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 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

Family eczema-history in 2-year olds with eczema; a prospective, population-based study. The PACT-study, Norway

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A maternal line of inheritance regarding eczema has been described in several studies, whereas others find associations to both a maternal as well as a paternal line of inheritance. When studying family history of eczema symptoms, cohort studies including siblings are rare. Time point for assessing family eczema-history could be of importance when studying the associations between family eczema-history and children with eczema, as parents with unaffected children may not recall mild symptoms in other siblings or their own disease history. We therefore aimed to study the associations between reported eczema in mother, father and siblings and reported eczema in index child where information on family history was collected at two different ages of index child.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Parents/children participating in The Prevention of Allergy among Children in Trondheim (PACT) study were given questionnaires on reported eczema symptoms in mother, father and siblings at 6 weeks and 1 year. When index child was 2 years of age, a detailed questionnaire on different health issues with emphasize on different allergy related disorders were filled in.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both maternal and paternal reports on eczema were significantly associated with eczema in index child. Reporting family eczema-history at 1 year (N = 3087), "eczema sibling only" [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.13 (2.27-4.33)] as well as all other family-groups containing siblings with eczema were strongly associated with eczema 2 years. When family eczema-history was reported at 6 weeks (N = 2657), reporting of "eczema sibling only" was not associated to reported eczema at 2 years in index child [aOR = 1.31 (0.77-2.23)].</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Having sibling(s) with eczema strengthened the associations between maternal and paternal reports on eczema with eczema in index child only when exposure was reported at 1 year. These findings indicate that results from questionnaires-based studies of family eczema-history depend on whether or not index child has yet developed eczema.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN28090297">ISRCTN28090297</a></p

Surveillance of antenatal influenza vaccination: validity of current systems and recommendations for improvement

Abstract Background: Although influenza vaccination is recommended during pregnancy as standard of care, limited surveillance data are available for monitoring uptake. Our aim was to evaluate the validity of existing surveillance in Western Australia for measuring antenatal influenza immunisations. Methods: The self-reported vaccination status of 563 women who delivered between April and October 2013 was compared against three passive data collection sources: a state-wide antenatal influenza vaccination database maintained by the Department of Health, a public maternity hospital database, and a private health service database. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for each system using self-report as the “gold standard.” Results: The state-wide antenatal vaccination database detected 45.7 % (95 % CI: 40.1–51.4 %) of influenza vaccinations, the public maternity hospital database detected 66.7 % (95 % CI: 55.1–76.9 %), and the private health service database detected 29.1 % (95 % CI: 20.5–39.4 %). Specificity exceeded 90 % and positive predictive values exceeded 80 % for each system. Sensitivity was lowest for women whose antenatal care was provided by a private obstetrician. Conclusions: Existing resources for surveillance of antenatal influenza vaccinations detect 29–67 % of vaccinations. Considering the importance of influenza immunisation as a public health intervention, particularly in pregnant women, improvements to routine monitoring of influenza vaccination is warranted

Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines in Ambulatory and Inpatient Care Settings

BACKGROUND There are limited data on the effectiveness of the vaccines against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) currently authorized in the United States with respect to hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or ambulatory care in an emergency department or urgent care clinic. METHODS We conducted a study involving adults (≥50 years of age) with Covid-19–like illness who underwent molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed 41,552 admissions to 187 hospitals and 21,522 visits to 221 emergency departments or urgent care clinics during the period from January 1 through June 22, 2021, in multiple states. The patients’ vaccination status was documented in electronic health records and immunization registries. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated patients with those among unvaccinated patients. Vaccine effectiveness was adjusted with weights based on propensity-for-vaccination scores and according to age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1, 2021, to the index date for each medical visit), and local virus circulation. RESULTS The effectiveness of full messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (≥14 days after the second dose) was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization, 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93) against infection leading to an ICU admission, and 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. The effectiveness of full vaccination with respect to a Covid-19–associated hospitalization or emergency department or urgent care clinic visit was similar with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and ranged from 81% to 95% among adults 85 years of age or older, persons with chronic medical conditions, and Black or Hispanic adults. The effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was 68% (95% CI, 50 to 79) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization and 73% (95% CI, 59 to 82) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS Covid-19 vaccines in the United States were highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. This vaccine effectiveness extended to populations that are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We conducted a study involving adults (≥50 years of age) with Covid-19-like illness who underwent molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed 41,552 admissions to 187 hospitals and 21,522 visits to 221 emergency departments or urgent care clinics during the period from January 1 through June 22, 2021, in multiple states. The patients' vaccination status was documented in electronic health records and immunization registries. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated patients with those among unvaccinated patients. Vaccine effectiveness was adjusted with weights based on propensity-for-vaccination scores and according to age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1, 2021, to the index date for each medical visit), and local virus circulation. Results: The effectiveness of full messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (≥14 days after the second dose) was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization, 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93) against infection leading to an ICU admission, and 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. The effectiveness of full vaccination with respect to a Covid-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department or urgent care clinic visit was similar with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and ranged from 81% to 95% among adults 85 years of age or older, persons with chronic medical conditions, and Black or Hispanic adults. The effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was 68% (95% CI, 50 to 79) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization and 73% (95% CI, 59 to 82) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. Conclusions: Covid-19 vaccines in the United States were highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. This vaccine effectiveness extended to populations that are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19–Like Illness with Infection-Induced or mRNA Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Immunity — Nine States, January–September 2021

What is already known about this topic? Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness. What is added by this report? Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99). What are the implications for public health practice? All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2

Effectiveness of 2-Dose Vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Against COVID-19–Associated Hospitalizations Among Immunocompromised Adults — Nine States, January–September 2021

What is already known about this topic? Studies suggest that immunocompromised persons who receive COVID-19 vaccination might not develop high neutralizing antibody titers or be as protected against severe COVID-19 outcomes as are immunocompetent persons. What is added by this report? Effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalization was lower (77%) among immunocompromised adults than among immunocompetent adults (90%). Vaccine effectiveness varied considerably among immunocompromised patient subgroups. What are the implications for public health practice? Immunocompromised persons benefit from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination but are less protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes than are immunocompetent persons. Immunocompromised persons receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should receive 3 doses and a booster, consistent with CDC recommendations, practice nonpharmaceutical interventions, and, if infected, be monitored closely and considered early for proven therapies that can prevent severe outcomes

The inhibition of mercury absorption by dietary ethanol in humans: cross-sectional and case-control studies

Aims: To investigate this phenomenon in a large scale human study with low level Hg exposed dentists. Methods: Data were collected for a sample of 1171dentists, and both cross sectional and case-control methods were utilised to examine the data. Results: Abstainers (n = 345) had significantly higher urinary mercury concentrations (HgU) than drinkers (n = 826): 5.4 µg/l v 4.8 µg/l. Multiple linear regression showed a significant effect of ethanol dose on HgU after adjusting for potential confounders. A case-control analysis in which cases were defined as those individuals with urinary Hg concentrations of ⩾15 µg/l (≈ top 5%), and controls as those with concentrations of <1.0 µg/l (≈ bottom 5%), showed a clear protective dose-response relation; there was a decreasing risk of being a "case" (having an HgU ⩾15 µg/l) with increasing ethanol consumption. The significance of the adjusted model is p<0.001, and the χ(2) test for trend across ethanol consumption categories in the adjusted model is p<0.05, confirming the dose-response relation. Conclusion: We believe that this straightforward investigation provides the first specific confirmation in a large scale human study of the inhibitory effect of ethanol on urinary mercury concentration, and by inference, on mercury absorption