Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines among People with History of Allergy: A European Active Surveillance Study.

Background: Conventional vaccines rarely cause severe allergic reactions. However, the rapid development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines left limited initial data on their adverse reactions, particularly in individuals with a history of allergy. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the safety profile of different doses and brands of COVID-19 vaccines in subjects with a history of allergy vs. those without a history of allergy. Methods: From February 2021 to February 2023, a web-based prospective study gathered vaccinee-reported outcomes using electronic questionnaires across eleven European countries. Baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires captured data on vaccinee demographics, as well as both solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Results: Overall, 3476 vaccinees with a history of allergy were matched with 13,872 vaccinees from the general population at the first vaccination cycle and were included in the analysis. A total of 825 vaccinees with a history of allergy who had received a booster dose, matched to 3297 vaccinees from the general population, were included in the analysis. Higher rates of ADRs occurred after the first vaccination cycle compared to after the booster dose (64-91% vs. 56-79%). However, most reported ADRs were solicited and not serious, and no case of anaphylaxis was reported. Women and vaccinees with a history of allergy reported ADRs more frequently than men and the matched controls, respectively. Compared to other COVID-19 vaccines, a higher proportion of vaccinees experiencing at least one ADR following their first vaccination cycle was observed with Comirnaty and Vaxzevria. Statistically significant differences were observed among the study cohorts for median TTO after the second dose, and for median TTR following the first vaccination cycle and booster dose (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Typically, any drug or vaccine use carries a risk of severe allergic reactions, yet the benefits of vaccination generally outweigh these potential risks, as shown with the COVID-19 vaccines.

Metadata for Data dIscoverability aNd Study rEplicability in obseRVAtional Studies (MINERVA): Development and Pilot of a Metadata List and Catalogue in Europe.

PURPOSE: Metadata for data dIscoverability aNd study rEplicability in obseRVAtional studies (MINERVA), a European Medicines Agency-funded project (EUPAS39322), defined a set of metadata to describe real-world data sources (RWDSs) and piloted metadata collection in a prototype catalogue to assist investigators from data source discoverability through study conduct. METHODS: A list of metadata was created from a review of existing metadata catalogues and recommendations, structured interviews, a stakeholder survey, and a technical workshop. The prototype was designed to comply with the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable), using MOLGENIS software. Metadata collection was piloted by 15 data access partners (DAPs) from across Europe. RESULTS: A total of 442 metadata variables were defined in six domains: institutions (organizations connected to a data source); data banks (data collections sustained by an organization); data sources (collections of linkable data banks covering a common underlying population); studies; networks (of institutions); and common data models (CDMs). A total of 26 institutions were recorded in the prototype. Each DAP populated the metadata of one data source and its selected data banks. The number of data banks varied by data source; the most common data banks were hospital administrative records and pharmacy dispensation records (10 data sources each). Quantitative metadata were successfully extracted from three data sources conforming to different CDMs and entered into the prototype. CONCLUSIONS: A metadata list was finalized, a prototype was successfully populated, and a good practice guide was developed. Setting up and maintaining a metadata catalogue on RWDSs will require substantial effort to support discoverability of data sources and reproducibility of studies in Europe.

An ethics framework for the transition to an operational learning healthcare system.

Introduction: While Learning Healthcare Systems (LHSs) have received increasing attention in health care and research, the amount of operational LHSs remains limited. Given the investment of resources in these projects, a moral responsibility to pursue the transition toward an LHS falls on projects and their participating stakeholders. This paper provides an ethics framework for projects that have taken steps toward building an LHS and are in the position to transition to an operational LHS. Method: To articulate relevant ethical requirements, we analyze established ethics frameworks in the fields of LHSs, data-intensive health research, and transitioning or innovating health systems. The overlapping content and shared values are used to articulate overarching ethical requirements. To provide necessary context, we apply the insights from the analysis to the Innovative Medicines Initiative ConcePTION project. This project is specifically designed to generate knowledge on the safety of medications used during pregnancy and lactation through the establishment of an LHS. Results: Upon analyzing the consulted frameworks, we identified four overlapping ethical requirements that are also of significant relevance within the scope of our ethics framework. These requirements are: (1) public benefit and favorable harm-benefit ratio; (2) equity and justice; (3) stakeholder engagement; and (4) sustainability. Additionally, we apply these ethical requirements to the context of an LHS for pregnant and lactating people. Conclusion: Although tailored to the context of pregnancy and lactation, our ethics framework can provide guidance for the transition to an operational LHS across diverse healthcare domains.

Applying two approaches to detect unmeasured confounding due to time-varying variables in a self-controlled risk interval design evaluating COVID-19 vaccine safety signals, using myocarditis as a case example.

We test the robustness of the self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) design in a setting where time between doses may introduce time-varying confounding, using both negative control outcomes (NCOs) and quantitative bias analysis (QBA). All vaccinated cases identified from 5 European databases between 1 September 2020 and end of data availability were included. Exposures were doses 1-3 of the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines; outcomes were myocarditis and otitis externa (NCO). The SCRI used a 60-day control window and dose-specific 28-day risk windows, stratified by vaccine brand and adjusted for calendar time. The QBA included two scenarios: (i) baseline probability of the confounder was higher in the control window and (ii) vice versa. The NCO was not associated with any of the COVID-19 vaccine types or doses except Moderna dose 1 (IRR = 1.09, 95%CI 1.01-1.09). The QBA suggested even the strongest literature-reported confounder (COVID-19; RRmyocarditis = 18.3) could only explain away part of the observed effect from IRR = 3 to IRR = 1.40. The SCRI seems robust to unmeasured confounding in the COVID-19 setting, although a strong unmeasured confounder could bias the observed effect upward. Replication of our findings for other safety signals would strengthen this conclusion.

What is the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Immunocompromised Patients? Results from the European "Covid Vaccine Monitor" Active Surveillance Study.

BACKGROUND: The safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients has not been comprehensively evaluated. AIM: To measure the frequency of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the first/second/booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised subject versus matched cohort. As a secondary objective, the time course, evaluated as time to onset (TTO) and time to recovery (TTR), of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs was explored. METHODS: A prospective cohort study, based on electronic questionnaires filled by vaccinees from 11 European countries in the period February 2021 to February 2023 was conducted. All immunocompromised vaccinees who provided informed consent and registered to the project's web-app within 48 h after first/booster vaccine dose administration of any EMA-authorised COVID-19 vaccine were recruited. Participants filled baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires (FU-Qs) over 6 months from vaccination, collecting information on suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs. As a control group, non-immunocompromised vaccinees from the same source population were 1:4 matched by sex, age, vaccine dose, and brand. A descriptive analysis of demographic/clinical characteristics of vaccinees was conducted. Heatmaps of the frequency of solicited ADRs, stratified by gender and vaccine brand, were generated. Median TTO/TTR of reported ADRs were visualised using violin/box-plots. RESULTS: A total of 773 immunocompromised vaccines were included in the analyses. Most participants were females (F/M ratio: 2.1 and 1.6) with a median age of 56 (43-74) and 51 (41-60) years, at the first vaccination cycle and booster dose, respectively. Injection-site pain and fatigue were the most frequently reported ADRs in immunocompromised vaccinees with higher frequency than matched control, especially after the first dose (41.2% vs 37.8% and 38.2% vs 32.9%, respectively). For both cohorts, all solicited ADRs were more frequently reported in females than males, and in those who had received a first dose of the Vaxzevria vaccine. Dizziness was the most frequently reported unsolicited ADR after the first dose in both groups (immunocompromised subjects: 2.5% and matched controls: 2.1%). At the booster dose, lymphadenopathy (3.9%) and lymphadenitis (1.8%) were the most reported unsolicited ADRs for immunocompromised subjects and matched controls, respectively. A very low number of subjects reported adverse event of special interest (AESI) (2 immunocompromised, 3 matched controls) and serious ADRs (5 immunocompromised, 5 matched controls). A statistically significant difference among study cohorts was observed for median TTO after the booster dose, and for median TTR after the first vaccination cycle and booster dose (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The overall safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised people was favourable, with minor differences as compared to non-immunocompromised vaccinees. Participants mostly experienced mild ADRs, mainly reported after the first dose of Vaxzevria and Jcovden vaccines. Serious ADRs and AESI were rare.

Respiratory syncytial virus vaccination during pregnancy for improving infant outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in infants. Maternal RSV vaccination is a preventive strategy of great interest, as it could have a substantial impact on infant RSV disease burden. In recent years, the clinical development of maternal RSV vaccines has advanced rapidly. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of maternal respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination for preventing RSV disease in infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register and two other trials registries on 21 October 2022. We updated the search on 27 July 2023, when we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and two trials registries. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and conference proceedings. There were no language restrictions on our searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing maternal RSV vaccination with placebo or no intervention in pregnant women of any age. The primary outcomes were hospitalisation with clinically confirmed or laboratory-confirmed RSV disease in infants. The secondary outcomes covered adverse pregnancy outcomes (intrauterine growth restriction, stillbirth, and maternal death) and adverse infant outcomes (preterm birth, congenital abnormalities, and infant death). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (25 study reports) involving 17,991 pregnant women. The intervention was an RSV pre-F protein vaccine in four studies, and an RSV F protein nanoparticle vaccine in two studies. In all studies, the comparator was a placebo (saline, formulation buffer, or sterile water). We judged four studies at overall low risk of bias and two studies at overall high risk (mainly due to selection bias). All studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Maternal RSV vaccination compared with placebo reduces infant hospitalisation with laboratory-confirmed RSV disease (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, 12,216 infants; high-certainty evidence). Based on an absolute risk with placebo of 22 hospitalisations per 1000 infants, our results represent 11 fewer hospitalisations per 1000 infants from vaccinated pregnant women (15 fewer to 4 fewer). No studies reported infant hospitalisation with clinically confirmed RSV disease. Maternal RSV vaccination compared with placebo has little or no effect on the risk of congenital abnormalities (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; 140 per 1000 with placebo, 5 fewer per 1000 with RSV vaccination (17 fewer to 6 more); 4 RCTs, 12,304 infants; high-certainty evidence). Maternal RSV vaccination likely has little or no effect on the risk of intrauterine growth restriction (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.33; 3 per 1000 with placebo, 1 more per 1000 with RSV vaccination (1 fewer to 4 more); 4 RCTs, 12,545 pregnant women; moderate-certainty evidence). Maternal RSV vaccination may have little or no effect on the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.72; 3 per 1000 with placebo, no difference with RSV vaccination (2 fewer to 3 more); 5 RCTs, 12,652 pregnant women). There may be a safety signal warranting further investigation related to preterm birth. This outcome may be more likely with maternal RSV vaccination, although the 95% CI includes no effect, and the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 6 RCTs, 17,560 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Based on an absolute risk of 51 preterm births per 1000 infants from pregnant women who received placebo, there may be 8 more per 1000 infants from pregnant women with RSV vaccination (1 fewer to 18 more). There was one maternal death in the RSV vaccination group and none in the placebo group. Our meta-analysis suggests that RSV vaccination compared with placebo may have little or no effect on the risk of maternal death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.50; 3 RCTs, 7977 pregnant women; low-certainty evidence). The effect of maternal RSV vaccination on the risk of infant death is very uncertain (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.81; 6 RCTs, 17,589 infants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review suggest that maternal RSV vaccination reduces laboratory-confirmed RSV hospitalisations in infants. There are no safety concerns about intrauterine growth restriction and congenital abnormalities. We must be careful in drawing conclusions about other safety outcomes owing to the low and very low certainty of the evidence. The evidence available to date suggests RSV vaccination may have little or no effect on stillbirth, maternal death, and infant death (although the evidence for infant death is very uncertain). However, there may be a safety signal warranting further investigation related to preterm birth. This is driven by data from one trial, which is not fully published yet. The evidence base would be much improved by more RCTs with substantial sample sizes and well-designed observational studies with long-term follow-up for assessment of safety outcomes. Future studies should aim to use standard outcome measures, collect data on concomitant vaccines, and stratify data by timing of vaccination, gestational age at birth, race, and geographical setting.

A comparison of four self-controlled study designs in an analysis of COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis using five European databases.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the possible extent of bias due to violation of a core assumption (event-dependent exposures) when using self-controlled designs to analyse the association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. METHODS: We used data from five European databases (Spain: BIFAP, FISABIO VID, and SIDIAP; Italy: ARS-Tuscany; England: CPRD Aurum) converted to the ConcePTION Common Data Model. Individuals who experienced both myocarditis and were vaccinated against COVID-19 between 1 September 2020 and the end of data availability in each country were included. We compared a self-controlled risk interval study (SCRI) using a pre-vaccination control window, an SCRI using a post-vaccination control window, a standard SCCS and an extension of the SCCS designed to handle violations of the assumption of event-dependent exposures. RESULTS: We included 1,757 cases of myocarditis. For analyses of the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, to which all databases contributed information, we found results consistent with a null effect in both of the SCRI and extended SCCS, but some indication of a harmful effect in a standard SCCS. For the second dose, we found evidence of a harmful association for all study designs, with relatively similar effect sizes (SCRI pre = 1.99, 1.40 - 2.82; SCRI post 2.13, 95 %CI - 1.43, 3.18; standard SCCS 1.79, 95 %CI 1.31 - 2.44, extended SCCS 1.52, 95 %CI = 1.08 - 2.15). Adjustment for calendar time did not change these conclusions. Findings using all designs were also consistent with a harmful effect following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of the known association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis, we have demonstrated that two forms of SCRI and two forms of SCCS led to largely comparable results, possibly because of limited violation of the assumption of event-dependent exposures.

Sex differences in the intensity of statin prescriptions at initiation in a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the prevention and management of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) provide similar recommendations for the use of statins in both women and men. In this study, we assessed sex differences in the intensity of statin prescriptions at initiation and in the achievement of treatment targets, among individuals without and with CVD, in a primary care setting. METHODS: Electronic health record data from statin users were extracted from the PHARMO Data Network. Poisson regressions were used to investigate sex differences in statin intensity and in the achievement of treatment targets. Analyses were stratified by age group, disease status and/or CVD risk category. RESULTS: We included 82 714 individuals (46% women) aged 40-99 years old. In both sexes, the proportion of individuals with a dispensed prescription for high-intensity statin at initiation increased between 2011 and 2020. Women were less likely to be prescribed high-intensity statins as compared with men, both in the subgroups without a history of CVD (risk ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% CI: 0.63 to 0.75)) and with CVD (RR 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.81)). Women were less likely than men to achieve target levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol following statin initiation in the subgroup without CVD (RR 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97 to 1.00)) and with a history of CVD (RR 0.94 (95% CI: 0.89 to 0.98)). CONCLUSION: Compared with men, women were less likely to be prescribed high-intensity statins at initiation and to achieve treatment targets, both in people without and with a history of CVD, and independent of differences in other individual and clinical characteristics.

Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines in Persons with Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A European Multi-Country Study.

In all pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines, the history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was mentioned as one of the main exclusion criteria. In the absence of clinical trials, observational studies are the primary source for evidence generation. This study aims to describe the patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following the first COVID-19 vaccination cycle, as well as the administration of booster doses of different vaccine brands, in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to prior infection-free matched cohorts of vaccinees. A web-based prospective study was conducted collecting vaccinee-reported outcomes through electronic questionnaires from eleven European countries in the period February 2021-February 2023. A baseline questionnaire and up to six follow-up questionnaires collected data on the vaccinee's characteristics, as well as solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Overall, 3886 and 902 vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and having received the first dose or a booster dose, respectively, were included in the analysis. After the first dose or booster dose, vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a higher frequency than those matched without prior infection (3470 [89.6%] vs. 2916 [75.3%], and 614 [68.2%] vs. 546 [60.6%], respectively). On the contrary side, after the second dose, vaccinees with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a lower frequency, compared to matched controls (1443 [85.0%] vs. 1543 [90.9%]). The median time to onset and the median time to recovery were similar across all doses and cohorts. The frequency of adverse reactions was higher in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received Vaxzevria as the first dose and Spikevax as the second and booster doses. The frequency of serious ADRs was low for all doses and cohorts. Data from this large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccinees could be used to inform people as to the likelihood of adverse effects based on their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, age, sex, and the type of vaccine administered. In line with pivotal trials, the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines was also confirmed in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Frequency and timing of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines; A multi-country cohort event monitoring study.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, EMA set-up a large-scale cohort event monitoring (CEM) system to estimate incidence rates of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of different COVID-19 vaccines across the participating countries. This study aims to give an up to date and in-depth analysis of the frequency of patient-reported ADRs after the 1st, 2nd, and booster vaccination, to identify potential predictors in developing ADRs and to describe time-to-onset (TTO) and time-to-recovery (TTR) of ADRs. METHODS: A CEM study was rolled out in a period ranging from February 2021 to February 2023 across multiple European countries; The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Analysis consisted of a descriptive analyses of frequencies of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs for 1st, 2nd and booster vaccination, analysis of potential predictors in developing ADRs with a generalized linear mixed-effects model, analysis of TTO and TTR of ADRs and a sensitivity analysis for loss to follow-up (L2FU). RESULTS: A total of 29,837 participants completed at least the baseline and the first follow-up questionnaire for 1st and 2nd vaccination and 7,250 participants for the booster. The percentage of participants who reported at least one ADR is 74.32% (95%CI 73.82-74.81). Solicited ADRs, including injection site reactions, are very common across vaccination moments. Potential predictors for these reactions are the brand of vaccine used, the patient's age, sex and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination (0.24%, 95%CI 0.19--0.31) and booster (0.26%, 95%CI 0.15, 0.41). The TTO was 14 h (median) for dose 1 and slightly longer for dose 2 and booster dose. TTR is generally also within a few days. The effect of L2FU on estimations of frequency is limited. CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations due to study design and study-roll out, CEM studies can allow prompt and almost real-time observations of the safety of medications directly from a patient-centered perspective, which can play a crucial role for regulatory bodies during an emergency setting such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 and pregnancy: A European study on pre- and post-infection medication use.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted medication needs and prescribing practices, including those affecting pregnant women. Our goal was to investigate patterns of medication use among pregnant women with COVID-19, focusing on variations by trimester of infection and location. METHODS: We conducted an observational study using six electronic healthcare databases from six European regions (Aragon/Spain; France; Norway; Tuscany, Italy; Valencia/Spain; and Wales/UK). The prevalence of primary care prescribing or dispensing was compared in the 30-day periods before and after a positive COVID-19 test or diagnosis. RESULTS: The study included 294,126 pregnant women, of whom 8943 (3.0%) tested positive for, or were diagnosed with, COVID-19 during their pregnancy. A significantly higher use of antithrombotic medications was observed particularly after COVID-19 infection in the second and third trimesters. The highest increase was observed in the Valencia region where use of antithrombotic medications in the third trimester increased from 3.8% before COVID-19 to 61.9% after the infection. Increases in other countries were lower; for example, in Norway, the prevalence of antithrombotic medication use changed from around 1-2% before to around 6% after COVID-19 in the third trimester. Smaller and less consistent increases were observed in the use of other drug classes, such as antimicrobials and systemic corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the substantial impact of COVID-19 on primary care medication use among pregnant women, with a marked increase in the use of antithrombotic medications post-COVID-19. These results underscore the need for further research to understand the broader implications of these patterns on maternal and neonatal/fetal health outcomes.

Building a Sustainable Learning Health Care System for Pregnant and Lactating People: Interview Study Among Data Access Providers.

BACKGROUND: In many areas of health care, learning health care systems (LHSs) are seen as promising ways to accelerate research and outcomes for patients by reusing health and research data. For example, considering pregnant and lactating people, for whom there is still a poor evidence base for medication safety and efficacy, an LHS presents an interesting way forward. Combining unique data sources across Europe in an LHS could help clarify how medications affect pregnancy outcomes and lactation exposures. In general, a remaining challenge of data-intensive health research, which is at the core of an LHS, has been obtaining meaningful access to data. These unique data sources, also called data access providers (DAPs), are both public and private organizations and are important stakeholders in the development of a sustainable and ethically responsible LHS. Sustainability is often discussed as a challenge in LHS development. Moreover, DAPs are increasingly expected to move beyond regulatory compliance and are seen as moral agents tasked with upholding ethical principles, such as transparency, trustworthiness, responsibility, and community engagement. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the views of people working for DAPs who participate in a public-private partnership to build a sustainable and ethically responsible LHS. METHODS: Using a qualitative interview design, we interviewed 14 people involved in the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) ConcePTION (Continuum of Evidence from Pregnancy Exposures, Reproductive Toxicology and Breastfeeding to Improve Outcomes Now) project, a public-private collaboration with the goal of building an LHS for pregnant and lactating people. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: A total of 3 themes were identified: opportunities and responsibilities, conditions for participation and commitment, and challenges for a knowledge-generating ecosystem. The respondents generally regarded the collaboration as an opportunity for various reasons beyond the primary goal of generating knowledge about medication safety during pregnancy and lactation. Respondents had different interpretations of responsibility in the context of data-intensive research in a public-private network. Respondents explained that resources (financial and other), scientific output, motivation, agreements collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry, trust, and transparency are important conditions for participating in and committing to the ConcePTION LHS. Respondents also discussed the challenges of an LHS, including the limitations to (real-world) data analyses and governance procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents were motivated by diverse opportunities to contribute to an LHS for pregnant and lactating people, primarily centered on advancing knowledge on medication safety. Although a shared responsibility for enabling real-world data analyses is acknowledged, their focus remains on their work and contribution to the project rather than on safeguarding ethical data handling. The results of our interviews underline the importance of a transparent governance structure, emphasizing the trust between DAPs and the public for the success and sustainability of an LHS.

Sex Differences in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in a Dutch Primary Care Setting.

Background: Sex differences in the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have been shown, but the evidence is mixed and fragmented. In this study, we assessed sex differences in cardiovascular risk factors assessment, risk factor levels, treatment, and meeting of treatment targets, within a Dutch primary care setting. Methods: Data were obtained from individuals aged 40 to 70 years old, without prior CVD, registered during the entire year in 2018 at one of the 51 general practices participating in the Julius General Practitioner's Network (JGPN). History of CVD was defined based on the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC). Linear and Poisson regressions were used to investigate sex differences in risk factor assessment, risk factor levels, treatment, and meeting of treatment targets. Results: We included 83,903 individuals (50% women). With the exception of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), all risk factors for CVD were more often measured in women than in men. Lipid measurements and body mass index values were higher in women, while blood pressure (BP) and HbA1c levels were higher in men, along with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels. Among individuals with elevated BP or cholesterol levels, no sex difference was observed in the prescription of antihypertensive medications (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94-1.06) but women were less likely than men to receive lipid-lowering medications (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79-0.95). Among treated individuals, women were more likely than men to meet adequate levels of blood pressure (RR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.09-1.25) and less likely to meet target levels of cholesterol (RR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.98). Conclusion: While women were more likely to have their CVD risk factors measured, they were less likely to be prescribed lipid-lowering medications and to meet target levels. When treated, men were less likely to achieve adequate blood pressure control.

Are maternal vaccines effective and safe for mothers and infants? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Maternal vaccination is a promising strategy to reduce the burden of vaccine-preventable diseases for mothers and infants. We aimed to provide an up-to-date overview of the efficacy and safety of all available maternal vaccines. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov on 1 February 2022, for phase III and IV randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared maternal vaccination against any pathogen with placebo or no vaccination. Primary outcomes were laboratory-confirmed or clinically confirmed disease in mothers and infants. Secondary safety outcomes included intrauterine growth restriction, stillbirth, maternal death, preterm birth, congenital malformations and infant death. Random effects meta-analysis were used to calculate pooled risk ratio's (RR). Quality appraisal was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Six RCTs on four maternal vaccines, influenza, tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis (Tdap), pneumococcal and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) were eligible. The overall risk of bias and certainty of evidence varied from low to high. Maternal influenza vaccination significantly reduced the number of laboratory-confirmed influenza cases (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79, event rate 57 vs 98, 2 RCTs, n=6003, I2=0%), and clinically confirmed influenza cases in mothers (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99, event rate 418 vs 472, 2 RCTs, n=6003, I2=0%), and laboratory-confirmed influenza in infants (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.85, event rate 98 vs 148, 2 RCTs, n=5883, I2=0%), although this was not significant for clinically confirmed influenza in infants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05, event rate 1371 vs 1378, 2 RCTs, n=5883, I2=0%). No efficacy data were available on maternal Tdap vaccination. Maternal pneumococcal vaccination did not reduce laboratory-confirmed and clinically confirmed middle ear disease (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02, event rate 9 vs 18, 1 RCT, n=133 and RR 0.88 95% CI 0.69 to 1.12, event rate 42 vs 47, 1 RCT, n=133, respectively), and clinically confirmed lower-respiratory tract infection (LRTI) (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43, event rate 18 vs 34, 1 RCT, n=70) in infants. Maternal RSV vaccination did not reduce laboratory-confirmed RSV LRTI in infants (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.01, event rate 103 vs 71, 1 RCT, n=4527). There was no evidence of a significant effect of any of the maternal vaccines on the reported safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The few RCTs with low event rates suggest that, depending on the type of maternal vaccine, the vaccine might effectively prevent disease and within its size does not show safety concerns in mothers and infants. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021235115.

Impact of the 2018 revised Pregnancy Prevention Programme by the European Medicines Agency on the use of oral retinoids in females of childbearing age in Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain: an interrupted time series analysis.

Background: In March 2018, the European pregnancy prevention programme for oral retinoids was updated as part of risk minimisation measures (RMM), emphasising their contraindication in pregnant women. Objective: To measure the impact of the 2018 revision of the RMMs in Europe by assessing the utilisation patterns of isotretinoin, alitretinoin and acitretin, contraceptive measures, pregnancy testing, discontinuation, and pregnancy occurrence concomitantly with a retinoid prescription. Methods: An interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to compare level and trend changes after the risk minimisation measures implementation was conducted on a cohort of females of childbearing age (12-55 years of age) from January 2010 to December 2020, derived from six electronic health data sources in four countries: Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy. Monthly utilisation figures (incidence rates [IR], prevalence rates [PR] and proportions) of oral retinoids were calculated, as well as discontinuation rates, contraception coverage, pregnancy testing, and rates of exposed pregnancies to oral retinoids, before and after the 2018 RMMs. Results: From 10,714,182 females of child-bearing age, 88,992 used an oral retinoid at any point during the study period (mean age 18.9-22.2 years old). We found non-significant level and trend changes in incidence or prevalence of retinoid use in females of child-bearing age after the 2018 RMMs. The reason of discontinuation was unknown in >95% of cases. Contraception use showed a significant increase trend in Spain; for other databases this information was limited. Pregnancy testing was hardly recorded thus was not possible to model ITS analyses. After the 2018 RMM, rates of pregnancy occurrence during retinoid use, and start of a retinoid during a pregnancy varied from 0.0 to 0.4, and from 0.2 to 0.8, respectively. Conclusion: This study shows a limited impact of the 2018 RMMs on oral retinoids utilisation patterns among females of child-bearing age in four European countries. Pregnancies still occur during retinoid use, and oral retinoids are still prescribed to pregnant women. Contraception and pregnancy testing information was limited in most databases. Regulators, policymakers, prescribers, and researchers must rethink implementation strategies to avoid any pregnancy becoming temporarily related to retinoid use.

Variations across Europe in hospitalization and management of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 during the initial phase of the pandemic: Multi-national population-based cohort study using the International Network of Obstetric Survey Systems (INOSS).

INTRODUCTION: The majority of data on COVID-19 in pregnancy are not from sound population-based active surveillance systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a multi-national study of population-based national or regional prospective cohorts using standardized definitions within the International Network of Obstetric Survey systems (INOSS). From a source population of women giving birth between March 1 and August 31, 2020, we included pregnant women admitted to hospital with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test ≤7 days prior to or during admission and up to 2 days after birth. The admissions were further categorized as COVID-19-related or non-COVID-19-related. The primary outcome of interest was incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included severe maternal disease (ICU admission and mechanical ventilation) and COVID-19-directed medical treatment. RESULTS: In a source population of 816 628 maternities, a total of 2338 pregnant women were admitted with SARS-CoV-2; among them 940 (40%) were COVID-19-related admissions. The pooled incidence estimate for COVID-19-related admission was 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.27-1.02) per 1000 maternities, with notable heterogeneity across countries (I2 = 97.3%, P = 0.00). In the COVID-19 admission group, between 8% and 17% of the women were admitted to intensive care, and 5%-13% needed mechanical ventilation. Thromboprophylaxis was the most frequent treatment given during COVID-19-related admission (range 14%-55%). Among 908 infants born to women in the COVID-19-related admission group, 5 (0.6%) stillbirths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: During the initial months of the pandemic, we found substantial variations in incidence of COVID-19-related admissions in nine European countries. Few pregnant women received COVID-19-directed medical treatment. Several barriers to rapid surveillance were identified. Investment in robust surveillance should be prioritized to prepare for future pandemics.

Evolution of National Guidelines on Medicines Used to Treat COVID-19 in Pregnancy in 2020-2022: A Scoping Review.

The lack of inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of medicines to treat COVID-19 has made it difficult to establish evidence-based treatment guidelines for pregnant women. Our aim was to provide a review of the evolution and updates of the national guidelines on medicines used in pregnant women with COVID-19 published by the obstetrician and gynecologists' societies in thirteen countries in 2020-2022. Based on the results of the RECOVERY (Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial, the national societies successively recommended against prescribing hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin. Guidelines for remdesivir differed completely between countries, from compassionate or conditional use to recommendation against. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was authorized in Australia and the UK only in research settings and was no longer recommended in the UK at the end of 2022. After initial reluctance to use corticosteroids, the results of the RECOVERY trial have enabled the recommendation of dexamethasone in case of severe COVID-19 since mid-2020. Some societies recommended prescribing tocilizumab to pregnant patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation from June 2021. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies were authorized at the end of 2021 with conditional use in some countries, and then no longer recommended in Belgium and the USA at the end of 2022. The gradual convergence of the recommendations, although delayed compared to the general population, highlights the importance of the inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials and of international collaboration to improve the pharmacological treatment of pregnant women with COVID-19.

Impact of 2018 EU Risk Minimisation Measures and Revised Pregnancy Prevention Programme on Utilisation and Prescribing Trends of Medicinal Products Containing Valproate: An Interrupted Time Series Study.

INTRODUCTION: Due to established teratogenicity of valproates, the EU risk minimisation measures (RMMs) with a pregnancy prevention programme (PPP) for valproate were updated in March 2018. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of the 2018 EU RMMs on valproate utilisation in five European countries/regions. METHODS: A multi-database, times series study of females of childbearing potential (12-55 years) was conducted using electronic medical records from five countries/regions (01.01.2010-31.12.2020): Denmark, Tuscany (Italy), Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK. Clinical and demographic information from each database was transformed to the ConcePTION Common Data Model, quality checks were conducted and a distributed analysis was performed using common scripts. Incident and prevalent use of valproate, proportion of discontinuers and switchers to alternative medicine, frequency of contraception coverage during valproate use, and occurrence of pregnancies during valproate exposure were estimated per month. Interrupted time series analyses were conducted to estimate the level or trend change in the outcome measures. RESULTS: We included 69,533 valproate users from 9,699,371 females of childbearing potential from the five participating centres. A significant decline in prevalent use of valproates was observed in Tuscany, Italy (mean difference post-intervention -7.7%), Spain (-11.3%), and UK (-5.9%) and a non-significant decline in the Netherlands (-3.3%), but no decline in incident use after the 2018 RMMs compared to the period before. The monthly proportion of compliant valproate prescriptions/dispensings with a contraceptive coverage was low (<25%), with an increase after the 2018 RMMs only in the Netherlands (mean difference post-intervention 12%). There was no significant increase in switching rates from valproates to alternative medicine after the 2018 intervention in any of the countries/regions. We observed a substantial number of concurrent pregnancies during valproate exposure, but with a declining rate after the 2018 RMMs in Tuscany, Italy (0.70 per 1000 valproate users pre- and 0.27 post-intervention), Spain (0.48 and 0.13), the Netherlands (0.34 and 0.00), and an increasing rate in UK (1.13 and 5.07). CONCLUSION: There was a small impact of the 2018 RMMs on valproate use in the studied European countries/regions. The substantial number of concurrent pregnancies with valproate exposure warrants a careful monitoring of implementation of the existing PPP for valproate in clinical practice in Europe, to see if there is any need for additional measures in the future.