On at delivery; the median duration between vaccination and deliverywas 12 weeks [32]. The COFLUPREG study was not designed as a vaccine trial and was performed in naturalistic real life conditions. Therefore, the follow-up of each woman varied widely according to time of delivery, between 2 and 8 months after vaccination. This could explain to some extent the lower seroprotection rate in the COFLUPREG study among vaccinated women. The interlaboratory variability of HI method has also been previously reported and 
could also explain why seroprotection rate at delivery here appeared lower 25033180 than expected [35]. Our study has some limits. First, due to the change of the primary objective and early arrest of inclusion, the study was not powered for assessment of rare serious events related to vaccination. Second, the study was performed in three clinical wards in academic hospitals in Paris and consequently the cohort could be not representative of the French population of pregnant women. Third, the groups of vaccinated and non-vaccinated pregnant women were not randomized. Therefore, it is possible that vaccinated women had not the same initial risk of pregnancy complications than nonvaccinated women. Indeed, we previously showed that the rate of coverage in the same cohort was low in immigrant women and women with low economic status and these conditions could be associated with poor pregnancy outcomes [20]. In conclusion, despite low vaccine coverage, incidence of pandemic flu was very low in this cohort of pregnant women. No effect on pregnancy and delivery outcomes was evidenced after vaccination. However, seroprotection rate at delivery appeared lower than expected in vaccinated women.AcknowledgmentsRole of the Sponsor The sponsor of this study did not impose any impediment on the publication of the study’s results. Drs Launay and Goffinet prepared the first draft of the manuscript. All authors NT 157 contributed to the content of the manuscript and to the conduct of the study; the analysis and interpretation of the data; and the preparation of the manuscript. DrLaunay had final responsibility for the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Independent Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis of the data was conducted independently from the sponsor by co-authors, Carolyn Avenell and Thibaud 23727046 Andrieu from the Inserm U953. C. Avenell and T. Andrieu had access to all of the data used in the study and ran the analysis. Additional Contributions We thank the study participants and the participating clinicians at each site, and Francis Beauvais (MD, PhD) for his help in preparing the manuscript. Inserm COFLUPREG Study Group members O. Launay, P. Loulergue, V. Truster, C. Villeret, M. CervantesGonzales (Centre d’Investigation Clinique de vaccinologie Cochin Pasteur, Hopital Cochin), F. Goffinet, V. Tsatsaris, C. Le Ray, D. Cabrol ^ (Maternite Port-Royal, Hopital Cochin),C. Charlier, M. Lecuit, O. ?^ Lortholary (Service de maladies infectieuses, Hopital Indolactam V price Necker Enfants ^ Malades), 
Y. Ville, S. Parat (Maternite Necker-Brune, Hopital Necker?^ Enfants Malades), J. Lepercq, C. Francoual (Maternite, Hopital Saint ?^ Vincent de Paul), PH. Jarreau (service de neonatalogie, Hopital Cochin), F. ?^ Rozenberg, A Krivine (service de virologie, Hopital Cochin), M. Leruez^ Ville (service de virologie, Hopital Cochin), S. van der Werf (CNR grippe, ^ Institut Pasteur), JM Treluyer (service de pharmacologie, Hopital Cochin), ?^ F Batteux (service d’immunol.On at delivery; the median duration between vaccination and deliverywas 12 weeks [32]. The COFLUPREG study was not designed as a vaccine trial and was performed in naturalistic real life conditions. Therefore, the follow-up of each woman varied widely according to time of delivery, between 2 and 8 months after vaccination. This could explain to some extent the lower seroprotection rate in the COFLUPREG study among vaccinated women. The interlaboratory variability of HI method has also been previously reported and could also explain why seroprotection rate at delivery here appeared lower 25033180 than expected [35]. Our study has some limits. First, due to the change of the primary objective and early arrest of inclusion, the study was not powered for assessment of rare serious events related to vaccination. Second, the study was performed in three clinical wards in academic hospitals in Paris and consequently the cohort could be not representative of the French population of pregnant women. Third, the groups of vaccinated and non-vaccinated pregnant women were not randomized. Therefore, it is possible that vaccinated women had not the same initial risk of pregnancy complications than nonvaccinated women. Indeed, we previously showed that the rate of coverage in the same cohort was low in immigrant women and women with low economic status and these conditions could be associated with poor pregnancy outcomes [20]. In conclusion, despite low vaccine coverage, incidence of pandemic flu was very low in this cohort of pregnant women. No effect on pregnancy and delivery outcomes was evidenced after vaccination. However, seroprotection rate at delivery appeared lower than expected in vaccinated women.AcknowledgmentsRole of the Sponsor The sponsor of this study did not impose any impediment on the publication of the study’s results. Drs Launay and Goffinet prepared the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the content of the manuscript and to the conduct of the study; the analysis and interpretation of the data; and the preparation of the manuscript. DrLaunay had final responsibility for the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Independent Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis of the data was conducted independently from the sponsor by co-authors, Carolyn Avenell and Thibaud 23727046 Andrieu from the Inserm U953. C. Avenell and T. Andrieu had access to all of the data used in the study and ran the analysis. Additional Contributions We thank the study participants and the participating clinicians at each site, and Francis Beauvais (MD, PhD) for his help in preparing the manuscript. Inserm COFLUPREG Study Group members O. Launay, P. Loulergue, V. Truster, C. Villeret, M. CervantesGonzales (Centre d’Investigation Clinique de vaccinologie Cochin Pasteur, Hopital Cochin), F. Goffinet, V. Tsatsaris, C. Le Ray, D. Cabrol ^ (Maternite Port-Royal, Hopital Cochin),C. Charlier, M. Lecuit, O. ?^ Lortholary (Service de maladies infectieuses, Hopital Necker Enfants ^ Malades), Y. Ville, S. Parat (Maternite Necker-Brune, Hopital Necker?^ Enfants Malades), J. Lepercq, C. Francoual (Maternite, Hopital Saint ?^ Vincent de Paul), PH. Jarreau (service de neonatalogie, Hopital Cochin), F. ?^ Rozenberg, A Krivine (service de virologie, Hopital Cochin), M. Leruez^ Ville (service de virologie, Hopital Cochin), S. van der Werf (CNR grippe, ^ Institut Pasteur), JM Treluyer (service de pharmacologie, Hopital Cochin), ?^ F Batteux (service d’immunol.
