Search

Historically, pregnant women have been excluded from the majority of drug and vaccine trials, a practice that has been criticized widely by the scientific community1-3. The principles of this vaccination technology should also apply to COVID-19 vaccines and provides generic reassurance around the use of mRNA vaccines in pregnancy. Available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and their safety profiles Four different types of COVID-19 vaccine are currently available (Table 3): mRNA, viral vector, inactivated virus and recombinant antigen. As with the mRNA vaccines, there are limited data on the safety of adenovirus vector-based vaccines in pregnancy, though adenovirus vector-based Zika virus vaccines have been tested in pregnant mice without safety concerns35. [Extracted from the article]

Treat hypertension (BP >= 140/90 mmHg) with antihypertensive therapy Oral antihypertensive therapy halves the risk of severe hypertension (systematic review, 31 trials, 3485 women)[11], which is an outcome that warrants face-to-face assessment in all jurisdictions, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. BP control was achieved by a simple algorithm of up or down titration of antihypertensive medication (Figure 1), using single or multiple medications; in Figure 2, we provide practical advice and a protocol for dosing escalation from starting to maximum dosage and medication combinations. *If systolic BP is >= 160 mmHg, increase dose of existing medication or start new antihypertensive medication to get systolic BP < 160 mmHg, regardless of diastolic BP (dBP). In a systematic review of maternal risk stratification in pregnancy hypertension (32 studies), miniPIERS (Pre-eclampsia Integrated Estimate of Risk Score) was the only model for all pregnancy hypertension types[18]. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance.Objective: To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women's health.Search Strategy: Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database.Selection Criteria: Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods.Data Collection and Analysis: Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results.Main Results: Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52-4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39-104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results.Conclusion: Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported.Tweetable Abstract: Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women's health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]