OBJECTIVES: Limited evidence is available regarding the impact of paternal occupation and its combined effect with maternal occupation on preterm birth. Therefore, we assessed the association of maternal and paternal occupations with preterm birth. METHODS: We used the national birth data of Korea between 2010 and 2020. Parental occupations were divided into 5 categories: (1) managers; (2) professionals, technicians, and related workers; (3) clerks and support workers; (4) service and sales workers; and (5) manual workers. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of extremely, very, and moderate-to-late preterm births per occupational category considering individual risk factors. RESULTS: For the 4,004,976 singleton births, 40.2% of mothers and 95.5% of fathers were employed. Compared to non-employment, employment was associated with a lower risk of preterm birth. Among employed mothers, service and sales occupations were associated with a higher risk of preterm birth than managerial occupations (aOR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.10 for moderate-to-late preterm births). The father’s manual occupation was associated with a higher risk of preterm birth (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.13 for moderate-to-late preterm) than managerial occupations. When both parents had high-risk occupations, the risk of preterm birth was higher than in cases where only the mother or neither of the parents had a high-risk occupation. CONCLUSIONS Paternal occupation was associated with preterm birth regardless of maternal employment and occupation and modified the effect of maternal occupation. Detailed occupational environment data are needed to identify the paternal exposures that increase the risk.

Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.