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.

Stimulating solidarity to improve knowledge on medications used during pregnancy : A contribution from the ConcePTION project.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant people have been overlooked or excluded from clinical research, resulting in a lack of scientific knowledge on medication safety and efficacy during pregnancy. Thus far, both the opportunities to generate evidence-based knowledge beyond clinical trials and the role of pregnant people in changing their status quo have not been discussed. Some scholars have argued that for rare disease patients, for whom, just like pregnant people, a poor evidence base exists regarding treatments, solidarity has played an important role in addressing the evidence gap. This paper explores whether and how the enactment of solidarity among pregnant people can be stimulated to help address the poor evidence base on medications used during pregnancy. METHOD: We use the concept of solidarity formulated by Prainsack and Buyx and enrich their concept by providing an account for stimulating the enactment of solidarity. Then we apply this account to the case of pregnant people who use medication. RESULTS: Solidarity means enacted commitment on the part of an individual to assisting others with whom the person recognizes a similarity in a relevant respect. Although solidarity cannot be imposed, we argue that the empowerment of people is a crucial concept in understanding how solidarity can be stimulated. Empowerment in the context of pregnant people means creating awareness about their status quo, explaining how scientific research can help close the knowledge gap, and how pregnant people can themselves contribute. In particular, how pregnant people can contribute to the collection of health data to strengthen the evidence base for medications used during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that acting in solidarity can help change the status quo for pregnant people. Furthermore, we argue that the empowerment of pregnant people and other relevant stakeholders is a way to stimulate the enactment of solidarity. The process of empowerment starts by raising awareness about the lack of evidence on medications used during prengnacy and by explaining to pregnant people how they can contribute to changing the way knowledge is being generated by, for example, sharing data on the health effects of medications.

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Monitoring Studies in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)-A Systematic Review of Study Designs and Methods.

BACKGROUND: Post-marketing vaccine safety surveillance aims to monitor and quantify adverse events following immunization in a population, but little is known about their implementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to synthesize methodological approaches used to assess adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in LMICs. METHODS: For this systematic review, we searched articles published from 1 December 2019 to 18 February 2022 in main databases, including MEDLINE and Embase. We included all peer-reviewed observational COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring studies. We excluded randomized controlled trials and case reports. We extracted data using a standardized extraction form. Two authors assessed study quality using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. All findings were summarized narratively using frequency tables and figures. RESULTS: Our search found 4254 studies, of which 58 were eligible for analysis. Many of the studies included in this review were conducted in middle-income countries, with 26 studies (45%) in lower-middle-income and 28 (48%) in upper-middle-income countries. More specifically, 14 studies were conducted in the Middle East region, 16 in South Asia, 8 in Latin America, 8 in Europe and Central Asia, and 4 in Africa. Only 3% scored 7-8 points (good quality) on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale methodological quality assessment, while 10% got 5-6 points (medium). About 15 studies (25.9%) used a cohort study design and the rest were cross-sectional. In half of them (50%), vaccination data were gathered from the participants' self-reporting methods. Seventeen studies (29.3%) used multivariable binary logistic regression and three (5.2%) used survival analyses. Only 12 studies (20.7%) performed model diagnostics and validity checks (e.g., the goodness of fit, identification of outliers, and co-linearity). CONCLUSIONS: Published studies on COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance in LMICs are limited in number and the methods used do not often address potential confounders. Active surveillance of vaccines in LMICs are needed to advocate vaccination programs. Implementing training programs in pharmacoepidemiology in LMICs is essential.

Assessing vaccine safety during a pandemic: Recent experience and lessons learned for the future.

During the roll out of vaccines during a pandemic, questions regarding vaccine safety often arise. This was surely true during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Different tools and capabilities exist during the pre-authorization phase and post introduction each with its strengths and limitations. Here we review the various tools and their strengths and limitations and discuss what functioned well in high income settings and the limitations that unequal vaccine safety pharmacovigilance capacity imposed upon middle and low income countries.

Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines Among the Paediatric Population: Analysis of the European Surveillance Systems and Pivotal Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The European Medicine Agency extended the use of Comirnaty, Spikevax, and Nuvaxovid in paediatrics; thus, these vaccines require additional real-world safety evidence. Herein, we aimed to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines through Covid-19 Vaccine Monitor (CVM) and EudraVigilance surveillance systems and the published pivotal clinical trials. METHODS: In a prospective cohort of vaccinees aged between 5 and 17 years, we measured the frequency of commonly reported (local/systemic solicited) and serious adverse drug events (ADRs) following the first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines in Europe using data from the CVM cohort until April 2022. The results of previous pivotal clinical trials and data in the EudraVigilance were also analysed. RESULTS: The CVM study enrolled 658 first-dose vaccinees (children aged 5-11 years; n = 250 and adolescents aged 12-17 years; n = 408). Local/systemic solicited ADRs were common, whereas serious ADRs were uncommon. Among Comirnaty first and second dose recipients, 28.8% and 17.1% of children and 54.2% and 52.2% of adolescents experienced at least one ADR, respectively; injection-site pain (29.2% and 20.7%), fatigue (16.1% and 12.8%), and headache (22.1% and 19.3%) were the most frequent local and systemic ADRs. Results were consistent but slightly lower than in pivotal clinical trials. Reporting rates in Eudravigilance were lower by a factor of 1000. CONCLUSIONS: The CVM study showed high frequencies of local solicited reactions after vaccination but lower rates than in pivotal clinical trials. Injection-site pain, fatigue, and headache were the most commonly reported ADRs for clinical trials, but higher than spontaneously reported data.

Cohort Event Monitoring of Adverse Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines in Seven European Countries: Pooled Results on First Dose.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly authorised, thus requiring intense post-marketing re-evaluation of their benefit-risk profile. A multi-national European collaboration was established with the aim to prospectively monitor safety of the COVID-19 vaccines through web-based survey of vaccinees. METHODS: A prospective cohort event monitoring study was conducted with primary consented data collection in seven European countries. Through the web applications, participants received and completed baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires on self-reported adverse reactions for at least 6 months following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, Italy) and baseline and up to ten follow-up questionnaires for one year in Germany and Croatia. Rates of adverse reactions have been described by type (solicited, non-solicited; serious/non-serious; and adverse events of special interest) and stratified by vaccine brand. We calculated the frequency of adverse reaction after dose 1 and prior to dose 2 among all vaccinees who completed at least one follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, 117,791 participants were included and completed the first questionnaire in addition to the baseline: 88,196 (74.9%) from Germany, 27,588 (23.4%) from Netherlands, 984 (0.8%) from France, 570 (0.5%) from Italy, 326 (0.3%) from Croatia, 89 (0.1%) from the UK and 38 (0.03%) from Belgium. There were 89,377 (75.9%) respondents who had received AstraZeneca vaccines, 14,658 (12.4%) BioNTech/Pfizer, 11,266 (9.6%) Moderna and 2490 (2.1%) Janssen vaccines as a first dose. Median age category was 40-49 years for all vaccines except for Pfizer where median age was 70-79 years. Most vaccinees were female with a female-to-male ratio of 1.34, 1.96 and 2.50 for AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen, respectively. BioNtech/Pfizer had slightly more men with a ratio of 0.82. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported solicited systemic adverse reactions and injection-site pain was the most common solicited local reaction. The rates of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were 0.1-0.2% across all vaccine brands. CONCLUSION: This large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients showed, for all the studied vaccines, a high frequency of systemic reactions, related to the immunogenic response, and local reactions at the injection site, while serious reactions or AESIs were uncommon, consistent with those reported on product labels. This study demonstrated the feasibility of setting up and conducting cohort event monitoring across multiple European countries to collect safety data on novel vaccines that are rolled out at scale in populations which may not have been included in pivotal trials.

COVID-19-related medicine utilization study in pregnancy: The COVI-PREG cohort.

AIM: The objective of this study was to describe the use of COVID-19-related medicines during pregnancy and their evolution between the early/late periods of the pandemic. METHODS: Pregnant women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from March 2020 to July 2021 were included using the COVI-PREG registry. Exposure to the following COVID-19-related medicines was recorded: antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, anti-interleukin-6 and immunoglobulins. We described the prevalence of medicines used, by trimester of pregnancy, maternal COVID-19 severity level and early/late period of the pandemic (before and after 1 July 2020). FINDINGS: We included 1964 pregnant patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Overall, 10.4% (205/1964) received at least one COVID-19-related medicine including antibiotics (8.6%; 169/1694), corticosteroids (3.2%; 62/1964), antivirals (2.0%; 39/1964), hydroxychloroquine (1.4%; 27/1964) and anti-interleukin-6 (0.3%; 5/1964). The use of at least one COVID-19-related medicine was 3.1% (12/381) in asymptomatic individuals, 4.2% (52/1233) in outpatients, 19.7% (46/233) in inpatients without oxygen, 72.1% (44/61) in those requiring standard oxygen, 95.7% (22/23) in those requiring high flow oxygen, 96.2% (25/26) in patients who required intubation and 57.1% (4/7) among patients who died. The proportion who received medicines to treat COVID-19 was higher before than after July 2020 (16.7% vs. 7.7%). Antibiotics, antivirals and hydroxychloroquine had lower rates of use during the late period. CONCLUSION: Medicine use in pregnancy increased with disease severity. The trend towards increased use of corticosteroids seems to be aligned with changing guidelines. Evidence is still needed regarding the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19-related medicines in pregnancy.