Are COVID-19 vaccines safe in pregnancy?

COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy: Pilot Study of Plasma MicroRNAs Associated with Inflammatory Cytokines after COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination

BACKGROUND

The impact of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines on the immunological profiles of pregnant women remains a crucial area of study. This research aims to explore the specific immunological changes triggered by these vaccines in this demographic.

METHODS

In a focused investigation, we examined the effects of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination on microRNA expression in pregnant women. Key microRNAs, including miR-451a, miR-23a-3p, and miR-21-5p, were analyzed for expression changes post-vaccination. Additionally, we assessed variations in S1RBD IgG levels and specific cytokines to gauge the broader immunological response.

RESULTS

Post-vaccination, significant expression shifts in the targeted microRNAs were observed. Alongside these changes, we noted alterations in S1RBD IgG and various cytokines, indicating an adapted inflammatory response. Notably, these immunological markers displayed no direct correlation with S1RBD IgG concentrations, suggesting a complex interaction between the vaccine and the immune system in pregnant women.

CONCLUSIONS

Our pilot study provides valuable insights into the nuanced effects of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine on immune dynamics in pregnant women, particularly emphasizing the role of microRNAs. The findings illuminate the intricate interplay between vaccines, microRNAs, and immune responses, enhancing our understanding of these relationships in the context of pregnancy. This research contributes significantly to the growing body of knowledge regarding mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and their specific impact on maternal immunology, offering a foundation for further studies in this vital area.

The Impact of COVID-19 during Pregnancy on Maternal Hemodynamic Function, Angiogenic Markers and Neonatal Outcome

Infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) in pregnancy are associated with the development of preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction (FGR). Recently, preeclampsia was linked to impaired maternal hemodynamic function. This retrospective study evaluated singleton pregnancies with COVID-19 during pregnancy and healthy pregnant controls matched for gestational age from November 2020 to March 2022. Non-invasive assessment of maternal hemodynamics by continuous wave Doppler ultrasound measurements (USCOM-1A® Monitor) and oscillometric arterial stiffness (Arteriograph) was performed. Overall, 69 pregnant women were included-23 women after COVID-19 during pregnancy and 46 healthy controls. While two women (8.7%) were admitted to the hospital due to COVID-19-related symptoms, none required intensive care unit admission or non-invasive/invasive ventilation. There were no statistically significant differences in the majority of hemodynamic parameters between the two cohorts. The prevalence of FGR was significantly higher in the COVID-19 during pregnancy group (9.5% vs. healthy controls: 0.0%; p = 0.036), especially in nulliparous women. No difference in angiogenic markers and neonatal outcomes were observed between pregnant women after COVID-19 and healthy controls. In conclusion, no significant differences in hemodynamic parameters or neonatal outcome were observed in women with COVID-19 during pregnancy. However, an increased prevalence of FGR could be described.

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination on live birth rates after in vitro fertilization

OBJECTIVE

To investigate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on the live birth rates in patients who underwent in vitro fertilization.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Academic fertility practice.

PATIENT(S)

Patients who underwent fresh or frozen embryo transfer cycles at an academic center between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021.

INTERVENTION(S)

Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, defined as completing a 2-dose regimen (Pfizer or Moderna) or 1-dose regimen (Johnson & Johnson/Janssen) before cycle initiation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome was the live birth rate per embryo transfer. The secondary outcomes included positive human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer. The outcomes from cycles among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients were compared. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic and cycle characteristics using the Student t test and Wilcoxon rank sum, Pearson chi-square, and Fisher exact tests as appropriate for univariate analysis. Generalized estimating equation models were used to examine the strength of the relationship between vaccination status and pregnancy outcomes.

RESULT(S)

Among 709 unvaccinated and 648 vaccinated fresh cycles, no statistically significant differences were observed between the number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte maturity, fertilization, and blastocyst utilization rates. In the adjusted multivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences were noted between fresh cycles among vaccinated patients compared with those among unvaccinated patients with the rates of positive hCG (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-2.25), clinical pregnancy (aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.73-2.03), or live birth (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.79-2.25) per embryo transfer. Among 264 unvaccinated and 423 vaccinated frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles, vaccinated patients had higher odds of positive hCG (aOR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.08-2.20), clinical pregnancy (aOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.27-2.56), and live birth (aOR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.60-3.32) per embryo transfer than unvaccinated patients.

CONCLUSION(S)

Patients who were COVID-19 vaccinated before FET had higher rates of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and live birth. Vaccination was not associated with the pregnancy or live birth rates after fresh cycles. This study contributes to evidence supporting COVID-19 vaccination for patients attempting pregnancy.

Path analysis of perceived disease vulnerability, COVID-19 fear, and lower vaccine hesitancy within the context of protection motivation theory

COVID-19 vaccinations have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing severe infections. However, vaccine hesitancy posed a major public health hurdle to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Online spread of vaccine conspiracy beliefs generated unwarranted mistrust and resistance to vaccines. While numerous studies have explored the factors influencing vaccine hesitancy, there remains a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding the interplay between perceived disease vulnerability, COVID-19 fear, and vaccine hesitancy. Protection motivation theory posits citizens will evaluate perceived threats and take actions to mitigate potential harm. With a large U.S. sample, path analysis demonstrated individuals' perceived disease vulnerability was associated with lower vaccine hesitancy. Greater perceived disease vulnerability was associated with higher COVID-19 fear. Greater COVID-19 fear was associated with lower vaccine hesitancy. Greater vaccine conspiracy beliefs associated with higher vaccine hesitancy. However, in the presence of perceived vulnerability to disease, vaccine conspiracy beliefs associated with higher fear of COVID-19 and thereby lower vaccine hesitancy. We found under circumstances of higher perceived vulnerability to disease and fear of COVID-19, vaccine conspiratorial believers were less vaccine hesitant. We discuss how public health messaging can highlight personal risks to contracting COVID-19 to appeal to those who self-identify as disease prone, but may have reservations about vaccines because of misinformation. Successfully combating diseases entails reaching and gaining cooperation from misbelievers because misinformation is expected to continue in the digital age. By understand individual differences to vaccine hesitancy, it can help increase vaccinations and prevent severe illnesses in the post COVID-19 pandemic era.

Is It Safe for Me to Get It? Factors Influencing COVID-19 Vaccination Decision-Making among Postpartum Women Who Are Black and Hispanic in Deep South

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccination is vital for ending the pandemic, yet safety concerns persist among pregnant and postpartum women, especially those who are Black and Hispanic. This study aims to explore factors that influence postpartum women's vaccination decision-making during pregnancy and postpartum through women's lived experiences and maternal care providers' (MCPs) observations.

METHODS

From January to August 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews with postpartum women who are Black and Hispanic and with MCPs. Participants were recruited from obstetric and pediatric clinics in South Carolina and had given birth in 2021. Thematic analysis was employed for data analysis.

RESULTS

The study involved 19 Black and 20 Hispanic women, along with 9 MCPs, and revealed both barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination. The factors that influence pregnant and postpartum women's decision about COVID-19 vaccine uptake included: 1) awareness of health threats associated with COVID-19 vaccines, 2) vaccine availability and accessibility, 3) vaccine-related knowledge and exposure to misinformation, 4) concerns regarding pre-existing health conditions and potential side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, 5) emotional factors associated with vaccination decision-making processes, 6) concerns about the well-being of infants, 7) cultural perspectives, and 8) encouragement by trusted supporters.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that reliable information, social support, and trusted MCPs' advice can motivate COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant and postpartum women who are Black and Hispanic. However, barriers such as misinformation, mistrust in the health care system, and fears of potential side effects impede vaccination uptake. Future interventions should address these barriers, consider health disparities, involve trusted MCPs, and initiate conversations about vaccines to promote vaccination among these populations.

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.

Severe Covid-19 in pregnant and postpartum women admitted to an intensive care unit: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with worse maternal and fetal outcomes. This study aims to describe the characteristics of pregnant and postpartum women with severe Covid-19 admitted to ICU.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

It's a retrospective cohort study evaluating pregnant and postpartum women referenced to a specialized ICU between May 2020 and June 2022. Covid-19 was confirmed with RT-PCR or rapid antigen test on a nasopharyngeal swab. Variables were described by median and IQR when numerical, and by frequency and percentage when categorical. OR with 95% CI were calculated for the evaluation of factors related to death. P-values were calculated using Pearson's ꭓ2-test, Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Kruskall-Wallis test, and statistical significance was established as < 0·05. Missing data were excluded. All statistical analysis were performed using R software version 4.2.2. Of the 101 admissions, 85 (84·2%) were of pregnant women. Obesity (23·0%) and systemic arterial hypertension (13·0%) were the most prevalent medical conditions. Sixty-six (65·3%) were admitted using some type of oxygen support. Forty-seven (46·5%) evolved to mechanical ventilation. There were 61 events considered obstetric complications, with 8 stillbirths/fetal losses. The overall lethality was 15·8%. Pregnancy interruption, need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation, level of oxygen support at admission, prone maneuver, hemodialysis, and healthcare-related infections were factors associated with death. Evaluating the WHO 7-category ordinary scale, there was a trend of increase in the risk of death with higher punctuation, with a statistically significant difference of women with 5 (OR = 7·27; 95% IC = 1·17-194; p = 0·031) or 6 points (OR = 12·0; 95% IC = 1·15-391; p = 0·038) when compared to the ones with 3 points, i.e., of women admitted with a high-flow non-rebreathing mask or invasive mechanical ventilation, compared with the ones admitted at room air, respectively. The main limitations of this study are the relatively small number of participants, and the use of data derived of medical records-which are susceptible to misclassification and variable amounts of missing data.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant and postpartum women with severe Covid-19 have high lethality and a high incidence of clinical and obstetric complications. These findings support that this population should be prioritized in public health strategies that address Covid-19.

A prospective cohort study of preconception COVID-19 vaccination and miscarriage

STUDY QUESTION

To what extent is preconception maternal or paternal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination associated with miscarriage incidence?

SUMMARY ANSWER

COVID-19 vaccination in either partner at any time before conception is not associated with an increased rate of miscarriage.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Several observational studies have evaluated the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and found no association with miscarriage, though no study prospectively evaluated the risk of early miscarriage (gestational weeks [GW] <8) in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, no study has evaluated the role of preconception vaccination in both male and female partners.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

An Internet-based, prospective preconception cohort study of couples residing in the USA and Canada. We analyzed data from 1815 female participants who conceived during December 2020-November 2022, including 1570 couples with data on male partner vaccination.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Eligible female participants were aged 21-45 years and were trying to conceive without use of fertility treatment at enrollment. Female participants completed questionnaires at baseline, every 8 weeks until pregnancy, and during early and late pregnancy; they could also invite their male partners to complete a baseline questionnaire. We collected data on COVID-19 vaccination (brand and date of doses), history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (yes/no and date of positive test), potential confounders (demographic, reproductive, and lifestyle characteristics), and pregnancy status on all questionnaires. Vaccination status was categorized as never (0 doses before conception), ever (≥1 dose before conception), having a full primary sequence before conception, and completing the full primary sequence ≤3 months before conception. These categories were not mutually exclusive. Participants were followed up from their first positive pregnancy test until miscarriage or a censoring event (induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, loss to follow-up, 20 weeks' gestation), whichever occurred first. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for miscarriage and corresponding 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards models with GW as the time scale. We used propensity score fine stratification weights to adjust for confounding.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Among 1815 eligible female participants, 75% had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the time of conception. Almost one-quarter of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage, and 75% of miscarriages occurred <8 weeks' gestation. The propensity score-weighted IRR comparing female participants who received at least one dose any time before conception versus those who had not been vaccinated was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.14). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased risk of either early miscarriage (GW: <8) or late miscarriage (GW: 8-19). There was no indication of an increased risk of miscarriage associated with male partner vaccination (IRR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.44).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The present study relied on self-reported vaccination status and infection history. Thus, there may be some non-differential misclassification of exposure status. While misclassification of miscarriage is also possible, the preconception cohort design and high prevalence of home pregnancy testing in this cohort reduced the potential for under-ascertainment of miscarriage. As in all observational studies, residual or unmeasured confounding is possible.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This is the first study to evaluate prospectively the relation between preconception COVID-19 vaccination in both partners and miscarriage, with more complete ascertainment of early miscarriages than earlier studies of vaccination. The findings are informative for individuals planning a pregnancy and their healthcare providers.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Health [R01-HD086742 (PI: L.A.W.); R01-HD105863S1 (PI: L.A.W. and M.L.E.)], the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R03-AI154544; PI: A.K.R.), and the National Science Foundation (NSF-1914792; PI: L.A.W.). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. L.A.W. is a fibroid consultant for AbbVie, Inc. She also receives in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics (Clearblue home pregnancy tests) and Kindara.com (fertility apps). M.L.E. received consulting fees from Ro, Hannah, Dadi, VSeat, and Underdog, holds stock in Ro, Hannah, Dadi, and Underdog, is a past president of SSMR, and is a board member of SMRU. K.F.H. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from UCB and Takeda, unrelated to this study. S.H.-D. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from Takeda, unrelated to this study, and a methods consultant for UCB and Roche for unrelated drugs. The authors report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Navigation of Knowledge: the Impact of COVID-19 on Pregnancy-a Bibliometric Analysis

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, countries around the world have faced huge economic and social burdens. SARS-COV-2 may exist in nature for a long time due to the diversity of its different variants. Pregnant women and newborns as vulnerable groups will suffer serious health threats. Bibliometrics as a method of summarizing publications can be used to extract important achievements and hot topics in this field. We search the target publications from the Web of Science Core collection database, and then use Microsoft Office Excel, CiteSpace, R, Scimago, and VOSviewer for visual analysis. Finally, we included 1709 publications from 2998 institutions in 104 countries. The number of publications has exploded since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019. Among them, the USA, China, Britain, and Italy have higher quantity and quality. We identified important journals, authors, keywords, and references in this field. Anxiety, stress, risk of pregnancy complications, and vaccine safety and acceptance have received extensive attention from scholars during the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be urgent issues to be addressed in the future. Most of the current studies fall into the category of case reports and clinical data analysis. COVID-19 has been linked to serious pregnancy complications and mental illness, and vaccination during pregnancy is recommended to protect both mother and fetus. Further large-scale cohort studies and discovery of molecular mechanisms are needed in this field.

Impact of mRNA-based vaccines in the prevention of adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infection in pregnancy: a single-center cohort study

Several data have suggested that pregnant women have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 compared to those who are not pregnant. Moreover, different studies have showed that severe COVID-19 is limited mostly to unvaccinated women. The aim of the present study was to ascertain the different maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19 according to their vaccination status. A retrospective cohort study was carried out including all women admitted to the high-risk pregnancy unit of our center with COVID-19 between December 2021 and February 2022. Among the 163 women included in the study, 60 were vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine and 103 were unvaccinated. Pregnancy outcome and obstetrical and neonatal complications were encountered. Vaccinated women showed higher educational levels and lower prevalence of cases, with BMI >25 compared to unvaccinated women. Moreover, vaccinated women were admitted mostly for obstetrical indications rather than for COVID-related symptoms. In addition, the risk of developing COVID-19 pneumonia was significantly higher in unvaccinated women (p = 0.01) compared with vaccinated ones. Furthermore, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes showed some differences in the two cohorts. In unvaccinated women, the rate of C-section was higher (p = 0.03), and the mean birthweight percentile in their infants was impaired by COVID-19 infection (p = 0.01) when compared to those born to vaccinated women. Based on these results, we suggest that women who received a full course of vaccination were protected from the severity of the disease, having milder symptoms of SARS-Cov2 infection, while also presenting a more favorable pregnancy outcome.

Comprehensive evaluation of the effect of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on female fertility: A retrospective cohort study

Fear of possible negative effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine on fertility is the main reason for vaccine hesitancy among the public especially women of childbearing age. Despite the high coverage of COVID-19 vaccination in China, more scientific evidence is still needed to address their concerns and guide fertility counseling and management in the future. Herein, we performed a retrospective cohort study at a single large center for reproductive medicine in China between August 2020 and May 2023. Patients aged 20-42 years with no history of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were included and categorized into different groups according to their vaccination status. The serum sex hormone levels, anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations, embryo quality, and pregnancy outcomes were evaluated and compared among them. We found there were no significant differences in the concentrations of follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone and progesterone between the unvaccinated, first-dose, second-dose, and booster vaccinated groups. However, the estradiol showed a highly significant increase in the one-dose vaccinated group compared with its levels in other groups. Among unvaccinated and either vaccinated patients, anti-Müllerian hormone levels were comparable (p = 0.139). The number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate and good-quality embryo rate were all similar between each group of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. No significant differences were observed regarding other laboratory parameters. Moreover, the vaccination status of infertile couples did not exert any adverse effect on the pregnancy outcomes in all assisted reproductive technologies cycles. In short, we comprehensively evaluated the reproductive safety of inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine and found any dose of vaccination wouldn't negatively affect female fertility parameters such as sex hormone levels and ovarian reserve. Moreover, this is the first study to complete the live birth follow-up of the cohort after receiving inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine, further dispelling the misconception and providing reassurance for decision-making by clinicians.

Modelling the Interplay between Responsive Individual Vaccination Decisions and the Spread of SARS-CoV-2

The uptake of COVID-19 vaccines remains low despite their high effectiveness. Epidemic models that represent decision-making psychology can provide insight into the potential impact of vaccine promotion interventions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We coupled a network-based mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Georgia, USA with a social-psychological vaccination decision-making model in which vaccine side effects, post-vaccination infections, and other unidentified community-level factors could "nudge" individuals towards vaccine resistance while hospitalization spikes could nudge them towards willingness. Combining an increased probability of hospitalization-prompted resistant-to-willing switches with a decreased probability of willing-to-resistant switches prompted by unidentified community-level factors increased vaccine uptake and decreased SARS-CoV-2 incidence by as much as 30.7% and 24.0%, respectively. The latter probability had a greater impact than the former. This illustrates the disease prevention potential of vaccine promotion interventions that address community-level factors influencing decision-making and anticipate the case curve instead of reacting to it.

Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination decision-making among African American and Hispanic pregnant and postpartum women in Deep South

Background

COVID-19 vaccination is vital for ending the pandemic but concerns about its safety among pregnant and postpartum women, especially among African American (AA) and Hispanic women, persist. This study aims to explore factors that influence vaccination decision-making among AA and Hispanic pregnant and postpartum women through women's experiences and maternal care providers' (MCPs) observations.

Methods

From January and August 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews with AA and Hispanic women and MCPs. Participants were recruited from obstetric and pediatric clinics in South Carolina, and all births took place after March 2020. Thematic analysis was employed for data analysis.

Results

The study involved 19 AA and 20 Hispanic women, along with 9 MCPs, and revealed both barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination. The factors that influence pregnant and postpartum women's decision about COVID-19 vaccine uptake included: 1) awareness of health threats associated with COVID-19 vaccines, 2) vaccine availability and accessibility, 3) vaccine-related knowledge and exposure to misinformation, 4) concerns regarding pre-existing health conditions and potential side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, 5) emotional factors associated with vaccination decision-making processes, 6) concerns about the well-being of infants, 7) cultural perspectives, and 8) encouragement by trusted supporters.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that reliable information, social support, and trusted doctors' advice can motivate COVID-19 vaccination. However, barriers such as misinformation, mistrust in the health care system, and fears related to potential side effects impede vaccination uptake among AA and Hispanic pregnant and postpartum women. Future interventions should target these barriers, along with health disparities, involve trusted doctors in outreach, and initiate vaccine conversations to promote vaccination among this population.

A critical review of COVID-19 course and vaccination in dermatology patients on immunomodulatory/biologic therapy: recommendations should not differ between non-pregnant and pregnant individuals

COVID-19 can have detrimental effects on immunosuppressed patients. Here, we evaluate the evidence regarding continuing immunomodulatory/biologic (IMBI) therapy in pregnant dermatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, we discuss the risks of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant dermatology patients on IMBI therapy. As indicated in this review, regarding continuing IMBI therapy in pregnant dermatology patients during the pandemic, there is no compelling reason for treating them differently than non-pregnant. The body of evidence indicates that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe during pregnancy. Studies on rheumatology patients, a group that overlaps significantly with the dermatology group, provided essential findings. IMBI in a non-pregnant rheumatology patient was not associated with COVID-19 mortality (except for rituximab), and vaccination of the rheumatology patient during pregnancy improved the obstetric outcomes compared to the unvaccinated patient. Based on this data, it can be stated that after weighing the benefit-risk profile of the available COVID-19 vaccines, the recommendation for the pregnant dermatology patient speaks in favor of the COVID-19 vaccination. COVID-19 vaccine recommendations in pregnant dermatology patients on IMBI should not differ from those for their non-pregnant counterparts.

The effects of COVID-19 on placental morphology

The impact of the COVID-19 infection, caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), during the pandemic has been considerably more severe in pregnant women than non-pregnant women. Therefore, a review detailing the morphological alterations and physiological changes associated with COVID-19 during pregnancy and the effect that these changes have on the feto-placental unit is of high priority. This knowledge is crucial for these mothers, their babies and clinicians to ensure a healthy life post-pandemic. Hence, we review the placental morphological changes due to COVID-19 to enhance the general understanding of how pregnant mothers, their placentas and unborn children may have been affected by this pandemic. Based on current literature, we deduced that COVID-19 pregnancies were oxygen deficient, which could further result in other pregnancy-related complications like preeclampsia and IUGR. Therefore, we present an up-to-date review of the COVID-19 pathophysiological implications on the placenta, covering the function of the placenta in COVID-19, the effects of this virus on the placenta, its functions and its link to other gestational complications. Furthermore, we highlight the possible effects of COVID-19 therapeutic interventions on pregnant mothers and their unborn children. Based on the literature, we strongly suggest that consistent surveillance for the mothers and infants from COVID-19 pregnancies be prioritised in the future. Though the pandemic is now in the past, its effects are long-term, necessitating the monitoring of clinical manifestations in the near future.

Effect of COVID-19 vaccination on the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Universal COVID-19 vaccination programs are now recommended in several countries and represent the most effective preventive measure against COVID-19. However, some reports suggest that vaccination may cause infertility or have adverse effects on pregnancy. Conflicting reports have led to vaccine hesitancy in women planning pregnancy.

Purpose

To determine whether vaccination against COVID-19 affects in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes, we conducted a meta-analysis.

Method

A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases for all published literature on COVID-19 vaccines and outcomes of IVF. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration was completed on September 13, 2022 (CRD42022359771).

Results

We analyzed 20 studies totaling 18,877 individual cases undergoing IVF. COVID-19 vaccination had significant effect on clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate (risk ratio (RR): 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94–0.99; RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.87–0.99). These outcomes did not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals: biochemical pregnancy rate (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88–1.03), implantation rate (RR: 1.02; 95%CI: 0.97–1.07; P = 0.41), the number of oocytes (mean difference (MD): 0.12; 95% CI: −0.65–0.88) and MII/mature oocytes recovered (MD: 0.27; 95% CI: −0.36–0.90), blastocysts rate (MD: 0.01; 95% CI: −0.04, 0.06), and fertilization rate (MD: 1.08; 95% CI: −0.57, 2.73).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that vaccination against COVID-19 does not adversely affect the biochemical pregnancy rates; number of oocytes and MII/mature oocytes obtained; implantation, blastocysts; and fertilization rates in women undergoing IVF treatment. Subgroup analysis showed that the mRNA vaccine had no statistical significance on all indexes (clinical, biochemical, or ongoing pregnancy rates; implantation, blastocysts, or fertilization rates; and the number of oocytes and MII/mature oocytes). The findings of this meta-analysis are anticipated to increase the willingness of women planning IVF treatment to receive COVID-19 vaccination and provide evidence-based medical guidance for the development and implementation of guidelines.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022359771.

Nucleic acid-based vaccine platforms against the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has infected 673,010,496 patients and caused the death of 6,854,959 cases globally until today. Enormous efforts have been made to develop fundamentally different COVID-19 vaccine platforms. Nucleic acid-based vaccines consisting of mRNA and DNA vaccines (third-generation vaccines) have been promising in terms of rapid and convenient production and efficient provocation of immune responses against the COVID-19. Several DNA-based (ZyCoV-D, INO-4800, AG0302-COVID19, and GX-19N) and mRNA-based (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ARCoV) approved vaccine platforms have been utilized for the COVID-19 prevention. mRNA vaccines are at the forefront of all platforms for COVID-19 prevention. However, these vaccines have lower stability, while DNA vaccines are needed with higher doses to stimulate the immune responses. Intracellular delivery of nucleic acid-based vaccines and their adverse events needs further research. Considering re-emergence of the COVID-19 variants of concern, vaccine reassessment and the development of polyvalent vaccines, or pan-coronavirus strategies, is essential for effective infection prevention.

An insight overview on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: Advantageous, pharmacology, mechanism of action, and prospective considerations

The worldwide spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has urged scientists to present some novel vaccine platforms during this pandemic to provide a rather prolonged immunity against this respiratory viral infection. In spite of many campaigns formed against the administration of mRNA-based vaccines, those platforms were the most novel types, which helped us meet the global demand by developing protection against COVID-19 and reducing the development of severe forms of this respiratory viral infection. Some societies are worry about the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine administration and the potential risk of genetic integration of inoculated mRNA into the human genome. Although the efficacy and long-term safety of mRNA vaccines have not yet been fully clarified, obviously their application has switched the mortality and morbidity of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study describes the structural features and technologies used in producing of COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccines as the most influential factor in controlling this pandemic and a successful pattern for planning to produce other kind of genetic vaccines against infections or cancers.

Can COVID-19 Vaccines Induce Premature Non-Communicable Diseases: Where Are We Heading to?

According to the WHO, as of January 2023, more than 850 million cases and over 6.6 million deaths from COVID-19 have been reported worldwide. Currently, the death rate has been reduced due to the decreased pathogenicity of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, but the major factor in the reduced death rates is the administration of more than 12.8 billion vaccine doses globally. While the COVID-19 vaccines are saving lives, serious side effects have been reported after vaccinations for several premature non-communicable diseases (NCDs). However, the reported adverse events are low in number. The scientific community must investigate the entire spectrum of COVID-19-vaccine-induced complications so that necessary safety measures can be taken, and current vaccines can be re-engineered to avoid or minimize their side effects. We describe in depth severe adverse events for premature metabolic, mental, and neurological disorders; cardiovascular, renal, and autoimmune diseases, and reproductive health issues detected after COVID-19 vaccinations and whether these are causal or incidental. In any case, it has become clear that the benefits of vaccinations outweigh the risks by a large margin. However, pre-existing conditions in vaccinated individuals need to be taken into account in the prevention and treatment of adverse events.

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.

Maternal and neonatal safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the peri-pregnancy period: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

To investigate the safety of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine in Chinese pregnant women and their fetuses when inoculated during the peri-pregnancy period.

METHODS

Eligible pregnant women were prospectively collected and divided into a vaccine group (n = 93) and control group (n = 160) according to whether they had been vaccinated against COVID-19 within 3 months before their last menstruation period (LMP) and after pregnancy. Demographic data of couples, complications during pregnancy and delivery of pregnant women, and data of newborns at birth were collected.

RESULTS

Sixty-six women were vaccinated with a median time of 35.5 (range = 0-91) days before LMP, and 27 women were vaccinated with a median time of 17 (range = 1-72) days after LMP. The incidence of premature rupture of membrane (PROM) in the vaccine group was significantly higher than that in the control group (16.13% vs. 6.88%, p = 0.019). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that maternal peri-pregnancy COVID-19 vaccination was not an independent risk factor for PROM (odds ratio: 2.407, 95% confidence interval: 0.932-6.216, p = 0.069). There was no difference in the incidence of other complications during pregnancy and delivery between the two groups. A total of 253 neonates were delivered, including two cases with congenital abnormalities in each group. The incidence of congenital abnormalities between the two groups was similar (2.15% vs. 1.25%, p = 0.626). There was no difference in neonatal length, weight, head circumference, and Apgar score between the two groups (p > 0.05), but the incidence of neonatal jaundice in the vaccine group was significantly higher than that in the control group (20.43% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.002). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that maternal peri-pregnancy vaccination, postpartum blood loss, cesarean section, 1-min Apgar score, and paternal smoking were independent risk factors for neonatal jaundice.

CONCLUSIONS

It is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses to be inoculated the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine during the peri-pregnancy period, but attention should be paid to neonatal jaundice.

COVID-19 and pregnancy: clinical outcomes; mechanisms, and vaccine efficacy

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues into its third year, emerging data indicates increased risks associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, including pre-eclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, preterm birth, stillbirth, and risk of developmental defects in neonates. Here, we review clinical reports to date that address different COVID-19 pregnancy complications. We also document placental pathologies induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection, entry mechanisms in placental cells, and immune responses at the maternal-fetal interface. Since new variants of SARS-CoV-2 are emerging with characteristics of higher transmissibility and more effective immune escape strategies, we also briefly highlight the genomic and proteomic features of SARS-CoV-2 investigated to date. Vector and mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines continue to be rolled out globally. However, because pregnant individuals were not included in the vaccine clinical trials, some pregnant individuals have safety concerns and are hesitant to take these vaccines. We describe the recent studies that have addressed the effectiveness and safety of the current vaccines during pregnancy. This review also sheds light on important areas that need to be carefully or more fully considered with respect to understanding SARS-CoV-2 disease mechanisms of concern during pregnancy.

The type of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine does not affect ovarian function in assisted reproduction cycle

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether vaccination or the type of vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 affects ovarian function in an assisted reproduction treatment.

DESIGN

A retrospective and observational study.

SETTING

University-affiliated private in vitro fertilization (IVF) center.

PATIENT(S)

Five hundred one patients who had received the complete vaccination schedule.

INTERVENTION(S)

Treatment before and after vaccination.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Parameters for both reproductive outcomes and IVF results in patients vaccinated RESULT(S): We included 510 patients, distributed as follows: 13.5% (n = 69) received a viral vector vaccine, either the adenovirus serotype 26 vector vaccine (Ad26.CoV2.S; Janssen; n = 31) or the chimpanzee adenovirus vector vaccine (ChAdOx; AstraZeneca; n = 38). The remaining 86.5% (n = 441) received an messenger RNA vaccine from either Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 336) or Moderna (n = 105). Sample size for the unexposed women was n = 1190. No differences were found in any of the evaluated parameters for both reproductive outcomes and IVF results in patients vaccinated with any adenovirus or messenger RNA vaccine. When we compared the results after vaccination with different types of vaccines between the exposed and unexposed groups, and similar results were obtained in the days of stimulation or the doses of administered follicle stimulating hormone. Finally, the numbers of oocytes were as follows: Johnson & Johnson (9.2 ± 2.6), AstraZeneca (7.7 ± 1.2), Moderna (11.3 ± 1.8), Pfizer (12.6 ± 1.0), and the unvaccinated group (10.2 ± 1.5), P=0.057.

CONCLUSION(S)

These early results suggest no measurable detrimental effect on reproductive outcomes, regardless of the type of vaccine received.

Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting by COVID-19 Vaccinated Healthcare Professionals Through an Electronic Form Implemented by the Hospital Pharmacy

Aim: Implementation of a web-form based pharmacovigilance plan for the spontaneous notification of adverse events to the Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine during its administration to hospital healthcare professionals. Methods: An electronic pharmacovigilance form was developed containing 8 pre-defined event options, an open answer option for the description of other events and/or symptoms, and a question about the overall intensity of symptoms. The adverse events reports were standardized according to physiological and pathological condition. Results: A total of 4119 adverse events notifications were obtained with a 45% rate of electronic notification. The most clinically relevant events reported were:tachycardia (n = 19), dyspnea (n = 7), chest pain (n = 6), facial/labial edema (n = 6), lipothymia (n = 5), bronchospasm (n = 2), herpetic infection (n = 2), vasculitis (n = 2), arrhythmia (n = 1), difficult to control arterial hypertension (n = 1), gastritis (n = 1), and spontaneous abortion (n = 1). Regarding the intensity of symptoms (n = 2928), 70.0% were reported as mild, 25.8% as moderate, and 4.27% as severe, with higher intensity in the second dose compared to first dose. The highest frequency of severe events were reported in the groups from 40 to 59 years in both vaccination periods. During the vaccination process, no hospitalizations and no deaths were notified and/or recorded. Conclusion: In this real world study, comparing with Comirnaty clinical trials program, it was observed a higher frequency of adenomegaly and gastrointestinal disorders. Noteworthy, the notification of a case of miscarriage. The use of hospital pharmacy pharmacovigilance electronic forms, seemed to be relevant to notification adherence and to obtain a greater and faster knowledge of COVID-19 vaccine safety profile.

Adherence to and early adverse events of COVID-19 vaccine in a cohort of 600 Italian breastfeeding and pregnant physicians

Pregnant and breastfeeding women (PBW) have been excluded from COVID-19 vaccine registry and the majority of post-marketing trials, despite the recognized increased risk of severe infections and complications. The lack of efficacy and safety data prevented the formulation of specific indications/guidelines for vaccination and could have also contributed to increased vaccine hesitancy (VH) in PBW. The aim of this cross-sectional study is to assess the rate and predictors of VH, and early adverse events (AEFI) following COVID-19 vaccine in PBW with a cross-sectional study. In January 2021, a purposely designed questionnaire was administered to 600 PBW part of a Facebook group of physicians, immunized with two doses of Comirnaty®. Thirty-eight (29%) pregnant women and 13 (2.8%) breastfeeders were hesitant. The only statistically significant negative predictor of COVID-19 VH appeared to be having had the flu shot in 2020/2021 (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.13-0.97; p = .044). Approximately 27% of PBW reported hesitancy toward the 2020/2021 season influenza vaccine. Among the vaccinated subjects, 51.6% of pregnant and 75.2% of breastfeeding women reported at least one symptom after the first, and 82.4% and 81.6%, respectively, after the second dose. Nausea/vomiting, fatigue, headache and arthralgia/myalgia were the most common symptoms; dizziness, shivering, syncope and limb paresthesia were rarely reported. Among infants of breastfeeding mothers, six experienced fever, five rash and four moderate and self-limiting diarrhea. Preliminary data on mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in PBW and in their infants are reassuring since AEFI, although frequent, are typically mild and similar to those occurring in the general population, and in PBW after other vaccines. Larger studies with longer follow-up after vaccination are strongly recommended to develop recommendations in these patients.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant women attending antenatal care in public hospitals in eastern Ethiopia: A multi‐center facility‐based cross‐sectional study

Objectives

The Ethiopian government had planned to vaccinate the total population and started to deliver the COVID-19 vaccine but, there is limited evidence about vaccine acceptance among pregnant women. Thus, this study aimed to assess COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and associated factors among pregnant women attending an antenatal care unit clinic in Eastern Ethiopia.

Study design

A facility-based cross-sectional study.

Methods

A study was conducted from June 01 to 30/2021 among systematically selected pregnant women. Data were collected using a pre-tested structured questionnaire, which was adapted from previous studies, through a face-to-face interview. Predictors were assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model and reported using an adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI. Statistical significance was declared at p-value less than 0.05.

Results

In this study, data from 645 pregnant women were used in the analysis. Overall, 62.2% of pregnant women were willing to be vaccinated if the vaccine is approved by the relevant authority. Fear of side effects (62.04%), a lack of information (54.29%), and uncertainty about the vaccine's safety and efficacy (25%) were the most common reasons for refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine. The odds of unwillingness to accept the COVID-19 vaccine among pregnant women were increased significantly among mothers who were able to read and write [AOR = 2.9, 95% CI: (1.16, 7.23)], attain 9-12 grade level [AOR = 4.2, 95% CI: (2.1, 8.5)], lack information [AOR = 2.2, 95% CI: (1.41, 3.57)], and having a history of chronic diseases [AOR = 2.52, 95% CI: (1.34, 4.7)].

Conclusion

Less than two-thirds of pregnant women were willing to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Extensive public health information dissemination aimed at women with lower educational backgrounds and a history of chronic disease could be critical.

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.

Association between social vulnerability and COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and vaccination in pregnant and postpartum individuals

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of community-level social vulnerability with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination among pregnant and postpartum individuals.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study assessing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant and postpartum individuals. We performed a baseline survey on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from 03/22/21 to 04/02/21, and a follow-up survey on COVD-19 vaccination status 3- to 6-months later. The primary exposure was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention SVI (Social Vulnerability Index), measured in quartiles. Higher SVI quartiles indicated greater community-level social vulnerability with the lowest quartile (quartile 1) as the referent group. The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on the baseline survey (uncertainty or refusal of the vaccine), and the secondary outcome was self-report of not being vaccinated (unvaccinated) for COVID-19 on the follow-up survey.

RESULTS

Of 456 assessed individuals, 46% reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on the baseline survey; and of 290 individuals (290/456, 64%) who completed the follow-up survey, 48% (140/290) were unvaccinated. The frequency of baseline vaccine hesitancy ranged from 25% in quartile 1 (low SVI) to 68% in quartile 4 (high SVI), and being unvaccinated at follow-up ranged from 29% in quartile 1 to 77% in quartile 4. As social vulnerability increased, the risk of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy at baseline increased (quartile 2 aRR (adjusted relative risk): 1.46; 95% CI:0.98 to 2.19; quartile 3 aRR: 1.86; 95% CI:1.28 to 2.71; and quartile 4 aRR: 2.24; 95% CI:1.56 to 3.21), as did the risk of being unvaccinated at follow-up (quartile 2 aRR: 1.00; 95% CI:0.66 to 1.51; quartile 3 aRR: 1.68; 95% CI:1.17 to 2.41; and quartile 4 aRR: 1.82; 95% CI:1.30 to 2.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant and postpartum individuals living in an area with higher community-level social vulnerability were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and subsequently to be unvaccinated at follow-up.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake and reasons for hesitancy among Canadian pregnant people: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been developed and approved at an unparalleled speed. Given that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are recommended to pregnant people, our aim was to quantify vaccination uptake, and describe vaccination hesitancy and behavioural attitudes surrounding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy in Canada.

METHODS

The CONCEPTION study is an ongoing international study started in June 2020, evaluating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health of pregnant people and their children. For this study, pregnant people recruited from Apr. 20, 2021, to Feb. 8, 2022, and residing in Canada were invited to complete a Web-based survey. In addition to all CONCEPTION variables, data on vaccine uptake as well as personal knowledge of COVID-19 severity in pregnancy and of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safety and efficacy were collected. Marginal risk differences and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to assess determinants of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination during pregnancy.

RESULTS

From Apr. 20, 2021, to Feb. 8, 2022, 603 pregnant people were recruited and gave consent, of which 83.7% (n = 505) were vaccinated and 16.3% (n = 98) were not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Uptake of the influenza vaccine in 2020/21 was a significant predictor of being vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 or intention to be vaccinated (marginal risk difference 3.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0% to 3.3%, adjusted OR 4.43, 95% CI 2.32 to 9.25), and being employed (marginal risk difference 11.2%, 95% CI 10.6% to 11.9%, adjusted OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.35) increased the likelihood of being vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Self-assessed knowledge of COVID-19 severity and vaccine efficacy was not associated with vaccine uptake.

INTERPRETATION

Among the Canadian pregnant people who responded to this study, vaccine uptake against SARS-CoV-2 was high. However, our results underscore the importance of improving knowledge transfer about the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in pregnancy to guide vaccination efforts.

Short Term Effect of Corona Virus Diseases Vaccine on the Menstrual Cycles

Background

The latest threat to world health is coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and the exact death rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still to be explored and varies widely throughout the world. Inactivated virus vaccines, recombinant viral vaccines, subunit vaccines, DNA vaccines, and attenuated vaccinations have all been investigated in the hunt for an optimal SARS-CoV vaccine. Some women had menstrual abnormalities after immunisation, including heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia), frequent bleeding (metrorrhagia/polymenorrhea), and postmenopausal haemorrhage. Vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia might be one of the underlying reasons.

Purpose

The aim to carry out this study was to survey by recruiting the female participants who were vaccinated with one or two shots of the available vaccine and observe short-term menstrual changes.

Patients and Methods

This web-based survey cross-sectional study included women who were above 18 years, had the vaccine at least one month (one menstrual period) before participating in the study, had access to social media platforms and were willing to take part in the study. Women were excluded if, at the time of the study, they were pregnant or had amenorrhea of more than 6 months.

Results

Analysing the menstrual flow more, we saw that 24.5% of the patients had increased flow, while 15.5% had reduced flow which for both changes in the flow, the p-value was 0.017. However, 23.65 showed delayed periods, and 51.6% showed no changes. The changes in the timing were significant, indicating a p-value of 0.008. The study will be a significant contribution to the literature as this pandemic is new, and the vaccination against COVID-19 is still in the trial phase.

Conclusion

We observed in our study that there was a change in the menstruation timings and flow after vaccination. However, further longitudinal studies are needed to conclude the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine on the menstruation cycle.

Attitude of pregnant and lactating women toward COVID-19 vaccination in Jordan: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to survey pregnant and lactating toward COVID-19 vaccination in Jordan and determine the predictors of this attitude.

METHODS

This study used a 10 min anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey to collect data. The survey was carried out between September and October 2021. Eligible study participants included all pregnant and lactating women in Jordan. The participants were recruited through social media, midwives, and gynecologists. Survey was used to collect data from the participants.

RESULTS

The mean attitude of pregnant and lactating women toward COVID vaccination was moderate 71 (SD=100.5). Many factors were predicted the attitude of pregnant and lactating women toward COVID-19 vaccination. The factors were source of data regarding COVID-19 (B=-0.140, p=0.009), level of income (B=-0.141, p=0.009), and social status (B=0.130, p=0.034). These results mean lower income, people who frequently hearing news from news channel or ministry of health and married are showed more positive attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination for children.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a large national study regarding attitude of pregnant and lactating women toward COVID-19 vaccination in Jordan. This study found that more than 50% for the parents were hesitant to allow their children to receive COVID-19 vaccination. There were no differences between pregnant and lactating women toward COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19-Related Predictors of Fear and Attitude to Vaccination Displayed by Polish Students

Vaccines are one of the most important achievements of modern medicine in maintaining the health of the population. The prolonged pandemic and subsequent lockdowns meant that the new COVID-19 vaccine was regarded by scientists and society as the way to end the pandemic and return to normal life. The purpose of this study was to analyze the factors responsible for the feeling of fear due to COVID-19 infection and the attitudes of medical students towards vaccination against COVID-19. A cross-sectional study was conducted online among medical students using standardized questionnaires: the Fear of COVID-19 scale and the Vaccination Attitude Examination scale. According to the results obtained, the respondents had a low level of fear of COVID-19 and the majority had positive attitudes towards vaccination against COVID-19. Regression analysis showed that the main predictors of fear of the pandemic and attitudes towards vaccination were age, sex, field of study, and sources of knowledge about vaccines. The analysis of factors related to the discussed issues can be the basis to formulate educational and preventive programs, to shape positive attitudes of future health sector employees toward the issue of preventive vaccination, as well as for the development of strategies to promote vaccination against COVID-19.

Written Briefing and Oral Counseling Increase the Willingness to Receive the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination among Women in Puerperium: A Qualitative Prospective Cohort Study

(1) Background: Vaccination rates for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are low in Austria. International obstetric societies recommend the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination for women in puerperium. (2) Methods: A prospective two-stage cohort study was conducted at the Medical University of Vienna between October 2022 and December 2022. Firstly, women in puerperium were assigned to the evaluation group (step 1), and secondly, another cohort of unvaccinated women were randomly assigned to study group A (written briefing) or B (written and oral briefing) (step 2). We evaluated the vaccination status among women in the evaluation group and the willingness to receive the vaccination in all three cohorts. (3) Results: We included 217 women in puerperium (evaluation: n = 69, A: n = 68; B: n = 80). In the evaluation group, 66.7% (n = 46/69) of the women were unvaccinated. A total of 45.7% (21/46) of the unvaccinated women categorically declined the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. A total of 26.5% (n = 18/68) of women in study group A, and 43.8% (n = 35/80) of women in study group B expressed their willingness to receive the vaccination (p = 0.029). There were no differences in willingness to receive the vaccination between different age strata of women in study groups A and B. (D) Conclusion: Our qualitative data demonstrate a benefit from oral counseling in addition to written briefing in order to increase the willingness to receive the vaccination among women in puerperium.

Global safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines: how pharmacovigilance rose to the challenge

Pharmacovigilance (PV) came suddenly into the spotlight when several new vaccines, developed as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, received emergency authorisation and were rolled out on a large scale in late 2020. The vaccines underwent stringent clinical trials and evaluation from regulatory authorities, but with the use of novel technology and an anticipated rapid and vast deployment of the vaccines, the importance of a well-functioning international post marketing safety surveillance system was stressed. International PV stakeholders were faced with several challenges due to the extent of the global vaccination campaign. The unprecedented volume of reports of suspected adverse events following immunization has led to the development and use of new tools. Furthermore, the collaboration between various PV stakeholders was encouraged and strengthened. PV rose to the challenges posed by the currently ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination campaign and successful adaptations were made in a short period of time. However, the pandemic has not ended yet, the vaccination campaign is far from being completed, and further challenges are anticipated. Advances made during the pandemic will be important to strengthen PV in future and ensure to advance medicines’ safety together.

High rates of COVID-19 vaccine refusal among Afghan pregnant women: a cross sectional study

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus Type-2 (SARS-COV-2) was first detected in China and created a global pandemic rapidly. Subsequently after serious efforts different types of vaccines produced against the virus and recommended for all people including pregnant women. The aim of this study was to realize the willingness of pregnant women to accept the COVID-19 vaccine in Kabul Afghanistan. For this purpose, a cross-sectional study was conducted in gynecology wards of several hospitals in Kabul, Afghanistan from 10th of July to 20th of August 2021 through direct interview with the pregnant women who had come for prenatal care to the healthcare centers. The collected data were analyzed through Statistical Package for Social Studies (SPSS) version 25. Simple descriptive analysis computed for demographic characteristics and bi-variable (Chi-square) analysis was carried out to find out the associations of taking vaccine with demographic variables. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant at 95% confidence interval. A total of 491 who were completed the inclusion criteria included in the analysis. A small portion of pregnant women (8.6%) illustrated the intent to get the COVID-19 vaccine if it is recommended by the health authorities in Afghanistan. Our study found a high rate of COVID-19 vaccine refusal among pregnant women in Kabul, Afghanistan. They showed the concern on adverse effects of the vaccine as the main reason for refusal, emphasizing the need to reduce the misconception on vaccine efficacy and campaigns to enhance awareness on the vaccine safety and benefits for mothers and babies.

COVID-19 Infections in Gonads: Consequences on Fertility?

COVID-19 may influence human fertility and sexuality in several ways. Different cell types in gonads show a constitutive expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine subtype 2 (TMPRSS2), which provide potential entry pathways for SARS-CoV-2. In addition to the biological effects of a COVID-19 infection on the gonads, the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on mental health issues and sexual behavior may affect reproduction. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the influence of COVID-19 on the gonads and discusses possible consequences on human fertility. In this context, the close interaction between the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis in response to COVID-19-related stress is discussed. Some women noticed changes in their menstrual cycle during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could be due to psychological stress, for example. In addition, occasional cases of reduced oocyte quality and ovarian function are described after COVID-19 infection. In men, COVID-19 may cause a short-term decrease in fertility by damaging testicular tissue and/or impairing spermatogenesis. Moreover, decreased ratio testosterone/LH and FSH/LH in COVID-19 compared to aged-matched healthy men has been reported. Available data do not suggest any effect of the available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on fertility. The effects of long COVID on human fertility have been reported and include cases with premature ovarian failure and oligomenorrhoea in women and erectile dysfunction in men. Despite the increasing knowledge about the effects of COVID-19 infections on human gonads and fertility, the long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot yet be assessed in this context.

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.

Pregnant and Postpartum Patients' Views of COVID-19 Vaccination

Perinatal patients were faced with the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccination in the absence of clinical trial data on COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in pregnant and lactating patients. We used the Coronavirus Perinatal Experiences Impact Survey to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of perinatal patients. The mixed-method survey was distributed to all patients ≥ 18 years old who were pregnant between January 1st, 2020 – April 28, 2021 at a large academic health system in the upper Midwest. Open-ended responses were qualitatively analyzed. Of the 1182 respondents who completed the survey, 647 answered at least one open-ended question. Among these 647 participants, 85 discussed COVID-19 vaccination and were secondarily analyzed. The responses illustrated a wide range of perspectives regarding COVID-19 vaccination, with many citing concerns over the consequences of maternal vaccination on their child. Others highlighted the lack of information surrounding COVID-19 vaccination in perinatal women. Respondents also discussed challenges discussing their vaccination status with their healthcare provider and the impact of family member’s vaccination decisions on postpartum support and childcare. The unprompted discussion of concerns about COVID-19 vaccination suggests this decision weighed on many participants, especially in the context of lack of information early in the pandemic. Our findings support the need for open discussion of perinatal patients with their providers on COVID-19 vaccination during the pregnancy and postpartum period.

Plasticity of natural killer cells in pregnant patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and their neonates during childbirth

The COVID-19 pandemic has occurred due to infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which impacts gestation and pregnancy. In SARS-CoV-2 infection, only very rare cases of vertical transmission have been reported, suggesting that fetal immune imprinting due to a maternal infection is probably a result of changes in maternal immunity. Natural killer (NK) cells are the leading maternal immune cells that act as a natural defense system to fight infections. They also play a pivotal role in the establishment and maintenance of pregnancy. While peripheral NK cells display specific features in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the general population, information remains elusive in pregnant mothers and neonates. In the present study, we analyzed the characteristics of NK cells isolated from both neonatal umbilical cord blood and maternal peripheral blood close to the time of delivery. Phenotype and functions were compared in 18 healthy pregnant women and 34 COVID-19 patients during pregnancy within an ongoing infection (PCR⁺; N = 15) or after recovery (IgG⁺PCR⁻; N = 19). The frequency of NK cells from infected women and their neonates was correlated with the production of inflammatory cytokines in the serum. The expression of NKG2A and NKp30, as well as degranulation of NK cells in pregnant women with ongoing infection, were both negatively correlated to estradiol level. Furthermore, NK cells from the neonates born to infected women were significantly decreased and also correlated to estradiol level. This study highlights the relationship between NK cells, inflammation, and estradiol in patients with ongoing infection, providing new insights into the impact of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection on the neonate.

Changes in prenatal care and vaccine willingness among pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

Concerns about SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in health care settings have resulted in changes in prenatal care and birth plans, such as shifts to in-person visits and increased Cesarean delivery. These changes may affect quality of care and limit opportunities for clinicians to counsel pregnant individuals, who are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes, about prevention and vaccination.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of United States adults on changes in prenatal care, COVID-19 vaccine willingness, and reasons for unwillingness to receive a vaccine. We summarized changes in access to care and examined differences in vaccine willingness between pregnant and propensity-score matched non-pregnant controls using chi-squared tests and multivariable conditional logistic regression.

Results

Between December 15–23, 2020, 8481 participants completed the survey, of which 233 were pregnant. Three-quarters of pregnant women (n = 186) experienced a change in prenatal care, including format of care (n = 84, 35%) and reduced visits (n = 69, 24%). Two-thirds experienced a change in birth plans, from a hospital birth to home birth (n = 45, 18%) or vaginal birth to a Cesarean delivery (n = 42, 17%). Although 40% of pregnant women (n = 78) were unwilling to receive COVID-19 vaccination, they had higher, though non-significant, odds of reporting willingness to receive vaccination compared to similar non-pregnant women (aOR 1.38, 95% CI: 0.95, 2.00).

Conclusion

To support pregnant women through the perinatal care continuum, maternity care teams should develop protocols to foster social support, patient-centered education around infection prevention that focuses on improved risk perception, expected changes in care due to COVID-19, and vaccine effectiveness and safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-022-04882-x.

Cross-Sectional Survey of High-Risk Pregnant Women's Opinions on COVID-19 Vaccination

Background:

Pregnant women are at increased risk of severe disease with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite strong recommendations from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine for vaccination, COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy persists. With this study, we aim to evaluate opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine in a cohort of high-risk pregnant patients.

Materials and Methods:

Institutional review board approval was obtained. Patients attending a regional Maternal–Fetal Medicine clinic in central New York were surveyed about the COVID-19 vaccine using a standardized questionnaire. Demographic, obstetrical, and medical information was abstracted using medical records. The vaccinated and unvaccinated groups were evaluated using chi-square tests and a Bayesian model.

Results:

Among the 157 participants, 38.2% are vaccinated. There were no significant differences in race/ethnicity, living situation, marital status, employment status, insurance type, pregravid body mass index, history of recreational drug use, number of living children, or gestational age at the time of survey. Patients with less formal education are less likely to be vaccinated. There was no difference between influenza and tetanus diphtheria pertussis vaccination rates with COVID-19 vaccination rates. Unvaccinated patients cite lack of data in pregnancy (66%) as their primary concern. Most patients prefer to learn about vaccines via conversation with their doctor (46.7% for vaccinated and 59.8% for unvaccinated).

Conclusions:

The vaccination rate is low in our population. A provider-initiated conversation about COVID-19 vaccination included with routine prenatal care could increase the vaccination rate.

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.

Charting cognition: Mapping public understanding of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic of the last 2 years (and counting) disrupted commerce, travel, workplaces, habits, and-of course-health, the world over. This study aimed to capture snapshots of the perceptions and misperceptions of COVID-19 among 27 participants from three US municipalities. These perspectives are analyzed through thematic analyses and concept maps. Such snapshots, particularly as viewed through the lens of narrative sense-making theory, capture a sample of cognitions at this unique moment in history: a little over 1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings suggest that the (mis)perceptions captured are predominantly conveyed via narratives of participants' personal experiences, and that the themes of attitudes toward precautionary measures, uncertainty, and the muddied science communication environment are prevalent. These themes suggest several salient targets for future research and current science communication, such as a focus on basic explainers, vaccinations' safety and effectiveness and the necessity of uncertainty in the practice of science.

Time-Series Prediction for the Epidemic Trends of COVID-19 Using Conditional Generative Adversarial Networks Regression on Country-Wise Case Studies

Probabilistic Regression is a statistical technique and a crucial problem in the machine learning domain which employs a set of machine learning methods to forecast a continuous target variable based on the value of one or multiple predictor variables. COVID-19 is a virulent virus that has brought the whole world to a standstill. The potential of the virus to cause inter human transmission makes the world a dangerous place. This article predicts the upcoming circumstances of the Corona virus to subside its action. We have performed Conditional GAN regression to anticipate the subsequent COVID-19 cases of five countries. The GAN variant CGAN is used to design the model and predict the COVID-19 cases for 3 months ahead with least error for the dataset provided. Each country is examined individually, due to their variation in population size, tradition, medical management and preventive measures. The analysis is based on confirmed data, as provided by the World Health Organization. This paper investigates how conditional Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) can be used to accurately exhibit intricate conditional distributions. GANs have got spectacular achievement in producing convoluted high-dimensional data, but work done on their use for regression problems is minimal. This paper exhibits how conditional GANs can be employed in probabilistic regression. It is shown that conditional GANs can be used to evaluate a wide range of various distributions and be competitive with existing probabilistic regression models.

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.

Centering the Right to Health of Childbearing People in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Childbearing people in the US have experienced the double burden of increased risks from infection and significant disruptions to access and quality of essential health care services during the COVID pandemic. A single person could face multiple impacts across the course of their reproductive trajectory. We highlight how failure to prioritize this population in the COVID-19 policy response have led to profound disruptions from contraception services to vaccination access, which violate foundational principles of public health, human rights and perpetuate inequities. These disruptions continued through the omicron surge, during which many health systems became overwhelmed and re-imposed earlier restrictions. We argue that an integrated pandemic response that prioritizes the healthcare needs and rights of childbearing people must be implemented to avoid deepening inequities in this and future pandemics.