SARS-CoV-2 spike protein seropositivity from vaccination or infection does not cause sterility

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on frozen-thawed embryo transfer outcomes

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has raised concerns about its potential effects on human fertility, particularly among individuals undergoing assisted reproductive therapy (ART). However, the impact of COVID-19 on female reproductive and assisted reproductive outcomes is unclear. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of COVID-19 on pregnancy outcomes during frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 327 enrolled patients who underwent FET cycles at a single reproductive centre. The study group consisted of patients treated between 1 January 2023 and 31 March 2023 who recently recovered from COVID-19. The embryos for transfer were generated prior to COVID-19 infection. The control group consisted of patients treated between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2021 who were not infected and did not receive a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. Demographic and cycle characteristics and outcomes were compared.

Results

A total of 160 recovered women and 167 controls were included. The primary outcome-the live birth rate-was similar between the two groups (43.8% vs. 43.1%, P > 0.05). The secondary outcomes, such as the implantation rates (41.2% vs. 39.3%), biochemical pregnancy rates (56.3% vs. 56.3%), clinical pregnancy rates (52.5% vs. 52.1%), early abortion rates (8.3% vs. 12.6%) and ongoing pregnancy rates (46.9% vs. 44.3%), were also similar (P < 0.05). According to a logistic regression model, the live birth rate did not decrease after SARS-CoV-2 infection after adjusting for confounding factors (adjusted OR (95% CI) = 0.953 (0.597∼1.523)). Regardless of stratification by age or the number of embryos transferred, the differences remained nonsignificant. Subgroup logistic regression demonstrated that the time interval from infection to transplant had no significant influence on the live birth rate.

Conclusions

SARS-CoV-2 infection after oocyte retrieval had no detrimental effect on subsequent FET outcomes.

COVID-19 vaccine adverse events: Evaluating the pathophysiology with an emphasis on sulfur metabolism and endotheliopathy

In this narrative review, we assess the pathophysiology of severe adverse events that presented after vaccination with DNA and mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. The focus is on the perspective of an undersulfated and degraded glycocalyx, considering its impact on immunomodulation, inflammatory responses, coagulation and oxidative stress. The paper explores various factors that lead to glutathione and inorganic sulfate depletion and their subsequent effect on glycocalyx sulfation and other metabolites, including hormones. Components of COVID-19 vaccines, such as DNA and mRNA material, spike protein antigen and lipid nanoparticles, are involved in possible cytotoxic effects. The common thread connecting these adverse events is endotheliopathy or glycocalyx degradation, caused by depleted glutathione and inorganic sulfate levels, shear stress from circulating nanoparticles, aggregation and formation of protein coronas; leading to imbalanced immune responses and chronic release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, ultimately resulting in oxidative stress and systemic inflammatory response syndrome. By understanding the underlying pathophysiology of severe adverse events, better treatment options can be explored.

Exploring COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among young adults in Australia. A qualitative study

Background

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among young adults in Australia is still poorly understood. Young adults aged 25-34 years have been identified as a population subgroup where COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant views are highly prevalent.

Objective

Exploring the attitudes, thoughts, feelings and social environments affecting the decision to have or not have the vaccine can provide vital transferrable lessons in future health campaigns.

Methods

A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted using semi-structured phone interviews between June 2021 and July 2021. Interview questions were adopted from the World Health Organization's guidance document 'Data for Action: Achieving High Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccines'. Participants aged 25-34 years (n = 26) were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling methods. Data were analysed thematically.

Results

Overall, participants presented themselves as highly vaccine literate, understanding their social contract with society. Many participants also did not display traditional vaccine-hesitant views. Six themes specifically regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were identified, namely (1) decision-making complexities, (2) perceived risk of COVID-19 infection, (3) media's misrepresentation of COVID-19, (4) vaccine-related issues, (5) inconsistent government messaging and program execution, and (6) social benefits assessment. In addition, motivators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake were classified into three categories: (1) tangible benefits, (2) protecting others, and (3) mandates and incentives. Findings suggest the motivators for COVID-19 vaccine uptake in young adults depend on individual benefits, highlighting the importance of recognising and addressing personal concerns.

Conclusion

There is a need to re-examine and redefine the meaning of vaccine hesitancy in young Australian adults. We offer an understanding of prospective challenges with vaccine hesitancy and potential solutions to address them. These include carefully tailored approaches regarding ongoing vaccine safety concerns and the expected personal benefits following vaccination. Combining these factors can aid in developing new methods of public engagement in the next public health crisis.

The type of COVID-19 vaccination does not affect reproductive function and pregnancy outcomes in infertile couples

Introduction

Studies on the effect of vaccine type and two other vaccines other than inactivated vaccines approved in China on in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancy outcomes are rare. To complement and confirm the existing findings, this research aimed to investigate whether there are adverse effects of different vaccine types in females and males on reproductive function and clinical pregnancy.

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 6,455 fresh embryo transfer cycles at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University between May 1, 2021, and October 31, 2022. The primary outcome is the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). At the same time, the secondary results are the number of oocytes retrieved, two pronuclei (2PN) rate, blastocyst formation rate, high-quality blastocyst rate, and semen parameters (volume, density, sperm count, forward motility rate, total motility rate, immobility rate, and DNA fragment index (DFI) rate).

Results

In the comparison of ovarian stimulation indicators, no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) were found in Gn days, endometrial thickness, 2PN rate, metaphase 2 (MII) rate, high-quality embryo rate, and blastocyst formation rate. No significant differences (P>0.05) were found in age, body mass index (BMI), education level, and semen parameters (volume, density, sperm count, forward motility rate, total motility rate, immobility rate, and DFI rate) in these four groups. The multivariate regression model showed that neither the types of vaccines nor the vaccination status of both infertile couples significantly affected clinical pregnancy.

Discussion

The type of vaccine does not appear to have an unfavorable effect on ovarian stimulation, embryo development, semen parameters, and clinical pregnancy.

Impact of COVID-19 Vaccination on In Vitro Fertilization Outcomes: A Systematic Review

COVID-19 vaccination, especially vaccines that mimic the structure of the COVID-19 virus (mRNA vaccines), may be wrongly assumed to be disrupting factors affecting in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome. This study aims to evaluate any significant impact of COVID-19 vaccination in women undergoing IVF to improve vaccine compliance and promote COVID-19 eradication. This was a systematic review study. We searched studies published between 2020 and 2022 using databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, PMC, and CINAHL. Selected studies were carefully analyzed to review the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine on IVF outcomes. Seven retrospective and prospective cohort studies, which involved 3232 female patients undergoing IVF, who also received full doses of COVID-19 vaccinations (mRNA), were included. All studies in the present review showed that despite presenting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after vaccination, there were no significant differences in IVF outcomes, implantation rates, and pregnancy rates. Contrary to the theory that presumed cross-reactivity between anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and the human syncytin-1 protein could affect syncytiotrophoblast formation and embryo implantation. The present review concluded that COVID-19 vaccination does not result in any detrimental effects on IVF outcomes and is safe for women undergoing IVF treatment. The results of our study are important to tackle misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccination and infertility that may cause vaccine hesitancy in women of reproductive age.

Psychological distress, vaccine, and booster acceptance in women considering or undergoing fertility treatments during the Omicron surge of the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Follow-up study to evaluate perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination and booster with psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic and Omicron surge in women considering or undergoing fertility treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cross-sectional anonymous survey (N = 2558) from a single academic fertility center. Five hundred forty patients completed the survey (response rate = 21.1%). Participants were randomized 1:1 to a one-page evidence-based graphic with information and benefits regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Mental health and vaccine hesitancy were assessed via the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression (PHQ-8), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scales, and the Medical Mistrust Index (MMI).

RESULTS

Majority of participants were nulliparous, fully vaccinated with a booster dose, with > 1 year of infertility and mild to moderate distress. Patients with vaccine hesitancy had higher medical mistrust scores (r = .21,  p < .001). Higher MMI scores were not associated with vaccination during pregnancy. Participants that had higher PHQ-8 and GAD-7 scores were more likely to believe the omicron variant would cause delay in fertility treatments, would have impact on fertility outcome, and were more likely exhibiting medical system distrust (p < .001). Participants who received educational material were more likely to know pregnant women with COVID-19 had increased risk of death, stillbirth, and preterm birth (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

The majority of women in this study were vaccinated and had received their booster dose but also with clinically significant levels of depression. Patients with higher levels of distress and greatest medical mistrust demonstrated a concern that the Omicron variant would delay treatment, lead to suboptimal fertility outcomes, and COVID-19 vaccination would impact risk of miscarriages.

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine on intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes at a fertility center in Iraq: A prospective cohort study

Background and Aims

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major public health problem that requires preventative vaccines. However, there is vaccine hesitancy among women of reproductive age in Iraq. This study aimed to investigate SARS-CoV-2 vaccination effects on intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and related fertility parameters.

Methods

The study population comprised 54 infertile patients undergoing the ICSI procedure at a fertility clinic: vaccinated (n = 17) and non-vaccinated (n = 37). SARS-CoV-2-IgG/mL was assayed in follicular fluid from patients. Fertility parameters were assessed using oocyte and embryo quality and pregnancy outcomes between study groups, with respect to the time interval from vaccination to ova pick up.

Results

There were no significant differences between non-vaccinated and vaccinated groups in respect of oocytes quality with regard to the mean number of picked up oocytes (p = 0.564), abnormal oocyte (p = 0.827), oocytes metaphase I and II (p = 0.306; p = 0.165), germinal vesicles (p = 0.076), grade I, II, and III fertilized oocytes (p > 0.05), and for maturation rate (p = 0.13). There were also no significant differences (p > 0.05) in embryo quality parameters with the mean number of grade I, II, and III fertilized oocytes and the fertilization rate, the number of transferred embryo (0.086). There were no significant differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups with respect to follicular fluid SARS-CoV-2-IgG (p = 0.854), and pregnancy outcomes (p = 0.550).

Conclusions

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccine has no effect on ICSI, fertility parameters, and pregnancy outcome.

Does the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine and its serum IgG levels affect fertility treatments and obstetric outcomes? An observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although there are some data regarding the COVID-19 vaccine and in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, its potential impact in terms of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels has not been evaluated prospectively. This study aimed to assess the effect of COVID-19 vaccine and IgG levels on IVF outcomes.

METHODS

This observational, cohort study was conducted at a referral IVF unit. Couples undergoing IVF treatment during the COVID-19 vaccination period were recruited from March-April 2021. The study compared 38 women who had received the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccination to 10 women who had not and were not infected by the virus. We also compared pre- and post-vaccination IVF treatments for 24 women. The relation between serologic titers and IVF treatment outcomes was also assessed.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the vaccinated and unvaccinated/uninfected groups regarding the main outcome measures. However, there was a trend toward a higher pregnancy rate for the unvaccinated group (57% vs. 23%, p = 0.078) but no difference in delivery rate (p = 0.236), gestational week (p = 0.537) or birth rate (p = 0.671).

CONCLUSION

We cautiously state that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine does not affect fertility outcomes, including fertilization, pregnancy and delivery rates, obstetric outcomes, and semen parameters, regardless of measured IgG levels.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination and Assisted Reproduction Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and female assisted reproduction outcomes through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline (OVID), EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov on January 11, 2023, for original articles on assisted reproduction outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination. The primary outcome was rates of clinical pregnancy; secondary outcomes included number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live-birth rate.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened citations for relevance, extracted pertinent data, and rated study quality. Only peer-reviewed published studies were included.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Our query retrieved 216 citations, of which 25 were studies with original, relevant data. Nineteen studies reported embryo transfer outcomes, with a total of 4,899 vaccinated and 13,491 unvaccinated patients. Eighteen studies reported data on ovarian stimulation outcomes, with a total of 1,878 vaccinated and 3,174 unvaccinated patients. There were no statistically significant results among our pooled data for any of the primary or secondary outcomes: clinical pregnancy rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-1.01, P =.10), number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference -0.26, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.15, P =.21), number of mature oocytes retrieved (mean difference 0.31, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.75, P =.18), fertilization rate (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.11, P =.83), implantation rate (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-1.00, P =.06), ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.06, P =.40), or live-birth rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78-1.17, P =.63). A subanalysis based on country of origin and vaccine type was also performed for the primary and secondary outcomes and did not change the study results.

CONCLUSION

Vaccination against COVID-19 is not associated with different fertility outcomes in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technologies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42023400023.

COVID-19 infection after oocyte retrieval did not have detrimental effects on embryo implantation for frozen embryo transfer

Patients preparing for their renewal fertility treatments with embryos frozen before coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection do not need to be concerned about the potential impact of COVID-19 infection on oocyte quality and embryonic development. However, many women are still hesitant to undergo frozen embryo transfer (FET) due to fear of the detrimental effect of COVID-19 infection on endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation. The objective was to explore whether COVID-19 infection after oocyte retrieval is related to an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in a cohort of Chinese women undergoing FET. A retrospective cohort study was conducted among 300 infertile women undergoing FET with embryos frozen before COVID-19 infection. Women were categorized into noninfection, infection before FET, or infection after FET groups. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association of COVID-19 infection with clinical pregnancy outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and early miscarriage. The implantation rates for patients in the group with infection before FET (29.14%) and the group with infection after FET (30.38%) were not significantly lower than those in the noninfection group (31.03%). The rate of biochemical pregnancy (54.55% vs. 52.27%, p = 0.750; 43.14% vs. 52.27%, p = 0.209) was not significantly different among the three groups. Although the clinical pregnancy rate showed a declining trend from 45.45% in the noninfection group to 38.27% in the group with infection after FET, this result was not statistically significant. The early miscarriage rate was similar in the group with infection before FET and the group with infection after FET compared with that in the noninfection group (3.64% vs. 5.68%, p = 0.496; 6.86% vs. 5.68%, p = 0.739). After adjusting for potential confounders, the biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and early miscarriage rate were not significantly different for patients with infection before or after FET compared with patients without infection. This research indicated that COVID-19 infection after oocyte retrieval with embryos frozen before infection did not cause any detrimental effect on endometrial receptivity for embryo implantation.

Strategies to Address COVID-19 Vaccine and Pregnancy Myths

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses risks to pregnant women and their infants. The spread of misinformation about COVID-19 vaccination is a barrier to optimizing vaccination rates among women of childbearing age. We conducted an environmental scan to identify misinformation about COVID-19 vaccination, pregnancy, and fertility, and a review to identify evidence to refute misinformation and strategies to correct and prevent the spread of misinformation. Seven identified themes of misinformation are: the vaccine causes female infertility; can cause miscarriage; and can decrease male fertility; mRNA vaccines attack the placenta; pregnant and breastfeeding persons should not get the vaccine; the vaccine can change menstrual cycles; and vaccinated people can spread infertility symptoms to unvaccinated people. Strategies that can be implemented by social media platforms to help prevent misinformation spread and correct existing health misinformation include improving information regulation by modifying community standards, implementing surveillance algorithms, and applying warning labels to potentially misleading posts. Health services organizations and clinicians can implement health misinformation policies, directly recommend vaccinations, provide credible explanations and resources to debunk misinformation, educate patients and populations on spotting misinformation, and apply effective communication strategies. More research is needed to assess longer-term effects of vaccination among women of childbearing age to strengthen the defense against misinformation and to evaluate strategies that aim to prevent and correct misinformation spread about COVID-19 vaccinations.

The impact of COVID-19 on select considerations in patients of reproductive age: Brief talking points for pharmacists

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has elicited many health concerns, including the impact of the infection and vaccine on reproductive health. Although robust evidence demonstrates the safety of all available COVID-19 vaccines, misinformation and disinformation related to the vaccine continue to circulate. As accessible and essential health care workers, it is crucial that pharmacists are informed of the evidence related to effects of the COVID-19 infection and vaccinations on reproductive health care. Menstrual cycle changes have been noted owing to COVID-19 infection, pandemic stress, and COVID-19 vaccination. COVID-19 infection and vaccination have not been shown to influence female fertility, pregnancy rates, and lactation. The use of exogenous estrogen may further contribute to an increased risk of thromboembolism with COVID-19 infection, and differences in the risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear to exist between the types of vaccines. The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh any risks. Shared decision-making is necessary when discussing vaccination with patients. Pharmacists play a vital role in dispelling misinformation and disinformation related to the impact of COVID-19 illness and vaccination on reproductive health care.

Effect of female coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination on assisted reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on fertility warrants clarification in women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To study the association between female COVID-19 vaccination and outcomes of assisted reproductive treatment.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and medRxiv and bioRxiv were searched for eligible studies from December 1, 2019, to November 30, 2022, with no language restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS

Observational studies comparing assisted reproductive outcomes between women with and without COVID-19 vaccination were included. The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects models as mean differences (MDs), standardized MDs, or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic.

MAIN OUTCOMES

The number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rate.

RESULTS

Twenty-one cohort studies involving a total of 19,687 treatment cycles were included. In a comparison of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated groups, the pooled MD for oocyte number was -0.06 (95% CI, -0.51 to 0.39; I2 = 0), and the pooled odds ratio for clinical pregnancy was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-1.05; I2 = 0). Similarly, there were no statistically significant adverse effects identified in other outcomes determined a priori, including 4 cycle characteristics, 6 laboratory parameters, and 3 pregnancy indicators. Most results were consistently unchanged in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, with no evidence of publication bias according to Egger's test.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Our work did not find significant differences in assisted reproductive outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated women. However, more data are warranted to confirm the safety of COVID-19 vaccination for assisted reproductive treatment and in female fertility in general.

COVID-19 vaccination and changes in the menstrual cycle among vaccinated persons

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics of people who experience changes to their menstrual cycle after COVID-19 vaccination.

DESIGN

Longitudinal study.

PATIENT(S)

We recruited a volunteer sample with and without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection who enrolled in the Arizona COVID-19 Cohort (CoVHORT) study and participated in a reproductive sub-cohort who were pre-menopausal, not pregnant, and had received a COVID-19 vaccine in 2021 (n = 545).

EXPOSURE(S)

Demographic and reproductive characteristics were collected via self-reports.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Information on self-reported changes in the menstrual cycle after COVID-19 vaccination was collected from May 2021 to December 2021. We looked at demographic and reproductive characteristics as predictors of menstrual cycle change.

RESULT(S)

The majority of our vaccinated sample received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (58%), and were 26-35 years old (51%), non-Hispanic (84%), and White (88%). Approximately 25% of vaccinated participants reported a change in their menstrual cycle after vaccination; the majority reported changes after their second dose (56%) as compared with their first (18%) and third (14%) doses. The most commonly reported changes were irregular menstruation (43%), increased premenstrual symptoms (34%), increased menstrual pain or cramps (30%), and abnormally heavy or prolonged bleeding (31%). High self-reported perceived stress levels compared with low perceived stress (OR, 2.22; 95% CI 1.12-4.37) and greater body mass index (OR, 1.04; 95% CI 1.00-1.07) were associated with greater odds of experiencing the menstrual cycle changes after the vaccination. Participants having a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection were less likely to report changes in their menstrual cycle after vaccination compared with the participants with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.32-1.04).

CONCLUSION(S)

Among vaccinated participants, approximately 25% of them reported predominantly temporary changes in the menstrual cycle, however, we are unable to determine whether these changes are due to normal cycle variability. The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for everyone, including pregnant people and people trying to conceive; hence, these findings should not discourage vaccination.

Boosting Dose of Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA Vaccine Against SARS-CoV-2 Does Not Affect Reproductive Outcomes in In-Vitro Fertilization Patients: A Cohort Study

Background: Since the introduction of anti-COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, few studies have shown that reproductive outcomes in artificial reproductive technology (ART) treatments are not impaired, after receiving the two-dose regimen. Our aim was to investigate whether a boosting dose of the Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA vaccine affects reproductive outcomes in ART patients. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective observational study, including 157 consecutive in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles between October 1, 2021, and November 24, 2021, in a single university affiliated IVF unit. We included female patients going through an ART procedure and male partners in cases of utilization of a fresh sperm sample. The study population was divided into four groups according to exposure status: vaccinated and boosted patients (three total doses of Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA vaccine), patients who were vaccinated without the booster dose (one or two vaccine doses), PCR-confirmed convalescent COVID-19 patients, and unvaccinated nonconvalescent patients. Main outcome measure was clinical pregnancy rate. Results: In total, 99 (63%) female patients were vaccinated three times, 24 (15.3%) were vaccinated without the booster dose, 21 (13.4%) were convalescent, and 13 were (8.3%) unexposed. Although age differed between study groups, vaccination exposure status did not affect treatment outcome: clinical pregnancy rates, maximal estradiol levels, and number of oocytes retrieved did not differ significantly between study groups (p = 0.78, 0.50, and 0.97, respectively). Vaccinated patients who received a boosting vaccine dose were treated within 43.3 ± 30.9 days after receiving the last dose, whereas vaccinated, nonboosted, or convalescent patients were treated 168.7 ± 53 and 209.6 ± 85.1 days after their last exposure, respectively. We stratified the male cohort according to boosting vaccine dose status. Sperm concentration and motility did not differ significantly after boosting (p = 0.49 and 0.49, respectively). Conclusions: Our results provide further reassurance that IVF outcomes are not affected by the anti-SARS-CoV-2 Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA vaccine, in particular the three-dose regimen.

Effect of inactivated COVID-19 vaccination on pregnancy outcomes following frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of inactivated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study enrolled 1,210 patients undergoing FET cycles in a single university-affiliated hospital between July 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022. Of them, 387 women with two full doses of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (CoronaVac or BBIBP-CorV) after oocyte retrieval were assigned to the vaccinated group, while 823 were unvaccinated as controls. Propensity score matching and multiple regression analysis were applied to control for baseline and cycle characteristics (19 covariates in total).

RESULTS

There were 265 patients in each group after matching. The rates of clinical pregnancy (58.5% vs. 60.8%; P = 0.595) and live birth (44.4% vs. 48.8%; P = 0.693) were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-1.29) and 1.31 (95% CI 0.37-4.56), respectively. Consistently, no significant differences were found in serum human chorionic gonadotropin levels as well as biochemical pregnancy, biochemical pregnancy loss, and embryo implantation rates. Based on the time interval from vaccination to FET, vaccinated patients were further subdivided into two categories of ≤2 months and >2 months, and the outcomes remained comparable.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that inactivated COVID-19 vaccination in women did not have measurable detrimental impact on implantation performance and live birth outcome during FET treatment cycles. This finding denies the impairment of endometrial receptivity and trophoblast function by vaccine-induced antibodies at the clinical level.

COVID-19 infection and vaccine have no impact on in-vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome

To investigate the effect of COVID-19 infection or vaccine on IVF outcome. This is a multicenter retrospective study. Data were collected from all patients treated in the ART units between September and November 2021 after the vaccination of the general population began. Medical records of all patients who had IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized into four groups: previously infected by COVID-19, vaccinated by COVID vaccine, previously infected and vaccinated, or neither infected nor vaccinated. Total number of participants 151 (vaccinated only 66, infected only 18, vaccinated and previously infected 34, and control 33. Outcomes (ET on day of trigger, number of oocytes retrieved, quality of oocytes, number of fertilized oocytes, number and quality of embryos, number of embryos transferred, number of embryos frozen, implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate) were compared between these four groups. Moreover, we compared the outcome before and post infection, as well as before and post vaccine in a group of patients. No evidence was found to suggest that COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine adversely affects Clinical pregnancy rates (positive fetal heartbeat) (OR 0.9, CI 0.5-1.9, OR 1.8, CI 0.9-3.6, respectively) and the following parameters: fertilization rate, implantation rate, positive bHcg) (OR 0.9, CI 0.5-1.8, OR 1.5, CI 0.7-2.9, respectively). Although a limitation of our study is the small comparison groups, and the wide confidence intervals in the Odds Ratio estimates.

Evaluation of Safety Concerns for COVID-19 Immunization of Pregnant Women: a Systematic Review of Emerging Evidence

Objectives: There is an urgent need to review the status of COVID-19 vaccine immunization in pregnant women globally, so that adverse outcomes may be prevented. In this study, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the probable outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women. Materials and methods:An electronic search over three months (June 15-August 15, 2021) was conducted. Original studies evaluating safety concerns in pregnant women for COVID-19 vaccination were included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 guidelines were used for data collection and reporting of findings. Results:COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women was not associated with increased adverse effects or complications to the mother as well as the developing fetus or new-born compared to non-vaccinated pregnant women. Vaccinated pregnant women showed a robust immune response against COVID-19 infection. Conclusion:COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy causes no significant health risks for the mother or the developing fetus or new-born.

Covid-19 vaccination and menstrual cycle length in the Apple Women's Health Study

COVID-19 vaccination may be associated with change in menstrual cycle length following vaccination. We estimated covariate-adjusted differences in mean cycle length (MCL), measured in days, between pre-vaccination cycles, vaccination cycles, and post-vaccination cycles within vaccinated participants who met eligibility criteria in the Apple Women's Health Study, a longitudinal mobile-application-based cohort of people in the U.S. with manually logged menstrual cycles. A total of 9652 participants (8486 vaccinated; 1166 unvaccinated) contributed 128,094 cycles (median = 10 cycles per participant; inter-quartile range: 4-22). Fifty-five percent of vaccinated participants received Pfizer-BioNTech's mRNA vaccine, 37% received Moderna's mRNA vaccine, and 8% received the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen (J&J) vaccine. COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a small increase in MCL for cycles in which participants received the first dose (0.50 days, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.78) and cycles in which participants received the second dose (0.39 days, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.67) of mRNA vaccines compared with pre-vaccination cycles. Cycles in which the single dose of J&J was administered were, on average, 1.26 days longer (95% CI: 0.45, 2.07) than pre-vaccination cycles. Post-vaccination cycles returned to average pre-vaccination length. Estimated follicular phase vaccination was associated with increased MCL in cycles in which participants received the first dose (0.97 days, 95% CI: 0.53, 1.42) or the second dose (1.43 days, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.80) of mRNA vaccines or the J&J dose (2.27 days, 95% CI: 1.04, 3.50), compared with pre-vaccination cycles. Menstrual cycle change following COVID-19 vaccination appears small and temporary and should not discourage individuals from becoming vaccinated.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Adverse Effects in Gynecology and Obstetrics: The First Italian Retrospective Study

The most common effects reported by the Italian Medicine Agency following administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine are myalgia, soreness to the arm of inoculation, fever, and asthenia. To date, there are no specific and official reports registered by the Italian Medicine Agency on possible alterations of the menstrual cycle, or of the female reproductive system, following the vaccine. Actually, clinical experience showed a spread of transient adverse drug reactions of the menstrual cycle, following the administration of all COVID-19 vaccine types, both mRNA and Adenovirus vectored ones. In this work, we conducted the first retrospective study on Italian patients vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 in the period between April 2021 and April 2022, to report the onset of menstrual changes after the vaccine in order to understand: etiology, duration of possible adverse effects, and the extent of the phenomenon. We recruited 100 women aged 18-45, vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2, who were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of 12 multiple choice questions about the effects of the vaccine on the reproductive system. Thirty-seven of them received three doses of the vaccine, while the remaining 63 received two doses. Symptoms such as delayed menstruation and abnormal uterine bleeding (metrorrhagia, menometrorrhagia, and menorrhagia) were generally reported within the first three weeks of vaccination, especially after the second dose, with a percentage of 23% and 77%, respectively. These preliminary data suggest that this problem may be broader and deserving of further investigation in the future.

The impact of COVID-19 vaccines on fertility-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite literature's evidence about COVID-19 vaccines' safety, concerns have arisen regarding adverse events, including the possible impact on fertility, accentuated by misinformation and anti-vaccine campaigns. The present study aims to answer the question: Is there any impact of COVID-19 vaccines on the fertility of men and women of reproductive age?

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for eligible studies until June 8th, 2022. The search was restricted to articles regarding humans, published in any languages, without additional restrictions. Studies' quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa and the Before and After Quality Assessment scales for cohort and pre-post studies, respectively. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed for parameters considered in ≥ 2 studies, calculating means, p-values and 95 % Confidence Intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Out of 1406 studies screened, 29 were included in the systematic review. These studies, conducted in Israel (34.5 %), USA (24.1 %), Russia (20.7 %) China (10.3 %), Italy (3.5 %), North America (3.5%) and Turkey (3.5 %) were of poor (34.5 %), moderate (58.6 %) and good (6.9 %) quality. Meta-analyses were performed for pre- and post-vaccination sperm progressive motility (44 %, 95 % CI 42 %-62 % vs 43 %, 95 % CI 31 %-59 % p = 0.07) and concentration (50.6 mln/ml, 95 % CI 35.1-72.8 vs 55.4 mln/ml, 95 % CI 37.4-82.2p = 0.12). Biochemical (0.51, 95 % CI 0.40-0.66 vs 0.60, 95 % CI 0.53-0.68p = 0.45) and clinical (0.45, 95 % CI 0.37-0.54 vs 0.47, 95 % CI 0.40-0.55 p = 0.31) pregnancy rate did not differ among vaccinated and not vaccinated groups. Subgroup meta-analyses based on the type of vaccine showed no significant difference: between vaccinated with mRNA vaccines and non-vaccinated regarding biochemical pregnancy rates; pre- and post-vaccination with Gam-COVID-Vac regarding testosterone, FSH and LH levels; pre- and post-vaccination with BNT162b2 vaccines regarding sperm volumes.

CONCLUSION

Based on the studies published so far, there is no scientific proof of any association between COVID-19 vaccines and fertility impairment in men or women.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have no effect on endometrial receptivity after euploid embryo transfer

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does the COVID-19 vaccination affect endometrial receptivity after single euploid embryo transfer, measured by sustained implantation rate?

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study analysing two groups of single euploid embryo transfers using own oocytes: one historical cohort of 3272 transfers 1 year before the pandemic; and one comprising 890 transfers in women previously vaccinated with mRNA vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The main outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and sustained implantation rate (SIR) per embryo transfer. These outcomes were compared between non-vaccinated and vaccinated women, and women who had received one and two doses. Lastly, vaccinated women were divided into quartiles according to the time from last dose to embryo transfer.

RESULTS

Similar CPR and SIR were found between non-vaccinated and vaccinated women, and the odds ratio for both outcomes was not statistically significant after being controlled for potential confounders (OR 0.937, 95% CI 0.695 to 1.265 and OR 0.910, 95% CI 0.648 to 1.227 respectively). Within the vaccinated group, women who had received one or two doses also had similar outcomes. In addition, no differences were found according to the time interval from vaccination to embryo transfer.

CONCLUSION

The administration of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 had no effect on endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation, regardless of the number of doses and time interval from vaccination to embryo transfer. The potential negative effect of the vaccine on endometrial receptivity and reproductive outcomes is reassuring for patients in the process of undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Effect of inactivated COVID-19 vaccination on intrauterine insemination cycle success: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Vaccine hesitancy was found in couples seeking artificial reproductive technology (ART) services. As the main vaccine used in China, investigations into the influence of inactivated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines on human fertility is needed.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included data on COVID-19 vaccination, clinical characteristics, and reproductive outcome of 1,000 intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles in 653 couples from March 2021 to March 2022 in a single university hospital-based center for reproductive medicine. The IUI cycles were divided into two categories based on sperm source, including 725 cycles in 492 women undergoing artificial insemination with their husband's sperm (AIH) and 275 cycles in 161 women undergoing artificial insemination with donor sperm (AID). Women were then divided into two groups. The vaccine exposed group included women vaccinated prior to insemination and the unexposed group included women who were not vaccinated or vaccinated after insemination. Reproductive outcomes including ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and miscarriage rate were assessed.

Results

Inactivated COVID-19 vaccinated women prior to intrauterine insemination in AIH cycles have comparable ongoing pregnancy rate (11.1 vs. 10.3%, P = 0.73), clinical pregnancy rate (12.5 vs. 11.3%, P = 0.60) as compared with unvaccinated counterparts. Similarly, there were no significant differences in ongoing pregnancy rate (20.9 vs. 28.1%, P = 0.17), clinical pregnancy rate (21.7 vs. 28.8%, P = 0.19) between vaccine exposed and unexposed groups in AID cycles. Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that inactivated COVID-19 vaccination status cannot independently influence the reproductive outcomes of AIH and AID cycles. Subgroup analysis of vaccine exposed cycles showed that doses of vaccination and Interval between the last dose of vaccination and insemination have no influence on the reproductive outcomes of AIH cycles.

Conclusions

No negative effects were found on female fertility in IUI cycles following exposure to the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. These findings indirectly reflect the safety of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine toward reproductive health and help to mitigate vaccine hesitancy among people planning to conceive.

Impact of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on embryo ploidy: a retrospective cohort study of 133 PGT-A cycles in China

Background

Unsubstantiated concerns have been raised on the potential correlation between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination and infertility, leading to vaccine hesitancy in reproductive-aged population. Herein, we aim to evaluate the impact of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on embryo ploidy, which is a critical indicator for embryo quality and pregnancy chance.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of 133 patients who underwent preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles with next-generation sequencing technology from June 1st 2021 to March 17th 2022 at a tertiary-care medical center in China. Women fully vaccinated with two doses of Sinopharm or Sinovac inactivated vaccines (n = 66) were compared with unvaccinated women (n = 67). The primary outcome was the euploidy rate per cycle. Multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to adjust for potential confounders.

Results

The euploidy rate was similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (23.2 ± 24.6% vs. 22.6 ± 25.9%, P = 0.768), with an adjusted β of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.08–0.10). After frozen-thawed single euploid blastocyst transfer, the two groups were also comparable in clinical pregnancy rate (75.0% vs. 60.0%, P = 0.289), with an adjusted odds ratio of 6.21 (95% CI: 0.76–50.88). No significant associations were observed between vaccination and cycle characteristics or other laboratory and pregnancy outcomes.

Conclusions

Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had no detrimental impact on embryo ploidy during in vitro fertilization treatment. Our finding provides further reassurance for vaccinated women who are planning to conceive. Future prospective cohort studies with larger datasets and longer follow-up are needed to confirm the conclusion.

Effect of COVID-19 vaccination on the timing and flow of menstrual periods in two cohorts

COVID-19 vaccination protects against the potentially serious consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but some people have been hesitant to receive the vaccine because of reports that it could affect menstrual bleeding. To determine whether this occurs we prospectively recruited a cohort of 79 individuals, each of whom recorded details of at least three consecutive menstrual cycles, during which time they each received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. In spontaneously cycling participants, COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a delay to the next period, but this change reversed in subsequent unvaccinated cycles. No delay was detected in those taking hormonal contraception. To explore hypotheses about the mechanism by which these menstrual changes occur, we retrospectively recruited a larger cohort, of 1,273 people who had kept a record of their menstrual cycle and vaccination dates. In this cohort, we found a trend toward use of combined hormonal contraception being protective against reporting a delayed period, suggesting that menstrual changes following vaccination may be mediated by perturbations to ovarian hormones. However, we were unable to detect a clear association between the timing of vaccination within the menstrual cycle and reports of menstrual changes. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination can lengthen the menstrual cycle and that this effect may be mediated by ovarian hormones. Importantly, we find that the menstrual cycle returns to its pre-vaccination length in unvaccinated cycles.

Menstrual changes after COVID-19 vaccination and/or SARS-CoV-2 infection and their demographic, mood, and lifestyle determinants in Arab women of childbearing age, 2021

Background

By September 2, 2021, over 30,000 COVID-19-vaccinated females had reported menstrual changes to the MHRA's Yellow Card surveillance system. As a result, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is urging researchers to investigate the COVID-19 vaccine's effects on menstruation. Therefore, this study was conducted to explore the menstrual changes after COVID-19 vaccination and/or SARS-CoV-2 infection and their interrelations with demographic, mood, and lifestyle factors in Arab women of childbearing age (CBA).

Methodology

A cross-sectional study was conducted during October 2021 using an Arabic validated and self-administrated questionnaire. In total, 1,254 Women of CBA in the Arabic Population (15–50 y) with regular menstrual cycles were randomly selected from five countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Sudan).

Results

The mean (SD) age of the 1,254 studied females was 29.6 (8.5) years old. In total, 634 (50%) were married, 1,104 (88.0%) had a University education or above, 1,064 (84.4%) lived in urban areas, and 573 (45.7%) had normal body weight. Moreover, 524 (41.8%) were COVID-19 cases and 98 women (18.7%) reported menstrual changes (MCs). The 1,044 (83.5%) vaccinated females reported 418 (38.5%) MCs after being vaccinated, and these MCs resolved in 194 women (55.1%) after more than 9 months. Statistically significant relationships were observed between the reported MCs and the following variables: age, marital status, level of education, nationality, residence, and BMI. MCs were reported at 293(80.6) after the 2nd dose, and were mainly reported after 482 (46.1) Pfizer, 254 (24.3) Astrazenica, and 92 (8.8) Senopharm.

Conclusion

MCs among women of CBA after COVID-19 infection and vaccination are prevalent and complex problems, and had many determinates.

Investigating trends in those who experience menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

Early in 2021, many people began sharing that they experienced unexpected menstrual bleeding after SARS-CoV-2 inoculation. We investigated this emerging phenomenon of changed menstrual bleeding patterns among a convenience sample of currently and formerly menstruating people using a web-based survey. In this sample, 42% of people with regular menstrual cycles bled more heavily than usual, while 44% reported no change after being vaccinated. Among respondents who typically do not menstruate, 71% of people on long-acting reversible contraceptives, 39% of people on gender-affirming hormones, and 66% of postmenopausal people reported breakthrough bleeding. We found that increased/breakthrough bleeding was significantly associated with age, systemic vaccine side effects (fever and/or fatigue), history of pregnancy or birth, and ethnicity. Generally, changes to menstrual bleeding are not uncommon or dangerous, yet attention to these experiences is necessary to build trust in medicine.

Covid-19 vaccination and menstrual cycle length in the Apple Women’s Health Study.. [PMID: 35860226 PMCID: PMC9298140 DOI: 10.1101/2022.07.07.22277371]

Background

COVID-19 vaccination may be associated with change in menstrual cycle length following vaccination.

Methods

We conducted a longitudinal analysis within a subgroup of 14,915 participants in the Apple Women’s Health Study (AWHS) who enrolled between November 2019 and December 2021 and met the following eligibility criteria: were living in the U.S., met minimum age requirements for consent, were English speaking, actively tracked their menstrual cycles, and responded to the COVID-19 Vaccine Update survey. In the main analysis, we included tracked cycles recorded when premenopausal participants were not pregnant, lactating, or using hormonal contraceptives. We used conditional linear regression and multivariable linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to estimate the covariate-adjusted difference in mean cycle length, measured in days, between pre-vaccination cycles, cycles in which a vaccine was administered, and post-vaccination cycles within vaccinated participants, and between vaccinated and unvaccinated participants. We further compared associations between vaccination and menstrual cycle length by the timing of vaccine dose within a menstrual cycle (i.e., in follicular or luteal phase). We present Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals to account for multiple comparisons.

Results

A total of 128,094 cycles (median = 10 cycles per participant; interquartile range: 4-22) from 9,652 participants (8,486 vaccinated; 1,166 unvaccinated) were included. The average within-individual standard deviation in cycle length was 4.2 days. Fifty-five percent of vaccinated participants received Pfizer-BioNTech’s mRNA vaccine, 37% received Moderna’s mRNA vaccine, and 7% received the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine (J&J). We found no evidence of a difference between mean menstrual cycle length in the unvaccinated and vaccinated participants prior to vaccination (0.24 days, 95% CI: −0.34, 0.82).

Among vaccinated participants, COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a small increase in mean cycle length (MCL) for cycles in which participants received the first dose (0.50 days, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.78) and cycles in which participants received the second dose (0.39 days, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.67) of mRNA vaccines compared with pre-vaccination cycles. Cycles in which the single dose of J&J was administered were, on average, 1.26 days longer (95% CI: 0.45, 2.07) than pre-vaccination cycles. Post-vaccination cycles returned to average pre-vaccination length. Estimates for pre vs post cycle lengths were 0.14 days (95% CI: −0.13, 0.40) in the first cycle following vaccination, 0.13 days (95% CI: −0.14, 0.40) in the second, −0.17 days (95% CI: −0.43, 0.10) in the third, and −0.25 days (95% CI: −0.52, 0.01) in the fourth cycle post-vaccination. Follicular phase vaccination was associated with an increase in MCL in cycles in which participants received the first dose (0.97 days, 95% CI: 0.53, 1.42) or the second dose (1.43 days, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.80) of mRNA vaccines or the J&J dose (2.27 days, 95% CI: 1.04, 3.50), compared with pre-vaccination cycles.

Conclusions

COVID-19 vaccination was associated with an immediate short-term increase in menstrual cycle length overall, which appeared to be driven by doses received in the follicular phase. However, the magnitude of this increase was small and diminished in each cycle following vaccination. No association with cycle length persisted over time. The magnitude of change associated with vaccination was well within the natural variability in the study population. Menstrual cycle change following COVID-19 vaccination appears small and temporary and should not discourage individuals from becoming vaccinated.

Assessing COVID-19 Booster Hesitancy and Its Correlates: An Early Evidence from India

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 mutants, waning immunity, and breakthrough infections prompted the use of booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccine to fight against the pandemic. India started booster doses in January 2022 and it is critical to determine the intention of booster dose uptake and its correlates. Therefore, the current cross-sectional study aimed to investigate booster dose acceptability and associated predictors among the Indian population. A convenience sampling technique was utilized to recruit a sample of 687 Indian residents. A 55-item psychometric validated survey tool was used to assess booster dose acceptability, vaccine literacy and vaccine confidence. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistical methods were used to analyze the data. Over 50% of participants reported their willingness to take the booster dose. Among the group not willing to take the booster dose (n = 303, 44.1%), a significantly larger proportion of respondents were unvaccinated with the primary series (12.2% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.001), had an annual income below 2.96 lacs/annum (52.8% vs. 33.1, p < 0.001), were residents of rural areas (38.0% vs. 23.2%, p < 0.001), were not living with vulnerable individuals (78.5% vs. 65.2%, p < 0.001) and did not have family/friends who had tested positive for COVID-19 (54.6% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.001). Demographic, vaccine variables and multi-theory model subscales to predict the initiation of booster dose among hesitant participants were statistically significant, R2 = 0.561, F (26, 244) = 11.978, p < 0.001; adjusted R2 = 0.514. Findings of this study highlight the need to develop evidence-based interventions to promote vaccine uptake, particularly among hard-to-reach communities living in developing countries.

Effects of COVID-19 vaccination status, vaccine type, and vaccination interval on IVF pregnancy outcomes in infertile couples

Purpose

This study aimed to explore whether the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination of both partners in infertile couples, different types of COVID-19 vaccines, and the interval between complete vaccination and oocyte retrieval or embryo transfer (ET) affect the quality of embryos and pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study, comprising 735 infertile couples conducted between December 6, 2021, and March 31, 2022, in a single university hospital-based IVF center. The patients were divided into different groups according to the vaccination status of both partners in infertile couples, type of vaccine, and interval between complete vaccination and IVF treatment. The embryo quality and pregnancy rates were compared among different groups.

Results

The results showed that embryo quality and pregnancy rates had no significant differences among different groups. The multivariate regression model showed that the vaccination status of both infertile couples, types of vaccines, and intervals had no significant effects on the clinical pregnancy rate.

Conclusions

The vaccination status of both partners in infertile couples, different types of vaccines, and time intervals have no effect on embryo quality and pregnancy rates in IVF. This is the first study to compare the vaccination status of both partners in infertile couples and the impact of different vaccine types on pregnancy rates and embryo quality in detail. Our findings provide evidence of vaccine safety for infertile couples wishing to undergo IVF treatment. This evidence is crucial for decision-making by clinicians and policymakers involved in IVF cycles.

Menstrual Cycle Parameters Are Not Significantly Different After COVID-19 Vaccination

Background: Some studies have suggested minor changes in the menstrual cycle after COVID-19 vaccination, but more detailed analyses of the menstrual cycle are needed to evaluate more specific changes in the menstrual cycle that are not affected by survey-based recall bias. Materials and Methods: Using a pretest-post-test quasi-experimental evaluation of menstrual cycle parameters before and after COVID-19 vaccination, we conducted an anonymous online survey of two groups of North American women who prospectively monitor their menstrual cycle parameters daily including bleeding patterns, urinary hormone levels using the ClearBlue Fertility Monitor, or cervical mucus observations. The primary outcome measures were cycle length, length of menses, menstrual volume, estimated day of ovulation (EDO), luteal phase length, and signs of ovulation. Perceived (subjective) menstrual cycle changes and stressors were also evaluated in this study as secondary outcome measures. Results: Of the 279 women who initiated the survey, 76 met the inclusion criteria and provided 588 cycles for analysis (227 pre-vaccine cycles, 145 vaccine cycles, 216 post-vaccine cycles). Although 22% of women subjectively identified changes in their menstrual cycle, there were no significant differences in menstrual cycle parameters (cycle length, length of menses, EOD, and luteal phase length) between the pre-vaccine, vaccine, and post-vaccine cycles. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines were not associated with significant changes in menstrual cycle parameters. Perceived changes by an individual woman must be compared with statistical changes to avoid confirmation bias.

Addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy

Immunization programmes have been globally recognized as one of the most successful medical interventions against infectious diseases. Despite the proven efficacy and safety profiles of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, there are still a substantial number of people who express vaccine hesitancy. Factors that influence vaccine decision-making are heterogenous, complex, and context specific and may be caused or amplified by uncontrolled online information or misinformation. With respect to COVID-19, the recent emergence of novel variants of concern that give rise to milder disease also drives vaccine hesitancy. Healthcare professionals remain one of the most trusted groups to advise and provide information to those ambivalent about COVID-19 vaccination and should be equipped with adequate resources and information as well as practical guidance to empower them to effectively discuss concerns. This article seeks to summarize the currently available information to address the most common concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

No evidence of fetal defects or anti-syncytin-1 antibody induction following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination

The impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccination on pregnancy and fertility has become a major topic of public interest. We investigated 2 of the most widely propagated claims to determine (1) whether COVID-19 mRNA vaccination of mice during early pregnancy is associated with an increased incidence of birth defects or growth abnormalities; and (2) whether COVID-19 mRNA-vaccinated human volunteers exhibit elevated levels of antibodies to the human placental protein syncytin-1. Using a mouse model, we found that intramuscular COVID-19 mRNA vaccination during early pregnancy at gestational age E7.5 did not lead to differences in fetal size by crown-rump length or weight at term, nor did we observe any gross birth defects. In contrast, injection of the TLR3 agonist and double-stranded RNA mimic polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid, or poly(I:C), impacted growth in utero leading to reduced fetal size. No overt maternal illness following either vaccination or poly(I:C) exposure was observed. We also found that term fetuses from these murine pregnancies vaccinated prior to the formation of the definitive placenta exhibit high circulating levels of anti-spike and anti-receptor-binding domain (anti-RBD) antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) consistent with maternal antibody status, indicating transplacental transfer in the later stages of pregnancy after early immunization. Finally, we did not detect increased levels of circulating anti-syncytin-1 antibodies in a cohort of COVID-19 vaccinated adults compared to unvaccinated adults by ELISA. Our findings contradict popular claims associating COVID-19 mRNA vaccination with infertility and adverse neonatal outcomes.

Effects of SARS CoV-2, COVID-19, and its vaccines on male sexual health and reproduction: where do we stand?

Since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first discovered, there have been questions surrounding the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and more recently the COVID-19 vaccine, on men's health and fertility. Significant research has been conducted to study viral tropism, potential causes for gender susceptibility, the impact of COVID-19 on male sexual function in the acute and recovery phases, and the effects of the virus on male reproductive organs and hormones. This review provides a recent assessment of the literature regarding the impact of COVID-19 and its vaccine on male sexual health and reproduction.

Fertility and COVID-19 vaccination

One of the most troubling developments of 2021 has been the number of fertile-age women who have been led to believe that mRNA vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 [SARS-CoV-2, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] can cause infertility via cross-reactivity of immune response. Specifically, cross-reactivity of developed antibodies to syncytin-1, a protein found in human cell fusion, placentation and recently identified in the envelope gene of a human endogenous defective retrovirus, HERV-W (see “Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis”. Nature. 2000;403:785–9. doi: 10.1038/35001608). The mechanism, evidence, and evaluation of the claim is presented concluding in a rejection due to lack of evidence.

The Burden of COVID-19 in Children and Its Prevention by Vaccination: A Joint Statement of the Israeli Pediatric Association and the Israeli Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases

As of October 2021, SARS-CoV-2 infections were reported among 512,613 children and adolescents in Israel (~33% of all COVID-19 cases). The 5-11-year age group accounted for about 43% (223,850) of affected children and adolescents. In light of the availability of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 for children aged 5-11 years, we aimed to write a position paper for pediatricians, policymakers and families regarding the clinical aspects of COVID-19 and the vaccination of children against COVID-19. The first objective of this review was to describe the diverse facets of the burden of COVID-19 in children, including the direct effects of hospitalization during the acute phase of the disease, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, long COVID and the indirect effects of social isolation and interruption in education. In addition, we aimed to provide an update regarding the efficacy and safety of childhood mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and to instill confidence in pediatricians regarding the benefits of vaccinating children against COVID-19. We reviewed up-to-date Israeli and international epidemiological data and literature regarding COVID-19 morbidity and its sequelae in children, vaccine efficacy in reducing COVID-19-related morbidity and SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccine safety data. We conducted a risk-benefit analysis regarding the vaccination of children and adolescents. We concluded that vaccines are safe and effective and are recommended for all children aged 5 to 11 years to protect them from COVID-19 and its complications and to reduce community transmissions. Based on these data, after weighing the benefits of vaccination versus the harm, the Israeli Ministry of Health decided to recommend vaccination for children aged 5-11 years.

Scientific Evidence Supporting Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Efficacy and Safety in People Planning to Conceive or Who Are Pregnant or Lactating

Three coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been authorized for use in the United States; specifically, the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson-Janssen COVID-19 vaccines were granted emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in late 2020 and early 2021. Vaccination coverage and intent among adults are lowest among those aged 18-39 years and among females in particular. In females of reproductive age, enthusiasm for receiving a COVID-19 vaccine may be negatively affected by claims currently circulating widely on diverse social media platforms regarding the vaccines adversely affecting fertility and pregnancy. Yet it is important to note that these claims are anecdotal in nature and not supported by the available scientific evidence. It is also imperative that the effects of COVID-19 vaccine on reproductive health are clarified. Herein, we discuss the existing scientific data supporting COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in people who are planning to conceive or who are pregnant or lactating and highlight the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in females of reproductive age.

Fall 2021 Update: Navigating COVID Vaccination in Tumultuous Times

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent development of COVID vaccines have resulted in unique challenges for nurses. Nurses are being asked to make recommendations about vaccinations that have only been available since December 2020 even as vaccine information evolves on an almost daily basis. Standards of professional care and a Christian perspective on nursing to help guide nurses' practice in the current climate are discussed in this article. An overview of information and research findings published up to October 31, 2021 about COVID-19 vaccination is given to assist nurses in answering vaccination questions.

Assessing Acceptability of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose among Adult Americans: A Cross-Sectional Study

Given the emergence of breakthrough infections, new variants, and concerns of waning immunity from the primary COVID-19 vaccines, booster shots emerged as a viable option to shore-up protection against COVID-19. Following the recent authorization of vaccine boosters among vulnerable Americans, this study aims to assess COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy and its associated factors in a nationally representative sample. A web-based 48-item psychometric valid survey was used to measure vaccine literacy, vaccine confidence, trust, and general attitudes towards vaccines. Data were analyzed through Chi-square (with a post hoc contingency table analysis) and independent-sample t-/Welch tests. Among 2138 participants, nearly 62% intended to take booster doses and the remaining were COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitant. The vaccine-booster-hesitant group was more likely to be unvaccinated (62.6% vs. 12.9%) and did not intend to have their children vaccinated (86.1% vs. 27.5%) compared to their non-hesitant counterparts. A significantly higher proportion of booster dose hesitant individuals had very little to no trust in the COVID-19 vaccine information given by public health/government agencies (55% vs. 12%) compared to non-hesitant ones. The mean scores of vaccine confidence index and vaccine literacy were lower among the hesitant group compared to the non-hesitant group. Compared to the non-hesitant group, vaccine hesitant participants were single or never married (41.8% vs. 28.7%), less educated, and living in a southern region of the nation (40.9% vs. 33.3%). These findings underscore the need of developing effective communication strategies emphasizing vaccine science in ways that are accessible to individuals with lower levels of education and vaccine literacy to increase vaccination uptake.

COVID-19 vaccines: what do we know so far?

When the novel coronavirus was described in late 2019, it could not have been imagined that within a year, more than 100 vaccine candidates would be in preclinical development and several would be in clinical trials and even approved for use. The scale of the COVID-19 outbreak pushed the scientific community, working in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, public health bodies, policymakers, funders and governments, to develop vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 at record-breaking speed. As well as driving major amendments to the usual timeframe for bringing a vaccine to fruition, the pandemic has accelerated the development of next-generation technologies for vaccinology, giving rise to two frontrunner RNA vaccines. Although none of the critical safety and efficacy steps have been skipped within the compressed schedules, and the technologies underpinning the novel vaccines have been refined by scientists over many years, a significant proportion of the global population is sceptical of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines and wary of potential risks. In this interview-based article, we give an overview of how the vaccines were developed and how they work to generate a robust immune response against COVID-19, as well as addressing common questions relating to safety and efficacy.

Will Procreation Ever Be The Same After COVID-19?

Medically assisted procreation will never be the same again after this China Virus epidemic. With billions of lives being affected by this damaging global pandemic, medically assisted procreation services were not left unharmed with far-reaching consequences. New challenges are now emerging concerning COVID-19, such as associated reproductive implications and the consequences of assisted and natural procreation in the presence of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and delayed consequences after patient recovery. There is a hypothesis that testicular damage and subsequent infertility may result following COVID-19 infection and the possibility of sexual transmission, as SARS-CoV-2 has been identified in the semen of infected patients. Vaccine hesitancy in young women planning pregnancies has been heightened because of the spread of misinformation on social media stating that COVID-19 vaccines will cause sterility in women. Reassuring data from accidental pregnancies that have occurred in the clinical trials of approved COVID-19 vaccines indicate that vaccination does not harm fertility or increase the rate of miscarriage. Scientists have quickly related to good tissue practices in vitro fertilization and a rethink is on about encouraging biopsies and focusing on safe vitrification protocols keeping in mind that ova, sperm, and embryos could be possible vectors for disease transmission with the limited research on the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Going ahead with segmented IVF without delay, freezing the generated embryos and pushing back the embryo transfer after the pandemic appears to be the best strategy at present. An international group of researchers have proposed a prognostic stratification of more vulnerable infertility cases in order to plan a progressive restart of worldwide fertility treatments.