Safety of quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine in pregnant persons and their infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend that all pregnant persons receive any licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) or recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) to protect against influenza and influenza-related complications. RIV was safe and efficacious in pre- and postlicensure studies, however there is limited RIV safety data in pregnant persons. Objective: To evaluate the safety of quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) versus a quadrivalent standard-dose, inactivated influenza (SD-IIV4) in a large cohort of pregnant persons and their infants. Study Design: This postlicensure observational safety study conducted at Kaiser Permanente Northern California evaluated the subset of pregnant persons vaccinated in routine care as part of a larger cluster-randomized vaccine effectiveness study comparing RIV4 vs. SD-IIV4 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03694392). We identified pregnancy (spontaneous abortion, preterm labor, stillbirth/fetal death, congenital/fetal anomalies detected during pregnancy, eclampsia/pre-eclampsia, placental abruption), birth (preterm birth, low birth weight, small for gestational age), and neonatal/infant outcomes (infant death, failure to thrive, congenital anomalies detected after delivery) using diagnostic codes among pregnant persons ≥18 years immunized with RIV4 or SD-IIV4 during the 2018/19 and 2019/20 influenza seasons and their infants. We used conditional logistic regression adjusted for age group, race, ethnicity, trimester of influenza vaccination, comorbidities, and BMI, stratified by gestational age to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of pregnancy outcomes following vaccination with RIV4 vs. SD-IIV4. Using logistic regression, we separately estimated the adjusted OR of birth and neonatal/infant outcomes in the first year of life (eg, death) in infants of RIV4 vs. SD-IIV4 vaccinated pregnant persons. Results: The study population included 48,781 pregnant persons (RIV4 = 14,981; SD-IIV4 = 33,800) and 47,394 live births (RIV4 = 14,538; SD-IIV4 = 32,856). There was no statistical difference in any pregnancy outcome or in birth and neonatal/infant outcome between RIV4 vs. SD-IIV4 vaccinated pregnant persons and their infants. Conclusion: Compared with receipt of a SD-IIV4 during pregnancy, this large study did not identify any pregnancy, birth, or neonatal/infant safety concerns following receipt of a RIV4 during pregnancy and demonstrates that the safety of RIV4 in pregnancy was similar to SD-IIV4. This study provides additional evidence regarding the safety of influenza vaccination in pregnant persons and further supports ACIP and ACOG recommendations that all pregnant persons receive an inactivated or recombinant influenza vaccine.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".