Cited by 178Bacterial Infections and VaccinesDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and TetanusVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Effectiveness of prenatal versus postpartum tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccination in preventing infant pertussis

Open access
Winter, Kathleen, Nickell, Steve, Powell, Michael, Harriman, Kathleen·2017·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most severe and fatal cases of pertussis occur in infants <8 weeks of age, before initiation of the primary pertussis vaccine series. Women are recommended to receive tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine at the start of the third trimester of each pregnancy to optimize transplacental transfer of antibodies to the fetus. This recommendation was made by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices based on immunogenicity data, and no studies in the United States have yet evaluated the effectiveness of this strategy in reducing pertussis incidence in infants. METHODS: We evaluated a cohort of mothers with documented Tdap vaccination histories in the California Immunization Registry to determine whether infants whose mothers received Tdap vaccine at 27-36 weeks gestation had a lower risk of pertussis at <8 weeks of age than infants born to women who received Tdap vaccine within 14 days post partum. RESULTS: Tdap vaccination received at 27-36 weeks gestation was found to be 85% (95% confidence interval, 33%-98%) more effective than postpartum Tdap vaccination at preventing pertussis in infants <8 weeks of age . Vaccination at 27-36 weeks gestation was more effective at preventing pertussis in infant than vaccination during the second trimester. CONCLUSIONS: Tdap vaccination at 27-36 weeks gestation was 85% more effective than postpartum vaccination at preventing pertussis in infants <8 weeks of age. Efforts should be made by prenatal care providers to provide Tdap vaccine to pregnant women during routine prenatal visits at the earliest opportunity between 27 and 36 weeks gestation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cid/ciw634

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Maternal vaccination with a pertussis-containing vaccine results in high concentrations of antibody in the infant over the first 2 months of life.

    “Maternal vaccination with a pertussis-containing vaccine is now routinely recommended in several countries and has been shown to be safe and to result in high concentrations of antibody in the infant over the first 2 months of life (18–21).”

    From Factors Affecting the FcRn-Mediated Transplacental Transfer of Antibodies and Implications for Vaccination in Pregnancy (2017) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Discussion reports high anti-pertussis-toxin antibody concentrations in infants whose mothers were vaccinated at 26–33 weeks’ gestation. It does not establish that concentrations remain high throughout the first two months of life; the paper’s <8-week results concern pertussis risk, not antibody levels. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]1. Healy CM, Rench MA, Baker CJ. Importance of timing of maternal Tdap immu- nization and protection of young infants. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56:539-44.
  2. [15]15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention of pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria among pregnant and postpartum women and their infants. MMWR Early Release 2008; 57:1-47.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Winter, K., Nickell, S., Powell, M., & Harriman, K.
Affiliations
California Department of Public Health (US)
Corresponding author
Winter, Kathleen
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2016-09-13
Volume
64
Issue
1
Pages
3-8
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2520614282
Cited by
178
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 27
FWCI
26.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
California Department of Public Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Endocrinology › Diphtheria, Corynebacterium, and Tetanus
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Keywords
Tdap vaccine, pertussis prevention, infant pertussis, prenatal vaccination, postpartum vaccination, transplacental antibody transfer, maternal immunization, vaccine effectiveness
MeSH terms
Adult, California, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Postnatal Care, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Registries, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Vaccination, Whooping Cough, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis Vaccines, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review