The gaps in clinical trial evidence about vaccination in pregnancy have serious implications for health care worker and public misunderstandings. Contradictions between National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) recommendations and regulatory product labeling information contribute to misinformation about vaccine safety and effectiveness.
Methods:
A mixed methods approach that included a stakeholder consensus decision-making workshop and a national survey of Canadian health care providers (HCPs).
Results:
We identified knowledge gaps and serious limitations concerning the information in vaccine product labels. Stakeholders were troubled that some HCPs rely on regulatory product labels to inform their decisions without knowing their limitations in content. Our survey showed that HCPs were uncertain about the purpose of product labels and the evidence contained in them. Over a third of respondents incorrectly thought that product labels and NITAG recommendations are based on the same evidence and that the information they contain is regularly updated.
Conclusions:
Applying social risk theories, we show how such gaps in information defer responsibility for decisions about disease risk and vaccine safety from regulatory agencies and vaccine manufacturers onto HCPs and their clients. This may be especially relevant for COVID-19 and other emerging vaccines that are initially authorized for conditional or emergency use, and especially in understudied populations such as pregnant people. More frequent updating and alignment of robust, unbiased, and independently reviewed clinical trial and postmarket safety and effectiveness evidence with NITAG recommendations would allay HCP and public misunderstandings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RileyLE, HughesBL. Pregnant and lactating women should not be excluded from Covid-19 drug, vaccine trials. STAT, 2020. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/28/pregnancy-lactation-no-reason-exclude-women-covid-19-drug-vaccine-trials Accessed September29, 2020.
2.
GeampanaA. Risky technologies: Systemic uncertainty in contraceptive risk assessment and management. Sci Technol Hum Values, 2019; 44:1116–1138.
3.
NohY, YoonD, SongI, et al.Discrepancies in the evidence and recommendation levels of pregnancy information in prescription drug labeling in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and Korea. J Womens Health, 2018; 27:1086–1092.
4.
TopKA, EsteghamatiA, KervinM, et al.Governing off-label vaccine use: An environmental scan of the Global National Immunization Technical Advisory Group Network. Vaccine, 2020; 38:1089–1095.
5.
JarvisJR, DoreyRB, WarrickerFDM, et al.The effectiveness of influenza vaccination in pregnancy in relation to child health outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine, 2020; 38:1601–1613.
6.
McMillanM, ClarkeM, ParrellaA, et al.Safety of tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccination during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol, 2017; 129:560–573.
7.
NeelsP, SouthernJ, AbramsonJ, et al.Off-label use of vaccines. Vaccine, 2017; 35:2329–2337.
8.
McDonaldK, AmirLH, DaveyM-A. Maternal bodies and medicines: A commentary on risk and decision-making of pregnant and breastfeeding women and health professionals. BMC Public Health, 2011; 11(Suppl 5):1–8.
9.
LyerlyAD, MitchellLM, ArmstrongEM, et al.Risk and the pregnant body. Hastings Cent Rep, 2009; 39:34–42.
10.
WeirL. Pregnancy, risk and biopolitics: On the threshold of the living subject. New York: Routledge, 2006.
11.
Dubé È, GagnonD, KaminskyK, et al.Vaccination against influenza in pregnancy: A survey of Canadian maternity care providers. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2019; 41:479–488.
12.
VishramB, LetleyL, Jan Van HoekA, et al.Vaccination in pregnancy: Attitudes of nurses, midwives and health visitors in England. Hum Vaccines Immunother, 2018; 14:179–188.
13.
MoralesKF, MenningL, LambachP. The faces of influenza vaccine recommendation: A Literature review of the determinants and barriers to health providers' recommendation of influenza vaccine in pregnancy. Vaccine, 2020; 38:4805–4815.
14.
TopKA, ArkellC, ScottH, et al.Effect of package insert language on health-care providers' perceptions of influenza vaccination safety during pregnancy. Lancet Glob Health, 2016; 4:e690–e691.
15.
LuptonDA. ‘Precious cargo’: Foetal subjects, risk and reproductive citizenship. Crit Public Health, 2012; 22:329–340.
16.
MancaTA, GrahamJE, Dubé È, et al. Developing product label information to support evidence-informed use of vaccines in pregnancy. Vaccine, 2019; 37:7138–7146.
17.
MancaTA, GrahamJE, MacDonaldNE, et al.Healthcare providers' interpretations of product labelling information developed through a consensus stakeholder approach. Vaccine, 2021; 39:2652–2659.
18.
Hannah-MoffatK, O'MalleyP. Gendered risks: An introduction. In: Hannah-MoffatK, O'MalleyP, eds. Gendered risks. New York: Routledge, 2007:1–29.
19.
HaysS. The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.
20.
ReichJA. Neoliberal mothering and vaccine refusal: Imagined gated communities and the privilege of choice. Gend Soc, 2014; 28:679–704.
21.
DouglasM. Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. New York: Routledge, 1994.
22.
JonesM, GrahamJE. Multiple institutional rationalities in the regulation of health technologies: An ethnographic examination. Sci Public Policy, 2009; 36:445–455.
23.
Eren VuralI, HerderM, GrahamJE. From sandbox to pandemic: Agile reform of Canadian drug regulation. Health Policy, 2021; 125:1115–1120.
24.
ModernaTXInc. Product monograph including patient medication information: Spikevax™, 2021. Available at: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf Accessed October28, 2021.
FoucaultM. Two lectures. In: GordonC, ed. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. New York: Vintage Books, 1980:78–108.
27.
Den hollanderGC, BrowneJI, ArhinfulD, et al.Power difference and risk perception: Mapping vulnerability within the decision process of pregnant women towards clinical trial participation in an urban middle-income setting. Dev World Bioeth, 2018; 18:68–75.
28.
KrubinerCB, FadenRR, KarronRA, et al.Pregnant women and vaccines against emerging epidemic threats: Ethics guidance for preparedness, research, and response. Vaccine, 2021; 31:85–120.
29.
BaylisF, HalperinS. Research involving pregnant women: Trials and tribulations. Clin Investig, 2012; 2:139–146.
30.
RubinR. Pregnant people's paradox—Excluded from vaccine trials despite having a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. JAMA, 2021; 325:1027–1028.
31.
BellCE, ShaneA, PickeringLK. Discrepancies between US Food and Drug Administration Vaccine Licensure Indications and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommendations: Provider knowledge and attitudes. Clin Ther, 2018; 40:1308–1319.
32.
World Health Organization. Table 1: Summary of WHO position papers—Recommendations for routine immunization. WHO recommendations for routine immunization—Summary tables, 2019. Available at: https://www.who.int/immunization/policy/immunization_tables/en Accessed January1, 2020.
33.
BoonyaratanakornkitJ, ChuHY. Why should we advocate maternal immunization?. Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2019; 38:S28–S32.
34.
KochharS, EdwardsKM, Ropero AlvarezAM, et al.Introduction of new vaccines for immunization in pregnancy—Programmatic, regulatory, safety and ethical considerations. Vaccine, 2019; 37:3267–3277.
35.
RobertsJN, GruberMF. Regulatory considerations in the clinical development of vaccines indicated for use during pregnancy. Vaccine, 2015; 33:966–972.
36.
NesinM, SparerO. Vaccine monitoring systems: A potential model for medications in pregnancy. Semin Perinatol, 2015; 39:524–529.
37.
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC statement on COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy, 2021. Available at: https://sogc.org/common/Uploaded%20files/Latest%20News/SOGC_Statement_COVID-19_Vaccination_in_Pregnancy.pdf Accessed April28, 2022.
38.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. ACOG and SMFM joint statement on WHO recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines and pregnant individuals, 2021. Available at: https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2021/01/acog-and-smfm-joint-statement-on-who-recommendations-regarding-covid-19-vaccines-and-pregnant-individuals Accessed April28, 2022.
39.
ShimabukuroTT, KimSY, MyersTR, et al.Preliminary findings of mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety in pregnant persons. N Engl J Med, 2021; 384:2273–2282.
40.
HillsonK, ClemensSC, MadhiSA, et al.Fertility rates and birth outcomes after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccination. Lancet, 2021; 398:6–12.
41.
GrayKJ, BordtEA, AtyeoC, et al.COVID-19 vaccine response in pregnant and lactating women: A cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2021; 225:303.e1–303.e17.
42.
HalasaN, OlsonS, StaatM, et al.Effectiveness of maternal vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy against COVID-19–associated hospitalization in infants aged <6 months—17 states, July 2021–January 2022. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2022; 71:264–270.
43.
HsiehH-F, ShannonSE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res, 2005; 15:1277–1288.
DouglasM. Purity and. danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 2002.
47.
FoucaultM. Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
48.
KuklaR. Pregnant bodies as public spaces. In: HardyS, WiedmerC, eds. Motherhood and space: Configurations of the maternal through politics, home, and the body. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005:283–305.
49.
van Der ZandeI, van der GraafR, BrowneJL, van DeldenJJM. Fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research: A systematic review of reported reasons for exclusion. In: BaylisF, BallantyneA. eds. Clinical research involving pregnant women. Switzerland: Springer, 2016:65–94.
50.
DarvilleR. Literacy, experience, power. In: CampbellML, ManicomA. eds. Knowledge, experience, and ruling relations. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1993:249–262.
51.
JeffersonT. Sponsorship bias in clinical trials: Growing menace or dawning realisation?. J R Soc Med, 2020; 113:148–157.
52.
TanveerS, Rowhani-FaridA, HongK, et al.Transparency of COVID-19 vaccine trials: Decisions without data. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2021:1–7. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111735.
53.
GVSB 2.0 Drafting Group (Global Vaccine Safety Blueprint). Global vaccine safety blueprint 2.0 (GVSB2.0)—Draft 1. 38, 2019. Available at: https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/Draft_GVSB2.0_20190929.pdf?ua=1 Accessed July7, 2020.
54.
LexchinJ. Quality of evidence considered by Health Canada in granting full market authorisation to new drugs with a conditional approval: A retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open, 2018; 8:e020377.
55.
SmithJA, BrindleyDA. Conditional approval pathways: The ‘special’ case of global regenerative medicine regulation. Rejuvenation Res, 2017; 20:1–3.
56.
Dubé È, GagnonD, VivionM. Optimizing communication material to address vaccine hesitancy. Can Commun Dis Rep, 2020; 46:48–52.
57.
MoneyD, Global Research in Pregnancy and the NewbornCollaboration, Public Health Agency ofCanada, et al.Canadian surveillance of COVID-19 in pregnancy: Epidemiology, maternal and infant outcomes, Report #4. 2021:1–15. Available at: https://med-fom-ridprogram.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2021/10/CANCOVID_Preg-report-4-19oct2021.pdf Accessed April28, 2022.
58.
KasehagenL, ByersP, TaylorK, et al.COVID-19–associated deaths after SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy—Mississippi, March 1, 2020–October 6, 2021. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2021; 70:1646–1648.
59.
DaganN, BardaN, Biron-ShentalT, et al.Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy. Nat Med, 2021; 27:1693–1695.
60.
IacobucciG. Covid-19 and pregnancy: Vaccine hesitancy and how to overcome it. BMJ, 2021; 375:n2862.
61.
RazzaghiH, MehreenM, PingaliC, et al.COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women during pregnancy—Eight integrated health care organizations, United States, December 14, 2020–May 8, 2021. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2021; 70:895-899.
62.
HuddlestonHG, JaswaEG, Lindquist, et al. COVID-19 vaccination patterns and attitudes among American pregnant individuals. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM, 2022; 4:100507.
63.
KilichE, DadaS, FrancisMR, et al.Factors that influence vaccination decision-making among pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2020; 15:e0234827.
64.
MohammedH, McMillanM, RobertsCT, et al.A systematic review of interventions to improve uptake of pertussis vaccination in pregnancy. PLoS One, 2019; 14:e0214538.
65.
WongVWY, LokKYW, TarrantM. Interventions to increase the uptake of seasonal influenza vaccination among pregnant women: A systematic review. Vaccine, 2016; 34:20–32.
66.
BradfieldZ, WynterK, HauckY, et al.COVID-19 vaccination perceptions and intentions of maternity care consumers and providers in Australia. PLoS One, 2021; 16:e0260049.
67.
TopKA, ArkellC, GrahamJE, et al.Do health care providers trust product monograph information regarding use of vaccines in pregnancy? A qualitative study. Can Commun Dis Rep, 2018; 44:134–138.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
