Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 85
Filtrar
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 7(4): e245479, 2024 Apr 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38587844

RESUMO

Importance: Pregnant people and infants are at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Understanding changes in attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant and recently pregnant people is important for public health messaging. Objective: To assess attitudinal trends regarding COVID-19 vaccines by (1) vaccination status and (2) race, ethnicity, and language among samples of pregnant and recently pregnant Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) members from 2021 to 2023. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional surveye study included pregnant or recently pregnant members of the VSD, a collaboration of 13 health care systems and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unvaccinated, non-Hispanic Black, and Spanish-speaking members were oversampled. Wave 1 took place from October 2021 to February 2022, and wave 2 took place from November 2022 to February 2023. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to September 2023. Exposures: Self-reported or electronic health record (EHR)-derived race, ethnicity, and preferred language. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported vaccination status and attitudes toward monovalent (wave 1) or bivalent Omicron booster (wave 2) COVID-19 vaccines. Sample- and response-weighted analyses assessed attitudes by vaccination status and 3 race, ethnicity, and language groupings of interest. Results: There were 1227 respondents; all identified as female, the mean (SD) age was 31.7 (5.6) years, 356 (29.0%) identified as Black race, 555 (45.2%) identified as Hispanic ethnicity, and 445 (36.3%) preferred the Spanish language. Response rates were 43.5% for wave 1 (652 of 1500 individuals sampled) and 39.5% for wave 2 (575 of 1456 individuals sampled). Respondents were more likely than nonrespondents to be White, non-Hispanic, and vaccinated per EHR. Overall, 76.8% (95% CI, 71.5%-82.2%) reported 1 or more COVID-19 vaccinations; Spanish-speaking Hispanic respondents had the highest weighted proportion of respondents with 1 or more vaccination. Weighted estimates of somewhat or strongly agreeing that COVID-19 vaccines are safe decreased from wave 1 to 2 for respondents who reported 1 or more vaccinations (76% vs 50%; χ21 = 7.8; P < .001), non-Hispanic White respondents (72% vs 43%; χ21 = 5.4; P = .02), and Spanish-speaking Hispanic respondents (76% vs 53%; χ21 = 22.8; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: Decreasing confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety in a large, diverse pregnant and recently pregnant insured population is a public health concern.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Gravidez , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Estudos Transversais , Autorrelato , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Hispânico ou Latino , Negro ou Afro-Americano , Brancos , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos
2.
Obstet Gynecol ; 2024 Apr 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38626447

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between antenatal messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of individuals with singleton pregnancies with live deliveries between June 1, 2021, and January 31, 2022, with data available from eight integrated health care systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Vaccine exposure was defined as receipt of one or two mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses (primary series) during pregnancy. Outcomes were preterm birth (PTB) before 37 weeks of gestation, small-for-gestational age (SGA) neonates, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), gestational hypertension, and preeclampsia-eclampsia-HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count) syndrome. Outcomes in individuals vaccinated were compared with those in propensity-matched individuals with unexposed pregnancies. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs were estimated for PTB and SGA using a time-dependent covariate Cox model, and adjusted relative risks (aRRs) were estimated for GDM, gestational hypertension, and preeclampsia-eclampsia-HELLP syndrome using Poisson regression with robust variance. RESULTS: Among 55,591 individuals eligible for inclusion, 23,517 (42.3%) received one or two mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses during pregnancy. Receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination varied by maternal age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and history of COVID-19. Compared with no vaccination, mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a decreased risk of PTB (rate: 6.4 [vaccinated] vs 7.7 [unvaccinated] per 100, aHR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.94). Messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with SGA (8.3 vs 7.4 per 100; aHR 1.06, 95% CI, 0.99-1.13), GDM (11.9 vs 10.6 per 100; aRR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.90-1.10), gestational hypertension (10.8 vs 9.9 per 100; aRR 1.08, 95% CI, 0.96-1.22), or preeclampsia-eclampsia-HELLP syndrome (8.9 vs 8.4 per 100; aRR 1.10, 95% CI, 0.97-1.24). CONCLUSION: Receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was not associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes; this information will be helpful for patients and clinicians when considering COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

3.
Vaccine ; 42(11): 2740-2746, 2024 Apr 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38531726

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of electronic health record (EHR)-based influenza vaccination data among adults in a multistate network. METHODS: Following the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 influenza seasons, surveys were conducted among a random sample of adults who did or did not appear influenza-vaccinated (per EHR data) during the influenza season. Participants were asked to report their influenza vaccination status; self-report was treated as the criterion standard. Results were combined across survey years. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 44.7% (777 of 1740) for the 2018-2019 influenza season and 40.5% (505 of 1246) for the 2019-2020 influenza season. The sensitivity of EHR-based influenza vaccination data was 75.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.1, 81.1), specificity 98.4% (95% CI 92.9, 99.9), and negative predictive value 73.9% (95% CI 68.0, 79.3). CONCLUSIONS: In a multistate research network across two recent influenza seasons, there was moderate concordance between EHR-based vaccination data and self-report.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Adulto , Humanos , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Autorrelato , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Vacinação , Inquéritos e Questionários , Estações do Ano
4.
Vaccine ; 42(7): 1731-1737, 2024 Mar 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38388239

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies found no-increased mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination, residual confounding bias might have impacted the findings. Using a modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) design, we assessed the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes after primary series COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We analyzed all deaths between December 14, 2020, and August 11, 2021, among individuals from eight Vaccine Safety Datalink sites. Demographic characteristics of deaths in recipients of COVID-19 vaccines and unvaccinated individuals were reported. We conducted SCCS analyses by vaccine type and death outcomes and reported relative incidences (RI). The observation period for death spanned from the dates of emergency use authorization to the end of the study period (August 11, 2021) without censoring the observation period upon death. We pre-specified a primary risk interval of 28-day and a secondary risk interval of 14-day after each vaccination dose. Adjusting for seasonality in mortality analyses is crucial because death rates vary over time. Deaths among unvaccinated individuals were included in SCCS analyses to account for seasonality by incorporating calendar month in the models. RESULTS: For Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), RIs of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes were below 1 and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) excluded 1 across both doses and both risk intervals. For Moderna (mRNA-1273), RI point estimates of all outcomes were below 1, although the 95 % CIs of two RI estimates included 1: cardiac-related (RI = 0.78, 95 % CI, 0.58-1.04) and non-COVID-19 cardiac-related mortality (RI = 0.80, 95 % CI, 0.60-1.08) 14 days after the second dose in individuals without pre-existing cancer and heart disease. For Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S), RIs of four cardiac-related death outcomes ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 for the 14-day risk interval, and 0.68 to 0.72 for the 28-day risk interval and 95 % CIs included 1. CONCLUSION: Using a modified SCCS design and adjusting for temporal trends, no-increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes among recipients of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Ad26COVS1 , Vacina BNT162 , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Projetos de Pesquisa , Vacinação/efeitos adversos
5.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 2024 Jan 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38219855

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is evidence suggesting that COVID-19 vaccination may be associated with small, transitory effects on uterine bleeding, possibly including menstrual timing, flow, and duration, in some individuals. However, changes in health care seeking, diagnosis, and workup for abnormal uterine bleeding in the COVID-19 vaccine era are less clear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnosis and diagnostic evaluation in a large integrated health system. STUDY DESIGN: Using segmented regression, we assessed whether the availability of COVID-19 vaccines was associated with changes in monthly, population-based rates of incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses relative to the prepandemic period in health system members aged 16 to 44 years who were not menopausal. We also compared clinical and demographic characteristics of patients diagnosed with incident abnormal uterine bleeding between December 2020 and October 13, 2021 by vaccination status (never vaccinated, vaccinated in the 60 days before diagnosis, vaccinated >60 days before diagnosis). Furthermore, we conducted detailed chart review of patients diagnosed with abnormal uterine bleeding within 1 to 60 days of COVID-19 vaccination in the same time period. RESULTS: In monthly populations ranging from 79,000 to 85,000 female health system members, incidence of abnormal uterine bleeding diagnosis per 100,000 person-days ranged from 8.97 to 19.19. There was no significant change in the level or trend in the incidence of abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses between the prepandemic (January 2019-January 2020) and post-COVID-19 vaccine (December 2020-December 2021) periods. A comparison of clinical characteristics of 2717 abnormal uterine bleeding cases by vaccination status suggested that abnormal bleeding among recently vaccinated patients was similar or less severe than abnormal bleeding among patients who had never been vaccinated or those vaccinated >60 days before. There were also significant differences in age and race of patients with incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses by vaccination status (Ps<.02). Never-vaccinated patients were the youngest and those vaccinated >60 days before were the oldest. The proportion of patients who were Black/African American was highest among never-vaccinated patients, and the proportion of Asian patients was higher among vaccinated patients. Chart review of 114 confirmed postvaccination abnormal uterine bleeding cases diagnosed from December 2020 through October 13, 2021 found that the most common symptoms reported were changes in timing, duration, and volume of bleeding. Approximately one-third of cases received no diagnostic workup; 57% had no etiology for the bleeding documented in the electronic health record. In 12% of cases, the patient mentioned or asked about a possible link between their bleeding and their recent COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: The availability of COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with a change in incidence of medically attended abnormal uterine bleeding in our population of over 79,000 female patients of reproductive age. In addition, among 2717 patients with abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses in the period following COVID-19 vaccine availability, receipt of the vaccine was not associated with greater bleeding severity.

7.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 230(1): 71.e1-71.e14, 2024 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37726057

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is a growing literature base regarding menstrual changes following COVID-19 vaccination among premenopausal people. However, relatively little is known about uterine bleeding in postmenopausal people following COVID-19 vaccination. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine trends in incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses over time before and after COVID-19 vaccine introduction, and to describe cases of new-onset postmenopausal bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: For postmenopausal bleeding incidence calculations, monthly population-level cohorts consisted of female Kaiser Permanente Northwest members aged ≥45 years. Those diagnosed with incident postmenopausal bleeding in the electronic medical record were included in monthly numerators. Members with preexisting postmenopausal bleeding or abnormal uterine bleeding, or who were at increased risk of bleeding due to other health conditions, were excluded from monthly calculations. We used segmented regression analysis to estimate changes in the incidence of postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses from 2018 through 2021 in Kaiser Permanente Northwest members meeting the inclusion criteria, stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status in 2021. In addition, we identified all members with ≥1 COVID-19 vaccination between December 14, 2020 and August 14, 2021, who had an incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnosis within 60 days of vaccination. COVID-19 vaccination, diagnostic procedures, and presumed bleeding etiology were assessed through chart review and described. A temporal scan statistic was run on all cases without clear bleeding etiology. RESULTS: In a population of 75,530 to 82,693 individuals per month, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses before and after COVID-19 vaccine introduction (P=.59). A total of 104 individuals had incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnosed within 60 days following COVID-19 vaccination; 76% of cases (79/104) were confirmed as postvaccination postmenopausal bleeding after chart review. Median time from vaccination to bleeding onset was 21 days (range: 2-54 days). Among the 56 postmenopausal bleeding cases with a provider-attributed etiology, the common causes of bleeding were uterine or cervical lesions (50% [28/56]), hormone replacement therapy (13% [7/56]), and proliferative endometrium (13% [7/56]). Among the 23 cases without a clear etiology, there was no statistically significant clustering of postmenopausal bleeding onset following vaccination. CONCLUSION: Within this integrated health system, introduction of COVID-19 vaccines was not associated with an increase in incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses. Diagnosis of postmenopausal bleeding in the 60 days following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination was rare.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Feminino , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Pós-Menopausa , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/complicações , Hemorragia Uterina/epidemiologia , Hemorragia Uterina/etiologia , Vacinação/efeitos adversos
8.
J Adolesc Health ; 2023 Dec 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38069938

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Vaccination is associated with syncope in adolescents. However, incidence of vaccine-associated syncope and resulting injury, and how it compares to syncope incidence following other medical procedures, is not known. Here, we describe the incidence of syncope and syncope-related injury in adolescents following vaccination and routine venipuncture. METHODS: We identified all Kaiser Permanente Northwest members ages 9-18 years with a vaccination or routine venipuncture and a same-day International Classification of Diseases diagnosis of syncope from 2013 through 2019. All cases were chart reviewed to establish chronology of events (vaccination, venipuncture, syncope, and injury, as applicable) and to attribute cause to vaccination or venipuncture. Incidence rates for vaccine-associated and venipuncture-associated syncope were calculated overall, by sex and age group. Syncope events resulting in injury were assessed for each event type. RESULTS: Of 197,642 vaccination and 12,246 venipuncture events identified, 549 vaccination and 67 venipuncture events had same-day syncope codes. Chart validation confirmed 59/549 (10.7%) events as vaccine-associated syncope, for a rate of 2.99 per 10,000 vaccination events (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.27-3.85) and 20/67 (29.9%) events as venipuncture-associated syncope, for a rate of 16.33 per 10,000 venipuncture events (95% CI: 9.98-25.21). The incidence rate ratio of vaccine-associated to venipuncture-associated syncope events was 0.18 (95% CI: 0.11-0.31). The incidence of vaccine-associated syncope increased with each additional simultaneously administered vaccine, from 1.51 per 10,000 vaccination events (95% CI: 0.93-2.30) following a single vaccine to 9.94 per 10,000 vaccination events (95% CI: 6.43-14.67) following three or more vaccines. Syncope resulted in injury in about 15% of both vaccine and venipuncture events. DISCUSSION: Syncope occurs more commonly following venipuncture than vaccination. The number of simultaneously administered vaccines is a risk factor for postvaccination syncope in adolescents.

9.
Prev Med ; 177: 107751, 2023 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37926397

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women in the United States have been documented. This study assessed the contribution of vaccine-related attitudes to coverage disparities. METHODS: Surveys were conducted following the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 influenza seasons in a US research network. Using electronic health record data to identify pregnant women, random samples were selected for surveying; non-Hispanic Black women and influenza-unvaccinated women were oversampled. Regression-based decomposition analyses were used to assess the contribution of vaccine-related attitudes to racial and ethnic differences in influenza vaccination. Data were combined across survey years, and analyses were weighted and accounted for survey design. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 41.2% (721 of 1748) for 2019-2020 and 39.3% (706 of 1798) for 2020-2021. Self-reported influenza vaccination was higher among non-Hispanic White respondents (79.4% coverage, 95% CI 73.1%-85.7%) than Hispanic (66.2% coverage, 95% CI 52.5%-79.9%) and non-Hispanic Black (55.8% coverage, 95% CI 50.2%-61.4%) respondents. For all racial and ethnic groups, a high proportion (generally >80%) reported being seen for care, recommended for influenza vaccination, and offered vaccination. In decomposition analyses, vaccine-related attitudes (e.g., worry about vaccination causing influenza; concern about vaccine safety and effectiveness) explained a statistically significant portion of the observed racial and ethnic disparities in vaccination. Maternal age, education, and health status were not significant contributors after controlling for vaccine-related attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: In a setting with relatively high influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women, racial and ethnic disparities in coverage were identified. Vaccine-related attitudes were associated with the disparities observed.


Assuntos
Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Cobertura Vacinal , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Gestantes , Estados Unidos , Vacinação , Cobertura Vacinal/estatística & dados numéricos , Grupos Raciais , Etnicidade
10.
Vaccine ; 41(48): 7138-7146, 2023 11 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37866991

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In the United States, annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for all people ages ≥ 6 months. Vaccination coverage assessments can identify populations less protected from influenza morbidity and mortality and help to tailor vaccination efforts. Within the Vaccine Safety Datalink population ages ≥ 6 months, we report influenza vaccination coverage for the 2017-18 through 2022-23 seasons. METHODS: Across eight health systems, we identified influenza vaccines administered from August 1 through March 31 for each season using electronic health records linked to immunization registries. Crude vaccination coverage was described for each season, overall and by self-reported sex; age group; self-reported race and ethnicity; and number of separate categories of diagnoses associated with increased risk of severe illness and complications from influenza (hereafter referred to as high-risk conditions). High-risk conditions were assessed using ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes assigned in the year preceding each influenza season. RESULTS: Among individual cohorts of more than 12 million individuals each season, overall influenza vaccination coverage increased from 41.9 % in the 2017-18 season to a peak of 46.2 % in 2019-20, prior to declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Coverage declined over the next three seasons, coincident with widespread SARS-CoV-2 circulation, to a low of 40.3 % in the 2022-23 season. In each of the six seasons, coverage was lowest among males, 18-49-year-olds, non-Hispanic Black people, and those with no high-risk conditions. While decreases in coverage were present in all age groups, the declines were most substantial among children: 2022-23 season coverage for children ages six months through 8 years and 9-17 years was 24.5 % and 22.4 % (14 and 10 absolute percentage points), respectively, less than peak coverage achieved in the 2019-20 season. CONCLUSIONS: Crude influenza vaccination coverage increased from 2017 to 18 through 2019-20, then decreased to the lowest level in the 2022-23 season. In this insured population, we identified persistent disparities in influenza vaccination coverage by sex, age, and race and ethnicity. The overall low coverage, disparities in coverage, and recent decreases in coverage are significant public health concerns.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto Jovem , Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Vacinas contra Influenza/efeitos adversos , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Pandemias , Estações do Ano , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Cobertura Vacinal
11.
Vaccine ; 41(39): 5678-5682, 2023 09 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37599140

RESUMO

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized use of mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccines on August 31, 2022. Currently, CDC's clinical guidance states that COVID-19 and other vaccines may be administered simultaneously. At time of authorization and recommendations, limited data existed describing simultaneous administration of COVID-19 bivalent booster and other vaccines. We describe simultaneous influenza and mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine administration between August 31-December 31, 2022, among persons aged ≥6 months in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) by COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine type, influenza vaccine type, age group, sex, and race and ethnicity. Of 2,301,876 persons who received a COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine, 737,992 (32.1%) received simultaneous influenza vaccine, majority were female (53.1%), aged ≥18 years (91.4%), and non-Hispanic White (55.7%). These findings can inform future VSD studies on simultaneous influenza and COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine safety and coverage, which may have implications for immunization service delivery.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Estados Unidos , Feminino , Masculino , Humanos , Adolescente , Adulto , Vacinas contra Influenza/efeitos adversos , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas Combinadas , RNA Mensageiro
13.
Vaccine ; 41(32): 4658-4665, 2023 07 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37344264

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Humanos , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Vacinas Bacterianas
14.
Obstet Gynecol ; 142(1): 125-129, 2023 Jul 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37167612

RESUMO

In this multisite, observational, matched cohort study of more than 80,000 pregnant people, receipt of an mRNA monovalent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccination in pregnancy was not associated with increased risk for thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, venous thromboembolism, ischemic stroke, or other serious adverse events within 21 or 42 days after booster vaccination. The mRNA monovalent COVID-19 booster in pregnancy was associated with an increased risk for medically attended malaise or fatigue within 7 days of vaccination (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 3.64, 95% CI 2.42-5.48) and lymphadenopathy or lymphadenitis within 21 days (aRR 3.25, 95% CI 1.67-6.30) or 42 days (aRR 2.18, 95% CI 1.33-3.58) of vaccination. Our findings are consistent with prior evaluations of the primary COVID-19 vaccine series and are reassuring with respect to COVID-19 booster vaccination in pregnancy.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Estudos de Coortes , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , RNA Mensageiro , Vacinação/efeitos adversos
15.
JAMA Netw Open ; 6(5): e2314350, 2023 05 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37204791

RESUMO

Importance: Adherence to COVID-19 booster vaccine recommendations has lagged in pregnant and nonpregnant adult populations. One barrier to booster vaccination is uncertainty regarding the safety of booster doses among pregnant people. Objective: To evaluate whether there is an association between COVID-19 booster vaccination during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational, case-control, surveillance study evaluated people aged 16 to 49 years with pregnancies at 6 to 19 weeks' gestation at 8 health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink from November 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022. Spontaneous abortion cases and ongoing pregnancy controls were evaluated during consecutive surveillance periods, defined by calendar time. Exposure: Primary exposure was receipt of a third messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine dose within 28 days before spontaneous abortion or index date (midpoint of surveillance period in ongoing pregnancy controls). Secondary exposures were third mRNA vaccine doses in a 42-day window or any COVID-19 booster in 28- and 42-day windows. Main Outcomes and Measures: Spontaneous abortion cases and ongoing pregnancy controls were identified from electronic health data using a validated algorithm. Cases were assigned to a single surveillance period based on pregnancy outcome date. Eligible ongoing pregnancy time was assigned to 1 or more surveillance periods as an ongoing pregnancy-period control. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with gestational age, maternal age, antenatal visits, race and ethnicity, site, and surveillance period as covariates and robust variance estimates to account for inclusion of multiple pregnancy periods per unique pregnancy. Results: Among 112 718 unique pregnancies included in the study, the mean (SD) maternal age was 30.6 (5.5) years. Pregnant individuals were Asian, non-Hispanic (15.1%); Black, non-Hispanic (7.5%); Hispanic (35.6%); White, non-Hispanic (31.2%); and of other or unknown (10.6%); and 100% were female. Across eight 28-day surveillance periods, among 270 853 ongoing pregnancy-period controls, 11 095 (4.1%) had received a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a 28-day window; among 14 226 cases, 553 (3.9%) had received a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine within 28 days of the spontaneous abortion. Receipt of a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with spontaneous abortion in a 28-day window (AOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.03). Results were consistent when using a 42-day window (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05) and for any COVID-19 booster in a 28-day (AOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.02) or 42-day (AOR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.04) exposure window. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control surveillance study, COVID-19 booster vaccination in pregnancy was not associated with spontaneous abortion. These findings support the safety of recommendations for COVID-19 booster vaccination, including in pregnant populations.


Assuntos
Aborto Espontâneo , COVID-19 , Adulto , Gravidez , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Aborto Espontâneo/epidemiologia , Aborto Espontâneo/etiologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Resultado da Gravidez , Idade Materna , Vacinação/efeitos adversos
16.
Am J Epidemiol ; 192(8): 1386-1395, 2023 08 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36928091

RESUMO

In the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), we previously reported no association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in early pregnancy and spontaneous abortion (SAB). The present study aims to understand how time since vaccine rollout or other methodological factors could affect results. Using a case-control design and generalized estimating equations, we estimated the odds ratios (ORs) of COVID-19 vaccination in the 28 days before a SAB or last date of the surveillance period (index date) in ongoing pregnancies and occurrence of SAB, across cumulative 4-week periods from December 2020 through June 2021. Using data from a single site, we evaluated alternative methodological approaches: increasing the exposure window to 42 days, modifying the index date from the last day to the midpoint of the surveillance period, and constructing a cohort design with a time-dependent exposure model. A protective effect (OR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.69, 0.89), observed with 3-cumulative periods ending March 8, 2021, was attenuated when surveillance extended to June 28, 2021 (OR = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.96, 1.08). We observed a lower OR for a 42-day window compared with a 28-day window. The time-dependent model showed no association. Timing of the surveillance appears to be an important factor affecting the observed vaccine-SAB association.


Assuntos
Aborto Espontâneo , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Aborto Espontâneo/induzido quimicamente , Aborto Espontâneo/epidemiologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Vacinação/efeitos adversos
17.
Public Health Rep ; 138(3): 456-466, 2023.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35674233

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Having accurate influenza vaccination coverage estimates can guide public health activities. The objectives of this study were to (1) validate the accuracy of electronic health record (EHR)-based influenza vaccination data among pregnant women compared with survey self-report and (2) assess whether survey respondents differed from survey nonrespondents by demographic characteristics and EHR-based vaccination status. METHODS: This study was conducted in the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a network of 8 large medical care organizations in the United States. Using EHR data, we identified all women pregnant during the 2018-2019 or 2019-2020 influenza seasons. Surveys were conducted among samples of women who did and did not appear vaccinated for influenza according to EHR data. Separate surveys were conducted after each influenza season, and respondents reported their influenza vaccination status. Analyses accounted for the stratified design, sampling probability, and response probability. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 50.5% (630 of 1247) for 2018-2019 and 41.2% (721 of 1748) for 2019-2020. In multivariable analyses combining both survey years, non-Hispanic Black pregnant women had 3.80 (95% CI, 2.13-6.74) times the adjusted odds of survey nonresponse; odds of nonresponse were also higher for Hispanic pregnant women and women who had not received (per EHR data) influenza vaccine during current or prior influenza seasons. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of EHR documentation of influenza vaccination compared with self-report were ≥92% for both survey years combined. The negative predictive value of EHR-based influenza vaccine status was 80.5% (95% CI, 76.7%-84.0%). CONCLUSIONS: EHR-based influenza vaccination data among pregnant women were generally concordant with self-report. New data sources and novel approaches to mitigating nonresponse bias may be needed to enhance influenza vaccination surveillance efforts.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez , Feminino , Gravidez , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Gestantes , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Estações do Ano , Autorrelato , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Vacinação , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez/epidemiologia , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez/prevenção & controle , Inquéritos e Questionários
18.
Am J Epidemiol ; 192(2): 205-216, 2023 02 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36193854

RESUMO

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) (Shingrix; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, United Kingdom) is an adjuvanted glycoprotein vaccine that was licensed in 2017 to prevent herpes zoster (shingles) and its complications in older adults. In this prospective, postlicensure Vaccine Safety Datalink study using electronic health records, we sequentially monitored a real-world population of adults aged ≥50 years who received care in multiple US Vaccine Safety Datalink health systems to identify potentially increased risks of 10 prespecified health outcomes, including stroke, anaphylaxis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Among 647,833 RZV doses administered from January 2018 through December 2019, we did not detect a sustained increased risk of any monitored outcome for RZV recipients relative to either historical (2013-2017) recipients of zoster vaccine live, a live attenuated virus vaccine (Zostavax; Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey), or contemporary non-RZV vaccine recipients who had an annual well-person visit during the 2018-2019 study period. We confirmed prelicensure trial findings of increased risks of systemic and local reactions following RZV. Our study provides additional reassurance about the overall safety of RZV. Despite a large sample, uncertainty remains regarding potential associations with GBS due to the limited number of confirmed GBS cases that were observed.


Assuntos
Vacina contra Herpes Zoster , Herpes Zoster , Humanos , Idoso , Vacina contra Herpes Zoster/efeitos adversos , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Estudos Prospectivos , Herpes Zoster/epidemiologia , Herpes Zoster/prevenção & controle , Herpesvirus Humano 3 , Vacinas Atenuadas
19.
Vaccine ; 41(3): 844-854, 2023 01 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36564276

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The safety of COVID-19 vaccines plays an important role in addressing vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a large cohort study to evaluate the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality after COVID-19 vaccination while adjusting for confounders including individual-level demographics, clinical risk factors, health care utilization, and community-level socioeconomic risk factors. METHODS: The retrospective cohort study consisted of members from seven Vaccine Safety Datalink sites from December 14, 2020 through August 31, 2021. We conducted three separate analyses for each of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US. Crude non-COVID-19 mortality rates were reported by vaccine type, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The counting process model for survival analyses was used to analyze non-COVID-19 mortality where a new observation period began when the vaccination status changed upon receipt of the first dose and the second dose. We used calendar time as the basic time scale in survival analyses to implicitly adjust for season and other temporal trend factors. A propensity score approach was used to adjust for the potential imbalance in confounders between the vaccinated and comparison groups. RESULTS: For each vaccine type and across age, sex, and race/ethnicity groups, crude non-COVID-19 mortality rates among COVID-19 vaccinees were lower than those among comparators. After adjusting for confounders with the propensity score approach, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.49) after dose 1 and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.46-0.50) after dose 2 of the BNT162b2 vaccine, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.39-0.44) after dose 1 and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.37-0.40) after dose 2 of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51-0.59) after receipt of Ad26.COV2.S. CONCLUSION: While residual confounding bias remained after adjusting for several individual-level and community-level risk factors, no increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality among recipients of three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Vacina de mRNA-1273 contra 2019-nCoV , Ad26COVS1 , Vacina BNT162 , Estudos de Coortes , Estudos Retrospectivos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinação/efeitos adversos
20.
Vaccine ; 41(2): 315-322, 2023 01 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36351861

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Studies combining data from digital surveys and electronic health records (EHR) can be used to conduct comprehensive assessments on COVID-19 vaccine safety. METHODS: We conducted an observational study using data from a digital survey and EHR of children aged 5-11 years vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine across Kaiser Permanente Southern California during November 4, 2021-February 28, 2022. Parents/guardians who enrolled their children were sent a 14-day survey on reactions. Survey results were combined with EHR, and medical encounters were described for children whose parents or guardians indicated seeking medical care for vaccine-related symptoms. This study describes self-reported reactions (local and systemic) and additional symptoms (chest pain, tachycardia, and pre-syncope). RESULTS: The study recruited 7,077 participants aged 5-11 years who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Of 6,247 participants with survey responses after dose 1, 2,176 (35 %) reported at least one systemic reaction, and 1,076 (32 %) of 3,401 respondents following dose 2 reported at least one systemic reaction. Local reactions were reported less frequently following dose 2 (1,113, 33 %) than dose 1 (3,140, 50 %). The most frequently reported reactions after dose 1 were pain at the injection site (48 %), fatigue (20 %), headache (12 %), myalgia (9 %) and fever (5 %). The most frequently reported symptoms after dose 2 were also pain at the injection site (30 %), fatigue (19 %), headache (13 %), myalgia (10 %) and fever (9 %). Post-vaccination reactions occurred most frequently-one day following vaccination. Chest pain or tachycardia were reported infrequently (1 %). EHR demonstrated that parents rarely sought care for post-vaccination symptoms, and among those seeking care, the most common symptoms documented in EHR were fever and nausea, comprising <0.5 % of children. No encounters were related to myocarditis. CONCLUSION: While post-vaccination reactions to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were common in children aged 5-11 years, our data showed that in most cases they were transient and did not require medical care.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Prestação Integrada de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Criança , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Mialgia , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Vacina BNT162 , Dor no Peito , Fadiga , Febre , Cefaleia , RNA Mensageiro
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA