ABSTRACT
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.
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility (COVAX) is a multilateral initiative to ensure that all countries have fair and equitable access to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Co-led by the GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and the World Health Organization (WHO), COVAX is a voluntary arrangement that enables countries to pool their resources and risk by collectively investing in vaccine candidates while developing the political and logistical infrastructure needed for vaccine distribution in a transparent and coordinated manner[1-3]. Preauthorization clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines excluded pregnant women, and only limited human data on their safety during pregnancy was available at the time of emergency use authorization[4]. However, pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes and severe illness compared to non-pregnant women[5-9]. Many countries are vaccinating or considering vaccinating pregnant women especially if they are at risk of being exposed and even with limited available data about the safety of this strategy. Consequently, it is imperative to identify early safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines, their components or their platforms; defined as any underlying technology -a mechanism, delivery method, or cell line-that can be used to develop multiple vaccines: whole virus, protein, viral vector, or nucleic acid.
The main characteristics of the vaccines that were selected for review by the COVAX MIWG in August 2020 are presented in Table 1. To assist pregnant women, make a more fully informed decision, we aimed to identify safety concerns for pregnant women associated with these exposures through a rapid review of the literature databases as the first phase of an ongoing full systematic review. Given the urgency of the issue for current public health practice across the globe, we performed a rapid review as an interim analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of COVID-19 the vaccines that were selected for review by the COVAX MIWG in August 2020, or their components used in other vaccines, on pregnancy safety outcomes.
METHODS
For this rapid review, we followed the Cochrane methods[10, 11] and the 2020 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement[12] for reporting results. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021234185).
Inclusion criteria
We included studies that used comparative and non-comparative study designs. Case series were included only if they reported on more than 50 exposed pregnant women. We included also experimental studies of any size with exposed pregnant animals. We excluded systematic reviews (SRs) but explored their reference lists as an additional primary study source.
The interventions or exposures of interest are the COVID-19 candidate vaccines that were selected for review by the COVAX MIWG in August 2020 or vaccine platforms (protein/subunit, vectored, nucleic acid/mRNA-LNP) or components (antigen, vehicle, construct, adjuvants, lipid nanoparticles or other components) used by COVID-19 vaccines. It was considered mandatory that at least one of these exposures was explicitly reported in the report.
We considered outcomes concerning exposure to the vaccines based on the reported gestational age at vaccination (based on validated methods including ultrasound or last menstrual period [LMP] for human studies). We used the 21 standardized case definitions developed by the Global Alignment of Immunization Safety Assessment in Pregnancy (GAIA) of prioritized obstetric and neonatal outcomes based on the Brighton Collaboration process.[13] The ten GAIA obstetric outcomes include hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, maternal death, non-reassuring fetal status, pathways to preterm birth, postpartum hemorrhage, abortion/miscarriage, antenatal bleeding, gestational diabetes, dysfunctional labor, and fetal growth retardation. The 11 neonatal outcomes include congenital anomalies, neonatal death, neonatal infections, preterm birth, stillbirth, low birth weight, small for gestational age, neonatal encephalopathy, respiratory distress, failure to thrive and microcephaly.
Safety outcomes were analyzed according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Toxicity Grading Scale for Healthy Adult and Adolescent Volunteers Enrolled in Preventive Vaccine Clinical Trials.[14] An adverse event (AE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product regardless of its causal relationship to the study treatment[15]. An AE can therefore be any unfavorable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal (investigational) product. These include local reactions at the injection site (pain, tenderness, erythema, edema, pruritus, other) and systemic reactions (fever ≥ 38°C or 100.4°F, headache, malaise, myalgia, fatigue, etc.). We also considered other post-vaccination medical events (unsolicited in the studies, reported by organ system as per Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities - MedDRA)[16].
We used the following classification to grade the severity of AEs:
⍰ Mild (Grade 1): Events require minimal or no treatment and do not interfere with the subject’s daily activities.
⍰ Moderate (Grade 2): Events result in a low level of inconvenience or concern with therapeutic measures. Moderate events may cause some interference with functioning and daily activities.
⍰ Severe (Grade 3): Events interrupt the subject’s daily activities and may require systemic drug therapy or other treatment. Severe events are usually incapacitating.
⍰ Potentially Life Threatening (Grade 4): Potentially life-threatening symptoms causing inability to perform basic self-care functions with intervention indicated to prevent permanent impairment, persistent disability, or death.
We also considered other classifications of AEs commonly reported in safety studies, including:
‐ Medically attended adverse events (MAEs): events leading to an otherwise unscheduled visit to or from medical personnel for any reason, including visits to an accident and emergency department)
‐ Serious adverse events (SAEs): resulted in death, were life-threatening, required hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, resulted in disability/incapacity, or a congenital anomaly/birth defect in the child of a study participant)
‐ Adverse events of special interest (AESIs): events worthy closer follow-up over 6 months post-vaccination. These include vaccine associated enhanced disease such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C/A).
The operative definitions of each specific AEs were reported elsewhere (PROSPERO-CRD42021234185). For this rapid review we considered the integrative outcome “safety concerns” as any statistically significant adverse outcome reported in the comparative studies or unexpected figures, with respect to the published incidences in the peer-reviewed literature, reported in uncontrolled studies.
Search strategy
We searched published and unpublished studies without restrictions on language or publication status from inception to February 2021 (See Appendix 1) in the Cochrane Library databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), WHO Database of publications on SARS CoV2, TOXLine, pre-print servers (ArXiv, BiorXiv, medRxiv, search.bioPreprint), and COVID-19 research websites (PregCOV-19LSR, Maternal and Child Health, Nutrition: John Hopkins Centre for Humanitarian health, the LOVE database).
We also searched reference lists of relevant primary studies and systematic reviews retrieved by the search strategy, and adverse events/safety reported in active COVID-19 and pregnancy registries. Additionally, we reviewed information collected in COVID-19 and pregnancy registries. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), clinical trials websites will be searched for the full review. We will then contact original authors and experts in the field for clarification or to obtain extra information. For the full review we will re-run the search strategy to capture any new evidence in databases between March 2021 and current date and time.
Selection of studies, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias in included studies
Pairs of authors independently screened each identified record by title and abstract and retrieved all the full texts of the potentially eligible studies. Pairs of review authors independently examined the full□text articles for compliance with the inclusion criteria and selected eligible studies. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. We documented the selection process with a ‘PRISMA’ flow chart[12]. This process was conducted through COVIDENCE,[17] a software for systematic reviews.
Pairs of review authors independently extracted data from eligible studies using a data extraction form designed and pilot□tested by the authors. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. Extracted data included study characteristics and outcome data. Where studies have multiple publications, we collated multiple reports of the same study under a single study ID with multiple references.
In Appendix 2 we describe the risk of bias assessment tools used for each study design. Briefly, we independently independently assessed the risk of bias of the included clinical trials using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool[18]. We used the Cochrane EPOC group tools[19] to assess controlled before□after studies (CBAs), nationwide uncontrolled before□after studies (UBAs), interrupted time series (ITSs); Controlled-ITSs (CITSs). We rated the risk of bias in each domain as “low”, “high”, or “unclear”. For observational cohort, case-control, cross-sectional and case-series studies we used the NIH Quality Assessment Tool[20]. After answering the different signaling questions ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Cannot determine’, ‘Not applicable’ or ‘Not reported’ the raters classified the study quality as “good”, “fair”, or “poor”. For consistency with the other designs, we use the classifications low, high or unclear risk of bias respectively.
Data synthesis
The primary analysis was the comparison of participants exposed and unexposed to the vaccines or their components. Data from non-comparative studies, including numerous registries, were collected and analyzed in the context of the expected global or country incidences of neonatal or obstetric outcomes.
For dichotomous data, we used the numbers of events in the control and intervention groups of each study to calculate Risk Ratios (RRs), Hazard Ratios (HRs) or Mantel□Haenszel Odds Ratios (ORs) or (for very rare events) Peto ORs. For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) between treatment groups depending on the use of the same or different scales, respectively. We treated large ordinal data as continuous data. We present 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes. Where data to calculate RRs/ORs or MDs/SMDs were not available, we utilized the most detailed numerical data available that may facilitate similar analyses of included studies (e.g., test statistics, P values). We assessed whether the estimates calculated in the review for individual studies are compatible in each case with the estimates reported in the study publications. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we analyzed the data on an intention□to□treat basis as far as possible (i.e., including all randomized participants in analysis, in the groups to which they were randomized). For this rapid review we tabulated the study intervention/exposition characteristics and compared against the unexposed. We analyze the results of each study to determine any safety concerns as ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Unclear’.
We planned to conduct subgroup analyses by the trimester of exposure and sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with low risk of bias. However, these were not pursued for this rapid review given the lack of safety concerns identified. We plan to perform meta-analysis and present GRADE ‘Summary of findings’ tables[10, 21] for the full review as was previously stated (PROSPERO-CRD42021234185).
RESULTS
We identified 6756 records, 265 potentially eligible studies were assessed by full-text and we included 37 clinical and non-clinical studies, involving 2,397,715 pregnant women and 56 pregnant animals from 38 reports[4, 22-58] (Fig 1).
(PRISMA 2020)
Description of studies
The characteristics of included studies are described in Table 2. The most frequent study design was cohort studies (n=21) followed by surveillance studies (n=8), controlled trials (n=5) and registry analyses (n=3). Twenty-eight of the included studies (76%) allowed comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women (n=25) or were conducted in animals (n=3). Nine out of the 37 studies (24%) were abstracts.
The most frequent study location was the USA (n=6), followed by Sweden and United Kingdom (n=5 each), Australia, Canada, and Denmark (n=3 each), Cuba, France and Netherlands (n=2 each), and Argentina, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Norway and multi□country (n=1 each). Only 4 out of 37 studies (11%) involved low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs)[27, 35, 44, 49].
Only 3 out of 37 studies were conducted in animals (8%)[28, 32, 57]. Most of the studies reported exposures during the three trimesters (n=17), only the first trimester (n=5), and the second and third trimester (n=4). In six studies the time of exposure was not reported.
The most frequent exposures were to the AS03 adjuvant (536,240 pregnant participants from 23 studies) and aluminum-based adjuvants (1,861,462 pregnant participants from 11 studies) (Table 3). AS03 was the adjuvant of several A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccines (Pandemrix® and Arepanrix), while the influenza vaccine Equilis® used ISCOM-Matrix[32]. The aluminum phosphate was used in the testing of candidate Respiratory Syncytial Virus Fusion (RSV F) vaccines in pregnant women [28, 44, 48] (n=3). Aluminum phosphate was also used in Tdap vaccines[35, 45, 54] (n=3). Different aluminum salts were used in Hepatitis vaccines[23, 29, 36, 46, 47]. One study reported on the use of the ChAdOx1 vector for a Rift Valley fever vaccine[57]. Only one study specific to COVID-19 was identified, reporting exposure to mRNA-LNP from Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 vaccines[4].
The 12 COVID-19 and pregnancy registries identified (UKOS, PAN-COVID, BPSU, NPC-19, EPICENTRE, periCOVID, INTERCOVID, PregCOV-19LSR,PRIORITY, COVI-PREG), OTIS/MotherToBaby,CHOPAN, and vsafe registries) are presented in Table 4. The list of excluded studies and the reasons for exclusion is presented in Appendix 3.
Risk of bias in included studies
The risk of bias for the included controlled trials are presented in Table 5 and for the included observational studies in Table 6.
We assessed the 38 included reports. Among the five RCTs two (40%) presented high risk of bias in the randomization process and one (20%) in blinding of participant and personnel. Among the 33 observational study reports, 14 were classified as “good” (43%), 12 as “fair” (36%) and 7 as “poor” (21%).
Outcomes of exposures
The results of included studies are described in Table 2. There were 13 pregnancy-related outcomes (26 reports), 8 neonatal outcomes (19 reports) and 9 maternal outcomes (13 reports). The most reported pregnancy outcomes were preterm delivery (n=12), stillbirth (n=9), spontaneous abortion (n=9), fetal growth restriction/small gestational age (n=8), fetal death (n=6). The most reported neonatal outcomes were congenital anomalies (n=9), low birth weight (n=8) and the most reported maternal outcomes were local reactions (n=7), systemic reactions (n=5), serious adverse event (n=6).
The adjusted relative effects comparing exposed vs. no exposed pregnant participants were summarized in Table 3. None of the available exposure, including AS03, aluminum phosphate or aluminum salts only, was statistically associated with adverse outcomes. Only AS03 showed a statistically lower frequency of very preterm aRR 0.73 (95%CI 0.58 to 0.91)[25] and peripartum complications aOR 0.65 (95%CI 0.42 to 0.99) [53]; and aluminum salts with lower stillbirth aHR 0.49 (95%CI 0.29 to 0.84)[54]. The lack of more comparative information regarding “safety concerns” precludes further subgroup analysis by exposure.
Of the 37 included studies, 36 (97%) concluded that there was no evidence of safety concerns. Only one study[55], reported as abstract, mentioned unclear safety concerns regarding the 9,026 pregnancies ending in a delivery that had a record of the swine flu vaccine during or just before their pregnancy. The authors reported that they may not have captured early pregnancy losses and that some misclassification of outcome may have occurred or residual confounding after adjusting for age and chronic comorbidity may have been present. In fact the full-text manuscript reported one year later by these authors[56] included 9,445 women vaccinated before or during pregnancy and found no difference in the hazard of fetal loss during weeks 25 to 43 and a lower hazard of fetal loss than unvaccinated pregnancies in gestational weeks 9 to 12 and 13 to 24.
The planned subgroup analyses by the trimester of exposure and sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with low risk of bias were conducted given the lack of reported safety concerns in every study.
Table 4 shows the characteristics of the 12 identified COVID-19 and pregnancy registries, with potential data on safety/adverse events. The USA and the UK were the most represented countries. Some large registries are multinational, such as EPICENTRE, COVI-PREG or PAN-COVID, which gathers data from 42 countries. Most registries include information on obstetric/pregnancy outcomes like early pregnancy loss, fetal growth, stillbirths, and delivery outcomes. All of them include neonatal and infant outcomes. Additionally, UKOSS and V-safe include specific vaccination information on the pregnant population. PeriCOVID was the only registry that collected blood samples. More detailed information on the relevant information from these registries will be described in the full systematic review, which is currently ongoing.
We also identified three ongoing studies in the COVID-19 vaccine tracker developed by the Vaccine Centre at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine which contains information of the WHO, the Milken Institute and clinicaltrials.gov. databases[59]. One phase-2 trial is assessing the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (a monovalent vaccine composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus type 26 vector)[60], and a phase-2/3 trial assessing the BNT162b2 vaccine (an RNA vaccine)[61] are being conducted in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Finland, South Africa, Spain, and in the United Kingdom. In addition, a phase-4 nonrandomized controlled study is being conducted in Belgium to verify if Sars-Cov-2 specific antibodies can be demonstrated in blood serum and milk of lactating mothers vaccinated with the CX-024414 vaccine (mRNA vaccine)[62].
DISCUSSION
Through this rapid review, we found no evidence of safety concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccines that were selected for review by the COVAX MIWG in August 2020, their components or platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy.
None of the adjusted relative effects comparing exposed vs. no exposed pregnant participants of the available exposure results was statistically associated with adverse outcomes Only AS03 showed a statistically lower frequency of very preterm[25] and peripartum complications [53] and aluminum salts showed lower stillbirth aHR 0.49 (95%CI 0.29 to 0.84)[54]. Uncontrolled studies in general reported low frequencies of adverse outcomes. One study[55], reported as an abstract, suggested safety concerns regarding the swine flu vaccine (AS03 adjuvant) during or just before pregnancy, but the authors recognized potential bias for this finding. The authors published the full-text manuscript[56] one year later and after a more complete analysis they concluded that there is no evidence of safety concerns.
Nine systematic reviews consistently supported the safety of influenza vaccines during pregnancy[63-71]. In general, cohort studies showed the benefits of vaccinating during pregnancy such as significantly decreased risks for preterm birth, small for gestational age and fetal death. However, after adjusting for season at the time of vaccination and countries’ income level, only reduction of fetal death remained significant[67]. There is no evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies[68]. When assessing only major malformations, no increased risk was detected after immunization at any trimester. Neither adjuvanted nor unadjuvanted vaccines were associated with an increased risk for congenital anomalies[70].
Other systematic reviews also assessed the safety of different vaccines. One SR evaluated the safety of hepatitis B, pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine and meningococcal polysaccharide vaccines administration during pregnancy and found no clear association with a teratogenic effect on the fetus, preterm labor or spontaneous abortion[72]. Another SR evaluated safety of vaccines frequently given to travelers on pregnant women such as yellow fever, MMR (mumps, measles and rubella), influenza, Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis), meningococcus or hepatitis A and B[73]. The authors concluded the safety of influenza vaccine is supported by high-quality evidence. For Tdap vaccine, no evidence of any unexpected harm was found in the meta-analysis of RCTs. Meningococcal vaccines are probably safe during pregnancy, as supported by RCTs comparing meningococcal vaccines to other vaccines. Data supported the safety of hepatitis A, hepatitis B vaccines during pregnancy. In summary primary and secondary evidence described supports the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, their components or their platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy.
Three recent studies about mRNA-LNP vaccines in pregnant women, published after this rapid review was finalized, reinforced these findings[74-76]. Shimabukuro el al, published preliminary results from the U.S. surveillance review of the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy[75]. The solicited local and systemic reactions reported were similar among persons who identified as pregnant and non-pregnant women. Prabhu et al, studied the antibody response of 122 pregnant women, and their neonates at time of birth, who had received one or both doses of a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine[74]. COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy induced a robust maternal immune response, with transplacental antibody transfer detectable as early as 16 days after the first dose. Rottenstreich et al, 20 pregnant women who received two doses of SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) mRNA vaccine and found similar antibody response[76]. No safety concern was reported in any of these studies. Also, the proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes among completed pregnancies in the registry were similar to the published incidences in pregnant populations studies before the COVID-19 pandemic[77-83].
This rapid review has several strengths. First, we included reports without time, language, or publication type restriction, in human and animals, to provide a timely answer to a hot topic. Second, we adhered to rigorous recommended quality standards to conduct rapid reviews[11] including independent, data extraction and risk of bias assessment and a sensitive and comprehensive search strategy on literature databases to reduce the risk of missing relevant studies. Third, we categorized the exposition to the vaccine components and platforms, which was a challenging issue that demanded frequently to explore additional sources. Finally, we summarized and critically appraised a considerable amount of evidence to conclude if there are safety concerns of the components or platforms used by the vaccines that were selected for review by the COVAX MIWG in August 2020. The vaccines availability has changed over time[84] but we plan to update the search strategy covering the new vaccines for the ongoing full systematic review.
Our study is not exempt from limitations. Only 11% of the total body of evidence comes from LMICs limiting the generalizability to these settings. Additionally, only 76% of included studies allowed comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women and only five of them were RCTs. Therefore, most of this evidence is observational. Nevertheless, the absence of safety concerns regardless the study design and publication type suggest that this could not be a major limitation. We are aware that the cut-off of 50 animals for non-human studies could be too high, but allowed us to provide timely answers through a rapid review in the context of the pandemics.
Moreover, the set of non-controlled studies do not show unexpected figures with respect to the incidences published in the peer-reviewed literature of neonatal or obstetric outcomes[75]. Regardless of the exposure, all reported a rates of spontaneous abortion in exposed pregnant women described in Table 2 are below the reported the highest global incidence of 31%, or 10% when considering only losses occurring in clinically recognized pregnancies[77]. Tavares 2011 reported a rate of congenital anomalies of 1.9%, in line with the reported rate in the general population of approximately 2 to 4% of livebirths[78-82]. Regarding fetal death, rates reported by Läkemedelsverket 2010 (0.2%) – in Sweden - are consistent with the reported rates of stillbirth for high income countries: approximately 3 deaths per 1000 live births)[85]. None of the included studies conducted in LMICs reported stillbirth rates, which has been reported to be higher than in HIC: approximately 21 deaths per 1000 live births in low income countries[85].
We are aware that the list of Tdap vaccines included our review is incomplete due to the focus of our research question. This vaccine contains aluminum phosphate as adjuvant, which is not used for the COVID-19 vaccines under study, like the alhydrogel adjuvant. Therefore, our search strategy did not include the term “Tdap”. Nevertheless, any aluminum adjuvant retrieved by our search strategy was included and reported.
The nature of this rapid review did not allow us to search in FDA, the EMA websites, clinical trials registers or to contact authors and experts in the field to obtain additional data. For the same reason we could not conduct a meta-analysis that are planned for the full review phase. Regarding COVID-19 and pregnancy registries we identified 12 national or international databases with potentially useful information on safety outcomes. These will be further inspected in the next phase of this work.
Based on existing data, it seems that there are no evident safety risks of COVID-19 vaccines components, or the technological platforms used for pregnant women. It is reasonable to consider COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women, because their higher risk of adverse outcomes. The next full review phase will add stronger evidence over this important public health issue.
Future experimental data will be needed to assess the pregnancy-related maternal and neonatal COVID-19 vaccine safety. Good quality safety registries, ideally with active surveillance, would also provide an extremely useful evidence from the real-world data.
Data Availability
All relevant data its presented in the manuscript and supplemental files.
Financial support
This work was supported, in whole by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [INV008443]. Under the grant conditions of the Foundation, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic License has already been assigned to the Author Accepted Manuscript version that might arise from this submission. The sponsors had no role in conducting the present study.
Competing interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Author contributions
All authors contributed to conception and design of this study and AC, FA, AB, MB, SZ, BK, EP, XX, AM and PB prepared the first manuscript draft. All authors interpreted the data, revised critically the first draft, and signed off on the final version.
Supporting information
Appendix 1. Search strategy
Appendix 2. Risk of bias assessment tools by study design
Appendix 3. List of excluded studies
Appendix 4. PRISMA checklist
Acknowledgement
We want to thank Sobanjo-ter Meulen Ajoke, for her supervision and general support and Oduyebo Titilope for her feedback and support.
References
- [1].↵
- [2].
- [3].↵
- [4].↵
- [5].↵
- [6].
- [7].
- [8].
- [9].↵
- [10].↵
- [11].↵
- [12].↵
- [13].↵
- [14].↵
- [15].↵
- [16].↵
- [17].↵
- [18].↵
- [19].↵
- [20].↵
- [21].↵
- [22].↵
- [23].↵
- [24].
- [25].↵
- [26].
- [27].↵
- [28].↵
- [29].↵
- [30].
- [31].
- [32].↵
- [33].
- [34].
- [35].↵
- [36].↵
- [37].
- [38].
- [39].
- [40].
- [41].
- [42].
- [43].
- [44].↵
- [45].↵
- [46].↵
- [47].↵
- [48].↵
- [49].↵
- [50].
- [51].
- [52].
- [53].↵
- [54].↵
- [55].↵
- [56].↵
- [57].↵
- [58].↵
- [59].↵
- [60].↵
- [61].↵
- [62].↵
- [63].↵
- [64].
- [65].
- [66].
- [67].↵
- [68].↵
- [69].
- [70].↵
- [71].↵
- [72].↵
- [73].↵
- [74].↵
- [75].↵
- [76].↵
- [77].↵
- [78].↵
- [79].
- [80].
- [81].
- [82].↵
- [83].↵
- [84].↵
- [85].↵
