Exclusion of Pregnant Women from Clinical Trials during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Review of International Registries

Pharmacovigilance in Pregnancy Studies, Exposures and Outcomes Ascertainment, and Findings from Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacovigilance (PV), or the ongoing safety monitoring after a medication has been licensed, plays a crucial role in pregnancy, as clinical trials often exclude pregnant people. It is important to understand how pregnancy PV projects operate in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where there is a disproportionate lack of PV data yet a high burden of adverse pregnancy outcomes. We conducted a scoping review to assess how exposures and outcomes were measured in recently published pregnancy PV projects in LMICs.

METHODS

We utilized a search string, secondary review, and team knowledge to review publications focusing on therapeutic or vaccine exposures among pregnant people in LMICs. We screened abstracts for relevance before conducting a full text review, and documented measurements of exposures and outcomes (categorized as maternal, birth, or neonatal/infant) among other factors, including study topic, setting, and design, comparator groups, and funding sources.

RESULTS

We identified 31 PV publications spanning at least 24 LMICs, all focusing on therapeutics or vaccines for infectious diseases, including HIV (n = 17), tuberculosis (TB; n = 9), malaria (n = 7), pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria (n = 1), and influenza (n = 3). As for outcomes, n = 15, n = 31, and n = 20 of the publications covered maternal, birth, and neonatal/infant outcomes, respectively. Among HIV-specific publications, the primary exposure-outcome relationship of focus was exposure to maternal antiretroviral therapy and adverse outcomes. For TB-specific publications, the main exposures of interest were second-line drug-resistant TB and isoniazid-based prevention therapeutics for pregnant people living with HIV. For malaria-specific publications, the primary exposure-outcome relationship of interest was antimalarial medication exposure during pregnancy and adverse outcomes. Among vaccine-focused publications, the exposure was assessed during a specific time during pregnancy, with an overall interest in vaccine safety and/or efficacy. The study settings were frequently from Africa, designs varied from cohort or cross-sectional studies to clinical trials, and funding sources were largely from high-income countries.

CONCLUSION

The published pregnancy PV projects were largely centered in Africa and concerned with infectious diseases. This may reflect the disease burden in LMICs but also funding priorities from high-income countries. As the prevalence of non-communicable diseases increases in LMICs, PV projects will have to broaden their scope. Birth and neonatal/infant outcomes were most reported, with fewer reporting on maternal outcomes and none on longer-term child outcomes; additionally, heterogeneity existed in definitions and ascertainment of specific measures. Notably, almost all projects covered a single therapeutic exposure, missing an opportunity to leverage their projects to cover additional exposures, add scientific rigor, create uniformity across health services, and bolster existing health systems. For many publications, the timing of exposure, specifically by trimester, was crucial to maternal and neonatal safety. While currently published pregnancy PV literature offer insights into the PV landscape in LMICs, further work is needed to standardize definitions and measurements, integrate PV projects across health services, and establish longer-term monitoring.

Multiple substance use and associated factors in transgender women and travestis: findings from the TransOdara Study, Brazil

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of concomitant substance consumption and analyze associated risk factors in a non-probabilistic sample of the Brazilian population of transgender women and travestis.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with recruitment via respondent-driven sampling. The sample included transgender women and travestis residing in São Paulo, Porto Alegre, Salvador, Manaus, and Campo Grande, aged 18 years or older, between 2019 and 2021. The outcome was the concomitant use of licit and illicit substances. The association between sociodemographic/behavioral factors and the outcome was analyzed through Poisson regression with mixed effects. Adjusted prevalence ratios (confidence interval of 95% - 95%CI) were estimated.

RESULTS

The prevalence in the last 12 months of multiple substance use was 49.3%, of which 65.5% were alcohol, 52.9% tobacco, and 40.1% marijuana. Transgender women and travestis who use multiple substances face more violence (1.71; 95%CI 1.14-2.55), unemployment (1.58; 95%CI 1.05-2.37) and pervasive unstable work status (1.52; 95%CI 1.08-2.14), transactional sex (1.51; 95%CI 1.21-1.88) which can be their sole option to make a living, and are aged 18 to 24 years (1.37; 95%CI 1.14-1.65).

CONCLUSION

The use of multiple substances may be an attempt to cope with distress and marginalization. Substance use has been associated with multiple harms and medical conditions. Comprehensive management and care should be provided, as defined by the key principles of the Brazilian Unified Health System. Health care should be integrated into structural interventions.

Factors Influencing COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Pregnant and Breastfeeding/Puerperium Women: A Cross-Sectional Study

Vaccination among pregnant and breastfeeding women is critical for protecting this vulnerable population and their children. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended both during pregnancy and breastfeeding; however, we still do not fully understand the determinants that influence hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination. This study aimed to identify the determinants of vaccine hesitancy in pregnant and breastfeeding, puerperium women. A multicenter, cross-sectional study, involving 435 pregnant and breastfeeding women, was conducted. Vaccination hesitancy was evaluated by administering the Vaccination Attitudes (VAX) Scale and the Zung Anxiety Self-Assessment Scale (SAS) was adopted to measure anxiety levels. Overall, 14% of the participants reported that they did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and 78.3% received their first dose during pregnancy or while breastfeeding. The descriptive statistics for the VAX scale showed a total mean score of 3.35 (±1.6), and 75% of participants reported an anxiety index equal to or lower than the threshold. Vaccine hesitancy increased as "adverse events after vaccination" increased (p < 0.01), while SAS levels positively correlated with the participants' mean age (p < 0.05). Investigating the factors influencing vaccine hesitancy enables the development of targeted health policies and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programs.

EGFR-targeted ionizable lipid nanoparticles enhance in vivo mRNA delivery to the placenta

The full potential of ionizable lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) as an in vivo nucleic acid delivery platform has not yet been realized given that LNPs primarily accumulate in the liver following systemic administration, limiting their success to liver-centric conditions. The engineering of LNPs with antibody targeting moieties can enable extrahepatic tropism by facilitating site-specific LNP tethering and driving preferential LNP uptake into receptor-expressing cell types via receptor-mediated endocytosis. Obstetric conditions stemming from placental dysfunction, such as preeclampsia, are characterized by overexpression of cellular receptors, including the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), making targeted LNP platforms an exciting potential treatment strategy for placental dysfunction during pregnancy. Herein, an EGFR antibody-conjugated LNP (aEGFR-LNP) platform was developed by engineering LNPs with increasing densities of antibody functionalization. aEGFR-LNPs were screened in vitro in immortalized placental trophoblasts and in vivo in non-pregnant and pregnant mice and compared to non-targeted formulations for extrahepatic, antibody-targeted mRNA LNP delivery to the placenta. Our top performing LNP with an intermediate density of antibody functionalization (1:5 aEGFR-LNP) mediated a ∼twofold increase in mRNA delivery in murine placentas and a ∼twofold increase in LNP uptake in EGFR-expressing trophoblasts compared to non-targeted counterparts. These results demonstrate the potential of antibody-conjugated LNPs for achieving extrahepatic tropism, and the ability of aEGFR-LNPs in promoting mRNA delivery to EGFR-expressing cell types in the placenta.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Remdesivir in Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women with COVID-19: Results from IMPAACT 2032

BACKGROUND

Pregnant people with COVID-19 experience higher risk for severe disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes, but no pharmacokinetic (PK) data exist to support dosing of COVID-19 therapeutics during pregnancy. We report PK and safety data for intravenous remdesivir in pregnancy.

METHODS

IMPAACT 2032 was a phase IV prospective, open-label, non-randomized opportunistic study of hospitalized pregnant and non-pregnant women receiving intravenous remdesivir as part of clinical care. Intensive PK sampling was performed on infusion days 3, 4, or 5 with collection of plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Safety data were recorded from first infusion through 4 weeks post-last infusion and at delivery. Geometric mean ratios (GMR) (90% confidence intervals [CI]) of PK parameters between pregnant and non-pregnant women were calculated.

RESULTS

Fifty-three participants initiated remdesivir (25 pregnant; median (IQR) gestational age 27.6 (24.9, 31.0) weeks). Plasma exposures of remdesivir, its two major metabolites (GS-704277 and GS-441524), and the free remdesivir fraction were similar between pregnant and non-pregnant participants. Concentrations of the active triphosphate (GS-443902) in PBMCs increased 2.04-fold (90% CI 1.35, 3.03) with each additional infusion in non-pregnant versus pregnant participants. Three adverse events in non-pregnant participants were related to treatment (one Grade 3; two Grade 2 resulting in treatment discontinuation). There were no treatment-related adverse pregnancy outcomes or congenital anomalies detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Plasma remdesivir PK parameters were comparable between pregnant and non-pregnant women, and no safety concerns were identified based on our limited data. These findings suggest no dose adjustments are indicated for intravenous remdesivir during pregnancy.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the Perinatal Period: A Survey Among Residents of Hawaii

Introduction

This study describes the vaccination status among people in Hawaii who are attempting pregnancy, currently pregnant, recently delivered (<6 months), and/or breastfeeding and documents common concerns and information sources associated with vaccine decision making.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between April and September 2022 throughout Hawaii. The anonymous surveys were disseminated through flyers and online links posted by physician offices and community partners throughout Hawaii.

Results

Final analyses included 165 responses. Almost half of the respondents (n=75, 45%) were unvaccinated, 38% (n=62) were fully vaccinated, and 17% (n=28) were partially vaccinated. The most influential sources for vaccine decision making for vaccinated respondents were their healthcare providers (n=28, 45%) and official healthcare organizations (n=22, 36%), whereas unvaccinated respondents reported friends/family (n=28, 37%) and their healthcare providers (n=26, 35%) as their most influential sources. Top COVID-19 vaccine concerns for unvaccinated individuals were reactions to vaccine (n=78, 76%) and concerns for safety of the vaccine (n=75, 73%).

Conclusions

Efforts should be made to increase and expand vaccine education about the benefits and safety of vaccines during pregnancy beyond the pregnant person to create more supportive social norms for COVID-19 vaccination in the perinatal period. Consistent and unequivocal support across medical specialties, including obstetrics, pediatrics, and family medicine, is also crucial for encouraging the uptake of the vaccine during pregnancy or when breastfeeding.

Lack of association between COVID-19 vaccines and miscarriage onset using a case-crossover design

Pregnant women might have an increased risk of SARS-COV-2 infection. Although evidence towards the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 is growing still there is room for improvement on the knowledge towards pregnancy adverse events, such as miscarriage. We explored the association of COVID-19 vaccine with the risk of miscarriages using the Real-World. We identified a cohort of vaccinated pregnancies using the BIFAP database which contains systematically recorded data on care patients in Spain (N = 4054). We then restricted it to those women who had a miscarriage using a validated algorithm (N = 607). Among them, we performed a case-crossover design to evaluate the effect of intermittent exposures on the risk of miscarriage. Adjusted Odds Ratio with their confidence intervals were calculated using two analytical approaches: conditional logistic regression and Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models. A total of 225 (37.1%) were aged 35-39 years. The most common comorbidities were asthma, migraine, gastritis, and hypothyroidism. A total of 14.7% received only one dose of COVID-19 and 85.3% two doses, respectively. A total of 36.8% of women with one dose and 27.6% with two doses received the vaccine 7 days prior to the miscarriage. Corresponding adjusted estimates for the risk of miscarriage using the conditional logistic regression where as follows: 1.65 (95% CI 0.85-3.23) when using as the sum of 3 control moments among women with one dose, 1.02 (95% CI 0.72-1.46) among women with two doses and 1.03 (95% CI 0.72, 1.46) using the whole study population. Very similar results were obtained when conducting the Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models. There was no overall increased risk of miscarriage onset associated with COVID-19 vaccine although contradictory results were found according to the number of doses. Further studies are required with larger sample sizes to assess this association.

Social Media Misinformation about Pregnancy and COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to identify common social media misconceptions about COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy, explain the spread of misinformation, and identify solutions to guide clinical practice and policy.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review was conducted and the databases Embase and Medline were searched from December 2019 to February 8, 2023, using terms related to social media, pregnancy, COVID-19 vaccines and misinformation. The inclusion criteria were original research studies that discussed misinformation about COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy on social media. The exclusion criteria were review articles, no full text, and not published in English. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, extraction, and quality assessment.

RESULTS

Our search identified 76 articles, of which 3 fulfilled eligibility criteria. Included studies were of moderate and high quality. The social media platforms investigated included Facebook, Google Searches, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok, and Twitter. Misinformation was related to concerns regarding vaccine safety, and its association with infertility. Misinformation was increased due to lack of content monitoring on social media, exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials, lack of information from reputable health sources on social media, and others. Suggested solutions were directed at pregnancy care providers (PCPs) and public health/government. Suggestions included: (i) integrating COVID-19 vaccination information into antenatal care, (ii) PCPs and public health should increase their social media presence to disseminate information, (iii) address population-specific vaccine concerns in a culturally relevant manner, and others.

CONCLUSION

Increased availability of information from reputable health sources through multiple channels could increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the pregnant population and help combat misinformation.

Comprehension of informed consent and voluntary participation in registration cohorts for phase IIb HIV vaccine trial in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania: a qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Informed consent as stipulated in regulatory human research guidelines requires volunteers to be well-informed about what will happen to them in a trial. However, researchers may be faced with the challenge of how to ensure that a volunteer agreeing to take part in a clinical trial is truly informed. This study aimed to find out volunteers' comprehension of informed consent and voluntary participation in Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) clinical trials during the registration cohort.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study among volunteers who were enrolled in the registration cohort of HIV clinical trials in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. A purposive sampling strategy was used to obtain twenty study participants. The data were collected between June and September 2020 using a semi-structured interview guide. In-depth interviews were used to collect the data to obtain deep insights of the individual study participants on the comprehension of informed consent and participation in the clinical trial. A thematic analysis approach was used to analyze the data. Themes and subthemes were supported by the quotes from the participants.

RESULTS

Volunteers described comprehension of informed consent from different perspectives. They reported that various components of the informed consent such as study procedure, confidentiality, risk and benefits were grasped during engagement meetings. Furthermore, the volunteers' decision to participate in the registration cohort was voluntary. However, trial aspects such as health insurance, free condoms, and medical checkups could have indirectly influenced their reluctance to withdraw from the study.

CONCLUSION

Engagement meetings may increase the comprehension of informed consent among potential participants for HIV clinical trials. However, trial incentives may influence participation, and thus future research should focus on the challenges of giving incentives in the study. This will ensure comprehension and voluntary participation in the context of HIV clinical trials.

Maternal first trimester COVID-19 vaccination and risk of major non-genetic congenital anomalies

BACKGROUND

Information regarding the risk of early pregnancy COVID-19 vaccination on the development of major congenital anomalies in the offspring is still limited. Here, we study the association between any COVID-19 vaccination during the 1st trimester and at least one major non-genetic congenital anomaly in the offspring.

METHODS

We used data from the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register, an ongoing cohort study. We selected participants with a pregnancy that ended after at least 20 weeks gestation. Pregnant participants self-reported their COVID-19 vaccination status and the presence of congenital anomalies in the offspring. We used logistic regression analyses to study the association between 1st trimester COVID-19 vaccination (gestational week 2 + 0 to 12 + 6) and the risk of at least one major non-genetic congenital anomaly in the offspring. Clustering of anomalies on the ICD10 level by 1st trimester COVID-19 vaccination status was explored using Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

We included 3721 participants of whom 795 (21.4%) were COVID-19 vaccinated during the 1st trimester. The percentage of participants who gave birth to a child with at least one major non-genetic congenital anomaly was comparable between participants who were 1st trimester vaccinated (1.1%) and participants who were not (1.2%) (adjusted odd ratio 0.78 [95% confidence interval 0.35-1.71]). We found no clustering of major non-genetic congenital anomalies by 1st trimester COVID-19 vaccination status (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no indications of an increased risk of major non-genetic congenital anomalies in the offspring after maternal 1st trimester COVID-19 vaccination. Our findings suggest COVID-19 vaccines are safe during early pregnancy.

Who is pregnant? Defining real-world data-based pregnancy episodes in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)

Objectives

To define pregnancy episodes and estimate gestational age within electronic health record (EHR) data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C).

Materials and Methods

We developed a comprehensive approach, named Hierarchy and rule-based pregnancy episode Inference integrated with Pregnancy Progression Signatures (HIPPS), and applied it to EHR data in the N3C (January 1, 2018-April 7, 2022). HIPPS combines: (1) an extension of a previously published pregnancy episode algorithm, (2) a novel algorithm to detect gestational age-specific signatures of a progressing pregnancy for further episode support, and (3) pregnancy start date inference. Clinicians performed validation of HIPPS on a subset of episodes. We then generated pregnancy cohorts based on gestational age precision and pregnancy outcomes for assessment of accuracy and comparison of COVID-19 and other characteristics.

Results

We identified 628 165 pregnant persons with 816 471 pregnancy episodes, of which 52.3% were live births, 24.4% were other outcomes (stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, abortions), and 23.3% had unknown outcomes. Clinician validation agreed 98.8% with HIPPS-identified episodes. We were able to estimate start dates within 1 week of precision for 475 433 (58.2%) episodes. 62 540 (7.7%) episodes had incident COVID-19 during pregnancy.

Discussion

HIPPS provides measures of support for pregnancy-related variables such as gestational age and pregnancy outcomes based on N3C data. Gestational age precision allows researchers to find time to events with reasonable confidence.

Conclusion

We have developed a novel and robust approach for inferring pregnancy episodes and gestational age that addresses data inconsistency and missingness in EHR data.

Minimal mRNA uptake and inflammatory response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccine exposure in human placental explants

Despite universal recommendations for COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in pregnancy, uptake has been lower than desired. There have been limited studies of the direct impact of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine exposure in human placental tissue. Using a primary human placental explants model, we investigated the uptake of two common mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 Moderna), and whether exposure altered villous cytokine responses. Explants derived from second or third trimester chorionic villi were incubated with vaccines at supraphysiologic concentrations and analyzed at two time points. We observed minimal uptake of mRNA vaccines in placental explants by in situ hybridization and quantitative RT-PCR. No specific or global cytokine response was elicited by either of the mRNA vaccines in multiplexed immunoassays. Our results suggest that the human placenta does not readily absorb the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines nor generate a significant inflammatory response after exposure.

Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease. Our GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings. Some factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial. Other factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision. Finally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine readiness and hesitancy among adults in sub-Saharan Africa

There is very limited data on the extent and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults living in sub-Saharan Africa since the global roll-out of vaccines began in 2021. This multi-country survey sought to investigate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and other predictors of readiness to get vaccinated. We conducted surveys among adults residing in nine urban and rural areas in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, and Tanzania in late 2021. Log binomial regression models were used to identify prevalence and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and beliefs around COVID-19 misinformation. We completed a total of 2,833 interviews. Among all respondents, 9% had never heard of a COVID-19 vaccine, 12% had been vaccinated, and 20% knew someone else who had been vaccinated. The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy varied by country (Ethiopia 29%, Burkina Faso 33%, Nigeria 34%, Ghana 42%, Tanzania 65%), but not by rural or urban context. People who did not think the vaccine was safe or effective, or who were unsure about it, were more likely to be vaccine hesitant. Those who reported they did not have a trusted source of information about the vaccine (aPR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.18,1.31) and those who thought the vaccine would not be made available to them within the year were more likely to be vaccine hesitant. Women were more likely to be vaccine hesitant (aPR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.19,1.43) and believe COVID-19 falsehoods (aPR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02,1.08). The most commonly believed falsehoods were that the vaccine was developed too fast and that there was not enough information about whether the vaccine was effective or not. Educational campaigns targeted at misinformation and tailored to suit each country are recommended to build trust in COVID-19 vaccines and reduce hesitancy.

Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccination Decision-Making Behaviors among Pregnant Women in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review

Despite the availability of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination, uptake among pregnant women in Sub-Saharan Africa has been low. This scoping review aimed to identify and characterize determinants influencing COVID-19 vaccination decision-making behaviors among pregnant women in Sub-Saharan Africa. We searched five online databases for articles on COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women in Sub-Saharan Africa. We identified studies published in English between March 2020 and April 2023 that assessed vaccine-specific issues, psychosocial constructs, and contextual factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination decision-making behaviors. Of the fourteen studies identified, over half (57.1%) were cross-sectional; three used qualitative research methods; and three involved multi-country participants. Most studies assessed COVID-19 vaccination acceptability and willingness. Overall, 85.7% of the publications examined knowledge, attitudes, or both as critical factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination. The prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine uptake during pregnancy was low in Sub-Saharan Africa (14.4-28%). While most current studies assess COVID-19 vaccination knowledge, research on maternal vaccination in Sub-Saharan Africa would benefit from the inclusion of theory-informed and driven studies that measure additional psychosocial factors and contextual constructs. Future studies should also employ study designs that can determine causal pathways of vaccination determinants and vaccination uptake.

Effectiveness, Immunogenicity and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnant Women: A Rapid Review Study

Background

Pregnant women infected with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, and the only real preventive strategy against COVID-19 is mass vaccination. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness, immunogenicity, and safety of Covid-19 vaccination in pregnant women.

Methods

A combination of search terms was performed by 2 researchers independently in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases, the World Health Organization website, and the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website up to February 2022. After the selection of eligible studies, the review process, description, and summarization of the selected studies were performed by the research team.

Results

Finally, 22 articles were included in this study. Evidence supports the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. There is no risk of transmitting COVID-19 to infants during lactation. In addition, antibodies made by vaccination can protect infants through breast milk.

Conclusion

The scientific community believes that being vaccinated as soon as possible is the best course of action because there is no evidence to suggest that the COVID-19 vaccine poses a risk to expectant or nursing women.

Informed Consent in COVID-19-Research: An Ethical Analysis of Clinical Studies Performed during the Pandemic

Health crises such as the current COVID-19 pandemic pose challenges to the conduct of clinical studies. Aspects of research ethics, such as obtaining informed consent (IC), can be complicated. We are concerned with whether or not the proper IC procedures were followed in the context of clinical studies at Ulm University in the years 2020 to 2022. We identified all protocols of clinical studies dealing with COVID-19 that the Research Ethics Committee of Ulm University has reviewed and voted on in the years 2020 to 2022. We then performed a thematic analysis regarding the following aspects: study type, handling of IC, type of patient information, means of communication, applied security precautions, and the approach to participants from vulnerable groups. We identified n = 98 studies that dealt with COVID-19. In n = 25 (25.51%), IC was obtained traditionally in written form, in n = 26 (26.53%) IC was waived, in n = 11 (11.22%) IC was obtained delayed, and in n = 19 (19.39%) IC was obtained by proxy. No study protocol was accepted that waived IC in case IC would have been required in times outside of pandemics. It is possible to obtain IC even in times of severe health crises. In the future, it is necessary to address in greater detail and with legal certainty which alternative methods of obtaining IC are possible and under which circumstances IC can be waived.

Rational Design of Nanomedicine for Placental Disorders: Birthing a New Era in Women's Reproductive Health

The placenta is a transient organ that forms during pregnancy and acts as a biological barrier, mediating exchange between maternal and fetal circulation. Placental disorders, such as preeclampsia, fetal growth restriction, placenta accreta spectrum, and gestational trophoblastic disease, originate in dysfunctional placental development during pregnancy and can lead to severe complications for both the mother and fetus. Unfortunately, treatment options for these disorders are severely lacking. Challenges in designing therapeutics for use during pregnancy involve selectively delivering payloads to the placenta while protecting the fetus from potential toxic side effects. Nanomedicine holds great promise in overcoming these barriers; the versatile and modular nature of nanocarriers, including prolonged circulation times, intracellular delivery, and organ-specific targeting, can control how therapeutics interact with the placenta. In this review, nanomedicine strategies are discussed to treat and diagnose placental disorders with an emphasis on understanding the unique pathophysiology behind each of these diseases. Finally, prior study of the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying these placental disorders has revealed novel disease targets. These targets are highlighted here to motivate the rational design of precision nanocarriers to improve therapeutic options for placental disorders.

Eligibility and enrollment of pregnant and breastfeeding women in psychiatry randomized controlled trials

To describe the eligibility and enrollment of pregnant and breastfeeding women in psychiatry randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We screened citations published 2017-2019 in the three highest impact psychiatry and five highest impact general medicine journals. We excluded male, pediatric, geriatric, and postmenopausal-focused RCTs and publications reporting subgroup, pooled, or secondary analyses of RCTs. We reviewed appendices, protocols, and registries for additional data. In total 108 RCTs were included. Three (2.8%) permitted enrollment of pregnant women; 59/108 (55%) and 46/108 (43%) explicitly excluded pregnant women or did not report pregnancy inclusion criteria, respectively. All RCTs including pregnant women evaluated non-pharmacological interventions for depression during pregnancy or postpartum. Among RCTs excluding pregnant women, 5/59 (8.5%) provided a rationale for exclusion. Contraception and/or negative pregnancy testing were required for women with reproductive capacity in 31/59 (53%). Three (2.8%) RCTs permitted enrollment of breastfeeding women and 3/41 (7.3%) RCTs excluding breastfeeding women provided a rationale for exclusion. This study demonstrates a major gap in psychiatry research involving pregnant and breastfeeding women. A shift from exclusion by default to inclusion and integration of this population into the clinical research agenda is needed to ensure they receive evidence-based care for mental illness.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy: a VAERS based analysis

PURPOSE

Since vaccination against COVID-19 is recommended in pregnant people, we aimed to provide further evidence on the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy.

METHODS

Data on COVID-19 vaccines adverse events following immunizations (AEFIs) in pregnant people were retrieved from the open-access Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from December 2020 to April 2022.

RESULTS

From December 2020 to April 1, 2022, a total of 4,869 reports involving pregnant women at COVID-19 vaccination were reported to VAERS. Among vaccines recipients, most belonged to the age group between 30 and 39 years old (3,029; 62.21%) and nearly half experienced an adverse event within 48 h of immunization (2,344; 48.14%). Overall, 21,816 suspected adverse reactions associated with COVID-19 vaccines were reported, and for as many as 80.43% of patients, they were described as non-serious. Most reactions occurred after administration of the mRNA-1273 (53.34%) and the BNT162b2 (40.68%) vaccines, while only a small proportion were related to the Johnson & Johnson's vaccine (5.69%). The most common non-pregnancy specific adverse events were headache (482; 2.21%), fatigue (472; 2.16%), and pyrexia (436; 2.00%), while adverse pregnancy outcomes with the highest reporting rate were abortions spontaneous (762; 3.49%), and vaginal haemorrhage (229; 1.05%).

CONCLUSION

This post-marketing survey on VAERS data have provided updated evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, thus supporting clinicians in recommending maternal immunization.

Gender inequity and COVID-19 vaccination policies for pregnant women in the Americas

The region of the Americas has been the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic’s worst outcome in terms of number of deaths due to COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and the postpartum period has been found to be associated with increased risk of mortality and severe disease. Several Latin American and Caribbean countries have disproportionally high maternal mortality rates due to COVID-19. Although this region achieved relatively high vaccination rates among the general adult population, there were differing restrictions regarding the vaccination of those who were pregnant. In a pandemic, policies reflect political priorities in responses to the threats posed to populations and play an important role in promoting gender equity. This paper reports the results of an ethical analysis of 45 national COVID-19 vaccination public policies from seven countries – Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and United States. The analysis drew on reproductive justice and feminist bioethics frameworks, paying close attention to whether and how gender and social and economic inequities were addressed. It found that exclusionary approaches in immunization policies which restricted access to vaccination during pregnancy were often justified on the basis of a lack of evidence about the effects of immunization of pregnant persons, and on the grounds of medical expertise, to the detriment of women’s autonomy and agency. As such these policies reiterate patriarchal moral understandings of women, pregnancy and motherhood. In practice, they counter human rights gender equity and equality principles, and became lethal, particularly to racialized women in Latin America. During an emerging lethal disease, policies and policy development must consider the intersection of oppressive structures to protect and guarantee rights of women, girls, and pregnant persons.

Minimal mRNA uptake and inflammatory response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccine exposure in human placental explants

Despite universal recommendations for COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in pregnancy, uptake has been lower than desired. There have been limited studies of the direct impact of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine exposure in human placental tissue. Using a primary human villous explant model, we investigated the uptake of two common mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 Moderna), and whether exposure altered villous cytokine responses. Explants derived from second or third trimester chorionic villi were incubated with vaccines at supraphysiologic concentrations and analyzed at two time points. We observed minimal uptake of mRNA vaccines in placental explants by in situ hybridization and quantitative RT-PCR. No specific or global cytokine response was elicited by either of the mRNA vaccines in multiplexed immunoassays. Our results suggest that the human placenta does not readily absorb the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines nor generate a significant inflammatory response after exposure.

A Review of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Pregnancy

Pregnancy is an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with increased rates of operative delivery, intensive care unit admission, and mechanical ventilation as well as a possible increased risk of death, independent of other risk factors, compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19. Furthermore, pregnancy outcomes are worse in those with COVID-19 with increased risk for preeclampsia, venous thromboembolism, preterm birth, miscarriage, and stillbirth compared with pregnant women without COVID-19. Importantly, pregnant women of nonwhite ethnicity appear to be at greater risk of severe COVID-19, necessitating improved access to care and closer monitoring in these women. The management of COVID-19 in pregnancy is largely similar to that in nonpregnant people; however, there is an important emphasis on multidisciplinary team involvement to ensure favorable outcomes in both mother and baby. Similarly, vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is safe in pregnancy and improves maternal and neonatal outcomes.

COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 exposure during pregnancy is related to adverse effects for both the mother and the infant. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has lowered the risk of symptomatic disease substantially. Recently published studies have evaluated the outcomes of women who received the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy; systematic evidence regarding vaccination safety is crucial to ensure that COVID-19 vaccination is not associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.

METHODS

Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from each database's inception through April 7, 2022. All interventional and observational studies comparing neonatal or pregnancy outcomes between pregnant women who received COVID-19 vaccines during their pregnancy and unvaccinated pregnant women were included. The random-effects model was used in the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies comprising 756,098 pregnant mothers were included. The rate of neonates with 5-min Apgar score ≤ 7 (log RR -0.08 (95% CI: -0.15 to -0.00), (P = 0.03)) and pregnant mothers with preterm birth (log RR -0.11 (95% CI: -0.21 to -0.01), (P = 0.02)) was significantly lower among vaccinated group. No significant difference was observed in adverse neonatal outcomes (log RR -0.07 (95% CI: -0.17 to 0.03)), small for gestational age (log RR -0.06 (95% CI: -0.14 to 0.02)), caesarean delivery (log RR 0.05 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.15)), postpartum hemorrhage (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.13 to 0.02)), stillbirth (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.45)).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, no evident differences were observed when comparing vaccinated pregnant mothers with those who had not received COVID-19 vaccines. Based on low certainty of evidence, vaccination during pregnancy was accompanied by a favorable Apgar score in neonates and fewer preterm births.

Policy and Guideline Review of Vaccine Safety for COVID-19 in Pregnant Women in Southern Africa, with a Particular Focus on South Africa

Pregnant and lactating mothers have historically been excluded from clinical trials. To understand the shift from excluding to including this population in COVID-19 vaccine trials, we conducted a review of guidance issued by countries in southern Africa over the last three years. We conducted a review of documents and official statements recorded on Ministries of Health websites, and social media platforms, the World Health Organisation website, the COVID-19 Maternal Immunisation tracker and the African Union official webpage. Search terms included COVID-19 vaccination policies, guidelines for pregnant and lactating women, COVID-19 vaccination trials and pregnant women. We retrieved and reviewed policies, guidelines, and official statements from 12 countries. We found inconsistencies and incomplete guidance in respect to the inclusion of pregnant and lactating mothers in COVID-19 vaccine trials from the selected countries. Of the twelve countries reviewed, Namibia and South Africa had clear guidance on vaccination plans and implementation for pregnant women, and their inclusion in COVID-19 vaccine trials. Explicit and clear guidelines are critical in communicating changes in policy towards those deemed vulnerable for them to participate in vaccine trials. This review provides lessons for future pandemics on managing changes in guidance towards those groups historically excluded from vaccine and clinical trials.

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.

A socio-ecological exploration to identify factors influencing the COVID-19 vaccine decision-making process among pregnant and lactating women: Findings from Kenya

The vaccine decision-making process of pregnant and lactating women is complex. Regarding COVID-19, pregnant women are at increased risk for severe disease and poor health outcomes. While pregnant and lactating women were excluded from COVID-19 vaccine trials, available evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and protective during pregnancy. In this study, we used a socio-ecological approach to explore factors influencing the decision-making process for COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating women in Kenya, for the purpose of informing demand generation strategies. As pregnant and lactating women are influenced by many factors, we conducted 84 in-depth interviews with a variety of stakeholders, including 31 pregnant or lactating women, 20 healthcare workers such as nurses, midwives, doctors, and frontline workers, 25 male family members of pregnant or lactating women, and 8 gatekeepers such as community leaders and faith-based leaders. These individuals were recruited from six communities in Kenya: three urban, and three rural. We applied a grounded theory approach to identify emerging themes and organized emerging themes using the SAGE Vaccine Hesitancy model, which includes three categories of determinants of vaccine acceptance, including contextual influences, individual and group influences, and vaccine and vaccination specific issues. Myths, interpersonal norms, and religion emerged as themes related to contextual influences. Safety, risk perception, and the role of the healthcare worker emerged as themes related to individual and group influences. For vaccine and vaccination specific issues, emerging themes included availability, accessibility, and eligibility. While maternal immunization can substantially reduce the effect of infectious diseases in mothers and infants, vaccine acceptance is critical. However, vaccines do not save lives; vaccination does. We hope the results of this study can be used to tailor communication efforts to increase vaccine demand among pregnant and lactating women.

Inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women in nonobstetrical randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is an urgent need to prioritize and expedite the inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women in research. Characterizing trials that have successfully included these populations could inform the design and execution of future studies. In addition, up-to-date data on their inclusion in clinical research could assist in setting benchmarks, establishing targets, and monitoring progress toward more equitable inclusion.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to characterize the eligibility and enrollment of pregnant and breastfeeding women in randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for nonobstetrical conditions experienced by, but not limited to, these populations.

STUDY DESIGN

We developed a literature search in collaboration with an information specialist. We included randomized controlled trials published between 2017 and 2019 in the 5 highest-impact general medicine journals and the 3 highest-impact specialty journals in cardiovascular disease, critical care, general infectious diseases, HIV, and psychiatry. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated screening, diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of nonobstetrical medical conditions. We excluded randomized controlled trials exclusively focused on males, pediatrics, geriatrics, oncology, or postmenopausal women, and publications reporting subgroup, pooled, or follow-up analyses of previously published randomized controlled trials. We screened titles and abstracts independently and in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. We entered data into a standardized electronic case report form. We reviewed study protocols, appendices, and trial registries for additional data.

RESULTS

Of the 1333 randomized controlled trials, pregnant and breastfeeding women were eligible for 13 (1.0%) and 6 (0.5%), respectively. Pregnancy and breastfeeding eligibility criteria were not addressed in 383 of 1333 (28.7%) and 710 of 1333 (53.3%) randomized controlled trials, respectively. In total, 102 of 937 (10.9%) and 33 of 617 (5.3%) randomized controlled trials that explicitly excluded pregnant and breastfeeding women documented the rationale. Most studies excluding pregnant women (542/937; 57.8%) required at least 1 method of contraception and/or pregnancy testing as part of trial participation for women with reproductive capacity. Among the 13 randomized controlled trials that allowed inclusion of pregnant women, 3 restricted eligibility to specific trimesters. Two randomized controlled trials enrolled pregnant women after the first year of the study following interim review of safety results in nonpregnant participants. Four randomized controlled trials reported the number of pregnant women enrolled, which ranged from 0.7% to 3.4% of the study population. None of the studies reported on pregnancy or perinatal outcomes. Compared with randomized controlled trials that excluded pregnant women, those including them more commonly had an infectious disease focus (12/13 [92.3%] vs 270/937 [28.8%]; p<.0001), including HIV (5/13 [38.5%] vs 96/937 [10.2%]; p=.0079), enrolled participants in sub-Saharan Africa (5/13 [38.5%] vs 111/937 [11.8%]; p=.0143), and had exclusively nonindustry sponsorship (13/13 [100%] vs 559/937 [59.7%]; p=.0025); inclusion varied by study phase, randomization level, and intervention type.

CONCLUSION

This study illustrates a major inequity in research involving pregnant and breastfeeding women. As new health challenges arise, including novel pandemics, and the research community mobilizes to develop therapies and innovate in patient care, it is crucial that pregnant and breastfeeding women not be left behind. Greater regulatory support, in the form of explicit requirements and incentives, will be needed to ensure these populations are integrated into the research agenda.

Women's attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy: A survey study in northern Italy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate attitudes and risk perceptions towards the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine and reasons for hesitancy among pregnant women.

METHODS

A prospective survey study was conducted at a University Maternity Department. Participants included any pregnant woman aged 18 years or older, able to understand the Italian language, who accessed the antenatal clinic for a prenatal appointment. The survey comprised questions about sociodemographic characteristics, pregnancy vaccination history, and perception of risk related to the immunization for the woman herself and her infant.

RESULTS

A total of 538 women completed the questionnaire, 445 (82.7%) accepted COVID-19 vaccination. Women vaccinated against pertussis were three times more likely to take up the COVID-19 vaccine (odds ratio [OR] 3.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78-5.72). Having had COVID-19 during pregnancy (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.11-0.54), and having a high-risk perception towards the immunization for the fetus (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.09-0.34) were factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Lack of safety data in pregnancy and the possibility of harm to the fetus were the main concerns.

CONCLUSION

A trusting and supportive relationship with the healthcare professional to address fears, and the transmission of evidence-based information, are pivotal to guide women through an informed choice. Understanding the determinants implicated in women's decision making might guide towards effective public health strategies to boost vaccine acceptance.

Medication history-wide association studies for pharmacovigilance of pregnant patients

Background

Systematic exclusion of pregnant people from interventional clinical trials has created a public health emergency for millions of patients through a dearth of robust safety data for common drugs.

Methods

We harnessed an enterprise collection of 2.8 M electronic health records (EHRs) from routine care, leveraging data linkages between mothers and their babies to detect drug safety signals in this population at full scale. Our mixed-methods signal detection approach stimulates new hypotheses for post-marketing surveillance agnostically of both drugs and diseases-by identifying 1,054 drugs historically prescribed to pregnant patients; developing a quantitative, medication history-wide association study; and integrating a qualitative evidence synthesis platform using expert clinician review for integration of biomedical specificity-to test the effects of maternal exposure to diverse drugs on the incidence of neurodevelopmental defects in their children.

Results

We replicated known teratogenic risks and existing knowledge on drug structure-related teratogenicity; we also highlight 5 common drug classes for which we believe this work warrants updated assessment of their safety.

Conclusion

Here, we present roots of an agile framework to guide enhanced medication regulations, as well as the ontological and analytical limitations that currently restrict the integration of real-world data into drug safety management during pregnancy. This research is not a replacement for inclusion of pregnant people in prospective clinical studies, but it presents a tractable team science approach to evaluating the utility of EHRs for new regulatory review programs-towards improving the delicate equipoise of accuracy and ethics in assessing drug safety in pregnancy.

Recruitment of pregnant women to randomised trials of COVID 19 treatments, and pharmaceutical treatments received outside such trials: A research article

OBJECTIVES

To document how many pregnant women with COVID-19 reported in the literature had participated in randomised trials, what treatments they received outside such trials and compare the latter with evidence-based treatment recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of observational studies.

METHODS

Two clinical trial registries were searched to identify COVID-19 trials open to pregnant women. Studies were then extracted from a regularly updated list of scientific case reports and case series of confirmed or suspected maternal COVID-19 in pregnancy to identify the number of women enrolled into a trial and the pharmaceutical treatments they received outside such trials.

RESULTS

156 studies (case reports, case series and registries) reporting 43,185 pregnant women with COVID-19, after de-duplication. Of these 2,671 (6.2%) were potentially eligible for a randomised trial but only seven women (0.26%) were reported to have enrolled. For 2,839 women the papers included information on treatment received, 1515/2829 (54%) women had received ≥ 1 treatment and in total a COVID-19 pharmaceutical treatment was administered 1,296 times outside of a trial. In 566 (44%) cases the treatments administered to the pregnant women were not recommended by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at the time of administration. Of 179 case reports of women with COVID 19 in pregnancy, 109/179 women received ≥ 1 COVID-19 pharmaceutical treatment and in total COVID-19 experimental pharmaceutical treatments were administered 274 times.

CONCLUSION

During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women excluded from randomised trials did not avoid unproven or ineffective treatments.

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.

Appraisal of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance in the Romanian Pregnant Population

Widespread COVID-19 vaccination is crucial for limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and minimizing the risk of novel variants arising in the general population, especially in pregnant women. According to the publicly available research data, vaccination intentions vary significantly by country, with Romania among the European countries with the lowest vaccination rates. Thus, we sought to determine the scale of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign among pregnant women in Romania, as well as the variables affecting their choices. A cross-sectional study was conducted on pregnant women referred to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic of the Timisoara Municipal Emergency Hospital in Romania, where participants were asked to complete an online survey including standardized and unstandardized questionnaires indicating their willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and the reasons for their willingness. Out of the 500 women who were requested to participate, there was a total of 345 validated questionnaires, with 184 vaccinated and 161 unvaccinated pregnant women. The statistically significant determinant factors for COVID-19 vaccination acceptance were the urban area of residence (OR = 0.86), having a higher level of education (OR = 0.81), the third trimester of pregnancy (OR = 0.54), trusting the government (OR = 0.83), being a frequent traveler (OR = 0.76), fearing the severity of COVID-19 (OR = 0.68), the higher availability of COVID-19 vaccines nearby (OR = 0.87), and seeing more people getting vaccinated (OR = 0.75). As there are no increased risks associated with SARS-CoV-2 immunization in pregnant women, the variables identified in this research are crucial in determining the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines that should be addressed in this vulnerable group to increase vaccination rates.

Complement blockade with eculizumab for treatment of severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 in pregnancy: A case series

Problem

We evaluated eculizumab, a complement protein C5 inhibitor, for treatment of severe COVID‐19 in pregnant and postpartum individuals.

Method of Study

Protocol ECU‐COV‐401 (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04355494) is an open label, multicenter, Expanded Access Program (EAP), evaluating eculizumab for treatment of severe COVID‐19. Participants enrolled at our center from August 2020 to February 2021. Hospitalized patients were eligible if they had severe COVID‐19 with bilateral pulmonary infiltrates and oxygen requirement. Eculizumab was administered on day 1 (1200 mg IV) with additional doses if still hospitalized (1200 mg IV on Days 4 and 8; 900 mg IV on Days 15 and 22; optional doses on Days 12 and 18). The primary outcome was survival at Day 15. Secondary outcomes included survival at Day 29, need for mechanical ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. We evaluated pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, safety, and adverse outcomes.

Results

Eight participants were enrolled at the Cedars‐Sinai Medical Center, six during pregnancy (mean 30 ± 4.0 weeks) and two in the postpartum period. Baseline oxygen requirement ranged from 2 L/min nasal cannula to 12 L/min by non‐rebreather mask. The median number of doses of eculizumab was 2 (range 1–3); the median time to hospital discharge was 5.5 days (range 3–12). All participants met the primary outcome of survival at Day 15, and all were alive and free of mechanical ventilation at Day 29. In three participants we demonstrated that free C5 and soluble C5b‐9 levels decreased following treatment. There were no serious adverse maternal or neonatal events attributed to eculizumab at 3 months.

Conclusion

We describe use of eculizumab to treat severe COVID‐19 in a small series of pregnant and postpartum adults. A larger, controlled study in pregnancy is indicated.

Understanding the content of COVID-19 vaccination and pregnancy videos on YouTube: An analysis of videos published at the start of the vaccine rollout

Over 2 years into the COVID-19 pandemic, information on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, particularly for people in high-risk populations, has become a popular topic of discussion. The purpose of this study was to analyze the content and characteristics of YouTube videos related to COVID-19 vaccination and pregnancy. The 50 most viewed English language videos on pregnancy and COVID-19 vaccination were included in this study. The 50 YouTube videos were viewed 4,589,613 times, with 6% uploaded by consumers, 40% by medical professionals, and 44% by television or internet-based news. Videos from consumer sources more often mentioned a human trial of the COVID-19 vaccine (75% of consumer videos vs. 65% of medical professional videos and 31.8% of television or internet-based news videos, P = .036) and more often mentioned anti-vaccination sentiment, fear, or distrust of the vaccines (37.5% of consumer videos vs 5.0% of medical professional videos and 4.5% of television or internet-based news videos, P = .018). Videos uploaded by medical professionals more often mentioned emergency use of the COVID-19 vaccines (P = .016), passive immunity in general (P = .011), and that the COVID-19 vaccine is either unlikely to or will not cause harm in breastfeeding more often than did videos from consumer or television-based news sources (P = .034). New information regarding COVID-19 vaccination and pregnancy is continuing to emerge, and this study highlights that the information found in the most viewed YouTube videos on this topic can quickly become outdated.

The Impact of Maternal Prenatal Stress Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic during the First 1000 Days: A Historical Perspective

The COVID-19 pandemic has a major impact on society, particularly affecting its vulnerable members, including pregnant women and their unborn children. Pregnant mothers reported fear of infection, fear of vertical transmission, fear of poor birth and child outcomes, social isolation, uncertainty about their partner's presence during medical appointments and delivery, increased domestic abuse, and other collateral damage, including vaccine hesitancy. Accordingly, pregnant women's known vulnerability for mental health problems has become a concern during the COVID-19 pandemic, also because of the known effects of prenatal stress for the unborn child. The current narrative review provides a historical overview of transgenerational effects of exposure to disasters during pregnancy, and the role of maternal prenatal stress. We place these effects into the perspective of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hereby, we aim to draw attention to the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women of reproductive age (15-49 year) and its potential associated short-term and long-term consequences for the health of children who are conceived, carried, and born during this pandemic. Timely detection and intervention during the first 1000 days is essential to reduce the burden of transgenerational effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 vaccines: Considering sex differences in efficacy and safety

The development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines represents a significant breakthrough for managing the COVID-19 pandemic. However, their approval process has exposed a crucial limitation in clinical trial reports-that is, a disregard for sex differences in response to vaccines. Historically, males and females have shown different reactions to vaccines of many kinds, which have become apparent with the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines in late-2020. In this article, we review regulatory data from Phase III vaccine trials as well as peer-reviewed reports from vaccines administered to the general population, many of which failed to stratify results by sex. We also discuss the exclusion of pregnant and lactating persons in drug development and the regulatory guidelines for use of COVID-19 vaccines in such populations. We conclude by proposing some questions to stimulate discussion with the intent of advancing the field toward precision medicine.

Adherence to COVID-19 preventive practice and associated factors among pregnant women in Gondar city, northwest Ethiopia, 2021: Community-based cross-sectional study

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes more than five million deaths worldwide. Pregnant women are at high risk for infection due to the physiologic change in the immune and cardiopulmonary system and also it increases the risk of severe disease, intensive care unit admission, and receive mechanical ventilation when compared with non-pregnant women. It is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. So pregnant women need to have adhered to preventive measures to prevent COVID-19 related consequences. Therefore, this study aimed to assess adherence toCOVID-19 preventive practice and associated factors among pregnant women in Gondar city, northwest Ethiopia.

Methods

A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from July 1^st to 30^th, 2021, in Gondar city. A cluster sampling technique was employed to select 678 pregnant women. Data were collected using a pre-tested, face-to-face interviewer-administered questionnaire. Data were entered into EPI DATA version 4.6 and exported to SPSS version 25 for analysis. Both bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was fitted to identify associated factors. Adjusted odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval was used to report the association between covariates and the outcome variable.

Results

The prevalence of good adherence to COVID-19 preventive practice was 44.8% (95% CI: 41.3, 48.7). Maternal age (≤24 years) [AOR = 2.89, 95% CI: 1.37, 6.10], maternal education (secondary school) [AOR = 2.95, 95% CI: 1.58, 5.53] and (college and above) [AOR = 4.57,95% CI: 2.42, 8.62], having ANC follow up [AOR = 2.95, 95% CI: 1.35, 6.46] and adequate knowledge towards COVID-19 [AOR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.20, 2.41] were significantly associated with good adherence to COVID-19 preventive practice.

Conclusion

In this study, adherence towards COVID-19 preventive practice in pregnant women is low. Hence, it is important to strengthen women’s awareness about COVID-19 through different media and health education. In addition, empowering women to attain ANC and special consideration should be given to women who had no formal education.

A review on COVID-19 transmission, epidemiological features, prevention and vaccination

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused hundreds of millions of infections and millions of deaths over past two years. Currently, many countries have still not been able to take the pandemic under control. In this review, we systematically summarized what we have done to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, from the perspectives of virus transmission, public health control measures, to the development and vaccination of COVID-19 vaccines. As a virus most likely coming from bats, the SARS-CoV-2 may transmit among people via airborne, faecal-oral, vertical or foodborne routes. Our meta-analysis suggested that the R₀ of COVID-19 was 2.9 (95% CI: 2.7–3.1), and the estimates in Africa and Europe could be higher. The median R_t could decrease by 23–96% following the nonpharmacological interventions, including lockdown, isolation, social distance, and face mask, etc. Comprehensive intervention and lockdown were the most effective measures to control the pandemic. According to the pooled R₀ in our meta-analysis, there should be at least 93.3% (95% CI: 89.9–96.2%) people being vaccinated around the world. Limited amount of vaccines and the inequity issues in vaccine allocation call for more international cooperation to achieve the anti-epidemic goals and vaccination fairness.

Exclusion of Reproductive-aged Women in COVID-19 Vaccination and Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

We analyzed the exclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding individuals and those capable of pregnancy in COVID-19 vaccine and clinical treatment trials.

METHODS

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted from all listed COVID-19 vaccine and treatment clinical trials from May 1, 2020, to October 31, 2020, using the U.S. National Library of Medicine database. We report rates of rates of exclusion for pregnant and lactating individuals and requirements for contraception for pregnancy-capable participants in COVID-19 vaccine and treatment clinical trials. The analysis included the association between clinical trial exclusion and vaccine and treatment type, study location, sponsor, and phase.

RESULTS

Pregnant and lactating individuals were explicitly excluded from most COVID-19 vaccine and treatment clinical trials. Of the 90 vaccine trials, 88 (97.8%) excluded pregnant individuals, 73 (81.1%) excluded lactating individuals, and 56 (62.2%) required contraception use. Of the 495 treatment trials, 350 (70.7%) excluded pregnant individuals, 269 (54.3%) excluded lactating individuals, and 91 (18.4%) required contraception use. Although vaccine type was not associated with pregnancy exclusion, it was associated with lactation exclusion (p = .01) and contraception requirement (p < .001). Treatment type was associated with pregnancy exclusion, lactation exclusion, and contraception requirement (all p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccination and treatment clinical trials mirrored historical trends restricting participation owing to pregnancy, lactation, and contraception nonuse, despite known safety profiles. People of childbearing potential should be considered for and afforded the same opportunity as males to make informed decisions on study participation, particularly in the setting of a global pandemic.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance of Pregnant and Lactating Women (PLW) in Czechia: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study

Pregnant and lactating women (PLW) represent a particular population subset with increased susceptibility for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, even though the evidence about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines was delayed due to their initial exclusion from development trials. This unclear situation could have led to increased COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy levels among PLW; therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of Czech PLW towards COVID-19 vaccines and the determinants of their attitudes. An analytical cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out in the University Hospital Brno (South Moravia, Czechia) between August and October 2021. The study utilised a self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) adapted from previous instruments used for the same purpose. The SAQ included closed-ended items covering demographic characteristics, clinical and obstetric characteristics, attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination, and potential psychosocial predictors of vaccine acceptance. Out of the 362 included participants, 278 were pregnant (PW) and 84 were lactating women (LW). The overall COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (immediate and delayed) level was substantially high (70.2%), with a significant difference between PW (76.6%) and LW (48.8%). Out of the 70.2% who agreed to receive the vaccine, 3.6% indicated immediate acceptance, and 66.6% indicated delayed acceptance. Only 13.3% of the participants indicated their acceptance of their physician's vaccination recommendation during pregnancy or while lactating, and 62.2% were against it. Our results agreed with the recent studies that revealed that PW tended to have a high level of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, and they were also inclined to resist professional recommendations because they predominantly preferred to delay their vaccination. The pregnancy trimester, education level, employment status, and previous live births were significant determinants for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The most commonly preferred vaccine type was mRNA-based vaccines, followed by viral vector-based and inactivated virus vaccines. The first top priority of PLW was vaccine safety for their children, followed by vaccine safety for the PLW and vaccine effectiveness. Regarding psychosocial predictors, media/social media, trust in the government, the pharmaceutical industry, and healthcare professionals, partners, and a positive risk-benefit ratio were significant promoters for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Findings from this study suggest that promotional interventions targeting PLW should use web platforms and focus on vaccine safety evidence, the expected benefits of vaccines and potential harms of the infection.

Characterizing the inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding people in infectious diseases randomized controlled trials: a targeted literature review

OBJECTIVES

Severe complications of infectious diseases can occur during pregnancy. Evidence-based prevention and treatment strategies are critical to improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Despite this medical need, pregnant and breastfeeding people have been systematically excluded from biomedical research. The objective of this study was to characterize representation of pregnant and breastfeeding people in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating a broad range of interventions for infectious diseases.

METHODS

Pregnancy and breastfeeding inclusion criteria were examined in infectious diseases RCTs published between 1 January 2017, and 31 December 2019, in the top five highest impact general medicine and the top three highest impact infectious diseases and HIV journals.

RESULTS

Of 376 RCTs, 5.3% and 1.9% included pregnant and breastfeeding people, respectively. Justification for exclusion was documented in 36/271 (13.3%) studies that explicitly excluded pregnant people. Most studies excluding pregnant people (177/271, 65.3%) required at least one form of contraception, abstinence and/or negative pregnancy test(s) as part of participation. Only 11/271 (4.1%) studies excluding pregnant people allowed participants to continue the intervention if unintended pregnancy occurred during the study. When both pregnant and non-pregnant people were eligible, pregnant people made up <3% of participants. Only 2/48 (4.2%) vaccine studies included pregnant people; 13/234 (5.5%) drug studies included pregnant people. All studies of procedures, devices, behaviour/education and supplements/vitamins explicitly excluded or did not address pregnancy eligibility criteria. Only 2/20 (10.0%) RCTs including pregnant people collected pharmacokinetic data.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates widespread exclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding people from infectious disease RCTs.

Limited data exist to inform our basic understanding of micronutrient requirements in pregnancy

Women and pregnant people have historically been underrepresented in research; this may extend to the basic research informing nutrient reference values, such as the United States’ and Canada’s Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). After screening the DRI reports for 23 micronutrients, we extracted metadata from 704 studies. Women were excluded in 23% of studies, and they accounted for a smaller proportion of the sample size (29%). Pregnant or lactating people were included in 17% of the studies. Studies that used rigorous design elements, such as controlled feeding and stable isotope studies, were the most likely to include men only. The majority of studies (>90%) did not report race and ethnicity. Although nutrient reference values are intended for use in the general population, we find that the basic science informing these values may not be generalizable. We call urgently upon funders and researchers to address fundamental gaps in knowledge with high-quality research.

Treatment of COVID-19 in pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Clinical trials evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of COVID-19, either excluded pregnant women or included very few women. Unlike the numerous systematic reviews on prevalence, symptoms and adverse outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy, there are very few on the effects of treatment on maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy. We undertook a systematic review of all published and unpublished studies on the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 on maternal and neonatal pregnancy outcomes.

Data sources

We performed a systematic literature search of the following databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, WHO (World Health Organization) COVID-19 database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019 to 1 December 2020.

Study eligibility criteria

Studies were only included if they involved pregnant or postnatal women who were exposed to pregnancy specific interventions like the mode of delivery and type of anaesthesia, pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

We first screened the titles and abstracts of studies and then assessed the full text of the selected studies in detail for eligibility. Data on study design, population, type of screening for COVID-19, country, hospital, country status (high or low and middle income), treatment given (mode of delivery, type of anaesthesia, type of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment was extracted. The pre-defined maternal outcomes we collected were mode of delivery (vaginal or by caesarean section), severe or critical COVID-19 (as defined by the authors), symptomatic COVID-19, maternal death, maternal hospital admission, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, ECMO and maternal pneumonia. The pre-defined neonatal outcomes we extracted were preterm birth (<37 weeks), stillbirth, neonatal death, NICU admission, neonatal COVID-19 positive, neonatal acidosis (pH<7.0) and Apgar scores (<8 after 5 minutes). Study quality assessment was performed.

Results

From a total of 342 potential eligible studies, we included 27 studies in our systematic review, including 4943 pregnant women (appendix 3). Sixteen studies had a retrospective cohort design and 11 a prospective cohort design. There were no randomised controlled trials. There was a significant association between caesarean section and admission to ICU (OR 4.99, 95% CI 1.24 to 20.12; 4 studies, 153 women, I²=0%), and diagnosis of maternal COVID-19 pneumonia as defined by study authors (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.52 to 6.28; 2 studies, 228 women, I²=0%). Women who had a preterm birth were more likely to have the baby via caesarean section (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.71 to 5.36, 12 studies; 314 women, I²=0%). For pharmacological and non-pharmacological we provided estimates of the expected rates of outcomes in women exposed to various treatment of COVID-19. Comparative data for pregnant women, in particular for treatments proven to be effective in the general population, however, is lacking to provide clinically meaningful interpretation.

Conclusions

We found associations for pregnancy specific interventions, like mode of delivery and outcomes of the disease, but there were too few data on pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in pregnant women with COVID-19. We report the rates of complications found in the literature. We encourage researchers to include pregnant women in their trials and report the data on pregnant women separately.