Search

BackgroundOmicron-containing bivalent boosters are available worldwide. Results of a large, randomized, active-controlled study are presented.MethodsThis phase 3, randomized, observer-blind, active-controlled trial in the United Kingdom evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of 50-µg doses of omicron-BA.1-monovalent mRNA-1273.529 and bivalent mRNA-1273.214 booster vaccines compared with 50-µg mRNA-1273 administered as boosters in individuals ≥16 years. Participants had previously received 2 doses of any authorized/approved Covid-19 vaccine with or without an mRNA vaccine booster. Safety and immunogenicity were primary objectives; immunogenicity was assessed in all participants, with analysis conducted based on prior infection status. Incidence of Covid-19 post-boost was a secondary (mRNA-1273.214) or exploratory (mRNA-1273.529) objective.ResultsIn part 1 of the study, 719 participants received mRNA-1273.529 (n=362) or mRNA-1273 (n=357); in part 2, 2813 received mRNA-1273.214 (n=1418) or mRNA-1273 (n=1395). Median durations (months [interquartile range]) between the most recent Covid-19 vaccine and study boosters were similar in the mRNA-1273.529 (4.0 [3.6-4.7]) and mRNA-1273 (4.1 [3.5-4.7]) (part 1), and mRNA-1273.214 (5.5 [4.8-6.2] and mRNA-1273 (5.4 [4.8-6.2]) groups (part 2).Both mRNA-1273.529 and mRNA-1273.214 elicited superior neutralizing antibody responses against omicron BA.1 with geometric mean ratios (99% CIs) of 1.68 (1.45-1.95) and 1.53 (1.41-1.67) compared to mRNA-1273 at day 29 post-boost. Although the study was not powered to assess relative vaccine efficacy, the incidence rates/1000 person years (95% CI) of Covid-19 trended lower with mRNA-1273.529 (670.5 [528.3-839.3]) than mRNA-1273 (769.3 [615.4-950.1]) and mRNA-1273.214 (633.0 [538.1-739.7]) than mRNA-1273 (711.6 [607.5-828.5]).Sequence analysis in part 2 showed that this was driven by lower incidence of Covid-19 in the mRNA-1273.214 cohort with BA.2 and BA.4 sublineages but not BA.5 sublineages. All study boosters were well-tolerated.ConclusionThe bivalent omicron BA.1-containing booster elicited superior neutralizing antibody responses against omicron BA.1 with acceptable safety results consistent with the BA.1 monovalent vaccine. Incidence rates for Covid-19 were numerically lower in participants who received mRNA-1273.214 compared to the original booster vaccine mRNA-1273, driven by the BA.2 and BA.4 sublineages.

BackgroundInformation on the safety and immunogenicity of the omicron BA.4/BA.5-containing bivalent booster mRNA-1273.222 are needed.MethodsIn this ongoing, phase 2/3 trial, 50-μg mRNA-1273.222 (25-μg each ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 and omicron BA.4/BA.5 spike mRNAs) is compared to 50-μg mRNA-1273, administered as second boosters in adults who previously received a 2-injection (100-μg) primary series and first booster (50-μg) dose of mRNA-1273. The primary objectives were safety and immunogenicity 28 days post-boost.ResultsParticipants received 50-μg of mRNA-1273 (n=376) or mRNA-1273.222 (n=511) as second booster doses. Omicron BA.4/BA.5 and ancestral SARS-CoV-2 D614G neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs [95% confidence interval]) after mRNA-1273.222 (2324.6 [1921.2-2812.7] and 7322.4 [6386.2-8395.7]) were significantly higher than mRNA-1273 (488.5 [427.4-558.4] and 5651.4 (5055.7-6317.3) respectively, at day 29 post-boost in participants with no prior SARS-CoV-2-infection. A randomly selected subgroup (N=60) of participants in the mRNA-1273.222 group also exhibited cross-neutralization against the emerging omicron variants BQ.1.1 and XBB.1. No new safety concerns were identified with mRNA-1273.222.Vaccine effectiveness was not assessed in this study; in an exploratory analysis 1.6% (8/511) of mRNA-1273.222 recipients had Covid-19 post-boost.ConclusionThe bivalent omicron BA.4/BA.5-containing vaccine mRNA-1273.222 elicited superior neutralizing antibody responses against BA.4/BA.5 compared to mRNA-1273, with no safety concerns identified.(Supported by Moderna;ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier:NCT04927065)

Background Vaccination strategies that provide enhanced immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants are needed. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of a bivalent omicron containing vaccine, mRNA-1273.214 (50 µg), administered as a second booster dose in adult participants. Methods In this ongoing phase 2/3 trial, 50 µg of the bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (25 µg each ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 and omicron BA.1 spike mRNAs) or 50 µg of the authorized mRNA-1273 were administered as second boosters in adults who previously received a 2 dose (100 µg) primary series and a first booster (50 µg) dose of mRNA-1273 (≥ 3 months prior). Primary objectives were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity 28 days post-booster dose. Results In participants with no prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received booster doses of mRNA-1273.214 (n=334) or mRNA-1273 (n=260), neutralizing antibody (nAb) geometric mean titers (GMTs [95% confidence interval (CI)]) against omicron BA.1 were 2372.4 (2070.6−2718.2) and 1473.5 (1270.8−1708.4), respectively. The model-based GMT ratio (GMR [97.5% CI]) of mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273 was 1.75 (1.49−2.04), meeting the pre-specified superiority criterion against omicron BA.1. The pre-specified criterion for non-inferiority against the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain was also met. Additionally, mRNA-1273.214 elicited higher GMTs (727.4 [632.8−836.1]) than mRNA-1273 (492.1 [431.1−561.9]) against omicron subvariants BA.4/BA.5 [GMR (95% CI) 1.69 [1.51−1.90])]. Binding antibody responses against alpha, beta, gamma, delta, and omicron were numerically higher in the mRNA-1273.214 group compared to mRNA-1273. mRNA-1273.214 GMTs were consistently higher across age (18-< 65 and ≥ 65 years) and pre-booster SARS-CoV-2 infection subgroups (Figure). Safety and reactogenicity were similar for both vaccine groups. Conclusion The bivalent omicron containing mRNA-1273.214 elicited superior nAb responses against omicron 28 days post-immunization compared to mRNA-1273 regardless of age and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection; no new safety concerns were identified. Disclosures Spyros Chalkias, MD, Moderna, Inc.: Salary|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Stephen R. Walsh, MD, Janssen Vaccines: Grant/Research Support|Moderna, Inc.: Grant/Research Support|NIAID/NIH: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi Pasteur: Grant/Research Support Nichole McGhee, B.S., Moderna, Inc.: Salary|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Joanne Tomassini, Ph.D., Moderna, Inc.: Advisor/Consultant Xing Chen, Sc.D., Moderna, Inc.: Salary|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Ying Chang, M.S., Moderna, Inc.: Salary|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Andrea Sutherland, M.D., MPH, Moderna, Inc.: Salary|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds David Montefiori, Ph.D., Moderna, Inc.: Grant/Research Support Bethany Girard, Ph.D., Moderna, Inc.: Salary|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Darin Edwards, Ph.D., Moderna, Inc.: Salary|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Jing Feng, M.S., Moderna, Inc.: Salary|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Honghong Zhou, Ph.D., Moderna, Inc.: Salary|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Lindsey R. Baden, MD, Moderna, Inc.: Grant/Research Support|NIAID: Grant/Research Support Jacqueline Miller, MD, Moderna, Inc.: Salary|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Rituparna Das, M.D., Moderna, Inc.: Salary|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds.

We previously presented day 29 interim safety and immunogenicity results from a phase 2/3 study comparing the Omicron-BA.1-containing bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (50-µg) to the 50-µg mRNA-1273 booster in adults who previously received the mRNA-1273 primary series (100-µg) and mRNA-1273 first booster (50-µg) dose. Here we present day 91 post-booster results. Participants were sequentially enrolled to receive 50-µg of mRNA-1273 (n = 376) or mRNA-1273.214 (n = 437) as second booster doses. In participants with no pre-booster severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-infection (SARS-CoV-2), mRNA-1273.214 elicited Omicron-BA.1-neutralizing antibody titers that were significantly higher (964.4 [834.4-1114.7]) than those of mRNA-1273 (624.2 [533.1-730.9]) and similar between boosters against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 at day 91. mRNA-1273.214 also induced higher binding antibody responses against Omicron BA.1 and alpha, gamma and delta variants than mRNA-1273. Safety profiles were similar for both vaccines. The Omicron-BA.1 bivalent vaccine induced improved antibody persistence compared to mRNA-1273.

Infectious disease outbreaks highlight the importance of trust in public health authorities to avoid fear and improve adherence to recommendations. There is currently no established and validated measure for trust in public health authorities. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument that measures trust in public health authorities and to assess the association between trust in public health authorities and vaccine attitudes. We developed 20 items to measure trust in public health authorities. After implementing a survey in January 2020, we investigated relationships between the items, reduced the number of items, and identified latent constructs of the scale. We assessed variability in trust and how trust was associated with vaccine attitudes, beliefs, and self-reported vaccine acceptance. The pool was reduced to a 14-item trust in public health authorities scale and we found that this trust model was strongly associated with acceptance of vaccines. Our scale can be used to examine the relationship between trust in public health authorities and adherence to public health recommendations. The measure needs to be validated in other settings to determine whether they are associated with other areas where the public question public health authority recommendations.

BackgroundUpdated vaccination strategies against acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern are needed. Interim results of the safety and immunogenicity of the bivalent omicron-containing mRNA-1273.214 booster candidate are presented.MethodsIn this ongoing, phase 2/3 trial, the 50-μg bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (25-μg each ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 and omicron B.1.1.529 spike SARS-CoV-2 mRNAs) was compared to the authorized 50-μg mRNA-1273 booster in adults who previously received 2-dose primary series of 100-μg mRNA-1273 and a first booster dose of 50-μg mRNA-1273 at least 3 months prior. Primary objectives were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of 50-μg mRNA-1273.214 compared with 50-μg mRNA-1273. Immunogenicity data 28 days after the booster dose are presented.ResultsFour hundred thirty-seven and 377 participants received 50-μg of mRNA-1273.214, or mRNA-1273, respectively. Median time between first and second booster doses of mRNA-1273.214 and mRNA-1273 were similar (136 and 134 days, respectively). In participants with no prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, observed omicron neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs [95% confidence interval]) after the mRNA-1273.214 and mRNA-1273 booster doses, were 2372.4 (2070.6−2718.2) and 1473.5 (1270.8−1708.4) respectively and the model-based GMT ratio (97.5% confidence interval) was 1.75 (1.49−2.04). All pre-specified non-inferiority (ancestral SARS-CoV-2 with D614G mutation [D614G] GMT ratio; ancestral SARS-CoV-2 [D614G] and omicron seroresponse rates difference) and superiority primary objectives (omicron GMT ratio) for mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273 were met. Additionally, mRNA-1273.214 50-μg induced a potent neutralizing antibody response against omicron subvariants BA.4/BA.5 and higher binding antibody responses against alpha, beta, gamma, delta and omicron variants. Safety and reactogenicity profiles were similar and well-tolerated for both vaccines groups.ConclusionThe bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 50-μg was well-tolerated and elicited a superior neutralizing antibody response against omicron, compared to mRNA-1273 50-μg, and a non-inferior neutralizing antibody response against the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (D614G), 28 days after immunization, creating a new tool as we respond to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Objectives: We aimed to elucidate public values regarding the use of genomics to improve vaccine development and use (vaccinomics). Methods: Adults ≥18 years-old were recruited through social media and community organizations, and randomly assigned to one of four nested discussion groups in Boulder, CO and Baltimore, MD. Participants rated their confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness prior to and after discussing vaccinomics. Before departing, they prioritized funding for vaccinomics versus federal priorities (vaccine safety and efficacy, new vaccines, and free vaccines) and chronic diseases (cancer, heart disease, and diabetes). Grounded Theory-influenced methods were used to identify themes. Results: Participants broadly supported vaccinomics. Emergent themes: concerns about reduced privacy/confidentiality, increased genetically based stigma/discrimination, and reduced agency to make vaccine-related decisions through genetically based prioritization. Participants supported vaccinomics’ potential for increased personalization. Some participants favored prioritizing others over themselves during a vaccine shortage, while others did not. Some participants worried health insurance companies would discriminate against them based on information discovered through vaccinomics. Participants feared inequitable implementation of vaccinomics would contribute to discrimination and marginalization of vulnerable populations. Discussing vaccinomics did not impact perceptions of vaccine safety and effectiveness. Federal funding for vaccinomics was broadly supported. Conclusion: Participants supported vaccinomics’ potential for increased personalization, noting policy safeguards to facilitate equitable implementation and protect privacy were needed. Despite some concerns, participants hoped vaccinomics would improve vaccine safety and effectiveness. Policies regarding vaccinomics’ implementation must address public concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of genetic information and potential inequities in access to vaccinomics’ benefits.

Objective: We characterize public values regarding vaccinomics, which aims to improve vaccine safety and effectiveness using genomics. Methods: Panel survey (2020) of ≥18-year-olds with embedded animation introduced vaccinomics. Sociodemographic, health, and vaccination-related items were adapted from validated scales. Novel items measured trust in public health authorities, vaccinomics-related values, and preferences for federal funding: vaccinomics compared with vaccine issues and chronic diseases. Beginning and end of survey confidence in vaccine safety was measured to assess potential changes. Data were weighted to the U.S. Census. Vaccinomics-related concerns were stratified by sociodemographic characteristics, vaccine hesitancy status (composite outcome), reported serious vaccine reactions, and trust in public health authorities (PHA). Log binomial regression models estimated associations between these variables and agency to make vaccine-related decisions. Results: Most (70.7%, N = 1,925) respondents expected vaccinomics would increase their vaccine confidence compared to now. Agreement was highest among those without serious vaccine reaction experience (unexperienced: 74.2% versus experienced: 62.3%), with high trust in PHA (high: 83.3% versus low: 57.4%), and low vaccine hesitancy among parents of teenagers (low: 78.8% versus high: 62.5%) and adults without minor children (low: 79.8% versus high: 60.6%; all p

This chapter outlines the ethical issues raised by the use of genomics in the study of infectious disease, in research and development of preventive and therapeutic measures, and to inform public health interventions and policies. More than two decades of ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) research on the application of genomics to complex diseases have produced many insights that are also relevant to infectious diseases; however, a number of factors unique to infectious diseases underscore the importance of identifying novel ELSI issues that might emerge from the application of genomics in this context, including issues surrounding personalized medicine and public health. While the science of genomics in the context of infectious disease is still in its infancy, and it is too early to identify all of the potential ELSI issues that may emerge from it, policy recommendations for public health strategies to prevent and control infectious disease must attend to such concerns.

The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System contains case reports of autoimmune diseases (ADs) occurring following vaccinations. ADs are rare and occur in unvaccinated people, making the potential association between vaccines and ADs challenging to evaluate. Developing mechanistic pathways that link genes, immune mediators, vaccine components and ADs would be helpful for hypothesis generation, enhancing theories of biologic plausibility and grouping rare autoimmune adverse events to increase the ability to detect and evaluate safety signals. Here, we propose a conceptual framework for investigating the genetics of ADs as safety signals following vaccination, potentially contributing to the identification of relevant biomarkers. We also discuss a study design that incorporates genetic information into postmarket clinical evaluation of autoimmune adverse events following vaccination.

The public health community faces increasing demands for improving vaccine safety while simultaneously increasing the number of vaccines available to prevent infectious diseases. The passage of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act of 2007 formalized the concept of life-cycle management of the risks and benefits of vaccines, from early clinical development through many years of use in large numbers of people. Harnessing scientific and technologic advances is necessary to improve vaccine-safety evaluation. The Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is working to improve the FDA's ability to monitor vaccine safety by improving statistical, epidemiologic, and risk-assessment methods, gaining access to new sources of data, and exploring the use of genomics data. In this article we describe the current approaches, new resources, and future directions that the FDA is taking to improve the evaluation of vaccine safety.

Current strategies to address global inequities in access to life-saving vaccines use averaged national income data to determine eligibility. While largely successful in the lowest income countries, we argue that this approach could lead to significant inefficiencies from the standpoint of justice if applied to middle-income countries, where income inequalities are large and lead to national averages that obscure truly needy populations. Instead, we suggest alternative indicators more sensitive to social justice concerns that merit consideration by policy-makers developing new initiatives to redress health inequities in middle-income countries.

The medical review of adverse event reports for medical products requires the processing of "big data" stored in spontaneous reporting systems, such as the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS data are not well suited to traditional statistical analyses so we developed the FDA Adverse Event Network Analyzer (AENA) and three novel network analysis approaches to extract information from these data. Our new approaches include a weighting scheme based on co-occurring triplets in reports, a visualization layout inspired by the islands algorithm, and a network growth methodology for the detection of outliers. We explored and verified these approaches by analysing the historical signal of Intussusception (IS) after the administration of RotaShield vaccine (RV) in 1999. We believe that our study supports the use of AENA for pattern recognition in medical product safety and other clinical data.

WOS: 000346677200002 PubMed ID: 25486901 Background: Near universal administration of vaccines mandates intense pharmacovigilance for vaccine safety and a stringently low tolerance for adverse events. Reports of autoimmune diseases (AID) following vaccination have been challenging to evaluate given the high rates of vaccination, background incidence of autoimmunity, and low incidence and variable times for onset of AID after vaccinations. In order to identify biologically plausible pathways to adverse autoimmune events of vaccine-related AID, we used a systems biology approach to create a matrix of innate and adaptive immune mechanisms active in specific diseases, responses to vaccine antigens, adjuvants, preservatives and stabilizers, for the most common vaccine-associated AID found in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Results: This report focuses on Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), and Idiopathic (or immune) Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP). Multiple curated databases and automated text mining of PubMed literature identified 667 genes associated with RA, 448 with SLE, 49 with ITP and 73 with GBS. While all data sources provided valuable and unique gene associations, text mining using natural language processing (NLP) algorithms provided the most information but required curation to remove incorrect associations. Six genes were associated with all four AIDs. Thirty-three pathways were shared by the four AIDs. Classification of genes into twelve immune system related categories identified more "Th17T-cell subtype" genes in RA than the other AIDs, and more "Chemokine plus Receptors" genes associated with RA than SLE. Gene networks were visualized and clustered into interconnected modules with specific gene clusters for each AID, including one in RA with ten C-X-C motif chemokines. The intersection of genes associated with GBS, GBS peptide auto-antigens, influenza A infection, and influenza vaccination created a subnetwork of genes that inferred a possible role for the MAPK signaling pathway in influenza vaccine related GBS. Conclusions: Results showing unique and common gene sets, pathways, immune system categories and functional clusters of genes in four autoimmune diseases suggest it is possible to develop molecular classifications of autoimmune and inflammatory events. Combining this information with cellular and other disease responses should greatly aid in the assessment of potential immune- mediated adverse events following vaccination. FDA though the CERSI (Centers in Excellence in Regulatory Sciences) program [1U01FD004319-01]; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATIONUnited States Department of Health & Human Services [U01FD004319, U01FD004319, U01FD004319, U01FD004319, U01FD004319, U01FD004319, U01FD004319, U01FD004319, U01FD004319] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER We thank Simina Boca for advice on the statistical analysis. This work was partly funded by the FDA though the CERSI (Centers in Excellence in Regulatory Sciences) program 1U01FD004319-01.

In vaccine safety monitoring, the evaluation of possible autoimmune events is challenging. Developing grouping systems based on pathophysiology, instead of organ systems, may enhance our ability to identify or verify associations between vaccines and adverse immunologically mediated events in clinical trials and post-licensure surveillance. Emerging data suggest that self-directed tissue inflammation occurs along a continuum from innate immune-driven diseases to adaptive immune-driven diseases. Herein, we develop this proposed classification for the vaccination setting in which inflammatory diseases are placed along a continuum according to the two major arms of the immune system, the innate immune arm (mediated by cells including neutrophils, macrophages and complement) and the adaptive immune arm (cell-mediated and humoral response). We incorporate hypersensitivity reactions and molecular mimicry vaccine-related reactions into this mechanistic scheme. We show how this could have important implications to assess mechanisms of potential immune-mediated adverse events following vaccination.

Current strategies to address global inequities in access to life-saving vaccines use averaged national income data to determine eligibility. While largely successful in the lowest income countries, we argue that this approach could lead to significant inefficiencies from the standpoint of justice if applied to middle-income countries, where income inequalities are large and lead to national averages that obscure truly needy populations. Instead, we suggest alternative indicators more sensitive to social justice concerns that merit consideration by policy-makers developing new initiatives to redress health inequities in middle-income countries.

Context In June 2006, the Food and Drug Administration licensed the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) recombinant vaccine (qHPV) in the United States for use in females aged 9 to 26 years; the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices then recommended qHPV for routine vaccination of girls aged 11 to 12 years. Objective To summarize reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following receipt of qHPV. Design, Setting, and Participants Review and describe adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) reported to VAERS, a national, voluntary, passive surveillance system, from June 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008. Additional analyses were performed for some AEFIs in prelicensure trials, those of unusual severity, or those that had received public attention. Statistical data mining, including proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) and empirical Bayesian geometric mean methods, were used to detect disproportionality in reporting. Main Outcome Measures Numbers of reported AEFIs, reporting rates (reports per 100 000 doses of distributed vaccine or per person-years at risk), and comparisons with expected background rates. Results VAERS received 12 424 reports of AEFIs following qHPV distribution, a rate of 53.9 reports per 100 000 doses distributed. A total of 772 reports (6.2% of all reports) described serious AEFIs, including 32 reports of death. The reporting rates per 100 000 qHPV doses distributed were 8.2 for syncope; 7.5 for local site reactions; 6.8 for dizziness; 5.0 for nausea; 4.1 for headache; 3.1 for hypersensitivity reactions; 2.6 for urticaria; 0.2 for venous thromboembolic events, autoimmune disorders, and Guillain-Barre syndrome; 0.1 for anaphylaxis and death; 0.04 for transverse myelitis and pancreatitis; and 0.009 for motor neuron disease. Disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events was noted with data mining methods. Conclusions Most of the AEFI rates were not greater than the background rates compared with other vaccines, but there was disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events. The significance of these findings must be tempered with the limitations (possible underreporting) of a passive reporting system.

Objective The objective of the study was to characterize reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in pregnant women who received seasonal influenza vaccines to assess for potential vaccine safety concerns. Study Design We searched VAERS for reports of adverse events (AEs) in pregnant women who received trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) from July 1, 1990 through June 30, 2009, or live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) from July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2009. Results A total of 148 reports after TIV and 27 reports after LAIV were identified. Twenty TIV (13.5%) and 1 LAIV (4%) reports were classified as serious. No specific AEs were reported in 30 TIV (20.3%) and 16 LAIV (59%) reports. The most common pregnancy-specific AE was spontaneous abortion: 17 after TIV (11.5%) and 3 after LAIV (11%). The reporting rate of spontaneous abortion was 1.9 per million pregnant women vaccinated. Conclusion No unusual patterns of pregnancy complications or fetal outcomes were observed in the VAERS reports of pregnant women after the administration of TIV or LAIV.

Advances in genomics are contributing to the development of more effective, personalized approaches to the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases. Genetic sequencing technologies are furthering our understanding of how human and pathogen genomic factors - and their interactions - contribute to individual differences in immunologic responses to vaccines, infections and drug therapies. Such understanding will influence future policies and procedures for infectious disease management. With the potential for tailored interventions for particular individuals, populations or subpopulations, ethical, legal and social implications (ELSIs) may arise for public health and clinical practice. Potential considerations include balancing health-related benefits and harms between individuals and the larger community, minimizing threats to individual privacy and autonomy, and ensuring just distribution of scarce resources. In this Opinion, we consider the potential application of pathogen and host genomic information to particular viral infections that have large-scale public health consequences but differ in ELSI-relevant characteristics such as ease of transmission, chronicity, severity, preventability and treatability. We argue for the importance of anticipating these ELSI issues in advance of new scientific discoveries, and call for the development of strategies for identifying and exploring ethical questions that should be considered as clinical, public health and policy decisions are made.