Tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertusiss (Tdap) vaccine is recommended during each pregnancy, regardless of prior receipt. Data on reactogenicity and immunogenicity, ...particularly after repeated Tdap, are limited. We compared local injection-site and systemic reactions and serologic response following Tdap in (1) pregnant and nonpregnant women and (2) pregnant women by self-reported prior Tdap receipt.
Pregnant women (gestational age 20–34 weeks) and nonpregnant women receiving Tdap were enrolled in this observational study. Injection-site and systemic reactions were assessed for one week post-vaccination. Pertussis toxin, filamentous hemagglutinin, pertactin, fimbriae, tetanus and diphtheria specific IgG antibody titers were determined by standardized enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at baseline and 28 days post-vaccination. Reactogenicity and serologic responses were compared by pregnancy status, and within pregnant women by self-reported prior Tdap receipt.
374 pregnant and 225 nonpregnant women were vaccinated. Severe local or systemic reactions or “any” fever were uncommon (≤3% for both groups). Moderate/severe injection-site pain was significantly higher in pregnant (17.9%) versus nonpregnant (11.1%) women, but did not prompt a healthcare visit. Proportions of other moderate/severe or any severe reactions were not significantly higher in pregnant compared to nonpregnant women. Moderate/severe (including pain) and severe reactions were not significantly higher in pregnant women receiving repeat versus first-time Tdap. Antibody titers increased from baseline to post-vaccination for all vaccine antigens in pregnant and nonpregnant women; post-vaccination titers against pertussis toxin and filamentous hemagglutinin were significantly higher in nonpregnant versus pregnant women (p < 0.01).
Tdap was well-tolerated in pregnant and nonpregnant women. Pregnant women were more likely to report moderate/severe pain at the Tdap injection-site compared with nonpregnant women, but did not necessitate medical visits. Prior Tdap receipt did not increase occurrence of moderate/severe local or systemic reactions in pregnant women. Serologic responses to all vaccine antigens were robust.
Clinical Trial Registration@ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02209623.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02209623.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, candidate COVID-19 vaccines were being developed for potential use in the United States on an unprecedented, accelerated schedule. It was anticipated that once ...available, under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or FDA approval, COVID-19 vaccines would be broadly used and potentially administered to millions of individuals in a short period of time. Intensive monitoring in the post-EUA/licensure period would be necessary for timely detection and assessment of potential safety concerns. To address this, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) convened an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) work group focused solely on COVID-19 vaccine safety, consisting of independent vaccine safety experts and representatives from federal agencies – the ACIP COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST).
This report provides an overview of the organization and activities of VaST, summarizes data reviewed as part of the comprehensive effort to monitor vaccine safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights selected actions taken by CDC, ACIP, and FDA in response to accumulating post-authorization safety data. VaST convened regular meetings over the course of 29 months, from November 2020 through April 2023; through March 2023 FDA issued EUAs for six COVID-19 vaccines from four different manufacturers and subsequently licensed two of these COVID-19 vaccines. The independent vaccine safety experts collaborated with federal agencies to ensure timely assessment of vaccine safety data during this time. VaST worked closely with the ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group; that work group used safety data and VaST’s assessments for benefit-risk assessments and guidance for COVID-19 vaccination policy. Safety topics reviewed by VaST included those identified in safety monitoring systems and other topics of scientific or public interest.
VaST provided guidance to CDC’s COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring efforts, provided a forum for review of data from several U.S. government vaccine safety systems, and assured that a diverse group of scientists and clinicians, external to the federal government, promptly reviewed vaccine safety data. In the event of a future pandemic or other biological public health emergency, the VaST model could be used to strengthen vaccine safety monitoring, enhance public confidence, and increase transparency through incorporation of independent, non-government safety experts into the monitoring process, and through strong collaboration among federal and other partners.
The U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, which commenced in December 2020, has been instrumental in preventing morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 disease. Safety monitoring has been an essential ...component of the program. The federal government undertook a comprehensive and coordinated approach to implement complementary safety monitoring systems and to communicate findings in a timely and transparent way to healthcare providers, policymakers, and the public. Monitoring involved both well-established and newly developed systems that relied on both spontaneous (passive) and active surveillance methods. Clinical consultation for individual cases of adverse events following vaccination was performed, and monitoring of special populations, such as pregnant persons, was conducted. This report describes the U.S. government’s COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring systems and programs used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Indian Health Service. Using the adverse event of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination as a model, we demonstrate how the multiple, complementary monitoring systems worked to rapidly detect, assess, and verify a vaccine safety signal. In addition, longer-term follow-up was conducted to evaluate the recovery status of myocarditis cases following vaccination. Finally, the process for timely and transparent communication and dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine safety data is described, highlighting the responsiveness and robustness of the U.S. vaccine safety monitoring infrastructure during the national COVID-19 vaccination program.
Antipyretics reduce fever following childhood vaccinations; after inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) they might ameliorate fever and thereby decrease febrile seizure risk, but also possibly blunt ...the immune response. We assessed the effect of antipyretics on immune responses and fever following IIV in children ages 6 through 47 months.
Over the course of three seasons, one hundred forty-two children, receiving either a single or the first of 2 recommended doses of IIV, were randomized to receive either oral acetaminophen suspension (n = 59) or placebo (n = 59) (double-blinded) or ibuprofen (n = 24) (open-label) immediately following IIV and every 4–8 h thereafter for 24 h. Blood samples were obtained at enrollment and 4 weeks following the last recommended IIV dose. Responses to IIV were assessed by hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI). Seroprotection was defined as an HAI titer ≥1:40 and seroconversion as a titer ≥1:40 if baseline titer <1:10 or four-fold rise if baseline titer ≥1:10. Participants were monitored for fever and other solicited symptoms on the day of and day following IIV.
Significant differences in seroconversion and post-vaccination seroprotection were not observed between children included in the different antipyretic groups and the placebo group for the vaccine antigens included in IIV over the course of the studies. Frequencies of solicited symptoms, including fever, were similar between treatment groups and the placebo group.
Significant blunting of the immune response was not observed when antipyretics were administered to young children receiving IIV. Studies with larger sample sizes are needed to definitively establish the effect of antipyretics on IIV immunogenicity.
The mechanism for anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination has been widely debated; understanding this serious adverse event is important for future vaccines of similar design. A mechanism ...proposed is type I hypersensitivity (i.e., IgE-mediated mast cell degranulation) to polyethylene glycol (PEG). Using an assay that, uniquely, had been previously assessed in patients with anaphylaxis to PEG, our objective was to compare anti-PEG IgE in serum from mRNA COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis case-patients and persons vaccinated without allergic reactions. Secondarily, we compared anti-PEG IgG and IgM to assess alternative mechanisms.
Selected anaphylaxis case-patients reported to U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System December 14, 2020–March 25, 2021 were invited to provide a serum sample. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine study participants with residual serum and no allergic reaction post-vaccination (“controls”) were frequency matched to cases 3:1 on vaccine and dose number, sex and 10-year age category. Anti-PEG IgE was measured using a dual cytometric bead assay (DCBA). Anti-PEG IgG and IgM were measured using two different assays: DCBA and a PEGylated-polystyrene bead assay. Laboratorians were blinded to case/control status.
All 20 case-patients were women; 17 had anaphylaxis after dose 1, 3 after dose 2. Thirteen (65 %) were hospitalized and 7 (35 %) were intubated. Time from vaccination to serum collection was longer for case-patients vs controls (post-dose 1: median 105 vs 21 days). Among Moderna recipients, anti-PEG IgE was detected in 1 of 10 (10 %) case-patients vs 8 of 30 (27 %) controls (p = 0.40); among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients, it was detected in 0 of 10 case-patients (0 %) vs 1 of 30 (3 %) controls (p >n 0.99). Anti-PEG IgE quantitative signals followed this same pattern. Neither anti-PEG IgG nor IgM was associated with case status with both assay formats.
Our results support that anti-PEG IgE is not a predominant mechanism for anaphylaxis post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.
On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Janssen COVID-19 (Ad.26.COV2.S) vaccine (Janssen Biotech, Inc., a Janssen ...Pharmaceutical company, Johnson & Johnson; New Brunswick, New Jersey), and on February 28, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued interim recommendations for its use in persons aged ≥18 years (1,2). On April 13, 2021, CDC and FDA recommended a pause in the use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine after reports of six U.S. cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia, a rare thromboembolic syndrome, among Janssen COVID-19 vaccine recipients (3). Two emergency ACIP meetings were rapidly convened to review reported cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) and to consider updated recommendations for use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in the United States. On April 23, 2021, after a discussion of the benefits and risks of resuming vaccination, ACIP reaffirmed its interim recommendation for use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in all persons aged ≥18 years under the FDA's EUA, which now includes a warning that rare clotting events might occur after vaccination, primarily among women aged 18-49 years. Patient and provider education about the risk for TTS with the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, especially among women aged <50 years, as well as the availability of alternative COVID-19 vaccines, is required to guide vaccine decision-making and ensure early recognition and clinical management of TTS.
Abstract The United States (US) influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent (2009-H1N1) vaccination program began in October 2009. Reports to the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS), a US ...spontaneous reporting system, were reviewed to identify potential rare events or unusual adverse event (AE) patterns after 2009-H1N1 vaccination. The adverse event profile after 2009-H1N1 vaccine in VAERS (∼10,000 reports) was consistent with that of seasonal influenza vaccines, although the reporting rate was higher after 2009-H1N1 than seasonal influenza vaccines, this may be, at least in part, a reflection of stimulated reporting. Death, Guillain–Barré syndrome and anaphylaxis reports after 2009-H1N1 vaccination were rare (each <2 per million doses administered).
Abstract
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a complication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; in the United States, reporting of MIS-C ...after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is required for vaccine safety monitoring. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was authorized for children aged 5−11 years on 29 October 2021. Covering a period when approximately 7 million children received vaccine, surveillance for MIS-C ≤ 90 days postvaccination using passive systems identified 58 children with MIS-C and laboratory evidence of past/recent SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 4 without evidence. During a period with extensive SARS-CoV-2 circulation, MIS-C illness in children after COVID-19 vaccination who lacked evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was rare (<1 per million vaccinated children).
Covering a period when approximately 7 million children aged 5–11 years received Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, passive surveillance for MIS-C ≤ 90 days postvaccination identified 58 children with MIS-C and laboratory evidence of past or recent SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 4 without evidence.
Adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV) and high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV) are U.S.-licensed for adults aged ≥ 65 years. This study compared serum hemagglutination ...inhibition (HAI) antibody titers for the A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 and B strains after trivalent aIIV3 and trivalent HD-IIV3 in an older adult population.
The immunogenicity population included 342 participants who received aIIV3 and 338 participants who received HD-IIV3. The proportion of participants that seroconverted to A(H3N2) vaccine strains after allV3 (112 participants 32.8%) was inferior to the proportion of participants that seroconverted after HD-IIV3 (130 participants 38.5%) at day 29 after vaccination (difference, - 5.8%; 95%CI, - 12.9% to 1.4%). There were no significant differences between the vaccine groups in percent seroconversion to A(H1N1)pdm09 or B vaccine strains, in percent seropositivity for any of the strains, or in post-vaccination GMT for the A(H1N1)pdm09 strain. The GMTs for the post-vaccination A(H3N2) and B strains were higher after HD-IIV than after aIIV3.
Overall immune responses were similar after aIIV3 and HD-IIV3. For the primary outcome, the aIIV3 seroconversion rate for H3N2 did not meet noninferiority criteria compared with HD-IIV3, but the HD-IIV3 seroconversion rate was not statistically superior to the aIIV3 seroconversion rate.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03183908.
Administering inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV), 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13), and diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine together has been associated with ...increased risk for febrile seizure after vaccination. We assessed the effect of administering IIV at a separate visit from PCV13 and DTaP on postvaccination fever.
In 2017-2018, children aged 12 to 16 months were randomly assigned to receive study vaccines simultaneously or sequentially. They had 2 study visits 2 weeks apart; nonstudy vaccines were permitted at visit 1. The simultaneous group received PCV13, DTaP, and quadrivalent IIV (IIV4) at visit 1 and no vaccines at visit 2. The sequential group received PCV13 and DTaP at visit 1 and IIV4 at visit 2. Participants were monitored for fever (≥38°C) and antipyretic use during the 8 days after visits.
There were 110 children randomly assigned to the simultaneous group and 111 children to the sequential group; 90% received ≥1 nonstudy vaccine at visit 1. Similar proportions of children experienced fever on days 1 to 2 after visits 1 and 2 combined (simultaneous 8.1% versus sequential 9.3%; adjusted relative risk = 0.87 95% confidence interval 0.36-2.10). During days 1 to 2 after visit 1, more children in the simultaneous group received antipyretics (37.4% vs 22.4%;
= .020).
In our study, delaying IIV4 administration by 2 weeks in children receiving DTaP and PCV13 did not reduce fever occurrence after vaccination. Reevaluating this strategy to prevent fever using an IIV4 with a different composition in a future influenza season may be considered.
PDF
