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.

Maternity care provider acceptance of a future Group B Streptococcus vaccine - A qualitative study in three countries.

INTRODUCTION: There are vaccines in clinical trials that target the bacterium Group B Streptococcus (GBS). When approved, GBS vaccines will be intended for administration to pregnant women to prevent infection in their infants. The success of any vaccine will depend on its' uptake in the population. Experience with prior maternal vaccines, e.g. influenza, Tdap and COVID-19 vaccines, teaches us that acceptance of vaccines, especially if novel, is challenging for pregnant women, and that provider recommendation is a key driver of vaccine uptake. METHODS: This study investigated attitudes of maternity care providers towards the introduction of a GBS vaccine in three countries (the United States (US), Ireland, and the Dominican Republic (DR)) with different GBS prevalence and prevention practices. Semi-structured interviews with maternity care providers were transcribed and coded for themes. The constant comparative method, and inductive theory building were used to develop conclusions. RESULTS: Thirty-eight obstetricians, 18 general practitioners and 14 midwives participated. There was variability in provider attitudes towards a hypothetical GBS vaccine. Responses ranged from enthusiasm to doubts over the need for a vaccine. Attitudes were influenced by perceived additional benefits of a vaccine over current strategy and confidence in the safety of vaccines during pregnancy. Knowledge, experience and approaches to GBS prevention differed geographically and according to provider type, and influenced how participants assessed the risks and benefits of a GBS vaccine. CONCLUSION: Maternity care providers are engaged in the topic of GBS management and there is opportunity to leverage attitudes and beliefs that will support a strong recommendation for a GBS vaccine. However, knowledge of GBS, and of the limitations of current prevention strategies vary among providers in different regions, and between different provider types. Targeted educational efforts with antenatal providers should focus on highlighting safety data the potential benefits of vaccination over current strategies.

Changes in the Incidence of Invasive Bacterial Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States, 2014-2020.

BACKGROUND: Descriptions of changes in invasive bacterial disease (IBD) epidemiology during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States are limited. METHODS: We investigated changes in the incidence of IBD due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, group A Streptococcus (GAS), and group B Streptococcus (GBS). We defined the COVID-19 pandemic period as 1 March to 31 December 2020. We compared observed IBD incidences during the pandemic to expected incidences, consistent with January 2014 to February 2020 trends. We conducted secondary analysis of a health care database to assess changes in testing by blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture during the pandemic. RESULTS: Compared with expected incidences, the observed incidences of IBD due to S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, GAS, and GBS were 58%, 60%, 28%, and 12% lower during the pandemic period of 2020, respectively. Declines from expected incidences corresponded closely with implementation of COVID-19-associated nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Significant declines were observed across all age and race groups, and surveillance sites for S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae. Blood and CSF culture testing rates during the pandemic were comparable to previous years. CONCLUSIONS: NPIs likely contributed to the decline in IBD incidence in the United States in 2020; observed declines were unlikely to be driven by reductions in testing.

Changes in the incidence of invasive disease due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Neisseria meningitidis during the COVID-19 pandemic in 26 countries and territories in the Invasive Respiratory Infection Surveillance Initiative: a prospective analysis of surveillance data.

BACKGROUND: Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Neisseria meningitidis, which are typically transmitted via respiratory droplets, are leading causes of invasive diseases, including bacteraemic pneumonia and meningitis, and of secondary infections subsequent to post-viral respiratory disease. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of invasive disease due to these pathogens during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this prospective analysis of surveillance data, laboratories in 26 countries and territories across six continents submitted data on cases of invasive disease due to S pneumoniae, H influenzae, and N meningitidis from Jan 1, 2018, to May, 31, 2020, as part of the Invasive Respiratory Infection Surveillance (IRIS) Initiative. Numbers of weekly cases in 2020 were compared with corresponding data for 2018 and 2019. Data for invasive disease due to Streptococcus agalactiae, a non-respiratory pathogen, were collected from nine laboratories for comparison. The stringency of COVID-19 containment measures was quantified using the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. Changes in population movements were assessed using Google COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports. Interrupted time-series modelling quantified changes in the incidence of invasive disease due to S pneumoniae, H influenzae, and N meningitidis in 2020 relative to when containment measures were imposed. FINDINGS: 27 laboratories from 26 countries and territories submitted data to the IRIS Initiative for S pneumoniae (62 837 total cases), 24 laboratories from 24 countries submitted data for H influenzae (7796 total cases), and 21 laboratories from 21 countries submitted data for N meningitidis (5877 total cases). All countries and territories had experienced a significant and sustained reduction in invasive diseases due to S pneumoniae, H influenzae, and N meningitidis in early 2020 (Jan 1 to May 31, 2020), coinciding with the introduction of COVID-19 containment measures in each country. By contrast, no significant changes in the incidence of invasive S agalactiae infections were observed. Similar trends were observed across most countries and territories despite differing stringency in COVID-19 control policies. The incidence of reported S pneumoniae infections decreased by 68% at 4 weeks (incidence rate ratio 0·32 [95% CI 0·27-0·37]) and 82% at 8 weeks (0·18 [0·14-0·23]) following the week in which significant changes in population movements were recorded. INTERPRETATION: The introduction of COVID-19 containment policies and public information campaigns likely reduced transmission of S pneumoniae, H influenzae, and N meningitidis, leading to a significant reduction in life-threatening invasive diseases in many countries worldwide. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust (UK), Robert Koch Institute (Germany), Federal Ministry of Health (Germany), Pfizer, Merck, Health Protection Surveillance Centre (Ireland), SpID-Net project (Ireland), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (European Union), Horizon 2020 (European Commission), Ministry of Health (Poland), National Programme of Antibiotic Protection (Poland), Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Poland), Agencia de Salut Pública de Catalunya (Spain), Sant Joan de Deu Foundation (Spain), Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (Sweden), Swedish Research Council (Sweden), Region Stockholm (Sweden), Federal Office of Public Health of Switzerland (Switzerland), and French Public Health Agency (France).

Future vaccines in pregnancy.

Vaccination in pregnancy provides an important opportunity to target illnesses that are known to impact pregnant women, fetal development, and newborns in particular. The ability to create antibodies through safe vaccination that cross the placenta can provide protection against maternal, congenital, and newborn infections. At present, multiple vaccines are being developed which have direct benefits for pregnant women and their newborns. Group B streptococcus, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Cytomegalovirus, Zika, Ebola, Malaria, and Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 are all being researched with the view to develop a safe vaccine available for pregnant women. There is also an increased movement towards the inclusion of pregnant women in vaccine development and trials - challenging the historical, ethical, and medicolegal arguments against their involvement in such research.