Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Birdie's avatar

I find it curious that there is a discrepancy in timing recommendation for RSV for pregnant people (presume due to slight increase of preterm birth, preeclampsia, jaundice; I infer the timing recommendation is to target when the protection is from when the highest risk of transmission occurs & combined with 32-36 weeks that CDC considers the protection needs to occur at birth so October-March when the baby, hopefully full term is exposed) versus those over age 60 to get summer-fall.

We know that there is a slight reduction in some antibody production with coadministration with Tdap in pregnant people as well as with flu (just one strain of the four).

I had been suggesting for people that have the ability to return for separate vaccines to get their flu vaccine (it seems most pregnant people have been given Tdap by their doctor probably due to the lower cost of stocking Tdap plus no mixing) and follow with RSV 2 weeks later.

Age 60+ it is suggested to get RSV earlier. I then wonder if they consider the most benefit timing wise to be September-January in pregnant people, why the difference.

The other question it would be nice to see data for is: if RSV is given first, what amount of time would need to pass to see full antibody production for the flu vaccine that follows? It would be helpful to know the mechanism for slightly reduced antibody production, perhaps it would give insight about that.

I appreciate your newsletter. It is nice to have thoughtfully considered information available.

Expand full comment

No posts