe that influenza vaccines are safe and effective, and to recognize the potential for harm from influenza infection. Nearly all women reported receiving at least one influenza vaccination recommendation from a healthcare provider., Conclusions: Vaccinated pregnant women were more likely to receive routine annual influenza vaccine compared to those not vaccinated. Recommendations by obstetric providers should be supplemented with efforts to encourage women of childbearing age to receive annual vaccination., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: NPK reports research support from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKine, Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur), Pfizer, Merck and MedImmune. ALN reports research funding from Pfizer. KEH reports research support from Seqirus for unrelated studies. The remaining authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A recent study reported an association between inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and spontaneous abortion (SAB), but only among women who had also been vaccinated in the previous influenza season. We sought to estimate the association between IIV administered in three recent influenza seasons and SAB among women who were and were not vaccinated in the previous influenza season., Methods: We conducted a case-control study over three influenza seasons (2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15) in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). Cases (women with SAB) and controls (women with live births) were matched on VSD site, date of last menstrual period, age group, and influenza vaccination status in the previous influenza season. Of 1908 presumptive cases identified from the electronic record, 1236 were included in the main analysis. Administration of IIV was documented in several risk windows, including 1-28, 29-56, and >56 days before the SAB date., Results: Among 627 matched pairs vaccinated in the previous season, no association was found between vaccination in the 1-28 day risk window and SAB (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6-1.5). The season-specific aOR ranged from 0.5 to 1.7 with all CIs including the null value of 1.0. Similarly, no association was found among women who were not vaccinated in the previous season; the season-specific aOR in the 1-28 day risk window ranged from 0.6 to 0.7 and the 95% CI included 1.0 in each season. There was no association found between SAB and influenza vaccination in the other risk windows, or when vaccine receipt was analyzed relative to date of conception., Conclusion: During these seasons we found no association between IIV and SAB, including among women vaccinated in the previous season. These findings lend support to current recommendations for influenza vaccination at any time during pregnancy, including the first trimester., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Published case series have suggested a potential association between human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and primary ovarian insufficiency (POI). We describe POI incidence and estimate POI risk after HPV; tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis, adsorbed (Tdap); inactivated influenza (II); and meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY) vaccination., Methods: We searched Kaiser Permanente Northwest electronic health records for outpatient diagnoses suggestive of POI in female patients aged 11 to 34 years between 2006 and 2014. We reviewed and adjudicated the medical record to confirm diagnoses and estimate symptom onset dates. We excluded cases with known causes and calculated the incidence of idiopathic POI. We estimated risk by calculating hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: From a cohort of 199 078 female patients, we identified 120 with diagnoses suggestive of POI. After adjudication and exclusion of 26 POI cases with known causes, we confirmed 46 idiopathic POI cases. POI incidence was low in 11- to 14-year-olds (0.87 per 1 000 000 person-months) and increased with age. One confirmed case patient received the HPV vaccine 23 months before the first clinical evaluation for delayed menarche. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.30 (95% CI: 0.07-1.36) after HPV, 0.88 (95% CI: 0.37-2.10) after Tdap, 1.42 (95% CI: 0.59-3.41) after II, and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.27-3.23) after MenACWY vaccination., Conclusions: We did not find a statistically significant elevated risk of POI after HPV, Tdap, II, or MenACWY vaccination in this population-based retrospective cohort study. These findings should lessen concern about POI risk after adolescent vaccination., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Dr Naleway has received research funding from Pfizer, MedImmune AstraZeneca, and Merck for unrelated studies. Ms Irving has received research support from MedImmune AstraZeneca for an unrelated study. Dr Henninger has received research funding from Pfizer for an unrelated study; the other authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

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., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Dr Klein has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Protein Science, Pfizer, Merck & Co., MedImmune, and Dynavax. Dr Naleway has received research support from Merck, Pfizer, and MedImmune for unrelated studies; the other authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: In the 2015-2016 season, quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) and both trivalent and quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) were available in the United States., Methods: This study, conducted according to a test-negative case-control design, enrolled children aged 2-17 years presenting to outpatient settings with fever and respiratory symptoms for <5 days at 8 sites across the United States between 30 November 2015 and 15 April 2016. A nasal swab was obtained for reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for influenza, and influenza vaccination was verified in the medical record or vaccine registry. Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated using a logistic regression model., Results: Of 1012 children retained for analysis, most children (59%) were unvaccinated, 10% received LAIV, and 31% received IIV. Influenza A (predominantly antigenically similar to the A/California/7/2009 strain) was detected in 14% and influenza B (predominantly a B/Victoria lineage) in 10%. For all influenza, VE was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7%-69%) for LAIV and 65% (48%-76%) for IIV. VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 50% (95% CI, -2% to 75%) for LAIV and 71% (51%-82%) for IIV. The odds ratio for vaccine failure with RT-PCR-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 was 1.71 (95% CI, 0.78-3.73) in LAIV versus IIV recipients., Conclusions: LAIV and IIV demonstrated effectiveness against any influenza among children aged 2-17 years in 2015-2016. When compared to all unvaccinated children, VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was significant for IIV but not LAIV., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01997450., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Purpose: To evaluate the safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in children 2 through 17 years of age., Methods: The study was conducted in 6 large integrated health care organizations participating in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). Trivalent LAIV safety was assessed in children who received LAIV between September 1, 2003 and March 31, 2013. Eighteen pre-specified adverse event groups were studied, including allergic, autoimmune, neurologic, respiratory, and infectious conditions. Incident rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated for each adverse event, using self-controlled case series analyses. For adverse events with a statistically significant increase in risk, or an IRR > 2.0 regardless of statistical significance, manual medical record review was performed to confirm case status., Results: During the study period, 396 173 children received 590 018 doses of LAIV. For 13 adverse event groups, there was no significant increased risk of adverse events following LAIV. Five adverse event groups (anaphylaxis, syncope, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, adverse effect of drug, and respiratory failure) met criteria for manual medical record review. After review to confirm cases, 2 adverse event groups remained significantly associated with LAIV: anaphylaxis and syncope. One confirmed case of anaphylaxis was observed following LAIV, a rate of 1.7 per million LAIV doses. Five confirmed cases of syncope were observed, a rate of 8.5 per million doses., Conclusions: In a study of trivalent LAIV safety in a large cohort of children, few serious adverse events were detected. Anaphylaxis and syncope occurred following LAIV, although rarely. These data provide reassurance regarding continued LAIV use., (Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Influenza-like illness and inflammation are known risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). However, few studies have characterized the risk of VTE following influenza vaccination. We examined VTE risk after vaccination in adults 50years old and older within the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)., Methods: We used the self-controlled case series method to determine the risk of VTE among age-eligible adults who received influenza vaccine (with or without pandemic H1N1) and experienced a VTE during the months of September through December in 2007 through 2012. Presumptive VTE cases were identified among VSD participants using diagnostic codes, diagnostic tests, and oral anticoagulant prescription. Potential cases were validated by medical record review. The VTE incidence rate ratio was calculated among confirmed cases for the risk window 1 to 10days after vaccination relative to all other person-time from September through December., Results: Of the 1,488 presumptive cases identified, 508 were reviewed, of which 492 (97%) were confirmed cases of VTE. The analysis included 396 incident, confirmed cases. Overall, there was no increased risk of VTE in the 1 to 10days after influenza vaccination (IRR=0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.17) compared to the control period. Results were similar when all person-time was censored before vaccination. A post hoc analysis showed an increased risk among current tobacco smokers (IRR=2.57, 95% CI 1.06-6.23). No clustering of VTE was observed in the 1-42days after vaccination., Discussion: Overall, there was no evidence that inactivated influenza vaccine was associated with VTE in adults ≥50years old. An increased risk was found among current smokers in a post hoc analysis. These findings are consistent with previous research and support the safety of annual vaccination in this population., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended in any stage of pregnancy, but evidence of safety in early pregnancy is limited, including for vaccines containing A/H1N1pdm2009 (pH1N1) antigen. We sought to determine if receipt of vaccine containing pH1N1 was associated with spontaneous abortion (SAB)., Methods: We conducted a case-control study over two influenza seasons (2010-11, 2011-12) in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Cases had SAB and controls had live births or stillbirths and were matched on site, date of last menstrual period, and age. Of 919 potential cases identified using diagnosis codes, 485 were eligible and confirmed by medical record review. Exposure was defined as vaccination with inactivated influenza vaccine before the SAB date; the primary exposure window was the 1-28days before the SAB., Results: The overall adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1-3.6) for vaccine receipt in the 28-day exposure window; there was no association in other exposure windows. In season-specific analyses, the aOR in the 1-28days was 3.7 (95% CI 1.4-9.4) in 2010-11 and 1.4 (95% CI 0.6-3.3) in 2011-12. The association was modified by influenza vaccination in the prior season (post hoc analysis). Among women who received pH1N1-containing vaccine in the previous influenza season, the aOR in the 1-28days was 7.7 (95% CI 2.2-27.3); the aOR was 1.3 (95% CI 0.7-2.7) among women not vaccinated in the previous season. This effect modification was observed in each season., Conclusion: SAB was associated with influenza vaccination in the preceding 28days. The association was significant only among women vaccinated in the previous influenza season with pH1N1-containing vaccine. This study does not and cannot establish a causal relationship between repeated influenza vaccination and SAB, but further research is warranted., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) might increase the risk of wheezing in persons with asthma or children younger than 5 years with a history of recurrent wheezing., Objective: To describe the use and assess the safety of LAIV in persons with asthma in the Vaccine Safety Datalink population., Methods: We identified persons with asthma using diagnosis codes and medication records in 7 health care organizations over 3 influenza seasons (2008-2009 through 2010-2011) and determined their influenza vaccination rates. Using the self-controlled risk interval method, we calculated the incidence rate ratio of medically attended respiratory events in the 14 days after LAIV compared with 29 to 42 days after vaccination in persons 2 through 49 years old., Results: In our population of 6.3 million, asthma prevalence was 5.9%. Of persons with asthma, approximately 50% received any influenza vaccine but less than 1% received LAIV. The safety study included 12,354 LAIV doses (75% in children; 93% in those with intermittent or mild persistent asthma). The incidence rate ratio for inpatient and emergency department visits for lower respiratory events (including asthma exacerbation and wheezing) was 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.63-1.51) and the incidence rate ratio for upper respiratory events was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.48-1.86). The risk of lower respiratory events was similar for intermittent and mild persistent asthma, across age groups, and for seasonal trivalent LAIV and 2009 H1N1 pandemic monovalent LAIV., Conclusion: LAIV use in asthma was mostly in persons with intermittent or mild persistent asthma. LAIV was not associated with an increased risk of medically attended respiratory adverse events., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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., Competing Interests: A.L.N. has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline, and N.K.P. has received support from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis Medlmmune, Protein Science, Pfizer, Merck & Co., and Nuron Biotech for unrelated studies. The other authors report no conflicts., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We compared ≥4-fold increases in antibody titers by hemagglutination inhibition assay to RT-PCR results among 42 adults with PCR-confirmed influenza A virus illnesses. Serologic sensitivity was higher among unvaccinated (69%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=48-90%) than vaccinated healthcare personnel (38%, 95% CI=29-46%) in a 2010-11 prospective cohort., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Pregnant women are at risk for influenza-related complications and have been recommended for vaccination by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) since 1990. Annual rates of influenza coverage of pregnant women have been consistently low. The Vaccine Safety Datalink was used to assess influenza vaccine coverage over 10 consecutive years (2002-2012); assess patterns related to changes in ACIP recommendations; identify predictors of vaccination; and compare the results with those published by national U.S. surveys., Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 721,898 pregnancies conducted in 2014. Coverage rates were assessed for all pregnancies and for live births only. Multivariate regression analysis identified predictors associated with vaccination., Results: Coverage increased from 8.8% to 50.9% in 2002-2012. Seasonal coverage rates increased slowly following the 2004 ACIP influenza vaccine recommendation (to remove the first trimester restriction), but spiked significantly during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Significant predictors of vaccination during pregnancy included older age; vaccination in a previous season; high-risk conditions in addition to pregnancy; pregnancy during either the 2004-2005 or 2009-2010 seasons; entering the influenza season after the first trimester of pregnancy; and a pregnancy with longer overlap with the influenza season (p<0.001 for each)., Conclusions: Influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women increased between the 2002-2003 and 2011-2012 seasons, although it was still below the developmental Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%. The 2004 ACIP language change positively impacted first-trimester vaccination uptake. Vaccine Safety Datalink data estimates were consistent with U.S. estimates., (Copyright © 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

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.

Objectives: Although pregnant women are a high-priority group for seasonal influenza vaccination, vaccination rates in this population remain below target levels. Previous studies have identified sociodemographic predictors of vaccine choice, but relationships between preconception heath behaviors and seasonal influenza vaccination are poorly understood. This prospective cohort study followed pregnant women during the 2010-2011 influenza season to determine if certain health behaviors were associated with vaccination status., Method: Participants were pregnant women receiving prenatal care from Kaiser Permanente Northwest and Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Women were surveyed about preconception smoking, alcohol consumption, and vitamin/supplement use. Vaccination data were obtained from health plan databases and state immunization records., Results: Data from 1,204 women were included in this analysis. Most participants (1,204; 66.4%) received a seasonal influenza vaccine during the study period. Women vaccinated prior to pregnancy were more likely to use a supplement containing folic acid (80%) or vitamin D (30%) compared with women who were vaccinated during pregnancy (72% and 15%, respectively) or unvaccinated women (62% and 12%, respectively, p < .001). Women vaccinated prior to or during pregnancy were more likely (75%) to have never smoked compared with women who were not vaccinated (70%, p = .005). There were no significant differences in alcohol use or household cigarette smoke exposure by vaccination group., Conclusions: Women who engaged in specific preconception health behaviors were more likely to receive seasonal influenza vaccination. Failure to participate in these health behaviors could alert health care practitioners to patients' increased risk of remaining unvaccinated during pregnancy., (© 2014 Society for Public Health Education.)

Objective: To assess risks for acute adverse events and pregnancy complications in pregnant women following monovalent 2009 H1N1 inactivated influenza (MIV) vaccination., Methods: Within the Vaccine Safety Datalink, we compared rates of pre-specified medically attended events (MAE) occurring within 42 days of MIV vaccination to those occurring in matched cohorts that at the same gestational age were either unvaccinated or received seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza (TIV) vaccine. Using generalized estimating equation method, with a Poisson distribution and log link, we calculated adjusted incident rate ratios (AIRR)., Results: Among 9349 women receiving MIV in any trimester, only one MAE occurred 0-3 days following MIV, an allergic reaction. No cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell's palsy, or transverse myelitis occurred 1-42 days after MIV. Compared to women receiving TIV and to unvaccinated women, risks for acute MAEs were not increased following MIV for any outcome. Hyperemesis was the most common adverse event in the MIV, TIV, and unvaccinated groups, occurring at a rate of about 4% over a 42-day period in all groups. Over a 42-day window, among all groups, incident gestational diabetes occurred at a rate of 3% and thrombocytopenia occurred at a rate of approximately 0.3%. Among women receiving MIV during pregnancy, increased risks for these and other less common obstetric events were not detected., Conclusion: In this large cohort of pregnant women no acute safety signals were identified within 6 weeks of receipt of MIV., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Pregnant women and their infants are vulnerable to severe disease and secondary complications from influenza infection. For this reason, annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all pregnant women in the United States. Women frequently cite concerns about vaccine safety as a barrier to vaccination. This review describes the safety of inactivated influenza vaccination during pregnancy with a focus on maternal obstetric events, including hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes, and chorioamnionitis. Included in the review are new findings from two studies which examined the safety of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccination during pregnancy. The first study enrolled 641 pregnant women during the 2010-2011 season and prospectively followed them until delivery or pregnancy termination. The second study enrolled 1616 pregnant women during the 2010-2011 influenza season, and followed the women and their infants for six months after delivery. No associations between inactivated influenza vaccination and gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia/eclampsia, or chorioamnionitis were observed in either cohort. When considered as a whole, these studies should further reassure women and clinicians that influenza vaccination during pregnancy is safe for mothers., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for health care personnel (HCP). We describe influenza vaccination coverage among HCP during the 2010-2011 season and present reported facilitators of and barriers to vaccination., Methods: We enrolled HCP 18 to 65 years of age, working full time, with direct patient contact. Participants completed an Internet-based survey at enrollment and the end of influenza season. In addition to self-reported data, we collected information about the 2010-2011 influenza vaccine from electronic employee health and medical records., Results: Vaccination coverage was 77% (1,307/1,701). Factors associated with higher vaccination coverage include older age, being married or partnered, working as a physician or dentist, prior history of influenza vaccination, more years in patient care, and higher job satisfaction. Personal protection was reported as the most important reason for vaccination followed closely by convenience, protection of patients, and protection of family and friends. Concerns about perceived vaccine safety and effectiveness and low perceived susceptibility to influenza were the most commonly reported barriers to vaccination. About half of the unvaccinated HCP said they would have been vaccinated if required by their employer., Conclusion: Influenza vaccination in this cohort was relatively high but still fell short of the recommended target of 90% coverage for HCP. Addressing concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness are possible areas for future education or intervention to improve coverage among HCP., (Copyright © 2014 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although vaccination with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) is recommended for all pregnant women, no vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies of TIV in pregnant women have assessed laboratory-confirmed influenza outcomes., Methods: We conducted a case-control study over 2 influenza seasons (2010-2011 and 2011-2012) among Kaiser Permanente health plan members in 2 metropolitan areas in California and Oregon. We compared the proportion vaccinated among 100 influenza cases (confirmed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) with the proportions vaccinated among 192 controls with acute respiratory illness (ARI) who tested negative for influenza and 200 controls without ARI (matched by season, site, and trimester)., Results: Among influenza cases, 42% were vaccinated during the study season compared to 58% and 63% vaccinated among influenza-negative controls and matched ARI-negative controls, respectively. The adjusted VE of the current season vaccine against influenza A and B was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5%-67%) using the influenza-negative controls and 53% (95% CI, 24%-72%) using the ARI-negative controls. Receipt of the prior season's vaccine, however, had an effect similar to receipt of the current season's vaccine. As such, vaccination in either or both seasons had statistically similar adjusted VE using influenza-negative controls (VE point estimates range = 51%-76%) and ARI-negative controls (48%-76%)., Conclusions: Influenza vaccination reduced the risk of ARI associated with laboratory-confirmed influenza among pregnant women by about one-half, similar to VE observed among all adults during these seasons.

In a prospective cohort study of 1670 healthcare personnel (HCP) providing direct patient care at Scott & White Healthcare in Texas and Kaiser Permanente Northwest in Oregon and Washington, we examined the potential impact of twelve vaccine promotion strategies on the likelihood of being vaccinated. Internet-based surveys were conducted at enrollment (Fall, 2010) and at post-season (Spring, 2011), which asked HCP whether twelve vaccination promotion strategies would make them "much less" to "much more" likely to be vaccinated next season (on a 5-point Likert scale). Overall, 366 of 1670 HCP (22%) were unvaccinated. Half (50%) of unvaccinated HCP self-reported that a vaccination requirement would make them more likely to be vaccinated and most (62%) identified at least one strategy other than a vaccination requirement that would make them more likely to be vaccinated. In sub-groups of unvaccinated HCPs with specific barriers to vaccination, about one in three (range=27-35%) indicated that interventions targeting specific vaccination barrier would increase the likelihood they would be vaccinated. However, in all cases, significantly more unvaccinated HCP reported that a vaccination requirement would increase the likelihood of vaccination than reported a targeted intervention would have this effect (range in difference scores=+11-23%)., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: An association between the influenza antiviral medication oseltamivir and neuropsychiatric events has been suggested by post-marketing case reports in Japan. This possible association was not supported by cohort studies in the U.S. conducted prior to the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, when usage rates were comparatively low. We assessed oseltamivir safety before and during the pandemic using biologically plausible risk intervals, particularly focusing on psychiatric events., Methods: Outpatients with influenza episodes from January 2007 through June 2010 were identified using diagnosis codes and positive tests at eight health care systems (sites) in the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project. Oseltamivir-treated and untreated patients were matched according to calendar week, age, sex, site, and propensity for treatment. Within this matched cohort, conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate the risk of four neuropsychiatric and five other adverse events (AEs) during pre-specified risk intervals., Results: Among 27,684 matched pairs, no associations were identified between oseltamivir treatment and any pre-defined AE. The absolute risks of incident psychiatric events in the 1-7 day risk interval were 0.126% for oseltamivir-treated and 0.105% for untreated patients (odds ratio = 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74, 1.97; risk difference = 0.022%, 95% CI: -0.035%, 0.078%); the most common diagnosis was unspecified anxiety state. Results were similar for 1-14 and 1-2 day risk intervals and for pediatric/adolescent subgroups., Conclusions: Consistent with prior U.S. cohort studies, no evidence was identified for an increased risk of neuropsychiatric or other AEs following oseltamivir treatment. Safety should be prospectively monitored to inform antiviral medication usage recommendations., (Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: To estimate the association between spontaneous abortion and influenza vaccine receipt with a case-control study utilizing data from six health care organizations in the Vaccine Safety Datalink., Methods: Women aged 18-44 years with spontaneous abortion during the autumn of 2005 or 2006 were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Cases of spontaneous abortion at 5-16 weeks of gestation were confirmed by medical record review; date of fetal demise was based on ultrasound information when available. Control group individuals with a live birth were individually matched to case group individuals by health care organization and date of last menstrual period (LMP). The primary exposure of interest was influenza vaccination during the 28 days preceding the date of spontaneous abortion of the matched pair. Conditional logistic regression models adjusted for maternal age, health care utilization, maternal diabetes, and parity., Results: Our final analysis included 243 women with spontaneous abortion and 243 matched control group women; 82% of women with spontaneous abortion had ultrasound confirmation of fetal demise. Using clinical diagnosis and ultrasound data, the mean gestational age at fetal demise was 7.8 weeks. Mean ages at LMP of case group women and control group women were 31.7 and 29.3 years, respectively (P<.001). Sixteen women with spontaneous abortion (7%) and 15 (6%) matched control group women received influenza vaccine within the 28-day exposure window. There was no association between spontaneous abortion and influenza vaccination in the 28-day exposure window (adjusted matched odds ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 0.53-2.89; P=.63)., Conclusion: There was no statistically significant increase in the risk of pregnancy loss in the 4 weeks after seasonal inactivated influenza vaccination., Level of Evidence: II.

Objectives: To evaluate the safety of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in children aged 24 to 59 months and to evaluate the risk of medically attended events (MAEs) in a subcohort of children who had multiple annual doses of TIV over their lifetimes., Design: Self-controlled screening study., Setting: Seven US managed care organizations from October 1, 2002, to March 31, 2006., Participants: Children aged 24 to 59 months who received at least 1 TIV dose (66 283 children and 91 692 TIV doses)., Exposure: Vaccination with TIV., Main Outcome Measures: Medically attended events in inpatient and emergency department settings in one of the following risk windows: 0 to 2, 1 to 14, or 1 to 42 days after vaccination. All MAEs that met the screening criteria of incidence rate ratios (IRRs) exceeding 1.0 and P ≤ .05 or IRRs exceeding 2.0 and P < .20 underwent medical record review. A secondary analysis examined the risk of MAEs in children who had multiple annual lifetime TIV doses., Results: Nine diagnoses met the screening criteria. After medical record review, gastrointestinal tract symptoms (IRR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.25), gastrointestinal tract disorders (7.70; 1.11-53.52), and fever (1.71; 1.64-1.80) remained significantly associated with vaccination. None of the events seemed to be serious, and none had complications. In the secondary analysis, there was an apparent dose response for vaccine and allergic reactions in the 1- to 3-day risk window., Conclusions: There was no evidence of serious MAEs following vaccination with TIV among children aged 24 to 59 months. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the risk of MAEs in children with multiple lifetime TIV doses.

In 2008, potential temperature compromise of one lot of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) led to the revaccination of 13,210 Kaiser Permanente Northwest members within 28 days of receipt of their initial TIV dose. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to determine if these individuals experienced a higher rate of medically attended events (MAE) than those receiving only one TIV dose. We found no increase in MAE among those rapidly revaccinated (odds ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval 0.80, 1.45), which may reassure individuals of the safety of revaccination with TIV should it be necessary, thereby leading to increased compliance with influenza vaccination recommendations., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Pregnant women have an increased risk of influenza infection and complications. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices currently recommends vaccination for women who are pregnant during influenza season. The authors review the literature concerning influenza vaccine safety, effectiveness, and coverage rates during pregnancy, as well as opportunities to improve vaccination rates during pregnancy. No study has demonstrated an increased risk of maternal complications or adverse fetal outcomes associated with inactivated influenza vaccine. Few studies have examined the effectiveness of vaccination during pregnancy, and the results from these studies are inconsistent, with some showing a protective effect and others showing no effect. Despite the proven safety of vaccination and the possible benefits to women and their infants, reported vaccination rates during pregnancy are generally less than 10%. Mothers frequently cite concerns about vaccine safety as a barrier to vaccination. Lack of adequate information about the risks and benefits of vaccination is reported by both patients and obstetric care providers. Organizational factors such as lack of vaccine storage facilities may also limit vaccination during pregnancy. Effective interventions should target factors pertaining to patients or providers, or they should address organizational or logistic barriers. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices currently recommends standing orders programs or reminders for patients and providers as strategies to improve vaccination rates.

Background Emerging data suggest that second-generation influenza vaccines with higher hemagglutinin (HA) antigen content and/or different production methods may induce stronger antibody responses to HA than standard-dose egg-based influenza vaccines in adults. We compared antibody responses to high-dose egg-based inactivated (HD-IIV3), recombinant (RIV4), and cell culture–based (ccIIV4) vs standard-dose egg-based inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV4) among health care personnel (HCP) aged 18–65 years in 2 influenza seasons (2018–2019, 2019–2020). Methods In the second trial season, newly and re-enrolled HCPs who received SD-IIV4 in season 1 were randomized to receive RIV4, ccIIV4, or SD-IIV4 or were enrolled in an off-label, nonrandomized arm to receive HD-IIV3. Prevaccination and 1-month-postvaccination sera were tested by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay against 4 cell culture propagated vaccine reference viruses. Primary outcomes, adjusted for study site and baseline HI titer, were seroconversion rate (SCR), geometric mean titers (GMTs), mean fold rise (MFR), and GMT ratios that compared vaccine groups to SD-IIV4. Results Among 390 HCP in the per-protocol population, 79 received HD-IIV3, 103 RIV4, 106 ccIIV4, and 102 SD-IIV4. HD-IIV3 recipients had similar postvaccination antibody titers compared with SD-IIV4 recipients, whereas RIV4 recipients had significantly higher 1-month-postvaccination antibody titers against vaccine reference viruses for all outcomes. Conclusions HD-IIV3 did not induce higher antibody responses than SD-IIV4, but, consistent with previous studies, RIV4 was associated with higher postvaccination antibody titers. These findings suggest that recombinant vaccines rather than vaccines with higher egg-based antigen doses may provide improved antibody responses in highly vaccinated populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]