MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587810485 · doi:10.1093/cid/cix027

Timing of Prenatal Tdap Immunization and Protection Against Pertussis

2017· letter· en· W2587810485 on OpenAlexaff
Bahaa Abu Raya, Michelle Giles

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunizationWhooping coughImmunologyPediatricsVaccinationAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor—With great interest we read the most recent contribution of Winter et al. reporting on the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of prenatal tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) immunization in the prevention of pertussis among young infants as compared to postpartum Tdap immunization [1]. Winter et al. reports that the calculated VE of prenatal Tdap immunization in preventing pertussis among infants <8 weeks of age was 85% when Tdap was administered during 27–36 weeks gestation (WG) [1]. Moreover, infants whose mothers received Tdap during 27–36 WG were less likely to have pertussis during the first three months of life as compared to infants born to mothers who received prenatal Tdap outside 27–36 WG [1]. These findings are robust and support the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation for the preferential administration of Tdap during 27–36 WG [2]. Interestingly, further subanalysis revealed that infants born to mothers who received Tdap during early third trimester (27–31 WG) had lower odds ratio to have pertussis infection at <8 or ≤12 weeks of age as compared to infants whose mothers received Tdap during 32–36 WG [1]. As the authors state, although the confidence intervals of the odds ratio were wide, these data suggest that early third trimester immunization might be more effective in the prevention of pertussis infection among young infants when compared to immunization beyond 31 WG [1]. The latter finding supports the current data on the effect of timing of prenatal Tdap immunization on pertussis immunity provided to the newborns [3–5]. Abu Raya et al. reported that immunization with Tdap during 27–30+6 WG yielded the highest levels of immunoglobulin G (IgG) to pertussis toxin (PT) and filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) and the highest avidity of IgG to PT conveyed to the newborn at delivery, as compared to immunization beyond 31 WG [3, 4]. Moreover, Naidu et al. reported that immunization during 28–32 WG provided newborns with the highest levels of IgG to PT, FHA, and pertactin as compared to immunization during 33–36 WG [5]. In response to these findings, some national guidelines have specified their recommendations regarding the preferred timing of prenatal Tdap administration. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council endorsed Immunization Handbook recommendation states that early third trimester (28–32 WG) is the optimal timing for prenatal Tdap immunization [6]. The study by Winter et al. provides further evidence to support this statement. Maternal Tdap immunization is gaining acceptance among public health policy makers in different countries. However, cases of vaccine failure have been reported among infants born to women immunized with Tdap between 27 and 36 WG [1, 7]. There is a need for more scientific evidence exploring the optimal window for immunization during pregnancy that provides young infants with the highest clinical protection against pertussis. The available immunogenicity and clinical data indicate that early third trimester immunization has the potential to maximize protection against pertussis during early infancy. Thus, efforts should be made to administer Tdap to pregnant women at the earliest opportunity between 27–36 WG. Potential conflicts of interest. Both authors do not have any association that might pose a conflict of interest. Both authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207