Search

Background Numerous vaccines have been evaluated and approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since pregnant persons have been excluded from most clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, sufficient data regarding safety of these vaccines for the pregnant persons and their fetus have rarely been available at the time of product licensure. However, as COVID-19 vaccines have been deployed, data on the safety, efficacy or effectiveness, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and neonates are becoming increasingly available. A living systematic review (LSR) of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and newborns could provide information necessary to help guide vaccine policy decisions. Methods We aim to conduct a LSR based on biweekly searches of medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries to systematically identify relevant studies of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons. Pairs of reviewers will independently select, extract data, and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, and case reports. Primary outcomes will be the safety (i.e., impacts on obstetric and neonatal outcomes), efficacy or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons. Secondary outcomes will be immunogenicity and reactogenicity. We will conduct paired meta-analyses, including pre-specified subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Conclusion This will be the first living systematic review (LSR) and meta-analysis assessing the safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons. An online interactive dashboard for data visualization using Microsoft Power BI will be developed to regularly update and disseminate the latest findings (an in-progress version is available at https://safeinpregnancy.org/lsr/). In addition, the findings will be disseminated through publications and presentations.

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.

BackgroundPregnant 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionThis 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.

Background We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) summarizing the best evidence regarding the effect of COVID-19 on maternal and child health following Cochrane methods and PRISMA statement for reporting (PROSPERO-CRD42020208783). Methods We searched literature databases and COVID-19 research websites from January to October 2020. We selected relevant SRs reporting adequate search strategy, data synthesis, risk of bias assessment, and/or individual description of included studies describing COVID-19 and pregnancy outcomes. Pair of reviewers independently selected studies through COVIDENCE web-software, performed the data extraction, and assessed its quality through the AMSTAR-2 tool. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Each SR’s results were synthesized and for the most recent, relevant, comprehensive, and with the highest quality, by predefined criteria, we presented GRADE evidence tables. Results We included 66 SRs of observational studies out of 608 references retrieved and most (61/66) had "critically low" overall quality. We found a relatively low degree of primary study overlap across SRs. The most frequent COVID-19 clinical findings during pregnancy were fever (28–100%), mild respiratory symptoms (20–79%), raised C-reactive protein (28–96%), lymphopenia (34–80%), and pneumonia signs in diagnostic imaging (7–99%). The most frequent maternal outcomes were C-section (23–96%) and preterm delivery (14–64%). Most of their babies were asymptomatic (16–93%) or presented fever (0–50%), low birth weight (5–43%) or preterm delivery (2–69%). The odds ratio (OR) of receiving invasive ventilation for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 pregnant women was 1.88 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.36–2.60) and the OR that their babies were admitted to neonatal intensive care unit was 3.13 (95%CI 2.05–4.78). The risk of congenital transmission or via breast milk was estimated to be low, but close contacts may carry risks. Conclusion This comprehensive overview supports that pregnant women with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes and low risk of congenital transmission. Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Bardach, Ariel Esteban. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina Fil: Comandé, Daniel. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Berrueta, Mabel. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Argento, Fernando J.. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Rodriguez Cairoli, Federico. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Zamora, Natalia. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Santa María, Victoria. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Xiong, Xu. University of Tulane; Estados Unidos Fil: Zaraa, Sabra. University of Washington; Estados Unidos Fil: Mazzoni, Agustina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Buekens, Pierre. University of Tulane; Estados Unidos

Study design Descriptive and ambispective study. Objectives To describe the demographics, clinical characteristics, and etiologies of traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) in a metropolitan region of Argentina. Setting Five inpatient rehabilitation centers in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Methods We included all patients with acute TSCI who required hospital treatment at five rehabilitation facilities between 2015 and 2019. We collected data using portions of the International Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Core Data Set. Results We registered 186 individuals as having TSCI. The males were 77% of the total sample. The mean age was 36 (SD ± 15.7) years. The distribution between paraplegia and tetraplegia was 50.3% and 49.7%, respectively. TSCI was complete in 57.3%. Including patients with motor complete SCI, the percentage reached 71.9% of the sample. Vehicular collisions were the leading cause of TSCI (47.3%), followed by falls (21.5%) and assaults (16.1%). Conclusions We collected data about demographics, clinical characteristics, and aetiologies of TSCI for the first time in Argentina. The predominant demographic profile of the individuals with TSCI was of young males with complete SCI. We found the most important cause of TSCI was vehicular collisions. Implementation of road safety strategies in this target population might decrease the incidence of TSCI.