Dataset Information

Safety of Administering Live Vaccines During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pregnancy Outcomes.

ABSTRACT: Live-attenuated vaccines (LAV) are currently contraindicated during pregnancy, given uncertain safety records for the mother-infant pair. LAV might, however, play an important role to protect them against serious emerging diseases, such as Ebola and Lassa fever. For this systematic review we searched relevant databases to identify studies published up to November 2019. Controlled observational studies reporting pregnancy outcomes after maternal immunization with LAV were included. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were obtained under a random-effects model. Of 2831 studies identified, fifteen fulfilled inclusion criteria. Smallpox, rubella, poliovirus, yellow fever and dengue vaccines were assessed in these studies. No association was found between vaccination and miscarriage (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87-1.10), stillbirth (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.74-1.48), malformations (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.21), prematurity (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90-1.08) or neonatal death (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.68-1.65) overall. However, increased odds of malformations (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.03-1.49) and miscarriage after first trimester immunization (OR 4.82; 95% CI 2.38-9.77) was found for smallpox vaccine. Thus, we did not find evidence of harm related to LAV other than smallpox with regards to pregnancy outcomes, but quality of evidence was very low. Overall risks appear to be small and have to be balanced against potential benefits for the mother-infant pair.

SUBMITTER: Laris-Gonzalez A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7157743 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety of Administering Live Vaccines During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pregnancy Outcomes.

Laris-González Almudena A Bernal-Serrano Daniel D Jarde Alexander A Kampmann Beate B

Vaccines 20200311 1

Live-attenuated vaccines (LAV) are currently contraindicated during pregnancy, given uncertain safety records for the mother-infant pair. LAV might, however, play an important role to protect them against serious emerging diseases, such as Ebola and Lassa fever. For this systematic review we searched relevant databases to identify studies published up to November 2019. Controlled observational studies reporting pregnancy outcomes after maternal immunization with LAV were included. The ROBINS-I t ...[more]

PMID: 32168941

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAbout 3·7 billion doses of ivermectin have been distributed in mass drug administration (MDA) campaigns globally over the past 30 years. At 10-100 times higher than current human doses, ivermectin is a known teratogen in mammals. During these campaigns with recommended doses, pregnant women might be inadvertently exposed. We therefore aimed to evaluate the existing evidence for serious and non-serious adverse events after ivermectin exposure in pregnant women.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched relevant databases and trial registry platforms on July 15, 2018, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that reported adverse events in pregnant women. We did not use language or date restrictions. Outcomes of interest were spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, congenital anomalies, and neonatal death (serious adverse events), as well as maternal morbidity, preterm births, and low birthweight (adverse events). The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. We did the meta-analysis of observational studies and RCTs separately. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, protocol CRD42016046914.FindingsWe identified 147 records, of which only five observational studies and one RCT were included for quantitative analysis; these studies were published between 1990 and 2008, and were done in six African countries. 893 women with 899 pregancy outcomes were included, of whom 496 pregnant women (500 pregnancy outcomes) received ivermectin inadvertently during MDA campaigns in the observational studies and 397 pregnant women (399 pregnancy outcomes) purposely received ivermectin as part of the open-label RCT. No study reported neonatal deaths, maternal morbidity, preterm births, or low birthweight. It is unclear whether exposure to ivermectin during pregnancy increases the risk of spontaneous abortions and stillbirths (odds ratio [OR] 1·15 [95% CI 0·75-1·78] with very low certainty of evidence for the four observational studies and 0·62 [0·18-2·14] with very low certainty of evidence for the RCT) or congenital anomalies (OR 1·69 [95% CI 0·83-3·41] with very low certainty of evidence for the five observational studies and 1·10 [0·07-17·65] with very low certainty of evidence for the RCT).InterpretationThere is insufficient evidence to conclude on the safety profile of ivermectin during pregnancy. Treatment campaigns should focus additional efforts on preventing inadvertent treatment of pregnant women.FundingUnitaid.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although exempt, many pregnant Muslim women partake in the daily fast during daylight hours during the month of Ramadan. In other contexts an impoverished diet during pregnancy impacts on birth weight. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether Ramadan fasting by pregnant women affects perinatal outcomes. Primary outcomes investigated were perinatal mortality, preterm birth and small for gestational age (SGA) infants. Secondary outcomes investigated were stillbirth, neonatal death, maternal death, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational diabetes, congenital abnormalities, serious neonatal morbidity, birth weight, preterm birth and placental weight. METHODS:Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, the Health Management Information Consortium and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts. Studies from any year were eligible. Studies reporting predefined perinatal outcomes in pregnancies exposed to Ramadan fasting were included. Cohort studies with no comparator group or that considered fasting outside pregnancy were excluded, as were studies assuming fasting practice based solely upon family name. Quality of included studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies. Analyses were performed in STATA. RESULTS:From 375 records, 22 studies of 31,374 pregnancies were included, of which 18,920 pregnancies were exposed to Ramadan fasting. Birth weight was reported in 21 studies and was not affected by maternal fasting (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.05). Placental weight was significantly lower in fasting mothers (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -0.97 to ?-0.90), although this observation was dominated by a single large study. No data were presented for perinatal mortality. Ramadan fasting had no effect on preterm delivery (odds ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.37) based on 5600 pregnancies (1193 exposed to Ramadan fasting). CONCLUSIONS:Ramadan fasting does not adversely affect birth weight although there is insufficient evidence regarding potential effects on other perinatal outcomes. Further studies are needed to accurately determine whether Ramadan fasting is associated with adverse maternal or neonatal outcome.

Project description:BackgroundVulvovaginal yeast infections in pregnancy are common and can cause extensive inflammation, which could contribute to adverse pregnancy outcomes. Symptomatic yeast infections are likely to cause more inflammation than asymptomatic. The objective of this study was to investigate associations between symptomatic and asymptomatic vulvovaginal yeast infections in pregnancy and perinatal outcomes.MethodsWe did a systematic review and searched eight databases until 01 July 2022. We included studies reporting on pregnant women with and without laboratory confirmed vulvovaginal yeast infection and preterm birth or eight other perinatal outcomes. We used random effects meta-analysis to calculate summary odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals for the association between yeast infection and outcomes. We described findings from studies with multivariable analyses. We assessed the risk of bias using published tools.ResultsWe screened 3909 references and included 57 studies. Only 22/57 studies reported information about participant vulvovaginal symptoms. Preterm birth was an outcome in 35/57 studies (49,161 women). In 32/35 studies with available data, the summary OR from univariable analyses was 1.01 (95% CI 0.84-1.21, I2 60%, prediction interval 0.45-2.23). In analyses stratified by symptom status, we found ORs of 1.44 (95% CI 0.92-2.26) in two studies with ≥ 50% symptomatic participants, 0.84 (95% CI 0.45-1.58) in seven studies with < 50% symptomatic participants, and 1.12 (95% CI 0.94-1.35) in four studies with asymptomatic participants. In three studies with multivariable analysis, adjusted ORs were greater than one but CIs were compatible with there being no association. We did not find associations between vulvovaginal yeast infection and any secondary outcome. Most studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain and only three studies controlled for confounding.ConclusionsWe did not find strong statistical evidence of an increased risk for preterm birth or eight other adverse perinatal outcomes, in pregnant women with either symptomatic or asymptomatic vulvovaginal yeast infection. The available evidence is insufficient to make recommendations about testing and treatment of vulvovaginal yeast infection in pregnancy. Future studies should assess vulvovaginal symptoms, yeast organism loads, concomitant vaginal or cervical infections, and microbiota using state-of-the-art diagnostics.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020197564.

Project description:BackgroundPregnant women with epilepsy frequently experience seizures related to pregnancy complications and are often prescribed anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) to manage their symptoms. However, less is known about the comparative safety of AED exposure in utero. We aimed to compare the risk of congenital malformations (CMs) and prenatal outcomes of AEDs in infants/children who were exposed to AEDs in utero through a systematic review and Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to December 15, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text papers for experimental and observational studies comparing mono- or poly-therapy AEDs versus control (no AED exposure) or other AEDs, then abstracted data and appraised the risk of bias. The primary outcome was incidence of major CMs, overall and by specific type (cardiac malformations, hypospadias, cleft lip and/or palate, club foot, inguinal hernia, and undescended testes).ResultsAfter screening 5305 titles and abstracts, 642 potentially relevant full-text articles, and 17 studies from scanning reference lists, 96 studies were eligible (n = 58,461 patients). Across all major CMs, many AEDs were associated with higher risk compared to control. For major CMs, ethosuximide (OR, 3.04; 95% CrI, 1.23-7.07), valproate (OR, 2.93; 95% CrI, 2.36-3.69), topiramate (OR, 1.90; 95% CrI, 1.17-2.97), phenobarbital (OR, 1.83; 95% CrI, 1.35-2.47), phenytoin (OR, 1.67; 95% CrI, 1.30-2.17), carbamazepine (OR, 1.37; 95% CrI, 1.10-1.71), and 11 polytherapies were significantly more harmful than control, but lamotrigine (OR, 0.96; 95% CrI, 0.72-1.25) and levetiracetam (OR, 0.72; 95% CrI, 0.43-1.16) were not.ConclusionThe newer generation AEDs, lamotrigine and levetiracetam, were not associated with significant increased risks of CMs compared to control, and were significantly less likely to be associated with children experiencing cardiac malformations than control. However, this does not mean that these agents are not harmful to infants/children exposed in utero. Counselling is advised concerning teratogenic risks when the prescription is written for a woman of childbearing age and before women continue with these agents when considering pregnancy, such as switching from polytherapy to monotherapy with evidence of lower risk and avoiding AEDs, such as valproate, that are consistently associated with CMs. These decisions must be balanced against the need for seizure control.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014008925.

Dataset Information

Safety of Administering Live Vaccines During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pregnancy Outcomes.

Publications

Safety of Administering Live Vaccines During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pregnancy Outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets