ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Post-marketing safety surveillance of tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine: a disproportionality analysis of the vaccine adverse event reporting system (2015-2025).
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine is routinely recommended for adolescents, adults, and pregnant individuals. Ongoing post-marketing surveillance is critical to monitor its safety profile and detect rare or unexpected adverse events (AEs) following immunization. This study aims to comprehensively analyze Tdap-related AEs reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) over the past decade, with a focus on safety profiles in specific subpopulations. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed US AE reports related to Tdap vaccination from VAERS for the period 2015 to May 2025. Data mining was conducted using four disproportionality algorithms: Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and Multi-Item Gamma Poisson Shrinkage (MGPS). The False Discovery Rate (FDR) was controlled at 5% to minimize false positives. Subgroup analyses focused on adolescents (aged 10-18 years), older adults (aged ≥65 years), pregnant individuals, and sex-based subgroups (males vs. non-pregnant females). Time of onset was characterized using Weibull distribution analysis. Results: A total of 20,128 AE reports were identified, with 95.80% classified as non-serious. Injection site erythema, injection site swelling, and erythema were the most frequently reported positive signals. The majority of AEs (70.31%) occurred within one day of vaccination, showing an "early failure" pattern in Weibull analysis. Tdap did not exhibit any disproportionate accumulation of unexpected AEs among older adults. Among 744 pregnancy-related reports, no new or unexpected safety signals related to maternal or fetal outcomes were detected. Notably, the adolescent subgroup showed a significant signal for opisthotonus (ROR = 8.55). In non-pregnant females, bursal fluid accumulation (ROR = 21.22) and radiculitis brachial (ROR = 14.42) were disproportionately elevated, whereas no such signals were found in males. Conclusions: This 10-year surveillance study revealed no unexpected signals for Tdap in the overall population, older adults, males, or pregnant women. While most reports were non-serious, the signals of radiculitis brachial in non-pregnant females generate hypotheses that require formal testing in active surveillance systems. Our findings are generally consistent with the current Tdap vaccination recommendations and highlight the importance of ongoing post-marketing surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.