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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Regan, Annette K, Tracey, Lauren, Blyth, Christopher C, Mak, Donna B, Richmond, Peter C, Shellam, Geoffrey, Talbot, Caroline, Effler, Paul V
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