Safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy: a Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) network cohort study

A scoping review of active, participant centred, digital adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance of WHO approved COVID-19 vaccines: A Canadian immunization Research Network study

This scoping review examines the role of digital solutions in active, participant-centered surveillance of adverse events following initial release of COVID-19 vaccines. The goals of this paper were to examine the existing literature surrounding digital solutions and technology used for active, participant centered, AEFI surveillance of novel COVID-19 vaccines approved by WHO. This paper also aimed to identify gaps in literature surrounding digital, active, participant centered AEFI surveillance systems and to identify and describe the core components of active, participant centered, digital surveillance systems being used for post-market AEFI surveillance of WHO approved COVID-19 vaccines, with a focus on the digital solutions and technology being used, the type of AEFI detected, and the populations under surveillance. The findings highlight the need for customized surveillance systems based on local contexts and the lessons learned to improve future vaccine monitoring and pandemic preparedness.

Risk factors related to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine additional doses hesitancy among pregnant and non-pregnant people of reproductive age and partners: A Brazilian cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the predictors of acceptance and hesitancy of additional doses of any SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) vaccine among pregnant or recently pregnant and non-pregnant people of reproductive age and partners in Brazil.

METHODS

We conducted an online cross-sectional study from June 2022 to April 2023 and invited women and partners between 18 and 49 years old to participate. We employed a snowball strategy to reach all potential eligible participants. Our primary outcome was the acceptance rate of the COVID-19 booster vaccine. We estimated the frequency and percentage for the three groups and compared categorical variables using the Chi-square test. Moreover, bivariate, backward stepwise regression, and subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors and predictors of COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy. We reported the effect size as OR with a 95% CI.

RESULTS

We included 1487 participants, and among them, 334 (22.5%) were pregnant or recently pregnant people, 905 (60.8%) were non-pregnant people, and 247 (16.6%) were male partners. Pregnant and recently pregnant people showed greater hesitancy for the COVID-19 vaccine booster than non-pregnant people (28% vs 15%, P < 0.001) and male partners (28% vs 16%, P < 0.001). Non-pregnant women accepted the COVID-19 vaccine more often than pregnant or recently pregnant people (OR 1.75; 95% CI: 1.13-2.70). The associated factors to the reduced COVID-19 vaccine booster acceptance were family income between US$ 566-945.00 (54%), evangelic religion (65%), concern about vaccine safety (80%) and perceived common vaccine importance (93%).

CONCLUSION

Pregnant people were more hesitant than non-pregnant people to accept the COVID-19 booster vaccine. Family income, religious beliefs, vaccine safety concerns, and perceived common vaccine importance were significant barriers to accepting COVID-19 booster vaccines. The impact of these factors was more evident among pregnant or recently pregnant people, emphasizing the harmful effect of misinformation among this vulnerable population.

Impact of recruitment strategies on individual participation practices in the Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network: prospective cohort study

Background

The Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) network conducted a multi-center, prospective vaccine safety study to collect safety data after dose 1 and 2 of COVID-19 vaccines and follow up safety information 7 months after dose 1.

Objective

This study aimed to describe and evaluate the recruitment methods used by CANVAS and the retention of participants by each modality.

Methods

CANVAS deployed a multi-pronged recruitment approach to reach a larger sample, without in-person recruitment. Three primary recruitment strategies were used: passive recruitment, technology-assisted electronic invitation through the vaccine booking system (auto-invitation), or auto-registration through the vaccine registries (auto-enrollment).

Results

Between December 2020 and April 2022, approximately 1.3 million vaccinated adults either self-enrolled or were auto-enrolled in CANVAS, representing about 5% of the vaccinated adult Canadian population. Approximately 1 million participants were auto-enrolled, 300,000 were recruited by auto-invitation, and 5,000 via passive recruitment. Overall survey completion rates for dose 1, dose 2 and the 7-month follow-up surveys were 51.7% (681,198 of 1,318,838), 54.3% (369,552 of 681,198), and 66.4% (452,076 of 681,198), respectively. Completion rates were lower among auto-enrolled participants compared to passively recruited or auto-invited participants who self-enrolled. However, auto-enrolled samples were much larger, which offset the lower completion rates.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that auto-enrollment provided an opportunity to reach and retain a larger number of individuals in the study compared to other recruitment modalities.

COVID-19 Vaccination in the First Trimester and Major Structural Birth Defects Among Live Births

Importance

COVID-19 vaccination is recommended throughout pregnancy to prevent pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes associated with COVID-19 disease. To date, data on birth defects after first-trimester vaccination are limited.

Objective

To evaluate the associated risks for selected major structural birth defects among live-born infants after first-trimester receipt of a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies with estimated last menstrual period (LMP) between September 13, 2020, and April 3, 2021, and ending in live birth from March 5, 2021, to January 25, 2022. Included were data from 8 health systems in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

Exposures

Receipt of 1 or 2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses in the first trimester, as part of the primary series.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Selected major structural birth defects among live-born infants, identified from electronic health data using validated algorithms, with neural tube defects confirmed via medical record review.

Results

Among 42 156 eligible pregnancies (mean [SD] maternal age, 30.9 [5.0] years) 7632 (18.1%) received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in the first trimester. Of 34 524 pregnancies without a first-trimester COVID-19 vaccination, 2045 (5.9%) were vaccinated before pregnancy, 13 494 (39.1%) during the second or third trimester, and 18 985 (55.0%) were unvaccinated before or during pregnancy. Compared with pregnant people unvaccinated in the first trimester, those vaccinated in the first trimester were older (mean [SD] age, 32.3 [4.5] years vs 30.6 [5.1] years) and differed by LMP date. After applying stabilized inverse probability weighting, differences in baseline characteristics between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant persons in the first trimester were negligible (standardized mean difference <0.20). Selected major structural birth defects occurred in 113 infants (1.48%) after first-trimester mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and in 488 infants (1.41%) without first-trimester vaccine exposure; the adjusted prevalence ratio was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.78-1.33). In secondary analyses, with major structural birth defect outcomes grouped by organ system, no significant differences between infants vaccinated or unvaccinated in the first trimester were identified.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this multisite cohort study, among live-born infants, first-trimester mRNA COVID-19 vaccine exposure was not associated with an increased risk for selected major structural birth defects.

Obstetric outcomes of women vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine (≥1 dose): A single-center retrospective cohort study of pregnant Chinese women

In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the quickly developed COVID-19 vaccine may cause various adverse reactions, especially in special groups, such as pregnant women. However, many pregnant women have concerns regarding vaccination in terms of safety for themselves and their neonates. Therefore, we studied the obstetric outcomes of pregnant women in Zunyi, China. In this retrospective study, we examined differences between pregnant women who were vaccinated and pregnant women who were not vaccinated/vaccinated at the end of pregnancy. In addition, we collected and retrieved the literature related to the COVID-19 vaccine and pregnancy outcomes from PubMed. Among concluded women, 369 were included in the study group and 231 were included in the control group. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics, labor rate, or rates of poor pregnancy outcomes between the 2 groups. Based on the adverse reaction and obstetric outcome data of pregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine in China, the vaccine does not raise any safety concerns. This result is the same as that of other countries we summarized. The COVID-19 vaccine has no effect on pregnancy outcomes.

An mRNA-LNP-based Lassa virus vaccine induces protective immunity in mice

The mammarenavirus Lassa virus (LASV) causes the life-threatening hemorrhagic fever disease, Lassa fever. The lack of licensed medical countermeasures against LASV underscores the urgent need for the development of novel LASV vaccines, which has been hampered by the requirement for a biosafety level 4 facility to handle live LASV. Here, we investigated the efficacy of mRNA-lipid nanoparticle (mRNA-LNP)-based vaccines expressing the LASV glycoprotein precursor (LASgpc) or nucleoprotein (LCMnp) of the prototypic mammarenavirus, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV), in mice. Two doses of LASgpc- or LCMnp-mRNA-LNP administered intravenously (i.v.) protected C57BL/6 mice from a lethal challenge with a recombinant (r) LCMV expressing a modified LASgpc (rLCMV/LASgpc2m) inoculated intracranially. Intramuscular (i.m.) immunization with two doses of LASgpc- or LCMnp-mRNA-LNP significantly reduced the viral load in C57BL/6 mice inoculated i.v. with rLCMV/LASgpc2m. High levels of viremia and lethality were observed in CBA mice inoculated i.v. with rLCMV/LASgpc2m, which were abrogated by i.m. immunization with two doses of LASgpc-mRNA-LNP. The protective efficacy of two i.m. doses of LCMnp-mRNA-LNP was confirmed in a lethal hemorrhagic disease model of FVB mice i.v. inoculated with wild-type rLCMV. In all conditions tested, negligible and high levels of LASgpc- and LCMnp-specific antibodies were detected in mRNA-LNP-immunized mice, respectively, but robust LASgpc- and LCMnp-specific CD8+ T cell responses were induced. Accordingly, plasma from LASgpc-mRNA-LNP-immunized mice did not exhibit neutralizing activity. Our findings and surrogate mouse models of LASV infection, which can be studied at a reduced biocontainment level, provide a critical foundation for the rapid development of mRNA-LNP-based LASV vaccines.IMPORTANCELassa virus (LASV) is a highly pathogenic mammarenavirus responsible for several hundred thousand infections annually in West African countries, causing a high number of lethal Lassa fever (LF) cases. Despite its significant impact on human health, clinically approved, safe, and effective medical countermeasures against LF are not available. The requirement of a biosafety level 4 facility to handle live LASV has been one of the main obstacles to the research and development of LASV countermeasures. Here, we report that two doses of mRNA-lipid nanoparticle-based vaccines expressing the LASV glycoprotein precursor (LASgpc) or nucleoprotein (LCMnp) of lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV), a mammarenavirus genetically closely related to LASV, conferred protection to recombinant LCMV-based surrogate mouse models of lethal LASV infection. Notably, robust LASgpc- and LCMnp-specific CD8+ T cell responses were detected in mRNA-LNP-immunized mice, whereas no virus-neutralizing activity was observed.

Defining and reporting adverse events of special interest in comparative maternal vaccine studies: a systematic review

Introduction

The GAIA (Global Alignment on Immunisation Safety Assessment in Pregnancy) consortium was established in 2014 with the aim of creating a standardised, globally coordinated approach to monitoring the safety of vaccines administered in pregnancy. The consortium developed twenty-six standardised definitions for classifying obstetric and infant adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the current state of adverse event reporting in maternal vaccine trials following the publication of the case definitions by GAIA, and the extent to which these case definitions have been adopted in maternal vaccine safety research.

Methods

A comprehensive search of published literature was undertaken to identify maternal vaccine research studies. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched using a combination of MeSH terms and keyword searches to identify observational or interventional studies that examined vaccine safety in pregnant women with a comparator group. A two-reviewer screening process was undertaken, and a narrative synthesis of the results presented.

Results

14,737 titles were identified from database searches, 435 titles were selected as potentially relevant, 256 were excluded, the remaining 116 papers were included. Influenza vaccine was the most studied (25.0%), followed by TDaP (20.7%) and SARS-CoV-2 (12.9%).Ninety-one studies (78.4%) were conducted in high-income settings. Forty-eight (41.4%) utilised electronic health-records. The majority focused on reporting adverse events of special interest (AESI) in pregnancy (65.0%) alone or in addition to reactogenicity (27.6%). The most frequently reported AESI were preterm birth, small for gestational age and hypertensive disorders. Fewer than 10 studies reported use of GAIA definitions. Gestational age assessment was poorly described; of 39 studies reporting stillbirths 30.8% provided no description of the gestational age threshold.

Conclusions

Low-income settings remain under-represented in comparative maternal vaccine safety research. There has been poor uptake of GAIA case definitions. A lack of harmonisation and standardisation persists limiting comparability of the generated safety data.

Importance of Examining Incidentality in Vaccine Safety Assessment

The author believes that the principles of statistical methods for vaccine safety can be divided into three categories: comparison of adverse event incidence rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, analysis of incidentality in the vaccinated group, and a combination of both. The first category includes the cohort study; the second, the self-controlled risk interval design (SCRI); and the third, the self-controlled case series method. A single p-value alone should not determine a scientific conclusion, and analysis should be performed using multiple statistical methods with different principles. The author believes that using both the cohort study and the SCRI for analysis is the best method to assess vaccine safety. When the cohort study may not detect a significant difference owing to a low incidence rate of an adverse event in the vaccinated group or a high one in the unvaccinated group, the SCRI may detect it. Because vaccines must have a higher level of safety than the pharmaceuticals used for treatment, vaccine safety is advisable to be assessed using methods that can detect a significant difference even for any value of the incidence rate of an adverse event. The author believes that the analyses of COVID-19 vaccine safety have areas for improvement because the proportion of papers that used the cohort study and the SCRI was negligible.

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.

Effects of SARS-Cov-2 mRNA vaccine on placental histopathology: Comparison of a population of uncomplicated COVID-19 positive pregnant women

1.

INTRODUCTION

This study investigates the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on placental histopathology in pregnant women, comparing outcomes between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. Despite known adverse pregnancy outcomes linked to SARS-CoV-2 infection, the specific effects on the placenta remain unclear. Although vaccination has demonstrated a substantial reduction in infection severity, its impact on placental health requires more insight. 2.

METHODS

Between March 2021 and July 2022, 387 COVID-19-positive women were admitted for delivery. Of these, 98 with non-severe symptoms were analyzed: 35 vaccinated during pregnancy, and 63 non-vaccinated. Two independent pathologists evaluated all placental specimens. 3.

RESULTS

The only differing obstetrical characteristic between groups was the mode of delivery (p 0.047), lacking clinical implications. Over 85% of placentas exhibited microscopic abnormalities, predominantly maternal vascular supply disorders (vaccinated 89.1%; unvaccinated 85.5%). Comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups revealed statistically significant differences, notably in increased focal perivillous fibrin deposits (IFPFD) [17.1% vs. 33.3% (p 0.04)] and avascular fibrotic villi (AFV) [0% vs. 11.1% (p 0.04)]. Binomial logistic regression confirmed the vaccine's protective role against IFPFD (aOR 0.36; 95%CI 013-0.99) and AVF (aOR 0.06, 95% CI 0.003-0.98). A sub-analysis in vaccinated women showed a positive correlation between the timing of the first dose and IFPFD presence (p 0.018). 4.

DISCUSSION

The lower incidence of maternal and fetal vascular malperfusion placental features in vaccinated women, coupled with the timing correlation, supports the vaccine's protective effect on placental tissue in COVID-19-infected pregnant patients. Notably, no side effects were reported post-vaccination, emphasizing the vaccine's safety and advocating for its secure administration in pregnant populations.

Lipid nanoparticle structure and delivery route during pregnancy dictate mRNA potency, immunogenicity, and maternal and fetal outcomes

Treating pregnancy-related disorders is exceptionally challenging because the threat of maternal and/or fetal toxicity discourages the use of existing medications and hinders new drug development. One potential solution is the use of lipid nanoparticle (LNP) RNA therapies, given their proven efficacy, tolerability, and lack of fetal accumulation. Here, we describe LNPs for efficacious mRNA delivery to maternal organs in pregnant mice via several routes of administration. In the placenta, our lead LNP transfected trophoblasts, endothelial cells, and immune cells, with efficacy being structurally dependent on the ionizable lipid polyamine headgroup. Next, we show that LNP-induced maternal inflammatory responses affect mRNA expression in the maternal compartment and hinder neonatal development. Specifically, pro-inflammatory LNP structures and routes of administration curtailed efficacy in maternal lymphoid organs in an IL-1β-dependent manner. Further, immunogenic LNPs provoked the infiltration of adaptive immune cells into the placenta and restricted pup growth after birth. Together, our results provide mechanism-based structural guidance on the design of potent LNPs for safe use during pregnancy.

Maternal immunization in women living with HIV

Thanks to widespread use of antiretroviral therapy worldwide, women living with HIV (WLWH) are becoming pregnant and giving birth to HIV-exposed but uninfected (HEU) newborns. Both pregnancy and HIV infection-related factors such as low CD4+ T-cell count or uncontrolled viral load increase the risk of severe infections such as influenza, COVID-19, and others, making maternal immunization a valuable tool to decrease maternal morbidity among WLWH. Vaccines administered during pregnancy may also benefit the health of HEU infants. Indeed, HEU infants suffer from higher risk of morbidity of infectious origin, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), group B streptococcus (GBS), pneumococcus and pertussis infections. Maternal pertussis immunization is recommended in various high-income countries but not in many low-middle income countries where HIV prevalence is higher. GBS and RSV vaccines to be administered during pregnancy are currently in late-phase clinical trials in HIV-uninfected women and could represent a valuable tool to decrease morbidity during infancy. Decreased transfer of vaccine-specific IgG, accelerated waning of vaccine-induced antibody responses, linked to persistent maternal immune activation, and blunting of infant immune response to vaccines could hamper vaccine effectiveness among WLWH and HEU infants. Vaccine hesitancy could limit benefits of maternal immunization and strategies to tackle vaccine hesitancy should be part of HIV routine care. The aim of this review is to summarize the current knowledge regarding the immunogenicity and efficacy of available and upcoming vaccines recommended during pregnancy of WLWH.

Discovery and development of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics: nonclinical perspectives

The development and regulatory review of BNT162b2, a COVID-19 vaccine, and PaxlovidTM (nirmatrelvir tablets/ritonavir tablets), a COVID-19 therapeutic, are benchmarks for accelerated innovation during a global pandemic. Rapid choice of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and main protease (Mpro) as targets for the vaccine and therapeutic, respectively, leveraged the available knowledge of the biology of SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses. The nonclinical immunogenicity and safety of BNT162b2 was rigorously assessed. Likewise, a comprehensive nonclinical safety assessment was conducted for the therapeutic candidates, lufotrelvir (PF-07304814) and nirmatrelvir (PF-07321332). The development and regulatory review of BNT162b2 and Paxlovid was enabled through close collaboration of the pharmaceutical industry with regulatory agencies and public health organizations. This experience highlights approaches that could be adopted for pandemic preparedness including risk-based investment strategies, conduct of activities in parallel that normally are conducted sequentially, quick kill decisions, simultaneous evaluation of multiple candidates, and use of flexible, established vaccine platforms.

COVID-19 vaccine eligibility of pregnant and lactating women in Bangladesh: Gap between policy and policy interpretation among policymakers and healthcare workers

SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of maternal and newborn morbidity and maternal death. Bangladesh confirmed its first COVID-19 case in March of 2020, and vaccination rollout started in January of 2021. In Bangladesh, pregnant women are allowed to receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy with qualifications while lactating women are permitted to receive COVID-19 vaccines with no qualifications as of October 2021. There is limited evidence on how vaccine policies are disseminated, interpreted, and implemented from the national level to the community level in Bangladesh. We conducted in-depth interviews from April-August 2022 with policymakers and healthcare workers in Bangladesh to understand how different stakeholders understood and implemented COVID-19 vaccination policies related to pregnant and lactating women. We interviewed policymakers at three levels: national, divisional, and district, and interviewed healthcare workers from one one urban and three rural communities within one division. We found a gap between policies related to COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant and lactating women and policy interpretation among policymakers and healthcare workers. Policymakers and healthcare workers' perceptions differed related to policy dissemination, attitudes toward policies related to pregnant and lactating women, and eligibility of pregnant and lactating women. Our findings indicate the need for effective dissemination of and understanding of policies. Within the context of vaccine uptake and vaccine acceptance, policymakers play a critical role as they are charged with developing and disseminating policy related to vaccine eligibility. Healthcare workers rely on timely and accurate communication related to vaccine eligibility, including populations, timing, and locations. Efforts are needed to narrow the policy and policy implementation gap as doing so is crucial to controlling vaccine preventable disease.

Reactogenicity, pregnancy outcomes, and SARS-CoV-2 infection following COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy in Canada: A national prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe self-reported reactogenicity, pregnancy outcomes, and SARS-CoV-2 infection following COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.

DESIGN

National, prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Participants across Canada were enrolled from July 2021 until June 2022.

POPULATION

Individuals pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of vaccination status, were included.

METHODS

The Canadian COVID-19 Vaccine Registry for Pregnant and Lactating Individuals (COVERED) was advertised through traditional and social media. Surveys were administered at baseline, following each vaccine dose if vaccinated, pregnancy conclusion, and every two months for 14 months. Changes to pregnancy or vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 infections, or significant health events were recorded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reactogenicity (local and systemic adverse events, and serious adverse events) within 1 week post-vaccination, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, and subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

Among 2868 participants who received 1-2 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, adverse events described included: headache (19.5-33.9%), nausea (4.8-13.8%), fever (2.7-10.2%), and myalgia (33.4-42.2%). Reactogenicity was highest after the 2nd dose of vaccine in pregnancy. Compared to 1660 unvaccinated participants, there were no statistically significant differences in adverse pregnancy or infant outcomes, aside from an increased risk of NICU admission ≥ 24 h among the unvaccinated group. During follow-up, there was a higher rate of participant-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection in the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated group (18[47.4%] vs. 786[27.3%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Participant-reported reactogenicity was similar to reports from non-pregnant adults. There was no increase in adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated participants and lower rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported in vaccinated participants.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

No significant increase in adverse pregnancy or infant outcomes among vaccinated versus unvaccinated pregnant women in Canada.

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.

Perinatal Outcomes at Birth in Women Infected and Non-Infected with SARS-CoV-2: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared as a pandemic and public health emergency on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization. Different clinical trials on the efficacy of mRNA vaccination have excluded pregnant women, leading to a lack of empirical evidence on the efficacy of the vaccine in this population. The aim of the study was to examine the association between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection at birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in infected and non-infected women from a university hospital in Spain.

METHODS

The data were obtained from electronic health records from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. A bivariate descriptive analysis was performed, comparing women with and without confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy using the chi-square test. A multivariate logistic regression was complementarily conducted to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2676 women were divided into two groups: non-infected with SARS-CoV-2 (n = 2624) and infected with SARS-CoV-2 (n = 52). Infected women were primarily multiparous (p < 0.03) and had received an incomplete vaccination regimen (p < 0.001). A greater incidence of premature rupture of membranes (p < 0.04) was observed among the non-infected women. Pertaining to perinatal outcomes, there was a notable rise in NICU admissions (p < 0.014), coupled with an extended duration of stay (p < 0.04), for neonates born to infected mothers in comparison to their non-infected counterparts.

CONCLUSION

Although SARS-CoV-2 infection may pose significant risks to pregnant women and their infants, adverse obstetrical/puerperal outcomes do not significantly differ between women infected and non-infected to SARS-CoV-2 in our study. NICU admissions were higher for neonates born to infected mothers. Additionally, coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with severe adverse perinatal outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 on Pregnancy Outcomes across Trimesters in the United States

BACKGROUND

Current knowledge regarding the association between trimester-specific changes during pregnancy and COVID-19 infection is limited. We utilized the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database to investigate trimester-specific outcomes among hospitalized pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19.

RESULTS

Out of 3,447,771 pregnant women identified, those with COVID-19 exhibited higher in-hospital mortality rates in their third trimester compared with those without the virus. Notably, rates of mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and perinatal complications (preeclampsia, HELLP syndrome, and preterm birth) were significantly elevated across all trimesters for COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 was found to be more prevalent among low-income, Hispanic pregnant women.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that COVID-19 during pregnancy is associated with increased risk of maternal mortality and complications, particularly in the third trimester. Furthermore, we observed significant racial and socioeconomic disparities in both COVID-19 prevalence and pregnancy outcomes. These findings emphasize the need for equitable healthcare strategies to improve care for diverse and socioeconomically marginalized groups, ultimately aiming to reduce adverse COVID-19-associated maternal and fetal outcomes.

Vaccine hesitancy decreases in rheumatic diseases, long-term concerns remain in myositis: a comparative analysis of the COVAD surveys

OBJECTIVE

COVID-19 vaccines have a favorable safety profile in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) such as idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs); however, hesitancy continues to persist among these patients. Therefore, we studied the prevalence, predictors and reasons for hesitancy in patients with IIMs, other AIRDs, non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs), using data from the two international COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) e-surveys.

METHODS

The first and second COVAD patient self-reported e-surveys were circulated from March to December 2021, and February to June 2022 (ongoing). We collected data on demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, reasons for hesitancy, and patient reported outcomes. Predictors of hesitancy were analysed using regression models in different groups.

RESULTS

We analysed data from 18 882 (COVAD-1) and 7666 (COVAD-2) respondents. Reassuringly, hesitancy decreased from 2021 (16.5%) to 2022 (5.1%) (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.30, P < 0.001). However, concerns/fear over long-term safety had increased (OR: 3.6; 95% CI: 2.9, 4.6, P < 0.01). We noted with concern greater skepticism over vaccine science among patients with IIMs than AIRDs (OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.08, 3.2, P = 0.023) and HCs (OR: 4; 95% CI: 1.9, 8.1, P < 0.001), as well as more long-term safety concerns/fear (IIMs vs AIRDs - OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2, 2.9, P = 0.001; IIMs vs HCs - OR: 5.4 95% CI: 3, 9.6, P < 0.001). Caucasians [OR 4.2 (1.7-10.3)] were likely to be more hesitant, while those with better PROMIS physical health score were less hesitant [OR 0.9 (0.8-0.97)].

CONCLUSION

Vaccine hesitancy has decreased from 2021 to 2022, long-term safety concerns remain among patients with IIMs, particularly in Caucasians and those with poor physical function.

Vaccination status of COVID-19 patients followed up in the ICU in a country with heterologous vaccination policy: A multicenter national study in Turkey

OBJECTIVE

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-2) prevents the development of serious diseases has been shown in many studies. However, the effect of vaccination on outcomes in COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care is not clear.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicenter study conducted in 17 intensive care unit (ICU) in Turkey between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. Patients aged 18 years and older who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and followed in ICU were included in the study. Patients who have never been vaccinated and patients who have been vaccinated with a single dose were considered unvaccinated. Logistic regression models were fit for the two outcomes (28-day mortality and in-hospital mortality).

RESULTS

A total of 2968 patients were included final analysis. The most of patients followed in the ICU during the study period were unvaccinated (58.5%). Vaccinated patients were older, had higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and had higher APACHE-2 scores than unvaccinated patients. Risk for 28-day mortality and in-hospital mortality was similar in across the year both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. However, risk for in-hospital mortality and 28-day mortality was higher in the unvaccinated patients in quarter 4 adjusted for gender and CCI (OR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.06-1.99 and OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.03-1.96, respectively) compared to the vaccinated group.

CONCLUSION

Despite effective vaccination, fully vaccinated patients may be admitted to ICU because of disease severity. Unvaccinated patients were younger and had fewer comorbid conditions. Unvaccinated patients have an increased risk of 28-day mortality when adjusted for gender and CCI.

Effectiveness of a Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among US Healthcare Personnel, October 2021-July 2022

Background

Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant.

Methods

We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates.

Results

Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants.

Conclusions

A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

Efficacy, safety, and public attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review

Background

This paper reviews some of the literature on the safety and efficacy of different COVID-19 vaccines, the attitudes, and perceptions of people towards the vaccines, and the factor underlying such perceptions and behavior.

Methods

Two major databases (PubMed and Epistemonikos) were checked using search expansion mechanisms and several search strings. After the title, abstract, and full-text analysis, 19 studies were selected for review.

Results

The seven different vaccines studied all have supporting data on their efficacy in the reduction of COVID-19 cases, prevention of hospitalization after infection, and reduction in the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients. There was high hesitancy about the COVID-19 vaccine and the perceived efficacy and safety of the vaccines are less than recorded in clinical data. Distrust of the vaccines, their manufacturers and different institutions and governments, personal beliefs and feelings, age, gender, education, and socioeconomic status were identified factors affecting behaviors towards the COVID-19 vaccines.

Conclusion

Several articles support the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, but general awareness and conception about them vary, including hesitancy, distrust, and some acceptance. Many factors affected the perception and attitude of people toward these vaccines. More clinical data on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines should be generated to help boost confidence among users.

Updated Considerations for the Immunopharmacological Aspects of the "Talented mRNA Vaccines"

Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines belong to a new class of medications, RNA therapeutics, including both coding and non-coding RNAs. The use of mRNA as a therapy is based on the biological role of mRNA itself, namely its translation into a functional protein. The goal of mRNA vaccines is to produce a specific antigen in cells to elicit an immune response that might be prophylactic or therapeutic. The potential of mRNA as vaccine has been envisaged for years but its efficacy has been clearly demonstrated with the approval of COVID-19 vaccines in 2021. Since then, mRNA vaccines have been in the pipeline for diseases that are still untreatable. There are many advantages of mRNA vaccines over traditional vaccines, including easy and cost-effective production, high safety, and high-level antigen expression. However, the nature of mRNA itself and some technical issues pose challenges associated with the vaccines' development and use. Here we review the immunological and pharmacological features of mRNA vaccines by discussing their pharmacokinetics, mechanisms of action, and safety, with a particular attention on the advantages and challenges related to their administration. Furthermore, we present an overview of the areas of application and the clinical trials that utilize a mRNA vaccine as a treatment.

Comparative analysis of the effectiveness difference of SARS-COV-2 mRNA vaccine in different populations in the real world: A review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has ravaged the world since December 2019. Up to now, it is still prevalent around the world. Vaccines are an important means to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and reduce severe disease and mortality. Currently, different types of novel coronavirus vaccines are still being developed and improved, and the relevant vaccines that have been approved for marketing have been widely vaccinated around the world. As vaccination coverage continues to grow, concerns about the efficacy and safety of vaccines after real-world use have grown. Some clinical studies have shown that vaccine effectiveness is closely related to antibody response after vaccination. Among them, the advantages of COVID-19 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine, such as better adaptability to variant strains and better immune response ability, have attracted great attention. However, different populations with different genders, ages, previous COVID-19 infection history, underlying diseases and treatments will show different antibody responses after mRNA vaccination, which will affect the protection of the vaccine. Based on this, this paper reviews the reports related severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 mRNA vaccines, and summarizes the effectiveness of vaccines in different populations and different disease states and looked forward to the precise vaccination strategy of the vaccine in the future.

How do perceptions of Covid-19 risk impact pregnancy-related health decisions? A convergent parallel mixed-methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Pregnant people have a higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease. They have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 infection control policies, which exacerbated conditions resulting in intimate partner violence, healthcare access, and mental health distress. This project examines the impact of accumulated individual health decisions and describes how perinatal care and health outcomes changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

Quantitative strand: Describe differences between 2019, 2021, and 2022 birth groups related to maternal vaccination, perinatal care, and mental health care. Examine the differential impacts on racialized and low-income pregnant people.Qualitative strand: Understand how pregnant people's perceptions of COVID-19 risk influenced their decision-making about vaccination, perinatal care, social support, and mental health.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a Canadian convergent parallel mixed-methods study. The quantitative strand uses a retrospective cohort design to assess birth group differences in rates of Tdap and COVID-19 vaccination, gestational diabetes screening, length of post-partum hospital stay, and onset of depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder, using administrative data from ICES, formerly the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Ontario) and PopulationData BC (PopData) (British Columbia). Differences by socioeconomic and ethnocultural status will also be examined. The qualitative strand employs qualitative description to interview people who gave birth between May 2020- December 2021 about their COVID-19 risk perception and health decision-making process. Data integration will occur during design and interpretation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethical approval from McMaster University and the University of British Columbia. Findings will be disseminated via manuscripts, presentations, and patient-facing infographics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT05663762.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women

This open-labeled non-inferiority trial evaluated immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous and homologous COVID-19 vaccination schedules in pregnant Thai women. 18-45-year-old pregnant women with no history of COVID-19 infection or vaccination and a gestational age of ≥12 weeks were randomized 1:1:1 into three two-dose primary series scheduled 4 weeks apart: BNT162b2-BNT162b2 (Group 1), ChAdOx1-BNT162b2 (Group 2), and CoronaVac-BNT162b2 (Group 3). Serum antibody responses, maternal and cord blood antibody levels at delivery, and adverse events (AEs) following vaccination until delivery were assessed. The 124 enrolled participants had a median age of 31 (interquartile range [IQR] 26.0-35.5) years and gestational age of 23.5 (IQR 18.0-30.0) weeks. No significant difference in anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG were observed across arms at 2 weeks after the second dose. Neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers against the ancestral Wuhan strain were highest in Group 3 (258.22, 95% CI [187.53, 355.56]), followed by Groups 1 (187.47, 95% CI [135.15, 260.03]) and 2 (166.63, 95% CI [124.60, 222.84]). Cord blood anti-RBD IgG was correlated with, and equal to or higher than, maternal levels at delivery (r = 0.719, P < .001) and inversely correlated with elapsed time after the second vaccination (r = -0.366, P < .001). No significant difference in cord blood antibody levels between groups were observed. Local and systemic AEs were mild-to-moderate and more frequent in Group 2. Heterologous schedules of CoronaVac-BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-BNT162b2 induced immunogenicity on-par with BNT162b2-BNT162b2 and may be considered as alternative schedules for primary series in pregnant women in mRNA-limited vaccine settings.

Cardiovascular Complications Associated With COVID-19 During Delivery Hospitalizations in Pandemic Year 2020

Background

Persons with COVID-19 infection have an increased risk of pregnancy-related complications. However, data on acute cardiovascular (CV) complications during delivery admissions remain limited.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine whether pregnant individuals with COVID-19 have an increased risk of acute peripartum CV complications during their delivery admission.

Methods

This population-based retrospective cohort study used the 2020 National Inpatient Sample database. The International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes were used to identify delivery admissions with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A multivariable logistic regression model was performed to determine the association between COVID-19 and acute peripartum CV complications at delivery.

Results

A total of 3,458,691 weighted delivery admissions were identified, of which 1.3% were among persons with COVID-19 (n = 46,375). Persons with COVID-19 were younger (median 28 vs 29 years, P < 0.01) and had a higher prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus, preterm births, and Cesarean delivery (P < 0.01). After adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, insurance, and income, COVID-19 remained independently associated with peripartum CV complications including preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.33 [95% CI, 1.29-1.37]), peripartum cardiomyopathy (aOR: 2.09 [1.54-2.84]), acute coronary syndrome (aOR: 12.94 [8.85-18.90]), and arrhythmias (aOR: 1.55 [1.45-1.67]), compared with no COVID-19. Likewise, the risks of in-hospital mortality, acute kidney injury, stroke, pulmonary edema, and venous thromboembolism were higher with COVID-19. For resource utilization, the cost of hospitalization ($5,374 vs $4,837, P < 0.01) was higher for deliveries among persons with COVID-19.

Conclusions

In the year 2020, pregnant persons with COVID-19 had a higher risk of preeclampsia, in-hospital mortality, and other serious CV complication during delivery hospitalizations compared to pregnant individuals without COVID-19.

Safety outcomes associated with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273): a literature review

INTRODUCTION

Current safety data from Phase 3 clinical trials have concluded that apart from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273). However, Phase 3 studies are insufficient to detect rare adverse events (AEs), including anaphylactic reactions or myocarditis. A literature search of the two major electronic databases, Embase and Pubmed, was performed to enable the identification and characterization of all relevant articles from December 2020 to November 2022.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review aims to summarize the key safety outcomes associated with the mRNA-1273 vaccine to inform healthcare decisions and increase public awareness of mRNA-1273 vaccine safety. The primary adverse events (AEs) reported within a diverse population, including children, adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, and cancer patients receiving the mRNA-1273 vaccine, were; localized injection site pain, fatigue, headache, myalgia, and chills. In addition, the mRNA-1273 vaccine was also associated with; less than a 1-day change in the menstrual cycle, a 10-fold higher risk of myocarditis and pericarditis within young males aged 18-29 years and increased levels of anti-polyethylene glycol (PEG) antibodies.

EXPERT OPINION

The transient nature of commonly observed AEs and the rare occurrence of severe events within mRNA-1273 recipients show no significant safety concerns which should prevent vaccination. However, large-scale epidemiological studies with longer follow-up periods are required to surveillance rare safety outcomes associated with this vaccine.

No association of vaccination with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines before conception with pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes: A cohort study of 5457 Chinese pregnant women

Data on the safety of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women is limited and monitoring pregnancy outcomes is required. We aimed to examine whether vaccination with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines before conception was associated with pregnancy complications or adverse birth outcomes. We conducted a birth cohort study in Shanghai, China. A total of 7000 healthy pregnant women were enrolled, of whom 5848 were followed up through delivery. Vaccine administration information was obtained from electronic vaccination records. Relative risks (RRs) of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDP), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP), preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW), and macrosomia associated with COVID-19 vaccination were estimated by multivariable-adjusted log-binomial analysis. After exclusion, 5457 participants were included in the final analysis, of whom 2668 (48.9%) received at least two doses of an inactivated vaccine before conception. Compared with unvaccinated women, there was no significant increase in the risks of GDM (RR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69, 0.93), HDP (RR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.70, 1.11), or ICP (RR = 1.61, 95% CI, 0.95, 2.72) in vaccinated women. Similarly, vaccination was not significantly associated with any increased risks of PTB (RR = 0.84, 95% CI, 0.67, 1.04), LBW (RR = 0.85, 95% CI, 0.66, 1.11), or macrosomia (RR = 1.10, 95% CI, 0.86, 1.42). The observed associations remained in all sensitivity analyses. Our findings suggested that vaccination with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines was not significantly associated with an increased risk of pregnancy complications or adverse birth outcomes.

COVID-19 Disease in Under-5 Children: Current Status and Strategies for Prevention including Vaccination

Since the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic hit the globe in early 2020, we have steadily gained insight into its pathogenesis; thereby improving surveillance and preventive measures. In contrast to other respiratory viruses, neonates and young children infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) have a milder clinical presentation, with only a small proportion needing hospitalization and intensive care support. With the emergence of novel variants and improved testing services, there has been a higher incidence of COVID-19 disease reported among children and neonates. Despite this, the proportion of young children with severe disease has not increased. Key mechanisms that protect young children from severe COVID-19 disease include the placental barrier, differential expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptors, immature immune response, and passive transfer of antibodies via placenta and human milk. Implementing mass vaccination programs has been a major milestone in reducing the global disease burden. However, considering the lower risk of severe COVID-19 illness in young children and the limited evidence about long-term vaccine safety, the risk-benefit balance in children under five years of age is more complex. In this review, we do not support or undermine vaccination of young children but outline current evidence and guidelines, and highlight controversies, knowledge gaps, and ethical issues related to COVID-19 vaccination in young children. Regulatory bodies should consider the individual and community benefits of vaccinating younger children in their local epidemiological setting while planning regional immunization policies.

Immunisation against COVID-19 in Pregnancy and of Women Planning Pregnancy

Following reports of the first human SARS-CoV2 infection in December 2019 from Wuhan Province, China, there was such rapid spread that by March 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) had declared a pandemic. Over 6.5 million people have died from this infection worldwide, although this is most likely an underestimate. Until vaccines became available, mortality and severe morbidity were costly in terms of life lost as well as the cost of supporting the severely and acutely ill. Vaccination changed the landscape, and following worldwide adoption, life has gradually been returning to normal. The speed of production of the vaccines was unprecedented and undoubtedly ushered in a new era in the science of fighting infections. The developed vaccines were on the already known platforms for vaccine delivery: inactivated virus, virus vector, virus-like particles (VLP) subunit, DNA and mRNA. The mRNA platform was used for the first time to deliver vaccines to humans. An understanding of these platforms and the pros and cons of each are important for clinicians who are often challenged by the recipients on the advantages and risks of these vaccines. These vaccines have so far and reassuringly been shown to be safe in reproduction (with no effect on gametes) and pregnancy (not associated with congenital malformations). However, safety remains paramount and continuing vigilance is critical, especially against rare fatal complications such as vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and myocarditis. Finally, the waning immunity months after vaccination means repeated immunisation is likely to be ongoing, but just how often and how many such revaccinations should be recommended remains uncertain. Research into other vaccines and alternate delivery methods should continue as this infection is likely to be around for a long time.

Strategies to Prevent Early and Late-Onset Group B Streptococcal Infection via Interventions in Pregnancy

Group B Streptococcus is a Gram-positive bacterium that typically colonizes 10-30% of pregnant women, causing chorioamnionitis, preterm birth, and stillbirth, as well as neonatal sepsis and meningitis with early-onset disease (EOD) or late-onset disease (LOD) due to ascending infection or transmission during delivery. While there are some differences between EOD and LOD in terms of route of transmission, risk factors, and serotypes, the only preventive approach currently is maternal intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) which will not be able to fully address the burden of the disease since this has no impact on LOD. Probiotics and immunization in pregnancy may be more effective than IAP for both EOD and LOD. There is mixed evidence of probiotic effects on the prevention of GBS colonization, and the data from completed and ongoing clinical trials investigating different GBS vaccines are promising. Current vaccine candidates target bacterial proteins or the polysaccharide capsule and include trivalent, tetravalent, and hexavalent protein-polysaccharide conjugate vaccines. Some challenges in developing novel GBS vaccines include the lack of a correlate of protection, the potential for serotype switching, a need to understand interactions with other vaccines, and optimal timing of administration in pregnancy to maximize protection for both term and preterm infants.

Vaccination and treatment options for SARS-CoV2 infection affecting lactation and breastfeeding

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed considerable challenges to the health of lactating individuals. Vaccination remains one of the most important strategies for prevention of moderate to severe COVID-19 infection and is associated with protective benefits for lactating individuals and their breastfed infants with overall mild side effects. The current recommendations for COVID-19 treatment in lactating individuals includes remdesivir and dexamethasone for hospitalized patients and Paxlovid® (nirmatrelavir + ritonavir) as outpatient treatment in those with mild disease. As the pandemic continues to evolve with new COVID-19 variants, alternative therapeutic options are potentially needed, and it is critical to include lactating individuals in research to evaluate the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 treatment options in this population.

Lack of clear national policy guidance on COVID-19 vaccines influences behaviors in pregnant and lactating women in Kenya

SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of maternal and newborn morbidity and maternal death. In Kenya, pregnant and lactating women (PLW) were ineligible to receive COVID-19 vaccines until August 2021. How shifts in policy influence vaccine behaviors, such as health worker recommendations and vaccine uptake, is not well documented. We conducted qualitative interviews with PLW, health workers, and policymakers in Kenya to understand how different stakeholders' perceptions of national policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy shaped vaccine behaviors and decision-making. Policymakers and health workers described pervasive uncertainty and lack of communication about the national policy, cited vaccine safety as their primary concern for administering COVID-19 vaccines to PLW, and expressed that PLW were inadequately prioritized in the COVID-19 vaccine program. PLW perceived the restrictive policy as indicative of a safety risk, resulting in vaccine hesitancy and potentially exacerbated inequities in vaccine access. These findings support the need for the development and dissemination of effective vaccine communication guidelines and the prioritization of PLW in COVID-19 vaccination policies and campaigns. To ensure PLW do not face the same inequities in future epidemics, data on infectious disease burdens and vaccine uptake should be collected systematically among pregnant women, and PLW should be included in future vaccine trials.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Pregnant Women Attending Antenatal Clinics in Pakistan: A Multicentric, Prospective, Survey-Based Study

This study aimed to assess the vaccination status and factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in the largest province of Pakistan. A multicentric, prospective, survey-based study using an interviewer-administered tool was conducted among pregnant women attending antenatal clinics between 1 December 2021 through 30 January 2022 across seven hospitals in Pakistan. The healthcare professionals providing care at the participating hospitals administered the survey. Four hundred and five pregnant women fully consented and completed the study. The majority of the study participants (70.6%, n = 286) were aged between 25 and 34 and had a previous successful pregnancy history. More than half of the study participants (56.0%, n = 227) did not receive COVID-19 vaccination at the time of data collection despite their family members (93.9%, n = 372) had already received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Among those who received COVID-19 vaccination (n = 173), vaccine efficacy, protection for the foetus, and risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalisation were the main driving factors for vaccine hesitancy. The majority of the unvaccinated women (77.8%, n = 182) had no intention of receiving the vaccine. However, more than two-thirds (85.7%, n = 342) consulted the doctor about COVID-19 vaccines, and most were recommended to receive COVID-19 vaccines by the doctors (80.7%, n = 280). Women were significantly more likely to be vaccinated if they had employment (odds ratio [OR] 4.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.31-8.64) compared with their counterparts who were homemakers, consulted their doctors (OR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04-0.35), and if they did not have pregnancy-related issues (OR 6.02, 95% CI: 2.36-15.33). In this study, vaccine hesitancy was prevalent, and vaccine uptake was low among pregnant women. Education and employment did impact COVID vaccination uptake, emphasising the need for more targeted efforts to enhance the trust in vaccines.

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

Introduction

Although the European Medicines Agency (EMA) encourage coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in pregnant women, the scientific evidence supporting the use of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy is still limited.

Aim

We aimed to investigate adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy.

Methods

We retrieved Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) related to the use of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy from the EudraVigilance database for the year 2021. We analyzed AEFI related to the mother and fetus/newborn. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was computed to compare the reporting probability of spontaneous abortion between COVID-19 vaccines.

Results

During the study period, among 1,315,315 ICSRs related to COVID-19 vaccines, we retrieved 3,252 (0.25%) reports related to the use in pregnancy. More than half (58.24%) of ICSRs were submitted by non-healthcare professionals. Although the majority (87.82%) of ICSRs concerned serious AEFI, their outcomes were mostly favorable. In this study, 85.0% of total ICSRs referred to pregnant women (n = 2,764), while 7.9% referred to fetuses/newborns (n = 258). We identified 16,569 AEFI. Moreover, 55.16% were AEFI not related to pregnancy (mostly headache, pyrexia, and fatigue), while 17.92% were pregnancy-, newborn-, or fetus-related AEFI. Among pregnancy-related AEFI, the most reported was spontaneous abortion. Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines had a lower reporting probability of spontaneous abortion than viral vector-based vaccines (ROR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69–0.93). Moderna and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines had a higher reporting probability of spontaneous abortion (ROR 1.2, 95% CI 1.05–1.38 and ROR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08–1.47, respectively), while a lower reporting probability was found for Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine compared with all other COVID-19 vaccines (ROR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64–0.84). In addition, 5.8% of ICSRs reported a fatal outcome.

Conclusions

No strong insight of unknown AEFI associated with COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women was observed. Considering the high risk associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, our analysis suggests that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy outweigh the possible risks. However, it is important to continue monitoring the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in this subpopulation.