Preparing for Group B Streptococcus vaccine. Attitudes of pregnant women in two countries.

Group B Streptococcus (GBS) vaccines, designed to be given to pregnant women, are in clinical trials. There is an opportunity to conduct preparatory research now to understand the drivers of and barriers to GBS vaccine acceptance. This will enable targeted interventions so that delays in vaccine uptake might be avoided. A multicenter, mixed-methodology, cross-sectional study evaluated the acceptability of a hypothetical GBS vaccine among pregnant women in two countries with differing health systems. Pregnant women in Philadelphia, US, and Dublin, Ireland, completed an electronic survey and a Discrete Choice Experiment. Five hundred and two women were included in the final analysis. Fifty-three percent of US and 30% of Irish participants reported both awareness and understanding of GBS. The median likelihood score for vaccine receipt (measured on a 10-point scale) was 9 (US: 9 (IQR 7-10), IRL: 9 (IQR 6-10)). Among the US participants, identifying as Black or African American was associated with a lower likelihood of vaccine receipt. Possession of a college degree was associated with increased likelihood of vaccine receipt. Perceived infant benefit was the most important driver of GBS vaccine acceptance. Safety concerns about a novel vaccine was the most prominent barrier identified. Good GBS vaccine uptake is achievable through strong messaging that highlights vaccine safety and the potential infant benefits. Preparation for vaccine implementation should include efforts to increase awareness among pregnant women about GBS infection and a continued focus on improving acceptability of currently recommended maternal vaccines, particularly in population subgroups with low uptake of maternal immunizations.

Fertility treatment and breast-cancer incidence: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The significance of exogenous hormone manipulation as part of fertility treatment and its relationship to the development of breast cancer remains uncertain. Several historical reviews have been performed with conflicting results. This study is an updated meta-analysis to determine whether there is a causal relationship between different fertility treatments and breast cancer. METHODS: The study report is based on the guidelines of PRISMA and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. Studies published within the last 20 years were included to reflect up to date in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice. This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO on 07/04/2021, registration identification CRD42021247706. The primary outcome of the study was to determine whether there is an increased incidence of breast cancer in women treated with hormonal fertility treatment. The secondary outcomes were to determine whether fertility treatments were individually associated with excess breast-cancer risk. RESULTS: Overall, 25 studies, including 617 479 participants, were eligible for inclusion. There was no significant breast-cancer risk association with fertility treatment (compared with general and subfertility reference groups). Summary odds ratio of all included studies was 0.97 (95 per cent c.i. 0.90 to 1.04). Women who received six or more IVF cycles did not have an increased risk of breast cancer. Similarly, there was no excess breast-cancer risk associated with clomiphene, human chorionic gonadotropin, gonadotropin analogues and progesterone when examined individually. Comparably, there was no significant association between fertility treatment and excess breast-cancer risk in patients with more than 10 years' follow-up. Summary odds ratio was 0.97 (95 per cent c.i. 0.85 to 1.12). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis did not find a significant association between fertility treatments and excess breast-cancer risk. Women considering IVF should be informed that it does not appear to increase breast-cancer risk.