Cargando…
A prospective cohort study comparing the reactogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine in pregnant and non-pregnant women
BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination during pregnancy can prevent serious illness in expectant mothers and provide protection to newborns; however, historically uptake has been limited due to a number of factors, including safety concerns. Symptomatic complaints are common during pregnancy and may be m...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4379607/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25880741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0495-2 |
_version_ | 1782364214968451072 |
---|---|
author | Regan, Annette K Tracey, Lauren Blyth, Christopher C Mak, Donna B Richmond, Peter C Shellam, Geoffrey Talbot, Caroline Effler, Paul V |
author_facet | Regan, Annette K Tracey, Lauren Blyth, Christopher C Mak, Donna B Richmond, Peter C Shellam, Geoffrey Talbot, Caroline Effler, Paul V |
author_sort | Regan, Annette K |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination during pregnancy can prevent serious illness in expectant mothers and provide protection to newborns; however, historically uptake has been limited due to a number of factors, including safety concerns. Symptomatic complaints are common during pregnancy and may be mistakenly associated with reactions to trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). To investigate this, we compared post-vaccination events self-reported by pregnant women to events reported by non-pregnant women receiving TIV. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 1,086 pregnant women and 314 non-pregnant female healthcare workers (HCWs) who received TIV between March-May 2014 were followed-up seven days post-vaccination to assess local and systemic adverse events following immunisation (AEFIs). Women were surveyed by text message regarding perceived reactions to TIV. Those reporting an AEFI completed an interview by telephone or mobile phone to ascertain details. Logistic regression models adjusting for age and residence were used to compare reactions reported by pregnant women and non-pregnant HCWs. RESULTS: Similar proportions of pregnant women and non-pregnant, female HCWs reported ≥1 reaction following vaccination with TIV (13.0% and 17.3%, respectively; OR = 1.2 [95% CI: 0.8-1.8]). Non-pregnant, female HCWs were more likely to report fever or headache compared to pregnant women (OR: 4.6 [95% CI 2.1-10.3] and OR: 2.2 [95% CI 1.0-4.6], respectively). No other significant differences in reported symptoms were observed. No serious vaccine-associated adverse events were reported, and less than 2% of each group sought medical advice for a reaction. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence suggesting pregnant women are more likely to report adverse events following influenza vaccination when compared to non-pregnant female HCWs of similar age, and in some cases, pregnant women reported significantly fewer adverse events. These results further support the safety of TIV administered in pregnant women. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4379607 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43796072015-04-01 A prospective cohort study comparing the reactogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine in pregnant and non-pregnant women Regan, Annette K Tracey, Lauren Blyth, Christopher C Mak, Donna B Richmond, Peter C Shellam, Geoffrey Talbot, Caroline Effler, Paul V BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination during pregnancy can prevent serious illness in expectant mothers and provide protection to newborns; however, historically uptake has been limited due to a number of factors, including safety concerns. Symptomatic complaints are common during pregnancy and may be mistakenly associated with reactions to trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). To investigate this, we compared post-vaccination events self-reported by pregnant women to events reported by non-pregnant women receiving TIV. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 1,086 pregnant women and 314 non-pregnant female healthcare workers (HCWs) who received TIV between March-May 2014 were followed-up seven days post-vaccination to assess local and systemic adverse events following immunisation (AEFIs). Women were surveyed by text message regarding perceived reactions to TIV. Those reporting an AEFI completed an interview by telephone or mobile phone to ascertain details. Logistic regression models adjusting for age and residence were used to compare reactions reported by pregnant women and non-pregnant HCWs. RESULTS: Similar proportions of pregnant women and non-pregnant, female HCWs reported ≥1 reaction following vaccination with TIV (13.0% and 17.3%, respectively; OR = 1.2 [95% CI: 0.8-1.8]). Non-pregnant, female HCWs were more likely to report fever or headache compared to pregnant women (OR: 4.6 [95% CI 2.1-10.3] and OR: 2.2 [95% CI 1.0-4.6], respectively). No other significant differences in reported symptoms were observed. No serious vaccine-associated adverse events were reported, and less than 2% of each group sought medical advice for a reaction. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence suggesting pregnant women are more likely to report adverse events following influenza vaccination when compared to non-pregnant female HCWs of similar age, and in some cases, pregnant women reported significantly fewer adverse events. These results further support the safety of TIV administered in pregnant women. BioMed Central 2015-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4379607/ /pubmed/25880741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0495-2 Text en © Regan et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Regan, Annette K Tracey, Lauren Blyth, Christopher C Mak, Donna B Richmond, Peter C Shellam, Geoffrey Talbot, Caroline Effler, Paul V A prospective cohort study comparing the reactogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine in pregnant and non-pregnant women |
title | A prospective cohort study comparing the reactogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine in pregnant and non-pregnant women |
title_full | A prospective cohort study comparing the reactogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine in pregnant and non-pregnant women |
title_fullStr | A prospective cohort study comparing the reactogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine in pregnant and non-pregnant women |
title_full_unstemmed | A prospective cohort study comparing the reactogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine in pregnant and non-pregnant women |
title_short | A prospective cohort study comparing the reactogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine in pregnant and non-pregnant women |
title_sort | prospective cohort study comparing the reactogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine in pregnant and non-pregnant women |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4379607/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25880741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0495-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT reganannettek aprospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT traceylauren aprospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT blythchristopherc aprospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT makdonnab aprospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT richmondpeterc aprospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT shellamgeoffrey aprospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT talbotcaroline aprospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT efflerpaulv aprospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT reganannettek prospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT traceylauren prospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT blythchristopherc prospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT makdonnab prospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT richmondpeterc prospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT shellamgeoffrey prospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT talbotcaroline prospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen AT efflerpaulv prospectivecohortstudycomparingthereactogenicityoftrivalentinfluenzavaccineinpregnantandnonpregnantwomen |