EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Influenza Vaccination of Pregnant Women and Serious Adverse Events in the Offspring

Alberto Donzelli
Additional contact information
Alberto Donzelli: Executive Board of the Fondazione “ Allineare Sanità e Salute ”, 20122 Milan, Italy

IJERPH, 2019, vol. 16, issue 22, 1-9

Abstract: Pregnant women are increasingly considered a priority group for influenza vaccination, but the evidence in favor relies mainly on observational studies, subject to the “healthy-vaccinee bias”. Propensity score methods—sometimes applied—reduce but cannot eliminate residual confounding. Meta-analyses of observational studies show relative risks far from the thresholds that would confirm the efficacy of universal vaccination for pregnant women without needing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Critical articles have shown that in the four RCTs investigating the outcomes of this vaccination, there was a tendency towards higher offspring mortality. In the largest RCT, there was a significant excess of presumed/serious neonatal infections, and also significantly more serious adverse events. Many widely acknowledged observational results (about hormone replacing therapy, vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, etc.) were confuted by RCTs. Therefore the international drive to consider this vaccination a “standard of care” is not justified yet. Moreover, there is the risk of precluding further independent RCTs for “ethical considerations”, so as “to not deny the benefits of influenza vaccinations to pregnant women of a control group”. Instead, before promoting national campaigns for universal vaccination in pregnancy, further large, independent, and reassuring RCTs are needed, even braving challenging a current paradigm. Until then, influenza vaccination should be offered to pregnant women only once open information is available about the safety uncertainties, to allow truly informed choices, and promoting also other protective behaviors.

Keywords: influenza vaccination; pregnant women; healthy-vaccinee bias; real-world vs. randomized evidence; offspring deaths; serious adverse events increase; informed consent (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/22/4347/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/22/4347/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:22:p:4347-:d:284573

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:22:p:4347-:d:284573