Maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes among pregnant women receiving COVID-19 vaccination: The preg-co-vax study

Pregnancy loss <28 weeks gestation in maternal influenza and COVID-19 vaccination studies: a review of data sources, 2009-2024

OBJECTIVES

To address gaps in maternal vaccination and pregnancy loss research, large, complex datasets are needed. We aimed to identify and evaluate data sources and data collection methods currently used to capture pregnancy losses <28 weeks following maternal influenza and COVID-19 vaccination research.

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative Review.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science were used to identify studies that investigated pregnancy loss <28 gestational weeks following influenza and COVID-19 vaccinations from January 1st, 2009, to March 19th, 2024. Within the resulting studies, the data source(s) used to capture exposure and outcome data were identified and categorised. The capacity to capture and measure exposures, outcomes, and missing data within categories was investigated.

RESULTS

28 articles met the inclusion criteria, representing 1,113,878 participants. Most articles (n = 19) used multiple data sources within the one study, often obtaining exposure and outcome data from separate data sources. Categories of data sources included: registries, adverse reporting systems, medical records, and survey or interview methods.

CONCLUSION

Current data collection practices and existing data sources are adversely impacting data quality, and the ability to combine large datasets necessary for analysing early pregnancy loss risk factors. This also hinders our ability to evaluate the safety of early maternal vaccination and subsequent miscarriage. Establishing pregnancy loss registries using standardised data collection and coding practices, consistent terminology, and accurate exposure and outcome timing is critical. In the absence of registries, we propose an alternative source to capture both pregnancy loss and maternal vaccination data.

The quantity, reliability, transparency, reporting, and interpretation of pharmacovigilance signal detection studies in pregnancy: a meta-epidemiological study

PURPOSE

To systematically review the characteristics of the available pharmacovigilance signal detection studies in pregnancy, and comprehensively assess the reliability, transparency, reporting, and interpretation of these studies.

METHODS

We searched five databases from inception to February 2024 to identify the available pharmacovigilance signal detection studies in pregnancy. We extracted three aspects of information (basic information, data processing modes, signal detection analyses) to assess the reliability, transparency, and reporting of each study. Moreover, we adopted the criteria of Mouffak et al.'s study to assess the misinterpretation of signal detection results in these studies.

RESULTS

A total of 33 pharmacovigilance signal detection studies in pregnancy were identified. Among them, there were great methodological heterogeneities in the data processing modes (restriction to the population, comparator, standardization of drug names and adverse event names, the assigned roles of drugs, counting unit, etc.) and signal detection analyses (signal detection method, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, adjustment for confounding factors, etc.). Moreover, 13 (39%) studies had at least one type of inappropriate interpretation and/or extrapolation of signal detection results.

CONCLUSION

Our results reveals that the quantity of pharmacovigilance signal detection studies in pregnancy is relatively limited. Furthermore, the reliability, transparency, reporting, and interpretation of the existing studies are less optimistic. The main issues existing in the available pharmacovigilance signal detection studies in pregnancy consist of two aspects: (1) great methodological heterogeneities exist in the data processing modes and signal detection analyses among different studies and (2) inappropriate interpretation and extrapolation of signal detection results are frequent.

Effect of the COVID-19 vaccination on feto-maternal outcomes: A prospective cohort study among Indian pregnant women

Background & objectives Studies on the effects of COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women in Asian settings, more specifically in India, are scarce. The present study evaluated the feto-maternal outcomes among Indian pregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine. Methods A prospective cohort study was undertaken among 430 pregnant women from two primary health centres (PHC) in Chandigarh, India during 2021-2022. The feto-maternal outcomes evaluated in the study included abortions, live birth/stillbirth, term/pre-term/post-term delivery, mode of delivery (normal vaginal/caesarean section/forceps), birth weight and intrauterine growth retardation. Results Of the 430 study participants, 295 pregnant women received COVID-19 vaccines, with an uptake rate of 68.6 per cent. Majority of vaccinated women (280- who completed the study) were in their second trimester (133, 47.5%), while 92 (32.9%) were in their third, and 55 (19.6%) were in their first trimester when they were enrolled in the study. Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission was significantly lower among the vaccinated pregnant women, while other feto-maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women. Interpretation & conclusions The findings of this study suggest COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women in India might be safe, in terms of feto-maternal outcomes.

Neonatal and maternal outcomes of mRNA versus Non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and safety of non-mRNA versus mRNA COVID-19 vaccines on pregnant women and their newborns in a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Data sources

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central in May 2023.

Study selection

The search strategy yielded 4451 results, 16 studies were fully reviewed. We selected case-control studies analysing non-mRNA versus mRNA vaccines. Data collection and analysis: we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Standardised mean differences were pooled using random-effect models.

Data synthesis

We identified 8 prospective and retrospective studies with a total of 32,153 patients. Non-mRNA vaccines were associated with a higher incidence of fever (OR 2.67; 95% CI 2.08-3.43; p<0.001), and a lower incidence of fetal or neonatal death (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08-0.33; p<0.001). In subgroup analyses, the Jansen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) was found to have a higher rate of premature labor/delivery (OR 4.48; 95% CI 1.45-13.83; p=0.009) and missed/spontaneous abortion (OR 1.90; 95% CI 1.09-3.30; p=0.02), as compared with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) vaccine.

Conclusion

non-mRNA vaccines are associated with a lower incidence of fetal or neonatal death among pregnant women who receive a Covid19 vaccine, although at an increased rate of pyrexia compared with mRNA vaccines. Other studies are required for better assessment.

PROSPERO

CRD42023421814.

Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant risks to pregnant women and those recently pregnant, leading to heightened mortality and morbidity rates. Vaccination has emerged as a pivotal strategy in reducing COVID-19-related deaths and illnesses worldwide. However, the initial exclusion of pregnant individuals from most clinical trials raised concerns about vaccine safety in this population, contributing to vaccine hesitancy. This review aims to consolidate the existing literature to assess the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant populations and neonatal outcomes. Diverse studies were included evaluating various aspects of safety for women and their newborns, encompassing mild to severe symptoms across different vaccines. The findings indicate the overall safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, with minimal adverse outcomes observed, including mild side effects like pain and fever. Although most studies reported the absence of severe adverse outcomes, isolated case reports have raised concerns about potential associations between maternal COVID-19 vaccination and conditions such as fetal supraventricular tachycardia and immune-mediated diseases. Our review underscores the importance of ongoing surveillance and monitoring to ensure vaccine safety in pregnant women. Overall, COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy remains a safe and effective strategy, emphasizing the need for continued research and vigilance to safeguard maternal and fetal health.

Effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines on maternal and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in women before or during pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 infection-related, pregnancy, offspring and reactogenicity outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Major databases between December 2019 and January 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Nine pairs of reviewers contributed to study selection. We included test-negative designs, comparative cohorts and randomised trials on effects of COVID-19 vaccines on infection-related and pregnancy outcomes. Non-comparative cohort studies reporting reactogenicity outcomes were also included.

QUALITY ASSESSMENT, DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We undertook random-effects meta-analysis and reported findings as HRs, risk ratios (RRs), ORs or rates with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies (1 813 947 women) were included. Overall, in test-negative design studies, pregnant women fully vaccinated with any COVID-19 vaccine had 61% reduced odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75; 4 studies, 23 927 women; I2=87.2%) and 94% reduced odds of hospital admission (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.71; 2 studies, 868 women; I2=92%). In adjusted cohort studies, the risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy was reduced by 12% (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.92; 2 studies; 115 085 women), while caesarean section was reduced by 9% (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98; 6 studies; 30 192 women). We observed an 8% reduction in the risk of neonatal intensive care unit admission (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 2 studies; 54 569 women) in babies born to vaccinated versus not vaccinated women. In general, vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy or perinatal outcomes. Pain at the injection site was the most common side effect reported (77%, 95% CI 52% to 94%; 11 studies; 27 195 women).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and related complications in pregnant women.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020178076.

Disease-Modifying Therapies (DMTs) in Pregnant and Lactating Women with Multiple Sclerosis: Analysis of Real-World Data from EudraVigilance Database

(1) Background: The purpose of study was to compare the safety profile of glatiramer with natalizumab, alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab in pregnant and lactating women affected by multiple sclerosis (MS). (2) Methods: Individual case safety reports (ICSRs) were retrieved from the European spontaneous reporting system database (EudraVigilance). The reporting odds ratios (RORs) were computed to compare the reporting probability of events between natalizumab, alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab vs. glatiramer. (3) Results: A total of 1236 ICSRs reporting at least one DMT as a suspected drug were selected. More adverse drug reactions (ADRs) unrelated to pregnancy and breastfeeding (n = 1171; 32.6%) were reported than ADRs specific to pregnancy and breastfeeding (n = 1093; 30.4%). The most frequently reported unrelated ADR was MS relapse. Alemtuzumab and natalizumab seem to have a lower reporting probability of MS relapse compared to glatiramer (ROR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07-0.45 and ROR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.57). Among pregnancy- and breastfeeding-related ADRs, the first most reported event was spontaneous abortion (n = 321; 8.9%). Natalizumab and ocrelizumab were associated with a higher reporting probability of spontaneous abortion compared to glatiramer (ROR 2.22, 95% CI 1.58-3.12; ROR 2.18, 95% CI 1.34-3.54, respectively), while alemtuzumab had a lower reporting frequency (ROR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17-0.60). (4) Conclusions: This study did not suggest any strong or new insights for DMTs in this special subpopulation. However, further studies need to be performed.

Review of short-term and long-term adverse effects of covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

The covid-19 pandemic sparked a debate about the safety of vaccines during pregnancy. However, pregnant women were excluded from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine phase 3 trials. As two years have passed since the first Covid-19 vaccine and more studies have been conducted, we want to evaluate the scientific literature to determine any actual risks in taking the vaccine during pregnancy.

METHODS

We conducted literature research using PubMed and Google Scholar databases from January to April 2023. As the review considers short- and long-term adverse effects it was divided into two parts. The first part was conducted as a systematic review. The second concerning long-term negative effects due to lack of research is a literature review. The inclusion criteria for the systematic review part were singleton pregnancies, women vaccinated during pregnancy, and studies from 2020 and later. The most common short-term pregnancy adverse effects were included in the search: preterm delivery, small gestation age, intrauterine death, congenital defects, stillborn, fetal growth retardation, spontaneous abortion. Maternal immune activation was the primary concern for the long-term adverse effects and whether vaccination could cause it. The search terms included maternal immune activation, fetal neurodevelopment, neuropsychiatric disorders and the studies used were from 2019.

RESULTS

Most studies showed no significant difference in short-term adverse effects between vaccinated and non-vaccinated women and their fetuses. However, the literature is insufficient to evaluate possible long-term adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence supports the safety of administering SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to pregnant women, but further systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential. Maternal immune activation caused by vaccination may impact a child's neurodevelopment and should be a concern for future studies.

Risk of congenital malformation after first trimester mRNA COVID-19 vaccine exposure in pregnancy: the COVI-PREG prospective cohort

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the risk of congenital malformation among pregnant women exposed to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during the first trimester of pregnancy, which is a developmental period where the foetus is at risk of teratogenicity.

METHODS

Pregnant women were prospectively enrolled from March 2021 to March 2022, at the time of COVID-19 vaccination. Pregnant women exposed to at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine from conception to 11 weeks of gestations and 6 days were compared with pregnant women exposed to the vaccine from 12 weeks to the end of pregnancy. The primary outcome was a confirmed congenital malformation at birth.

RESULTS

A total of 1450 pregnant women were enrolled including 124 in the first trimester and 1326 in the second and third trimester. The overall proportion of congenital malformation was 0.81% (n = 1/124; 95% CI: 0.02-4.41) and 0.83% (n = 11/1326; 95% CI: 0.41-1.48) among pregnant exposed to the COVID-19 vaccine during the first and second/third trimester, respectively. First trimester exposure was not associated with a higher risk of congenital malformation with a relative risk of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.12-6.80) with no significant changes after adjustment through exploratory analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women exposed to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine before 12 weeks of gestation did not have an increased risk of congenital malformation compared with women exposed outside the teratogenic window. Because vaccination is safe and effective, emphasis must be placed on promoting vaccination during pregnancy.

Burden of stillbirths among women vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the global burden of stillbirths among pregnant women with the COVID-19 vaccination.

DATA SOURCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a literature search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus until February 4, 2023, with language restriction (English).

STUDY SELECTION

Title-abstract screening followed by full text review was done independently by two authors, based on the research question, "What is the prevalence of stillbirths among the pregnant women vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines?"

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently extracted the relevant data from every study. The third author resolved the conflicts. This study was registered in PROSPERO and followed the PRISMA guidelines.

DATA ANALYSIS

A Random effects model was applied to assess the pooled estimate of stillbirths. The I2 test was used to assess the heterogeneity of the articles included in the study. For checking the publication bias, the Doi plot and the contour-enhanced funnel plot were utilized.

RESULTS

The database systematic search yielded 168 articles; 11 of them were determined to be eligible for systematic review and 8 of them ended up being included for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of stillbirth in pregnant women vaccinated against COVID-19 infection was 0.00509 (5 per 1000 live births delivered by pregnant women vaccinated against COVID-19 (95% CI: 0.00003-0.01676). Statistically significant heterogeneity was reported across studies (I2 = 98%; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The study concluded that vaccination against COVID-19 among pregnant women had a low stillbirth rate. It adds to the existing evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe and can be taken during pregnancy.

An Update on COVID-19 Vaccination and Pregnancy

Pregnant women are more prone to experience severe COVID-19 disease, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, use of invasive ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and mortality compared to non-pregnant individuals. Additionally, research suggests that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth, preeclampsia, and stillbirth, as well as adverse neonatal outcomes, including hospitalization and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. This review assessed the available literature from November 2021 to 19 March 2023, concerning the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. COVID-19 vaccination administered during pregnancy is not linked to significant adverse events related to the vaccine or negative obstetric, fetal, or neonatal outcomes. Moreover, the vaccine has the same effectiveness in preventing severe COVID-19 disease in pregnant individuals as in the general population. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccination is the safest and most effective method for pregnant women to protect themselves and their newborns from severe COVID-19 disease, hospitalization, and ICU admission. Thus, vaccination should be recommended for pregnant patients. While the immunogenicity of vaccination in pregnancy appears to be similar to that in the general population, more research is needed to determine the optimal timing of vaccination during pregnancy for the benefit of the neonate.

Vaccine Vigilance System: Considerations on the Effectiveness of Vigilance Data Use in COVID-19 Vaccination

(1) Background: The safety of medicines has been receiving increased attention to ensure that the risks of taking medicines do not outweigh the benefits. This is the reason why, over several decades, the pharmacovigilance system has been developed. The post-authorization pharmacovigilance system is based on reports from healthcare professionals and patients on observed adverse reactions. The reports are collected in databases and progressively evaluated. However, there are emerging concerns about the effectiveness of the established passive pharmacovigilance system in accelerating circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, when billions of doses of new vaccines were administered without a long history of use. Currently, health professionals receive fragmented new information on the safety of medicines from competent authorities after a lengthy evaluation process. Simultaneously, in the context of accelerated mass vaccination, health professionals need to have access to operational information-at least on organ systems at higher risk. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perform a primary data analysis of publicly available data on suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse reactions in Europe, in order to identify the predominant groups of reported medical conditions after vaccination and their association with vaccine groups, as well as to evaluate the data accessibility on specific syndromes. (2) Methods: To achieve the objectives, the data publicly available in the EudraVigilance European Database for Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reports were analyzed. The following tasks were defined to: (1) Identify the predominant groups of medical conditions mentioned in adverse reaction reports; (2) determine the relative frequency of reports within vaccine groups; (3) assess the feasibility of obtaining information on a possibly associated syndrome-myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). (3) Results: The data obtained demonstrate that the predominant medical conditions induced after vaccination are relevant to the following categories: (1) "General disorders and administration site conditions", (2) "nervous system disorders", and (3) "musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders". There are more reports for mRNA vaccines, but the relative frequency of reports per dose administered, is lower for this group of vaccines. Information on ME/CFS was not available, but reports of "chronic fatigue syndrome" are included in the database and accessible for primary analysis. (4) Conclusions: The information obtained on the predominantly reported medical conditions and the relevant vaccine groups may be useful for health professionals, patients, researchers, and medicine manufacturers. Policymakers could benefit from reflecting on the design of an active pharmacovigilance model, making full use of modern information technologies, including big data analysis of social media and networks for the detection of primary signals and building an early warning system.