Prevention of pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria among pregnant and postpartum women and their infants recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

In 2005, two tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines were licensed and recommended for use in adults and adolescents in the United States: ADACEL (sanofi pasteur, Swiftwater, Pennsylvania), which is licensed for use in persons aged 11--64 years, and BOOSTRIX (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium), which is licensed for use in persons aged 10-18 years. Both Tdap vaccines are licensed for single-dose use to add protection against pertussis and to replace the next dose of tetanus and diphtheria toxoids vaccine (Td). Available evidence does not address the safety of Tdap for pregnant women, their fetuses, or pregnancy outcomes sufficiently. Available data also do not indicate whether Tdap-induced transplacental maternal antibodies provide early protection against pertussis to infants or interfere with an infant's immune responses to routinely administered pediatric vaccines. Until additional information is available, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends that pregnant women who were not vaccinated previously with Tdap: 1) receive Tdap in the immediate postpartum period before discharge from hospital or birthing center, 2) may receive Tdap at an interval as short as 2 years since the most recent Td vaccine, 3) receive Td during pregnancy for tetanus and diphtheria protection when indicated, or 4) defer the Td vaccine indicated during pregnancy to substitute Tdap vaccine in the immediate postpartum period if the woman is likely to have sufficient protection against tetanus and diphtheria. Although pregnancy is not a contraindication for receiving Tdap vaccine, health-care providers should weigh the theoretical risks and benefits before choosing to administer Tdap vaccine to a pregnant woman. This report 1) describes the clinical features of pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria among pregnant and postpartum women and their infants, 2) reviews available evidence of pertussis vaccination during pregnancy as a strategy to prevent infant pertussis, 3) summarizes Tdap vaccination policy in the United States, and 4) presents recommendations for use of Td and Tdap vaccines among pregnant and postpartum women.

Postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine.

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-Barré 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.

Preventing tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis among adults: use of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and recommendation of ACIP, supported by the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), for use of Tdap among health-care personnel.

On June 10, 2005, a tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) formulated for use in adults and adolescents was licensed in the United States for persons aged 11-64 years (ADACEL, manufactured by sanofi pasteur, Toronto, Ontario, Canada). Prelicensure studies demonstrated safety and efficacy, inferred through immunogenicity, against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis when Tdap was administered as a single booster dose to adults. To reduce pertussis morbidity among adults and maintain the standard of care for tetanus and diphtheria prevention and to reduce the transmission of pertussis to infants and in health-care settings, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that: 1) adults aged 19-64 years should receive a single dose of Tdap to replace tetanus and diphtheria toxoids vaccine (Td) for booster immunization against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis if they received their last dose of Td >or=10 years earlier and they have not previously received Tdap; 2) intervals shorter than 10 years since the last Td may be used for booster protection against pertussis; 3) adults who have or who anticipate having close contact with an infant aged <12 months (e.g., parents, grandparents aged <65 years, child-care providers, and health-care personnel) should receive a single dose of Tdap to reduce the risk for transmitting pertussis. An interval as short as 2 years from the last Td is suggested; shorter intervals can be used. When possible, women should receive Tdap before becoming pregnant. Women who have not previously received Tdap should receive a dose of Tdap in the immediate postpartum period; 4) health-care personnel who work in hospitals or ambulatory care settings and have direct patient contact should receive a single dose of Tdap as soon as feasible if they have not previously received Tdap. An interval as short as 2 years from the last dose of Td is recommended; shorter intervals may be used. These recommendations for use of Tdap in health-care personnel are supported by the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). This statement 1) reviews pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria vaccination policy in the United States; 2) describes the clinical features and epidemiology of pertussis among adults; 3) summarizes the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety data of Tdap; and 4) presents recommendations for the use of Tdap among adults aged 19-64 years.

Preventing tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis among adolescents: use of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccines recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

During spring 2005, two tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) products formulated for use in adolescents (and, for one product, use in adults) were licensed in the United States (BOOSTRIX, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium [licensed May 3, 2005, for use in persons aged 10-18 years], and ADACEL, sanofi pasteur, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [licensed June 10, 2005, for use in persons aged 11-64 years]). Prelicensure studies demonstrated safety and efficacy against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis when Tdap was administered as a single booster dose to adolescents. To reduce pertussis morbidity in adolescents and maintain the standard of care for tetanus and diphtheria protection, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that: 1) adolescents aged 11-18 years should receive a single dose of Tdap instead of tetanus and diphtheria toxoids vaccine (Td) for booster immunization against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis if they have completed the recommended childhood diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and whole cell pertussis vaccine (DTP)/ diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) vaccination series (five doses of pediatric DTP/DTaP before the seventh birthday; if the fourth dose was administered on or after the fourth birthday, the fifth dose is not needed) and have not received Td or Tdap. The preferred age for Tdap vaccination is 11-12 years; 2) adolescents aged 11-18 years who received Td, but not Tdap, are encouraged to receive a single dose of Tdap to provide protection against pertussis if they have completed the recommended childhood DTP/DTaP vaccination series. An interval of at least 5 years between Td and Tdap is encouraged to reduce the risk for local and systemic reactions after Tdap vaccination. However, an interval less than 5 years between Td and Tdap can be used; and 3) vaccine providers should administer Tdap and tetravalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (Menactra, sanofi pasteur, Swiftwater, Pennsylvania) to adolescents aged 11-18 years during the same visit if both vaccines are indicated and available. This statement 1) reviews tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis vaccination policy in the United States, with emphasis on adolescents; 2) describes the clinical features and epidemiology of pertussis among adolescents; 3) summarizes the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety data of the two Tdap vaccines licensed for use among adolescents; and 4) presents recommendations for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccination among adolescents aged 11-18 years.

U.S. Postlicensure safety surveillance for adolescent and adult tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis vaccines: 2005-2007.

BACKGROUND: Pre-licensure clinical trials for two U.S. licensed tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines did not reveal any major safety concerns. However, routine use in large adolescent and adult populations could reveal rare and potentially serious adverse events (AEs). METHODS: To characterize reported AEs following Tdap vaccination and identify potential safety concerns warranting further evaluation, we analyzed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and assessed the frequency and proportions of AEs and reporting rates (reports per 100,000 vaccine doses distributed). RESULTS: A total of 2090 reports (7% were serious; 55% listed Tdap alone) involving Tdap vaccines were submitted to VAERS May 2005-June 2007. The crude reporting rate was 10.2 per 100,000 vaccine doses distributed. The median age of vaccinees was 22 years, and the female to male ratio was about 2 to 1. The majority of reports described common local and systemic signs and symptoms, such as injection site reactions, fever, and headache. Rarely reported AEs included myopericarditis, demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, syncope, encephalopathy/encephalitis, seizure, Bell's palsy, anaphylaxis, and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: Because adolescents and adults were not routinely vaccinated against pertussis in the past, this surveillance summary provides important - and reassuring - information about the use of Tdap in these age groups. Although subject to the limitations of passive surveillance, the findings of this VAERS review support the pre-licensure clinical trial data with regard to the safety of the U.S. licensed Tdap vaccines. Continued monitoring of clinically significant AEs that are temporally associated with Tdap vaccination and further assessment of such events using controlled observational studies may provide additional information about the safety of these vaccines.

Clinical assessment of serious adverse events in children receiving 2009 H1N1 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines were licensed and administered in the United States during the H1N1 influenza pandemic between 2009 and 2013. METHODS: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System received reports of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) after H1N1 vaccination. Selected reports were referred to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment network for additional review. We assessed causality using modified World Health Organization criteria. RESULTS: There were 3,928 reports of AEFI in children younger than age 18 years after 2009 H1N1 vaccination received by January 31, 2010. Of these, 214 (5.4%) were classified as serious nonfatal and 109 were referred to Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment for further evaluation. Ninety-nine (91%) had sufficient initial information to begin investigation and are described here. The mean age was 8 years (range, 6 months-17 years) and 38% were female. Median number of days between vaccination and symptom onset was 2 (range, -11 days to +41 days). Receipt of inactivated, live attenuated, or unknown type of 2009 H1N1 vaccines was reported by 68, 26 and 5 cases, respectively. Serious AEFI were categorized as neurologic events in 47 cases, as hypersensitivity in 15 cases and as respiratory events in 10 cases. At the time of evaluation, recovery was described as complete (61), partial (16), no improvement (1), or unknown (21). Causality assessment yielded the following likelihood of association with 2009 H1N1 vaccination: 8 definitely; 8 probably; 21 possibly; 43 unlikely; 17 unrelated; and 2 unclassifiable. CONCLUSIONS: Most AEFI in children evaluated were not causally related to vaccine and resolved without sequelae. Detailed clinical assessment of individual serious AEFI can provide reassurance of vaccine safety.

Understanding the role of human variation in vaccine adverse events: the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network.

The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and 6 academic medical centers to provide support for immunization safety assessment and research. The CISA Network was established by the CDC in 2001 with 4 primary goals: (1) develop research protocols for clinical evaluation, diagnosis, and management of adverse events following immunization (AEFI); (2) improve the understanding of AEFI at the individual level, including determining possible genetic and other risk factors for predisposed people and subpopulations at high risk; (3) develop evidence-based algorithms for vaccination of people at risk of serious AEFI; and (4) serve as subject-matter experts for clinical vaccine-safety inquiries. CISA Network investigators bring in-depth clinical, pathophysiologic, and epidemiologic expertise to assessing causal relationships between vaccines and adverse events and to understanding the pathogenesis of AEFI. CISA Network researchers conduct expert reviews of clinically significant adverse events and determine the validity of the recorded diagnoses on the basis of clinical and laboratory criteria. They also conduct special studies to investigate the possible pathogenesis of adverse events, assess relationships between vaccines and adverse events, and maintain a centralized repository for clinical specimens. The CISA Network provides specific clinical guidance to both health care providers who administer vaccines and those who evaluate and treat patients with possible AEFI. The CISA Network plays an important role in providing critical immunization-safety data and expertise to inform vaccine policy-makers. The CISA Network serves as a unique resource for vaccine-safety monitoring efforts conducted at the CDC.

Overview of the Clinical Consult Case Review of adverse events following immunization: Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network 2004-2009.

BACKGROUND: In 2004 the Clinical Consult Case Review (CCCR) working group was formed within the CDC-funded Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network to review individual cases of adverse events following immunizations (AEFI). METHODS: Cases were referred by practitioners, health departments, or CDC employees. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) searches and literature reviews for similar cases were performed prior to review. After CCCR discussion, AEFI were assessed for a causal relationship with vaccination and recommendations regarding future immunizations were relayed back to the referring physicians. In 2010, surveys were sent to referring physicians to determine the utility and effectiveness of the CCCR service. RESULTS: CISA investigators reviewed 76 cases during 68 conference calls between April 2004 and December 2009. Almost half of the cases (35/76) were neurological in nature. Similar AEFI for the specific vaccines received were discovered for 63 cases through VAERS searches and for 38 cases through PubMed searches. Causality assessment using the modified WHO criteria resulted in classifying 3 cases as definitely related to vaccine administration, 12 as probably related, 16 as possibly related, 18 as unlikely related, 10 as unrelated, and 17 had insufficient information to assign causality. The physician satisfaction survey was returned by 30 (57.7%) of those surveyed and a majority of respondents (93.3%) felt that the CCCR service was useful. CONCLUSIONS: The CCCR provides advice about AEFI to practitioners, assigns potential causality, and contributes to an improved understanding of adverse health events following immunizations.

Causality assessment of serious neurologic adverse events following 2009 H1N1 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events occurring after vaccination are routinely reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). We studied serious adverse events (SAEs) of a neurologic nature reported after receipt of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine during the 2009-2010 influenza season. Investigators in the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network sought to characterize these SAEs and to assess their possible causal relationship to vaccination. METHODS: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) physicians reviewed all SAE reports (as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR§314.80) after receipt of H1N1 vaccine reported to VAERS between October 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. Non-fatal SAE reports with neurologic presentation were referred to CISA investigators, who requested and reviewed additional medical records and clinical information as available. CISA investigators assessed the causal relationship between vaccination and the event using modified WHO criteria as defined. RESULTS: 212 VAERS reports of non-fatal serious neurological events were referred for CISA review. Case reports were equally distributed by gender (50.9% female) with an age range of 6 months to 83 years (median 38 years). The most frequent diagnoses reviewed were: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (37.3%), seizures (10.8%), cranial neuropathy (5.7%), and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (3.8%). Causality assessment resulted in classification of 72 events as "possibly" related (33%), 108 as "unlikely" related (51%), and 20 as "unrelated" (9%) to H1N1 vaccination; none were classified as "probable" or "definite" and 12 were unclassifiable (6%). CONCLUSION: The absence of a specific test to indicate whether a vaccine component contributes to the pathogenesis of an event occurring within a biologically plausible time period makes assessing causality difficult. The development of standardized protocols for providers to use in evaluation of adverse events following immunization, and rapid identification and follow-up of VAERS reports could improve causality assessment.

Adverse event reports following yellow fever vaccination.

Yellow fever (YF) vaccine has been used for prevention of YF since 1937 with over 500 million doses administered. However, rare reports of severe adverse events following vaccination have raised concerns about the vaccine's safety. We reviewed reports of adverse events following YF vaccination reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 2000 to 2006. We used estimates of age and sex distribution of administered doses obtained from a 2006 survey of authorized vaccine providers to calculate age- and sex-specific reporting rates of all serious adverse events (SAE), anaphylaxis, YF vaccine-associated neurotropic disease, and YF vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease. Reporting rates of SAEs were substantially higher in males and in persons aged > or =60 years. These findings reinforce the generally acceptable safety profile of YF vaccine, but highlight the importance of physician and traveler education regarding the risks and benefits of YF vaccination, particularly for travelers > or =60 years of age. Vaccination should be limited to persons traveling to areas where the risk of YF is expected to exceed the risk of serious adverse events after vaccination, or if not medically contraindicated, where national regulations require proof of vaccination to prevent introduction of YF.