Effects of maternal influenza vaccination on adverse birth outcomes: A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis

[Fetal death: Expert consensus from the College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians]

Fetal death is defined as the spontaneous cessation of cardiac activity after fourteen weeks of amenorrhea. In France, the prevalence of fetal death after 22 weeks is between 3.2 and 4.4/1000 births. Regarding the prevention of fetal death in the general population, it is not recommended to counsel for rest and not to prescribe vitamin A, vitamin D nor micronutrient supplementation for the sole purpose of reducing the risk of fetal death (Weak recommendations; Low quality of evidence). It is not recommended to prescribe aspirin (Weak recommendation; Very low quality of evidence). It is recommended to offer vaccination against influenza in epidemic periods and against SARS-CoV-2 (Strong recommendations; Low quality of evidence). It is not recommended to systematically look for nuchal cord encirclements during prenatal screening ultrasounds (Strong Recommendation; Low Quality of Evidence) and not to perform systematic antepartum monitoring by cardiotocography (Weak Recommendation; Very Low Quality of Evidence). It is not recommended to ask women to perform an active fetal movement count to reduce the risk of fetal death (Strong Recommendation; High Quality of Evidence). Regarding evaluation in the event of fetal death, it is suggested that an external fetal examination be systematically offered (Expert opinion). It is recommended that a fetopathological and anatomopathological examination of the placenta be carried out to participate in cause identification (Strong Recommendation. Moderate quality of evidence). It is recommended that chromosomal analysis by microarray testing be performed rather than conventional karyotype, in order to be able to identify a potentially causal anomaly more frequently (Strong Recommendation, moderate quality of evidence); to this end, it is suggested that postnatal sampling of the placental fetal surface for genetic purposes be preferred (Expert Opinion). It is suggested to test for antiphospholipid antibodies and systematically perform a Kleihauer test and a test for irregular agglutinins (Expert opinion). It is suggested to offer a summary consultation, with the aim of assessing the physical and psychological status of the parents, reporting the results, discussing the cause and providing information on monitoring for a subsequent pregnancy (Expert opinion). Regarding announcement and support, it is suggested to announce fetal death without ambiguity, using simple words and adapting to each situation, and then to support couples with empathy in the various stages of their care (Expert opinion). Regarding management, it is suggested that, in the absence of a situation at risk of disseminated intravascular coagulation or maternal vitality, the patient's wishes should be taken into account when determining the time between the diagnosis of fetal death and induction of birth. Returning home is possible if it's the patient wish (Expert opinion). In all situations excluding maternal life-threatening emergencies, the preferred mode of delivery is vaginal delivery, regardless the history of cesarean section(s) history (Expert opinion). In the event of fetal death, it is recommended that mifepristone 200mg be prescribed at least 24hours before induction, to reduce the delay between induction and delivery (Low recommendation. Low quality of evidence). There are insufficient data in the literature to make a recommendation regarding the route of administration (vaginal or oral) of misoprostol, neither the type of prostaglandin to reduce induction-delivery time or maternal morbidity. It is suggested that perimedullary analgesia be introduced at the start of induction if the patient asks, regardless of gestational age. It is suggested to prescribe cabergoline immediately in the postpartum period in order to avoid lactation, whatever the gestational age, after discussing the side effects of the treatment with the patient (Expert opinion). The risk of recurrence of fetal death after unexplained fetal death does not appear to be increased in subsequent pregnancies, and data from the literature are insufficient to make a recommendation on the prescription of aspirin. In the event of a history of fetal death due to vascular issues, low-dose aspirin is recommended to reduce perinatal morbidity, and should not be combined with heparin therapy (Low recommendation, very low quality of evidence). It is suggested not to recommend an optimal delay before initiating another pregnancy just because of the history of fetal death. It is suggested that the woman and co-parent be informed of the possibility of psychological support. Fetal heart rate monitoring is not indicated solely because of a history of fetal death. It is suggested that delivery not be systematically induced. However, induction can be considered depending on the context and parental request. The gestational age will be discussed, taking into account the benefits and risks, especially before 39 weeks. If a cause of fetal death is identified, management will be adapted on a case-by-case basis (expert opinion). In the event of fetal death occurring in a twin pregnancy, it is suggested that the surviving twin be evaluated as soon as the diagnosis of fetal death is made. In the case of dichorionic pregnancy, it is suggested to offer ultrasound monitoring on a monthly basis. It is suggested not to deliver prematurely following fetal death of a twin. If fetal death occurs in a monochorionic twin pregnancy, it is suggested to contact the referral competence center, in order to urgently look for signs of acute fetal anemia on ultrasound in the surviving twin, and to carry out weekly ultrasound monitoring for the first month. It is suggested not to induce birth immediately.

Evaluating COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness during pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron dominant periods among pregnant people in the U.S.: Retrospective cohort analysis from a nationally sampled cohort in National COVID Collaborative Cohort (N3C)

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccinations (initial and booster) during pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron dominant periods among pregnant people via (1) COVID-19 incident and severe infections among pregnant people who were vaccinated vs. unvaccinated and (2) post-COVID-19 vaccination breakthrough infections and severe infections among vaccinated females who were pregnant vs. non-pregnant.

Design

Retrospective cohort study using nationally sampled electronic health records data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), December 10, 2020, to June 07, 2022.

Participants

Cohort 1 included pregnant people (15-55 years), and Cohort 2 included vaccinated females of reproductive age (15-55 years).

Exposures

(1) COVID-19 vaccination and (2) pregnancy.

Main outcome measures

Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for COVID-19 incident or breakthrough infections and severe infections (i.e., COVID-19 infections with related hospitalizations).

Results

In Cohort 1, 301,107 pregnant people were included. Compared to unvaccinated pregnant people, the aHRs for pregnant people with initial vaccinations during pregnancy of incident COVID-19 were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.96) and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.73, 1.07) and aHRs of severe COVID-19 infections were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.90) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.51, 1.21) during the Delta and Omicron periods, respectively. Compared to pregnant people with full initial vaccinations, the aHR of incident COVID-19 for pregnant people with booster vaccinations was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.71) during the Omicron period. In Cohort 2, 934,337 vaccinated people were included. Compared to vaccinated non-pregnant females, the aHRs of severe COVID-19 infections for people with initial vaccinations during pregnancy was 2.71 (95% CI: 1.31, 5.60) during the Omicron periods.

Conclusions

Pregnant people with initial and booster vaccinations during pregnancy had a lower risk of incident and severe COVID-19 infections compared to unvaccinated pregnant people across the pandemic stages. However, vaccinated pregnant people still had a higher risk of severe infections compared to non-pregnant females.

Safety of influenza vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate associations between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes and maternal non-obstetric serious adverse events (SAEs), taking into consideration confounding and temporal biases.

METHODS

Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase Classic+Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched to June 2021 for observational studies assessing associations between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and maternal non-obstetric SAEs and adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, small-for-gestational-age birth and congenital anomalies. Studies of live attenuated vaccines, single-arm cohort studies and abstract-only publications were excluded. Records were screened using a liberal accelerated approach initially, followed by a dual independent approach for full-text screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted, where two or more studies met methodological criteria for inclusion. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence certainty.

RESULTS

Of 9443 records screened, 63 studies were included. Twenty-nine studies (24 cohort and 5 case-control) evaluated seasonal influenza vaccination (trivalent and/or quadrivalent) versus no vaccination and were the focus of our prioritised syntheses; 34 studies of pandemic vaccines (2009 A/H1N1 and others), combinations of pandemic and seasonal vaccines, and seasonal versus seasonal vaccines were also reviewed. Control for confounding and temporal biases was inconsistent across studies, limiting pooling of data. Meta-analyses for preterm birth, spontaneous abortion and small-for-gestational-age birth demonstrated no significant associations with seasonal influenza vaccination. Immortal time bias was observed in a sensitivity analysis of meta-analysing risk-based preterm birth data. In descriptive summaries for stillbirth, congenital anomalies and maternal non-obstetric SAEs, no significant association with increased risk was found in any studies. All evidence was of very low certainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of very low certainty suggests that seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with adverse birth outcomes or maternal non-obstetric SAEs. Appropriate control of confounding and temporal biases in future studies would improve the evidence base.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Assessment of COVID-19 vaccines safety during pregnancy is urgently needed.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components and technological platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy and animal studies to complement direct evidence. We searched literature databases from its inception to September 2021 without language restriction, COVID-19 vaccine websites, and reference lists of other systematic reviews and the included studies. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, data extracted, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. (PROSPERO CRD42021234185).

RESULTS

We retrieved 8,837 records from the literature search; 71 studies were included, involving 17,719,495 pregnant persons and 389 pregnant animals. Most studies (94%) were conducted in high-income countries, were cohort studies (51%), and 15% were classified as high risk of bias. We identified nine COVID-19 vaccine studies, seven involving 309,164 pregnant persons, mostly exposed to mRNA vaccines. Among non-COVID-19 vaccines, the most frequent exposures were AS03 and aluminum-based adjuvants. A meta-analysis of studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed no association with adverse outcomes, regardless of the vaccine or the trimester of vaccination. Neither the reported rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes nor reactogenicity exceeded expected background rates, which was the case for ASO3- or aluminum-adjuvanted non-COVID-19 vaccines in the proportion meta-analyses of uncontrolled studies/arms. The only exception was postpartum hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccination (10.40%; 95% CI: 6.49-15.10%), reported by two studies; however, the comparison with non-exposed pregnant persons, available for one study, found non-statistically significant differences (adjusted OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.56-2.12). Animal studies showed consistent results with studies in pregnant persons.

CONCLUSION

We found no safety concerns for currently administered COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Additional experimental and real-world evidence could enhance vaccination coverage. Robust safety data for non-mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are still needed.

Safety and Protective Effects of Influenza Vaccination in Pregnant Women on Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes in Pune, India: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Maternal influenza vaccination provides effective protection against influenza infections in pregnant women and their newborns. In India, the influenza vaccine has not yet been offered through immunization programs, owing to the lack of sufficient safety data for pregnant Indian women.

METHODS

This cross-sectional observational study enrolled 558 women admitted to the obstetrics ward of a civic hospital in Pune. Study-related information was obtained from the participants through hospital records and interviews using structured questionnaires. Univariate and multivariable analysis was used, and the chi-square test with adjusted odds ratio was estimated to account for vaccine exposure and the temporal nature of each outcome, respectively.

RESULTS

Women not vaccinated against influenza during pregnancy had a higher risk of delivering very LBW infants, and possible protective effects were suggested (AOR 2.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 5.58, p = 0.03). No association was observed between maternal influenza vaccination for Caesarean section (LSCS) (AOR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.78, 1.85), stillbirth (AOR 1.8, 95% CI 0.18, 24.64) and NICU admission (AOR, 0.87, 0.29 to 2.85), and congenital anomaly (AOR, 0.81, 0.10 to 3.87).

INTERPRETATION

These results show that the influenza vaccine administered during pregnancy is safe and might lower the risk of negative birth outcomes.

Barriers and facilitators of vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19, influenza, and pertussis during pregnancy and in mothers of infants under two years: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Vaccination during pregnancy has been repeatedly demonstrated to be safe and effective in protecting against infection and associated harms for the mother, developing baby, and subsequent infant. However, maternal vaccination uptake remains low compared to the general population.

OBJECTIVES

An umbrella review to explore the barriers and facilitators to Influenza, Pertussis and COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and within 2 years after childbirth, and to inform interventions to encourage uptake (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022327624).

METHODS

Ten databases were searched for systematic reviews published between 2009 and April 2022 exploring the predictors of vaccination or effectiveness of interventions to improve vaccination for Pertussis, Influenza, or COVD-19. Both pregnant women and mothers of infants under two years were included. Barriers and facilitators were organised using the WHO model of determinants of vaccine hesitancy through narrative synthesis, the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist assessed review quality, and the degree of overlap of primary studies was calculated.

RESULTS

19 reviews were included. Considerable overlap was found especially for intervention reviews, and the quality of the included reviews and their primary studies varied. Sociodemographic factors were specifically researched in the context of COVID-19, exerting a small but consistent effect on vaccination. Concerns around the safety of vaccination particularly for the developing baby were a main barrier. While key facilitators included recommendation from a healthcare professional, previous vaccination, knowledge around vaccination, and communication with and support from social groups. Intervention reviews indicated multi-component interventions involving human interaction to be most effective.

CONCLUSION

The main barriers and facilitators for Influenza, Pertussis and COVID-19 vaccination have been identified and constitute the foundation for policy development at the international level. Ethnicity, socioeconomic status, concerns about vaccine safety and side effects, and lack of healthcare professionals' recommendations, are the most relevant factors of vaccine hesitancy. Adapting educational interventions to specific populations, person-to-person interaction, healthcare professionals' involvement, and interpersonal support are important strategies to improve uptake.

Maternal vaccination-current status, challenges, and opportunities

AIM

Maternal vaccination is a promising strategy for protecting pregnant women and newborns against severe infections. This review aims to describe the current status and challenges associated with maternal vaccination against seasonal influenza, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (Tdap/DTaP), and novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in Japan and other countries, mainly the United States and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed and other public websites (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to obtain information on maternal vaccination.

RESULTS

Inactivated vaccines are recommended for pregnant women by gynecologic societies in Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Among pregnant Japanese women, the influenza and COVID-19 (two doses) vaccine coverage rates were 27.0%-53.5% (six studies) and 73.6% (one study), respectively; there are no studies on maternal vaccination with DTaP. Concerns regarding vaccine safety are a major barrier to maternal vaccination across countries. Maternal vaccination is effective in preventing severe disease in pregnant women and protecting infants aged <6 months, is generally safe, and does not increase the risk of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Providing accurate information regarding vaccination through healthcare providers and the government and government funding for vaccines may help improve maternal vaccination rates in Japan.

CONCLUSION

Current coverage for maternal vaccination is still low globally mainly because of vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women. The government, drug-regulatory authorities, and healthcare professionals must educate pregnant women about the effectiveness and safety of maternal vaccines and encourage vaccination when the benefits outweigh the risks.

Barriers and facilitators to vaccination for COVID-19, pertussis, and influenza during pregnancy: Protocol for an umbrella review

Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to infection. Furthermore, infection from pertussis, influenza and COVID-19 increases the likelihood of adverse consequences to the mother and developing baby such as stillbirth, ICU admission, and pre-term caesarean birth. Increased rates of transmission and risk of adverse consequences from infection justifies the provision of national maternal vaccination programmes. Additionally, maternal vaccination helps protect the infant until they are able to receive their own vaccinations; a time when they are most at risk of mortality from influenza and pertussis. Vaccination during pregnancy has been repeatedly demonstrated as safe and effective in reducing harm, although rates of uptake remain low compared to the general population. The current protocol describes the methodology for an umbrella review aiming to explore the barriers and facilitators of vaccination during pregnancy for pertussis, influenza, and COVID-19. Systematic reviews that investigate the barriers and facilitators of at least one of either pertussis, influenza, or COVID-19 will be included in this review. Multiple databases will be searched, and included reviews assessed for quality (using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) quality assessment for systematic reviews) and degree of overlap of included primary studies. Included reviews will be analysed according to the WHO SAGE model of determinants of vaccine hesitancy and separated by whether these explore influenza and pertussis, or COVID-19. The outcomes of this review will help inform the development of interventions to increase uptake of vaccination during pregnancy, and on whether interventions need to be tailored depending on the infectious disease. The key findings will identify the specific barriers and facilitators of vaccination hesitancy by considering contextual influences (e.g. sociodemographic variables), individual/social group influences (e.g. trust in the institutions), and vaccine-specific issues (e.g. safety and recommendations).

Trends of influenza vaccination coverage in pregnant women: a ten-year analysis from a French healthcare database

Pregnant women have a high risk of severe influenza, associated with obstetrical complications. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended influenza vaccination for all pregnant women since 2012. The vaccination coverage remains low worldwide, and in Europe, due to a lack of proposition from the health care providers, and a high refusal rate from the women. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the influenza vaccination coverage (IVC) in a population of pregnant women in France, and to analyse its evolution from 2009 to 2018. The secondary objective was to describe the vaccinated population and to find determinants associated with the vaccination. This retrospective cohort study is based on the EGB French health care database, a representative sample of the French population containing data from the health insurance system. All pregnant women who delivered medically or spontaneously over the 2009–2018 period were included. In the 2009–2018 period, only 1.2% pregnant women were vaccinated against influenza (n = 875/72,207; 95% CI 1.14–1.30). The IVC slightly increased after the 2012 WHO recommendation, from 0.33 to 1.79% (p < 0.001) but remained extremely low (4.1% in 2018). Women younger than 25 years old had a low coverage (0.6%) whereas women over 35 years old were more likely to get the influenza vaccine (1.7%; OR: 2.82, 95% CI 2.14–3.71). The vaccination behavior was not influenced by multifetal pregnancy or parity, but socio-economically deprived women were less likely to be vaccinated (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67–0.98). Women with pre-existing medical conditions had an overall higher vaccination rate (2.5%; OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.94–2.77). The vaccine was mainly prescribed by family physicians (58%). Influenza vaccination in pregnant women in France remains very low, particularly in younger, healthy women, and measures such as information campaigns towards pregnant women and studies of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the health care professionals need to be undertaken to improve the coverage.

Seasonal Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy and the Risk of Major Congenital Malformations in Live-born Infants: A 2010-2016 Historical Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Available evidence indicates that seasonal inactivated influenza vaccination during pregnancy protects both the mother and her newborn and is safe. Nevertheless, ongoing safety assessments are important in sustaining vaccine uptake. Few studies have explored safety in relation to major congenital malformations (MCMs), particularly in the first trimester when most organogenesis occurs.

METHODS

Anonymized UK primary care data (the Clinical Practice Research Datalink), including a recently developed Pregnancy Register, were used to identify live-born singletons delivered between 2010 and 2016. Maternal influenza vaccination was determined using primary care records and stratified by trimester. Ascertainment of MCMs from infant primary care records was maximized by linkage to hospitalization data and death certificates. The relationship between vaccination and MCMs recorded in the year after delivery and in early childhood was then assessed using multivariable Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 78 150 live-birth pregnancies were identified: 6872 (8.8%) were vaccinated in the first trimester, 11 678 (14.9%) in the second, and 12 931 (16.5%) in the third. Overall, 5707 live births resulted in an infant with an MCM recorded in the year after delivery and the adjusted hazard ratio when comparing first-trimester vaccination to no vaccination was 1.06 (99% CI, .94-1.19; P = .2). Results were similar for second- and third-trimester vaccination and for analyses considering MCMs recorded beyond the first birthday.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, population-based historical cohort study there was no evidence to suggest that seasonal influenza vaccine was associated with MCMs when given in the first trimester or subsequently in pregnancy.

Safety of components and platforms of COVID-19 vaccines considered for use in pregnancy: A rapid review

BACKGROUND

Rapid assessment of COVID-19 vaccine safety during pregnancy is urgently needed.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid systematic review, to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines selected by the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access-Maternal Immunization Working Group in August 2020, including their components and their technological platforms used in other vaccines for pregnant persons. We searched literature databases, COVID-19 vaccine pregnancy registries, and explored reference lists from the inception date to February 2021 without language restriction. Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies through COVIDENCE, and performed the data extraction and the risk of bias assessment. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021234185).

RESULTS

We retrieved 6757 records and 12 COVID-19 pregnancy registries from the search strategy; 38 clinical and non-clinical studies (involving 2,398,855 pregnant persons and 56 pregnant animals) were included. Most studies (89%) were conducted in high-income countries and were cohort studies (57%). Most studies (76%) compared vaccine exposures with no exposure during the three trimesters of pregnancy. The most frequent exposure was to AS03 adjuvant, in the context of A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccines, (n = 24) and aluminum-based adjuvants (n = 11). Only one study reported exposure to messenger RNA in lipid nanoparticles COVID-19 vaccines. Except for one preliminary report about A/H1N1 influenza vaccination (adjuvant AS03), corrected by the authors in a more thorough analysis, all studies concluded that there were no safety concerns.

CONCLUSION

This rapid review found no evidence of pregnancy-associated safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines or of their components or platforms when used in other vaccines. However, the need for further data on several vaccine platforms and components is warranted, given their novelty. Our findings support current WHO guidelines recommending that pregnant persons may consider receiving COVID-19 vaccines, particularly if they are at high risk of exposure or have comorbidities that enhance the risk of severe disease.

Associations Between Maternal Immunisation and Reduced Rates of Preterm Birth and Stillbirth: A Population Based Retrospective Cohort Study

Stillbirth and preterm birth (PTB) remain two of the most important, unresolved challenges in modern pregnancy care. Approximately 10% of all births are preterm with nearly one million children dying each year due to PTB. It remains the most common cause of death among children under five years of age. The numbers for stillbirth are no less shocking with 2.6 million babies stillborn each year. With minimal impact on the rate of these adverse birth outcomes over the past decade there is an urgent need to identify more effective interventions to tackle these problems. In this retrospective cohort study, we used whole-of-population data, to determine if maternal immunization during pregnancy against influenza and/or pertussis, is associated with a lower risk of PTB, delivering a small-for-gestational age (SGA) infant, developing preeclampsia or stillbirth. Women with a singleton pregnancy at 28 or more weeks' gestation delivering in Victoria, Australia from July 2015 to December 2018 were included in the analysis. Log-binomial regression was used to measure the relationship between vaccination during pregnancy against influenza and against pertussis, with preterm birth, SGA, preeclampsia and stillbirth. Variables included in the adjusted model were maternal age, body mass index, first or subsequent birth, maternal Indigenous status, socio-economic quintile, smoking, public or private maternity care and metropolitan or rural location of the hospital. Women who received influenza vaccine were 75% less likely to have a stillbirth (aRR 025; 95% CI 0.20, 0.31), and 31% less likely to birth <37 weeks (aRR 0.69; 95% CI 0.66, 0.72). Women who received pertussis vaccine were 77% less likely to have a stillbirth (aOR 0.23; 95% CI 0.18, 0.28) and 32% less likely to birth <37 weeks gestation (aRR 0.68; 95% CI 0.66, 0.71). Vaccination also reduced the odds of small for gestational age by 13% and reduced the odds of pre-eclampsia when restricted to primiparous women. This association was seen over four different influenza seasons and independent of the time of year suggesting that any protective effect on obstetric outcomes afforded by maternal vaccination may not be due to a pathogen-specific response but rather due to pathogen-agnostic immune-modulatory effects.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines, their components or their platforms for pregnant women: A rapid review

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women with COVID-19 are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness as well as adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Many countries are vaccinating or considering vaccinating pregnant women with limited available data about the safety of this strategy. Early identification of safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components, or their technological platforms is therefore urgently needed.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid systematic review, as the first phase of an ongoing full systematic review, to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women, including their components, and their technological platforms (whole virus, protein, viral vector or nucleic acid) used in other vaccines, following the Cochrane methods and the PRISMA statement for reporting (PROSPERO-CRD42021234185).We searched literature databases, COVID-19 and pregnancy registries from inception February 2021 without time or language restriction and explored the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews retrieved. We selected studies of any methodological design that included at least 50 pregnant women or pregnant animals exposed to the vaccines that were selected for review by the COVAX MIWG in August 2020 or their components or platforms included in the COVID-19 vaccines, and evaluated adverse events during pregnancy and the neonatal period.Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies through the COVIDENCE web software and performed the data extraction through a previously piloted online extraction form. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

We identified 6768 records, 256 potentially eligible studies were assessed by full-text, and 37 clinical and non-clinical studies (38 reports, involving 2,397,715 pregnant women and 56 pregnant animals) and 12 pregnancy registries were included.Most studies (89%) were conducted in high-income countries. The most frequent study design was cohort studies (n=21), followed by surveillance studies, randomized controlled trials, and registry analyses. Most studies (76%) allowed comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women (n=25) or animals (n=3) and reported exposures during the three trimesters of pregnancy.The most frequent exposure was to AS03 adjuvant in the context of A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccines (n=24), followed by aluminum-based adjuvants (n=11). Aluminum phosphate was used in Respiratory Syncytial Virus Fusion candidate vaccines (n=3) and Tdap vaccines (n=3). Different aluminum-based adjuvants were used in hepatitis vaccines. The replication-deficient simian adenovirus ChAdOx1 was used for a Rift Valley fever vaccine. Only one study reported exposure to messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines that also used lipid nanoparticles. Except for one preliminary report about A/H1N1 influenza vaccination (adjuvant AS03) - corrected by the authors in a more thorough analysis, all studies concluded that there were no safety concerns.

CONCLUSION

This rapid review found no evidence of pregnancy-associated safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines that were selected for review by the COVAX MIWG or of their components or platforms when used in other vaccines. However, the need for further data on several vaccine platforms and components is warranted given their novelty. Our findings support current WHO guidelines recommending that pregnant women may consider receiving COVID-19 vaccines, particularly if they are at high risk of exposure or have comorbidities that enhance the risk of severe disease.

Seasonal influenza vaccine exposure in pregnancy: 5-year results from a pregnancy registry

The World Health Organization recommends that all pregnant women receive seasonal influenza vaccine. Under a post-authorization safety study protocol (NCT02148211), a pregnancy exposure registry was established in the United States to monitor spontaneously reported pregnancy outcomes in women vaccinated with GSK’s seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs). From 1 June 2014 to 31 May 2019, 507 pregnancies were prospectively reported: 352 (69.4%) were lost to follow-up and 40 (7.9%) were ongoing. Reported outcomes for the remaining 115 were: 101 (87.8%) live births without congenital anomalies; 3 (2.6%) live births with congenital anomalies; 2 (1.7%) spontaneous abortions with no congenital anomalies; 1 (0.9%) spontaneous abortion with a congenital anomaly; 1 stillbirth with no apparent congenital anomaly; 7 (6.1%) ‘Unknown’. Results from 493 prospective reports received via worldwide spontaneous, passive surveillance showed similar outcomes. All cases with congenital anomaly were assessed as not likely/unlikely/unrelated to vaccination. Despite the limited number of cases and outcomes, no safety signal was identified. The study findings are aligned with previously published data and should be confirmed with other robust data sources.

What is the context?

The pneumococcus bacterium can cause infections of the meninges, blood, lung, middle ear and sinuses.

Two vaccins, Synflorix (GSK) and Prevnar 13 (Pfizer Inc.), are widely used to protect young children against these infections.

The vaccines’ compositions differ: Synflorix includes antigens from 10 pneumococcus strains (or “serotypes”) and Prevnar 13 from 13 serotypes.

However, both have a similar effect on the total pneumococcal disease burden in children.

What does this commentary highlight?

This commentary summarizes the evidence beihnd the two vaccines’ comparable impact on pneumococcal disase.

It also looks at why the vaccines have a similar effect on the total pneumococcal disease burden despite their different compositions.

What is the impact on current thinking?

Given that Synflorix and Prevnar 13 have a comparable impact on pneumococcal disease, a country’s choice between the two vaccines will depend on vaccine supply, cost, logistical factors (e.g., transport, storage, training requirements of health workers) and the local pneumococcal epidemiology.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of influenza vaccination during pregnancy in Japan

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women and infants are known as high risk groups for influenza. WHO recommend pregnant women be vaccinated with inactivated influenza vaccine. In Japan, some municipalities started to give subsidy to encourage pregnant women to receive a shot on their own accord, which has made the introduction of seasonal antepartum maternal vaccination program (AMVP) into the routine vaccination list a current topic in health policy and has raised the need to evaluate the value for money of such possibility.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the efficiency of conducting AMVP in Japan. A decision tree model was adopted taking into consideration the duration of single-year vaccine effectiveness for infants and for mothers. The program targeted pregnant women aged 20-49 years old at or over 12 weeks gestation during October 1 through March 30. Estimated probabilities of treatments received due to influenza for pregnant/postpartum women or their infants varied by calendar time, vaccination status, and/or gestational age. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared with current no-AMVP from societal perspective was calculated. Transition probabilities, utility weights to estimate quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and disease treatment costs were either calculated or extracted from literature. Costs per vaccination was assumed at ¥3,529/US$32.1.

RESULTS

AMVP reduces disease treatment costs, while the reduction cannot offset the vaccination cost. Incremental QALYs were at 0.00009, among them 84.2% were from infants. ICER was ¥7,779,356/US$70,721 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that vaccine effectiveness for infant and costs per shot were the two main key variables affecting the ICER.

CONCLUSION

We found that vaccinating pregnant women with influenza vaccine to prevent unvaccinated infants and pregnant/postpartum women from influenza-associated disease in Japan can be cost-effective from societal perspective, under the WHO-suggested "cost-effective" criteria (1-3 times of GDP).

Safety and protective effects of maternal influenza vaccination on pregnancy and birth outcomes: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Our study aimed to assess the safety and protective effect of maternal influenza vaccination on pregnancy and birth outcomes.

METHODS

The study population comprised 1253 healthy nulliparous pregnant women in South Australia between 2015 and 2018. Participants were followed prospectively, with vaccination status (confirmed by medical records), pregnancy, and birth outcome data collected by midwives. Adjusted relative risks (aRRs) and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were estimated accounting for time-varying vaccine exposure and temporal nature of each outcome.

FINDINGS

Maternal influenza vaccination (48%, 603 of 1253) reduced the risk for pre-delivery hospitalisation with influenza like illness (aHR 0•61; 95% CI 0•39, 0•97). Maternal influenza vaccination was not associated with spontaneous abortion (aHR 0•42, 95% CI 0•12, 1•45), chorioamnionitis (aRR 0•78, 95% CI, 0•32, 1•88), gestational hypertension (aHR 0•78, 95% CI 0•47, 1•29), pre-eclampsia (aHR 0.84, 95% CI 0•54, 1•27), gestational diabetes (aHR 1•16, 95% CI 0•82, 1•66) nor preterm birth (aHR 0•94, 95% CI 0•59, 1•49). No associations between antenatal influenza vaccination and congenital anomalies, admission to the neonatal care unit, low Apgar scores, and mechanical ventilation were observed. Results were not materially changed after adjustment for pertussis vaccination. We observed a protective effect of maternal influenza vaccination on low birth weight (aHR 0•46, 95% CI 0•23, 0•94) and a marginal protective effect on small for gestational age births (aHR 0•65, 95% CI 0•40, 1•04) during periods of high influenza activity.

INTERPRETATION

These results support the safety of maternal influenza vaccination and suggest a protective effect in reducing the rates of low birthweight and small for gestational age births.

FUNDING

There was no funding for this study.

Safety evaluation of adverse events following vaccination with Havrix, Engerix-B or Twinrix during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Vaccination of pregnant women against hepatitis A virus (HAV) or hepatitis B virus (HBV) may benefit the mother and the fetus but is not routinely recommended. However, the risk associated with vaccination should be weighed against the risk of HAV or HBV infection. Data on safety profiles after hepatitis A, B or combined AB immunization during pregnancy are limited.

METHODS

We searched the GSK Worldwide Safety Database for adverse events (AEs) following immunization of pregnant women with HAV (Havrix, GSK), HBV (Engerix-B, GSK) or the combined hepatitis AB (Twinrix, GSK) vaccine since market authorization through 31 January 2018, covering at least 25 years. AE reports (spontaneous, post-marketing surveillance and clinical trial cases) in the GSK Worldwide Safety Database were identified using a systematic search and were reviewed by clinicians to ascertain pregnancy status at time of vaccination and characterize adverse pregnancy outcomes, including pregnancy-related AEs and AEs in infants regardless of the causality assessment.

RESULTS

Overall, 613, 700 and 363 pregnancies with exposure to Havrix, Engerix-B and Twinrix, respectively, were reported. Of these, 378, 339 and 194 were analyzed. The most frequently identified pregnancy outcomes were live infants (288, 223 and 151), spontaneous abortions (43, 57 and 26) and elective terminations (25, 24 and 9). A total of 19, 29 and 10 cases of congenital anomalies were reported. Of these, 17, 20 and 7 were major birth defects. The most commonly reported pregnancy-related AE and AE in infants were premature delivery (28) and jaundice (11), respectively. No maternal deaths were reported. Congenital anomalies were reported in all recorded infant deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

This review did not indicate any concerning pattern of adverse pregnancy outcomes following exposure to any of the 3 vaccines during pregnancy.

Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, July 2020

An extensive review of new resources to support the provision of evidence-based care for women and infants. The current column includes a discussion of whether it is ethical not to offer doula care to all women, and commentaries on reviews focused on folic acid and autism spectrum disorder, and timing of influenza vaccination during pregnancy.

Closer and closer? Maternal immunization: current promise, future horizons

This state-of-the art manuscript highlights our current understanding of maternal immunization-the practice of vaccinating pregnant women to confer protection on them as well as on their young infants, and thereby reduce vaccine-preventable morbidity and mortality. Advances in our understanding of the immunologic processes that undergird a normal pregnancy, studies from vaccines currently available and recommended for pregnant women, and vaccines for administration in special situations are beginning to build the case for safe scale-up of maternal immunization. In addition to well-known diseases, new diseases are emerging which pose threats. Several new vaccines are currently under development and increasingly include pregnant women. In this manuscript, targeted at clinicians, vaccinologists, scientists, public health practitioners, and policymakers, we also outline key considerations around maternal immunization introduction and delivery, discuss noninfectious horizons for maternal immunization, and provide a framework for the clinician faced with immunizing a pregnant woman.

Vaccinating pregnant women against influenza needs to be a priority for all countries: An expert commentary

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the World Health Organization recommended influenza vaccination for all pregnant women worldwide and the prioritisation of pregnant women in national influenza vaccination programmes. Nevertheless, vaccination rates in pregnant women often remain much lower than national targets.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks associated with influenza infection and vaccination during pregnancy, and to consider obstacles that work against influenza vaccine uptake during pregnancy.

RESULTS

There is strong evidence that maternal and foetal outcomes can be compromised if women develop influenza infections during pregnancy. Influenza vaccines have been administered to millions of pregnant women and have demonstrated benefits in terms of disease prevention in mothers and their infants. There is a consensus amongst several recommending authorities that influenza vaccines may be safely administered during all stages of pregnancy. Healthcare professionals are recognised as the most important influencers of vaccine uptake, being well placed to recommend vaccination and directly address safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite data supporting the value of influenza vaccination during pregnancy, vaccine uptake remains low globally. Low uptake appears to be largely due to ineffective communication with pregnant women about the risks and benefits of influenza vaccination. A graphical abstract is available online.

Influenza Vaccination of Pregnant Women and Serious Adverse Events in the Offspring

Pregnant women are increasingly considered a priority group for influenza vaccination, but the evidence in favor relies mainly on observational studies, subject to the "healthy-vaccinee bias". Propensity score methods-sometimes applied-reduce but cannot eliminate residual confounding. Meta-analyses of observational studies show relative risks far from the thresholds that would confirm the efficacy of universal vaccination for pregnant women without needing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Critical articles have shown that in the four RCTs investigating the outcomes of this vaccination, there was a tendency towards higher offspring mortality. In the largest RCT, there was a significant excess of presumed/serious neonatal infections, and also significantly more serious adverse events. Many widely acknowledged observational results (about hormone replacing therapy, vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, etc.) were confuted by RCTs. Therefore the international drive to consider this vaccination a "standard of care" is not justified yet. Moreover, there is the risk of precluding further independent RCTs for "ethical considerations", so as "to not deny the benefits of influenza vaccinations to pregnant women of a control group". Instead, before promoting national campaigns for universal vaccination in pregnancy, further large, independent, and reassuring RCTs are needed, even braving challenging a current paradigm. Until then, influenza vaccination should be offered to pregnant women only once open information is available about the safety uncertainties, to allow truly informed choices, and promoting also other protective behaviors.

Maternal tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) and influenza immunization: an overview

BACKGROUND

Maternal tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) and influenza immunization for women during pregnancy (the so-called "maternal immunization") has been introduced in several countries, and recently also in Italy, to protect mother and fetus during pregnancy, infant in his first months of life and mother during postpartum period. However, very low vaccination coverage rates have been reached due to several variables.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed and Embase, including any experimental or observational studies, to assesses existing evidence on the effectiveness, efficacy, safety and optimal timing of administration of Tdap and influenza immunization in pregnancy for mothers and their infants. The search was finalized in August 2019.

RESULTS

Reviewing the literature, we identified only a few studies that, among several maternal and infant outcomes, found sporadic significant associations with maternal influenza immunization and even less with Tdap immunization. Moreover, most of the authors of these studies explained these findings as a result of residual confounding effect. The effectiveness of maternal influenza immunization is more complicated to prove than the effectiveness of Tdap immunization because of several reasons. Not all nations recommend and offer vaccines in the same weeks of pregnancy and this one manifests the complexity in defining the best timing for Tdap or influenza immunization.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety of maternal Tdap or influenza immunization is supported by the evidence so far, however, regular surveillance should be maintained, especially with regard to the influenza vaccine that changes in formulation each year. There is a need to optimize the timing of vaccination in pregnancy and to have a national system of detection of maternal immunization in each country.