Search

Background: Outer membrane vesicle (OMV) meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccines might be protective against gonorrhea. We evaluated the effectiveness of MenB-4C, an OMV MenB vaccine, against gonorrhea., Methods: We identified gonococcal mono-infections, chlamydial mono-infections, and gonococcal/chlamydial co-infections among persons aged 15-30 years in the electronic health records of Kaiser Permanente Northern California during 2016-2021. We determined MenB-4C vaccination status (vaccinated [≥1 MenB-4C vaccine dose] or unvaccinated [MenB-4C vaccine naïve]) at each infection. We used log-binomial regression with generalized estimating equations to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (APR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) to determine if MenB-4C vaccination was protective against gonococcal mono-infections compared to chlamydial mono-infection. We also evaluated if MenB-4C vaccination was protective against gonococcal/chlamydial co-infections. Because of concerns with small sample size of vaccinated persons, we estimated effects using a limited model (adjusting for race/ethnicity only) and an expanded model (adjusting for additional potential confounders)., Results: Of 68,454 persons, we identified 558 (0.8 %) MenB-4C vaccinated persons and 85,393 infections (13,000 gonococcal mono-infections, 68,008 chlamydial mono-infections, and 4385 gonococcal/chlamydial co-infections). After adjusting for race/ethnicity, MenB-4C vaccination was 23 % protective against gonococcal mono-infection compared to chlamydial mono-infection (APR = 0.77, 95 % CI = 0.64-0.99) in the limited model but not in the expanded model., Conclusion: MenB-4C vaccination was protective against gonococcal mono-infection, independent of race/ethnicity. This protective effect was not observed when other potential confounders were included in the analysis. Protection against gonococcal/chlamydial co-infection was not observed. Efficacy data from clinical trials are needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Sharareh Modaressi reports financial support was provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bruce Fireman reports financial support was provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nicola P. Klein reports financial support was provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evan Layefsky reports financial support was provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Kristin Goddard reports financial support was provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ousseny Zerbo reports financial support was provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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.

Background: Immunocompromised (IC) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and are less protected by 1-2 COVID-19 vaccine doses than are immunocompetent (non-IC) persons. We compared vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended COVID-19 of 2-3 mRNA and 1-2 viral-vector vaccine doses between IC and non-IC adults., Methods: Using a test-negative design among eight VISION Network sites, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) events and hospitalizations from 26 August-25 December 2021 was estimated separately among IC and non-IC adults and among specific IC condition subgroups. Vaccination status was defined using number and timing of doses. VE for each status (versus unvaccinated) was adjusted for age, geography, time, prior positive test result, and local SARS-CoV-2 circulation., Results: We analyzed 8,848 ED/UC events and 18,843 hospitalizations among IC patients and 200,071 ED/UC events and 70,882 hospitalizations among non-IC patients. Among IC patients, 3-dose mRNA VE against ED/UC (73% [95% CI: 64-80]) and hospitalization (81% [95% CI: 76-86]) was lower than that among non-IC patients (ED/UC: 94% [95% CI: 93-94]; hospitalization: 96% [95% CI: 95-97]). Similar patterns were observed for viral-vector vaccines. Transplant recipients had lower VE than other IC subgroups., Conclusions: During B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, IC adults received moderate protection against COVID-19-associated medical events from three mRNA doses, or one viral-vector dose plus a second dose of any product. However, protection was lower in IC versus non-IC patients, especially among transplant recipients, underscoring the need for additional protection among IC adults., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Charlene McEvoy reports institutional support from AstraZeneca for an AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine trial. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. Dr. Brian Dixon reports past consulting fees from Merck & Co. for serving on an advisory panel for HPV vaccination. Manjusha Gaglani reports past support from the CDC for the IVY-3 vaccine research. Kempapura Murthy reports past support from the CDC HAIVEN – Hospitalized Adult Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network. All other authors report no disclosures relevant to the current manuscript., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Safety data on simultaneous vaccination (SV) with primary series monovalent COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines are limited. We describe SV with primary series COVID-19 vaccines and assess 23 pre-specified health outcomes following SV among persons aged ≥5 years in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)., Methods: We utilized VSD's COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data from December 11, 2020-May 21, 2022. Analyses assessed frequency of SV. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression when the number of outcomes was ≥5 across both doses, comparing outcome rates between COVID-19 vaccinees receiving SV and COVID-19 vaccinees receiving no SV in the 1-21 days following COVID-19 vaccine dose 1 and 1-42 days following dose 2 by SV type received ("All SV", "Influenza SV", "Non-influenza SV")., Results: SV with COVID-19 vaccines was not common practice (dose 1: 0.7 % of 8,455,037 persons, dose 2: 0.3 % of 7,787,013 persons). The most frequent simultaneous vaccines were influenza, HPV, Tdap, and meningococcal. Outcomes following SV with COVID-19 vaccines were rare (total of 56 outcomes observed after dose 1 and dose 2). Overall rate of outcomes among COVID-19 vaccinees who received SV was not statistically significantly different than the rate among those who did not receive SV (6.5 vs. 6.8 per 10,000 persons). Statistically significant elevated RRs were observed for appendicitis (2.09; 95 % CI, 1.06-4.13) and convulsions/seizures (2.78; 95 % CI, 1.10-7.06) in the "All SV" group following dose 1, and for Bell's palsy (2.82; 95 % CI, 1.14-6.97) in the "Influenza SV" group following dose 2., Conclusion: Combined pre-specified health outcomes observed among persons who received SV with COVID-19 vaccine were rare and not statistically significantly different compared to persons who did not receive SV with COVID-19 vaccine. Statistically significant adjusted rate ratios were observed for some individual outcomes, but the number of outcomes was small and there was no adjustment for multiple testing., 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 a relationship with Seqirus that includes: funding grants. Nicola P. Klein reports a relationship with Pfizer that includes: funding grants. Nicola P. Klein reports a relationship with Merck & Co Inc that includes: funding grants. Nicola P. Klein reports a relationship with GlaxoSmithKline that includes: funding grants. Nicola P. Klein reports a relationship with Sanofi Pasteur that includes: funding grants. W. Katherine Yih reports a relationship with Pfizer that includes: funding grants., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Evidence indicates that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination is associated with risk of myocarditis and possibly pericarditis, especially in young males. It is not clear if risk differs between mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2. We assessed if risk differs using comprehensive health records on a diverse population., Methods: Members 18-39 years of age at eight integrated healthcare-delivery systems were monitored using data updated weekly and supplemented with medical record review of myocarditis and pericarditis cases. Incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis events that occurred among vaccine recipients 0 to 7 days after either dose 1 or 2 of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was compared with that of vaccinated concurrent comparators who, on the same calendar day, had received their most recent dose 22 to 42 days earlier. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by conditional Poisson regression, adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, health plan, and calendar day. Head-to-head comparison directly assessed risk following mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 during 0-7 days post-vaccination., Results: From December 14, 2020 - January 15, 2022 there were 41 cases after 2,891,498 doses of BNT162b2 and 38 cases after 1,803,267 doses of mRNA-1273. Cases had similar demographic and clinical characteristics. Most were hospitalized for ≤1 day; none required intensive care. During days 0-7 after dose 2 of BNT162b2, the incidence was 14.3 (CI: 6.5-34.9) times higher than the comparison interval, amounting to 22.4 excess cases per million doses; after mRNA-1273 the incidence was 18.8 (CI: 6.7-64.9) times higher than the comparison interval, amounting to 31.2 excess cases per million doses. In head-to-head comparisons 0-7 days after either dose, risk was moderately higher after mRNA-1273 than after BNT162b2 (RR: 1.61, CI 1.02-2.54)., Conclusions: Both vaccines were associated with increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in 18-39-year-olds. Risk estimates were modestly higher after mRNA-1273 than after BNT162b2., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Nicola Klein reports financial support was provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nicola Klein reports a relationship with Pfizer Inc that includes: funding grants. Nicola Klein reports a relationship with Merck & Co Inc that includes: funding grants. Nicola Klein reports a relationship with GlaxoSmithKline USA that includes: funding grants. Nicola Klein reports a relationship with Sanofi Pasteur Inc that includes: funding grants. Allison Naleway reports a relationship with Pfizer Inc that includes: funding grants. Allison Naleway reports a relationship with VIR Biotechnology Inc that includes: funding grants. W. Katherine Yih reports a relationship with Pfizer Inc that includes: funding grants. James Donahue reports a relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: funding grants., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused an abrupt drop in in-person health care (inpatient, Emergency Department, outpatient) and an increase in telehealth care, which poses challenges in vaccine safety studies that identify outcomes from in-person encounters. We examined the changes in incidence rates of selected encounter-based outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: We assembled a cohort of members from 8 Vaccine Safety Datalink sites from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020. Using ICD-10 diagnosis codes or laboratory criteria, we identified 21 incident outcomes in traditional in-person settings and all settings. We defined 4 periods in 2020: January-February (pre-pandemic), April-June (early pandemic), July-September (middle pandemic), and October-December (late pandemic). We defined four corresponding periods in each year during 2017-2019. We calculated incidence rates, conducted difference in difference (DiD) analyses, and reported ratios of incidence rate ratios (RRR) to examine changes in rates from pre-pandemic to early, middle, and late pandemic in 2020, after adjusting for changes across similar periods in 2017-2019., Results: Among > 10 million members, regardless of setting and after adjusting for changes during 2017-2019, we found that incidence rates of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, encephalitis/myelitis/encephalomyelitis/meningoencephalitis, and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura did not significantly change from the pre-pandemic to early, middle or late pandemic periods (p-values ≥ 0.05). Incidence rates decreased from the pre-pandemic to early pandemic period during 2020 for acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, convulsions/seizures, Guillain-Barré syndrome, immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), narcolepsy/cataplexy, hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, and venous thromboembolism (p-values < 0.05). Incidence rates of Bell's palsy, ITP, and narcolepsy/cataplexy were higher in all settings than in traditional in-person settings during the three pandemic periods (p-values < 0.05)., Conclusion: Rates of some clinical outcomes during the pandemic changed and should not be used as historical background rates in vaccine safety studies. Inclusion of telehealth visits should be considered for vaccine studies involving Bell's palsy, ITP, and narcolepsy/cataplexy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JGD reports research support from Janssen for an unrelated study. LSS reports research support from Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Dynavax, and Seqirus for unrelated studies., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To determine whether children aged 4-7 years with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) were at increased risk of fever, febrile seizures, or emergency department (ED) visits following measles- or pertussis-containing vaccines compared with children without ASD., Methods: The study included children born between 1995-2012, aged 4-7 years at vaccination, and members of six healthcare delivery systems within Vaccine Safety Datalink. We conducted self-controlled risk interval analyses comparing rates of outcomes in risk and control intervals within each group defined by ASD status, and then compared outcome rates between children with and without ASD, in risk and control intervals, by estimating difference-in-differences using logistic regressions., Results: The study included 14,947 children with ASD and 1,650,041 children without ASD. After measles- or pertussis-containing vaccination, there were no differences in association between children with and without ASD for fever (ratio of rate ratio for measles-containing vaccine = 1.07, 95% CI 0.58-1.96; for pertussis-containing vaccine = 1.16, 95% CI 0.63-2.15) or ED visits (ratio of rate ratio for measles-containing vaccine = 1.11, 95% CI 0.80-1.54; for pertussis-containing vaccine = 0.87, 95% CI 0.59-1.28). Febrile seizures were rare. Pertussis-containing vaccines were associated with small increased risk of febrile seizures in children without ASD., Conclusion: Children with ASD were not at increased risk for fever or ED visits compared with children without ASD following measles- or pertussis-containing vaccines. These results may provide further reassurance that these vaccines are safe for all children, including those with ASD., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Klein has received research support from Sanofi Pasteur, GSK, Merck, Pfizer, and Protein Sciences (now Sanofi Pasteur) for unrelated studies. Dr. Getahun has received research grant support from NIH/NICHD and Bayer for unrelated studies. Dr. Donahue reports grants from Janssen Global Services, LLC, outside the submitted work. Dr. Qian received research support from GSK and Amgen for studies unrelated to this publication. Ms. Irving has received research grant support from MedImmune for unrelated studies. Dr. Donahue reports grants from Janssen Global Services, LLC, outside the submitted work. All other co-authors have no conflict of interest. Acknowledgements Funding/Support: The study was funded in part by a contract from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Dr. Zerbo is also supported by career development Grant # K01AI139275 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The other authors received no additional funding. Role of Funder: The CDC provided technical assistance Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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.)

Background: Pregnant women are recommended to receive inactivated influenza vaccination anytime during pregnancy. Studies have investigated the impact of influenza vaccination during pregnancy on birth outcomes and results on preterm birth have been inconsistent., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among children born at a gestational age≥24weeks from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities (KPNC). We evaluated the association between maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy and risk of preterm birth, small and large for gestational age, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), respiratory distress syndrome, low birth weight, and low Apgar score. We ascertained the dates of maternal influenza vaccination, conception, and delivery, as well as birth outcomes from KPNC inpatient and outpatient databases. Conditional multivariate Cox regression and logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association between maternal vaccination during pregnancy and risk of each birth outcome., Results: The study included 145,869 children. Maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with risk of small or large for gestational age births, preterm birth, need for mechanical ventilation at birth, respiratory distress syndrome, admission to the NICU, low birth weight, or low Apgar score. However, when we did not control for immortal time bias, the risk of preterm birth (odds ratio [OR]=0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.72) was lower among infants of vaccinated mothers., Conclusion: We found no association between maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes. When investigating preterm birth outcome in association with vaccination during pregnancy, immortal time bias should be taken into account in the analysis., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background/objective: We describe the establishment of a dynamic database linking mothers to newborns with the goal of studying vaccine safety in both pregnant women and their children and provide results of a study utilizing this database as a proof of concept., Methods: All Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) live births and their mothers were eligible for inclusion in the pregnancy database. We used the medical record number (MRN), a unique identifier, to retrieve information about events that occurred during the pregnancy and at delivery and linked this same MRN to newborns for post-partum follow up. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the association between receipt of tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during pregnancy and fever 0-3days after the first dose of diphtheria tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine in the infant. The study included infants who were born at ⩾37weeks gestation from January 1, 2009 - October 1, 2015 and who received their first DTaP vaccine between 6 and 10weeks of age. We utilized diagnostic codes from inpatient, emergency department, outpatient clinics, and telephone calls. We identified fever using ICD 9 code 780.6, recorded temperature ⩾101 degree Fahrenheit, or parental report., Results: The database contained the starting and ending date of each pregnancy and basic demographic characteristics of mothers and infants. There were 859,699 women and 873,753 children in the database as of January 2016. The proof of concept study included 148,699 infants. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, Tdap vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with infant fever 0-3daysafter first dose of DTaP (adjusted odds ratio=0.92, 95% CI 0.82-1.04)., Conclusion: The KPNC pregnancy database can be used for studies investigating exposure during pregnancy and outcomes in mothers and/or infants, particularly monitoring vaccine safety and effectiveness., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)