Pregnant Women In Clinical Trials Research Articles

Protective efficacy of a Zika purified inactivated virus vaccine candidate during pregnancy in marmosets

Zika virus (ZIKV) infection during pregnancy poses significant threats to maternal and fetal health, leading to intrauterine fetal demise and severe developmental malformations that constitute congenital Zika syndrome (CZS). As such, the development of a safe and effective ZIKV vaccine is a critical public health priority. However, the safety and efficacy of such a vaccine during pregnancy remain uncertain. Historically, the conduct of clinical trials in pregnant women has been challenging. Therefore, clinically relevant animal pregnancy models are in high demand for testing vaccine efficacy. We previously reported that a marmoset pregnancy model of ZIKV infection consistently demonstrated vertical transmission from mother to fetus during pregnancy. Using this marmoset model, we also showed that vertical transmission could be prevented by pre-pregnancy vaccination with Zika purified inactivated virus (ZPIV) vaccine. Here, we further examined the efficacy of ZPIV vaccination during pregnancy. Vaccination during pregnancy elicited virus neutralizing antibody responses that were comparable to those elicited by pre-pregnancy vaccination. Vaccination also reduced placental pathology, viral burden and vertical transmission of ZIKV during pregnancy, without causing adverse effects. These results provide key insights into the safety and efficacy of ZPIV vaccination during pregnancy and demonstrate positive effects of vaccination on the reduction of ZIKV infection, an important advance in preparedness for future ZIKV outbreaks.

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.

Беременные женщины и их плоды — орфанные группы населения в отношении безопасности и эффективности лекарственных средств

Pregnant women are a very special category of patients. The risk-benefit ratio of using various drugs in this case presents a significant medical, social and ethical problem. The increase in the age of onset of the first pregnancy is associated with the increasing prevalence of chronic pathology. Obesity, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, hypo- or hyperfunction of the thyroid gland, as well as many other conditions contribute to the active use of drugs of various pharmacological groups throughout the entire period of pregnancy, including early periods. The current practice of pharmacotherapy in pregnant women is based mainly on the use of drugs with an uncertain teratogenic risk. Not including pregnant women in clinical trials is an ethical issue as significant as their potential inclusion. Previously, for a long time, vulnerable categories included generally all women of reproductive age, whose inclusion in clinical trials became possible only in the mid-1990s. Pregnant women were considered vulnerable until 2019. The orphan status of pregnant women in terms of inclusion in clinical trials limits their right to receive highly effective and safe medical care, which makes it relevant to review the existing ethical principles in relation to this category of patients and a to perform a detailed analysis of existing barriers for certain types of drug trials.

Investigations on incidence and relevant factors of allergies in 5725 urban pregnant women: a cohort study in China

BackgroundAllergic diseases are highly prevalent in the women of childbearing age. As we know, the immune system could change when pregnancy, which may affect the course of allergic diseases. Meanwhile, they also can affect the course and outcome of pregnancy. The data on incidence of allergies during pregnancy is lacking and conducting clinical trials in pregnant women was limited, therefore, we observed a prebirth cohort to supplement the relevant data and strengthen concerned research conductions.ObjectiveWe aim to obtain the incidence of allergies in urban pregnancy and explore the relevant factors of allergic diseases in urban pregnancy.MethodsWe design a multicenter and prospective cohort in 20 institutions above municipal level which were eligible according to the study design from 14 provinces covering all-side of China. This cohort was conducted from 13+6 weeks of gestation to 12 months postpartum and in our study, we chose the prenatal part to analyze. The outcome was developing allergies during pregnancy, which were diagnosed by clinicians according to the uniform criterion from National Health Commission. All the data was collected by electronic questionnaires through tablet computers.ResultsThe incidence of allergic diseases in urban pregnant women was 21.0% (95%CI 20.0% ~ 22.0%). From social demography data, the history of allergies of pregnant women and their parents had statistical significance(p < 0.01); For exposure to living or working environment, house decoration for less than half a year, exposure to plush toys, disinfectants, insecticides, antihistamines, glucocorticoids, antipyretic analgesics, tocolytic agent and probiotics had statistical significance (all p < 0.05); For psychological status, self-rated depression and anxiety had statistical significance (p = 0.026;p = 0.006).ConclusionThe incidence of allergic diseases in urban pregnant women was similar to the former study and kept a medium–high level. The history of allergies of pregnant women and their parents, house decoration time, exposure to plush toys, disinfectants, insecticides, antihistamines, glucocorticoids, antipyretic analgesics, tocolytic agents, probiotics, self-rated depression, and anxiety were relevant factors of allergic diseases during pregnancy.

Human Maternal-Fetal Interface Cellular Models to Assess Antiviral Drug Toxicity during Pregnancy

Pregnancy is a period of elevated risk for viral disease severity, resulting in serious health consequences for both the mother and the fetus; yet antiviral drugs lack comprehensive safety and efficacy data for use among pregnant women. In fact, pregnant women are systematically excluded from therapeutic clinical trials to prevent potential fetal harm. Current FDA-recommended reproductive toxicity assessments are studied using small animals which often do not accurately predict the human toxicological profiles of drug candidates. Here, we review the potential of human maternal-fetal interface cellular models in reproductive toxicity assessment of antiviral drugs. We specifically focus on the 2- and 3-dimensional maternal placental models of different gestational stages and those of fetal embryogenesis and organ development. Screening of drug candidates in physiologically relevant human maternal-fetal cellular models will be beneficial to prioritize selection of safe antiviral therapeutics for clinical trials in pregnant women.

Characteristics and treatment of hospitalized pregnant women with COVID-19

Background: Pregnant women less frequently receive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes from COVID-19.Objectives: First, describe the vaccination status, treatment, and outcomes of hospitalized, symptomatic pregnant women with COVID-19 and second, estimate whether treatment differs by pregnancy status among treatment-eligible (i.e., requiring supplemental oxygen per National Institutes of Health guidelines at the time of the study) women.Study Design: During January–November 2021, the COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network completed medical chart abstraction for a probability sample of 2,715 hospitalized women aged 15-49 years with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these, 1,950 women had symptoms of COVID-19 upon admission; 336 were pregnant. We calculated weighted prevalence estimates of demographic and clinical characteristics, vaccination status, and outcomes among pregnant women with symptoms of COVID-19 upon admission. We used propensity score matching to estimate prevalence ratios (PR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of treatment-eligible patients who received remdesivir or systemic steroids by pregnancy status.Results: Among 336 hospitalized pregnant women with symptomatic COVID-19, 39.6% were non-Hispanic Black, 24.8% were Hispanic or Latino, and 61.9% were aged 25-34 years. Among those with known COVID-19 vaccination status, 92.9% were unvaccinated. One-third (32.7%) were treatment-eligible. Among treatment-eligible pregnant women, 74.1% received systemic steroids and 61.4% received remdesivir. Among those that were no longer pregnant at discharge (n=180), 5.4% had spontaneous abortions and 3.5% had stillbirths. Of the 159 live births, 29.0% were pre-term. Among a propensity score-matched cohort of treatment-eligible hospitalized women of reproductive age, pregnant women were less likely than non-pregnant women to receive remdesivir (PR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97) and systemic steroids (PR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.87).Conclusion: Most hospitalized pregnant patients with symptomatic COVID-19 were unvaccinated. Hospitalized pregnant patients were less likely to receive recommended remdesivir and systemic steroids compared to similar hospitalized non-pregnant women. Our results underscore the need to identify opportunities for improving COVID-19 vaccination, implementation of treatment of pregnant women, and the inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials.

Non-clinical considerations for supporting accelerated inclusion of pregnant women in pre-licensure clinical trials with anti-HIV agents.

IntroductionTo allow the continued participation of women enrolled in pre‐licensure clinical trials who become pregnant, and to potentially enrol pregnant women in clinical trials, non‐clinical developmental and reproductive toxicology studies (DART) are essential. Generally during pharmaceutical development, DART studies are conducted late during clinical development, leading to the exclusion of pregnant women from enrolment and withdrawal of women becoming pregnant during pre‐licensure trials.DiscussionCompleting all DART studies prior to or early during the conduct of phase 3 trials (i.e. earlier than current common practice) can accelerate and facilitate the inclusion of women who become pregnant during pre‐licensure trials to remain on study drug and to potentially enrol pregnant women more rapidly. Promoting complementary strategies, such as alternative combinations of DART study designs and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling, could better inform drug dosing and safety in pregnancy at an earlier stage in drug development. The interpretation of the results of non‐clinical DART studies is often complex. Institutional review boards/ethics committees should have access to relevant expertise for interpretation and application of results of non‐clinical developmental and reproductive toxicity studies. Clear communication and thorough understanding of non‐clinical findings and the overall benefit–risk profile of the product are critical to review protocols and determine if women who become pregnant during a clinical trial could continue on study drug and/or to enrol pregnant women in the trial. The informed consent document should be well written so that participants can make an informed decision to stay on study drug or participate in a trial during pregnancy. Ultimately, the decision to allow women who become pregnant during pre‐licensure trials to remain on study will depend on the totality of the evidence and benefit–risk considerations.ConclusionsWe propose that industry completes non‐clinical reproductive toxicity studies prior to or early during the conduct of phase 3 trials in HIV drug development, especially for priority agents, and potentially uses alternative DART study design strategies to achieve this goal.

Lupus erythematosus: Management of cutaneous manifestations during pregnancy.

Lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease that often affects the skin. Cutaneous manifestations are generally subdivided into different subtypes, including acute, subacute, and chronic courses. Management of lupus erythematosus cutaneous manifestations during pregnancy remains a clinical challenge until nowadays. To date, no recommendations have been published specifically for the treatment of this condition in pregnant women, so therapeutic strategies are mainly based on recommendations for general population and other rheumatologic and dermatologic diseases during pregnancy. This challenge is compounded by a lack of evidence-based studies, as clinical trials in pregnant women are considered unethical in many circumstances, so data are often extrapolated from low-evidence sources. The aim of this article consists in review currently evidence of treatment of lupus erythematosus cutaneous lesion in pregnant women.

The promise, problems, and pitfalls of including pregnant women in clinical trials of Lassa fever vaccine: a qualitative assessment of sub-Sahara Africa investigators’ perception

IntroductionLassa fever runs a uniquely severe course in pregnancy. There are plans for Lassa fever vaccine clinical trials in endemic West African countries. We assessed the perception of West African investigators to include pregnant women in these studies.Methodsinterviews were conducted with eight sub-Saharan African investigators. These investigators, listed as speakers at the 9th European and developing countries clinical trials partnership (EDCTP) congress and had clinical research experience in sub-Saharan Africa, were purposefully included as study participants. Six are from West Africa. The information was analyzed thematically.Resultswe interviewed eight (six in-person and two on the phone) out of fifteen earmarked investigators. Respondents had limited experience with pregnant women in clinical trials, but desired a paradigm shift. They identified pregnant women's willingness, a robust community engagement strategy, and adequate safety data as enablers, while lack of safety data, persistent fears about potential harm to pregnant women and offspring, and inappropriate community engagement activities as potential barriers.Conclusionthe inclusion of pregnant women in Lassa fever vaccine clinical trials should be a priority of vaccine developers. Investigators are willing to conduct these studies provided adequate measures to ensure safety is in place.

Safety and efficiency of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Despite the development of effective and safe vaccines, the contributions of pregnant women in clinical trials of vaccines have been excluded. Similarly, vaccine trials did not include breastfeeding women. This article is an overview of studies on immunization during pregnancy and breast-feeding. The manuscript is intended to collect the current data on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in order to facilitate medical decision.

Adenovirus-Based Vaccines and Thrombosis in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BackgroundRare cases of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome [TTS]) have been associated with 2 coronavirus disease 2019 adenovirus vector vaccines: the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaxzevria vaccine (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and the JNJ-7836735 Johnson & Johnson vaccine (Janssen). It is unknown if TTS is a class-mediated effect of adenovirus-based vaccines or if it could worsen known hypercoagulable states. Since most cases of TTS happen in women of childbearing age, pregnancy is a crucial risk factor to assess. Understanding these risks is important for advising vaccine recipients and future adenovirus vector vaccine development.MethodsTo explore the potential associations of adenovirus-based vaccine components with symptoms of TTS in the general clinical trial population and in pregnant women in clinical trials, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of adenovirus-based vector vaccines to document cases of thrombocytopenia, coagulopathy, and or pregnancy from 1 January 1966 to 9 August 2021.ResultsWe found 167 articles from 159 studies of adenovirus vector–based vaccines, 123 of which targeted infectious diseases. In the general population, 20 studies reported an event of thrombocytopenia and 20 studies indicated some coagulopathy. Among pregnant women, of the 28 studies that reported a total of 1731 pregnant women, thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy were not reported.ConclusionsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, there was no class-wide effect of adenovirus vector vaccines toward thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy events in the general population or in pregnant women.

Need for fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials: scientific and ethical considerations about the lesson from the COVID-19 vaccines development.

article: Need for fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials: scientific and ethical considerations about the lesson from the COVID-19 vaccines development - Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology 2022 February;74(1):112-3 - Minerva Medica - Journals

Research conducted on gestating women globally during trials

The aim of clinical research is to impart knowledge that will improve human health or improve understanding of human physiology. Although, till the end of 20 century pregnancy was always under exclusion criteria, now pervasive exclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials is currently not justified. Pregnancy brings in an array of anatomical, physiological and biochemical changes that can impact the pharmacokinetics of important medications. Pregnancy is often accompanied by chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension, tuberculosis, HIV, depression which can require long term therapy. This indicates a need for studies being conducted exclusively in pregnant women. Current communication narrates ethical and regulatory aspects of inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials.

Pharmacoethics and pregnancy: Overcoming the therapeutic orphan stigma.

There is paucity of evidence to support clinical decision making and counselling related to medication use in pregnancy. Despite multiple efforts from legislative bodies and advocacy groups, the inclusion of pregnant women in clinical drug trials assessing efficacy and safety remains scarce. Pregnancy can be complicated by multiple comorbidities that require pharmacological intervention; these interventions primarily target the pregnant woman but also sometimes have secondary effects for the foetus. The US Food and Drug Administration has issued multiple guidance documents on incorporating pregnant women in clinical trials to aid pharmaceutical companies in designing a protocol to ensure safety and adherence to ethical standards. Advances in paediatric pharmacology studies provide lessons for researchers on the best practice of designing clinical trials with inclusion of patients from special populations. In this review, we present the status of pregnant women in clinical trials, highlighting the ethical stigma and possible future directives.

Inherited antithrombin deficiency in pregnancy

Inherited AntiThrombin Deficiency (ATD) is a rare and high-risk thrombophilia. It is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism, thrombosis, and the risk is escalated further in the prothrombotic state of pregnancy. Due to the thrombotic tendency it is also associated with placental dysfunction due to placental thrombosis. Untreated mothers with ATD have increased rates of second and third trimester loss, pre-eclampsia & eclampsia, placental abruption, and intra-uterine growth restriction resulting in small for gestational age babies.We have conducted a comprehensive review of the literature and guidelines & summarise the role of antithrombin, how to test for it, the evidence for its role in thrombosis and obstetric complications and how best to manage this. We also aim to present what we believe is best practise for managing ATD during pregnancy and therefore provide a much needed practical guide.Managing these women during pregnancy is designed to reduce their risk of thrombosis and late obstetric complications. Due to the rarity of the condition and the ethical difficulties surrounding clinical trials in pregnant women no randomised controlled trials or large observational studies have been conducted in this area; evidence is limited to small cohort studies, which are usually retrospective. Definitions such as ‘miscarriage’ and ‘fetal loss’ are also discordant between studies and associations which makes data comparison difficult. Thus there is limited guidance on the management of ATD in pregnancy. We recommend the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) during pregnancy with regular anti- Xa monitoring to ensure that women receive adequate antithrombotic therapy. Due to the efficacy of LMWH working through potentiation of antithrombin, in those with ATD, high levels of LMWH are usually required. We discuss the use of antithrombin concentrates at times where the use of LMWH is contraindicated, such as during delivery.Emerging evidence suggests that the type of antithrombin deficiency is important in risk stratification along with the individual's own thrombotic risk factors, thrombosis history and family history.

Letter to the Editor: COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy: it is time to have a fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials

Letter to the Editor: COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy: it is time to have a fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials

Predicting completion of clinical trials in pregnant women: Cox proportional hazard and neural network models.

This study aimed to develop a model for predicting the completion of clinical trials involving pregnant women using the Cox proportional hazard model and neural network model (DeepSurv) and to compare the predictive performance of both methods. We collected data on 819 clinical trials performed on pregnant women and intervention studies using at least one drug as intervention from 2009 to 2018 from ClinicalTrials.gov. The Cox proportional hazard model and DeepSurv were used to develop models that predict clinical trial completion. The concordance index (C‐index) was used to evaluate the predictive performance. The Cox proportional hazard model revealed that a sample size of n ≥ 329 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.53), very high human development index (HDI) country (HR = 0.28), abortion (HR = 3.30), labor (HR = 2.16), and iron deficiency anemia (HR = 2.29) were significantly related to the probability of clinical trial completion (all p value < 0.01). The C‐index of the model development dataset and test dataset were 0.72 and 0.73, respectively. DeepSurv model consisted of one hidden layer with 16 nodes. DeepSurv showed the C‐index comparable to the Cox proportional hazard model. The C‐index of the training dataset and test dataset were 0.76 and 0.72, respectively. Further a nomogram that calculate a probability of clinical trial completion at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years was developed. Both the Cox proportional hazard model and DeepSurv yielded sufficient predicting performance. We hope that this study will contribute to the execution of future clinical trials in pregnant women.

Acceptability of Clinical Trials on COVID-19 during Pregnancy among Pregnant Women and Healthcare Providers: A Qualitative Study.

Participation of pregnant women in clinical trials entails challenges mainly related to concerns about the risks for fetuses. We undertook a qualitative study from June to October 2020 to assess the acceptability of participating in COVID-19 clinical trials among pregnant women in Spain. Phenomenology and grounded theory were used as methodological approaches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 pregnant women and six healthcare providers. Women were unsure if pregnancy was a risk factor to acquire the infection or to develop severe disease and expressed the limited information they had received, which led to uncertainties and emotional suffering. They had concerns regarding participation in clinical trials on COVID-19, regardless of the drug under study. Healthcare providers alluded to the importance of involving pregnant women’s relatives at the recruitment visit of the clinical trial. These findings may be useful to facilitate pregnant women’s participation in clinical trials.

Management of allergic diseases in pregnancy

Allergic diseases like asthma, allergic rhinitis, food allergy, hymenoptera allergy, or atopic dermatitis are highly prevalent in women of childbearing age and may affect up to 30% of this age group. This review focuses on the management of allergic diseases during pregnancy. Furthermore, we discuss the challenges of counseling women with allergic diseases in the reproductive age, including considerations relevant to the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. To create the optimal milieu for the unborn child, a multitude of immunological changes occur during pregnancy which may favor type 2 responses and aggravate disease phenotypes. In co-occurrence with suboptimal preconception disease control, this elevated Th2 responses may aggravate allergic disease manifestations during pregnancy and pose a risk for mother and child. Due to limitations in conducting clinical trials in pregnant women, safety data on anti-allergic drugs during pregnancy are limited. The lack of information and concerns among pregnant patients demands counseling on the benefits of anti-allergic drugs and the potential and known risks. This includes information on the risk for mother and child of disease aggravation in the absence of treatment. By doing so, informed decisions and shared decision-making can take place.

The Comparative Effectiveness of Varenicline and Nicotine Patches for Smoking Abstinence During Pregnancy: Evidence From a Population-based Cohort Study.

In the general population, varenicline is consistently shown to be more efficacious for smoking cessation than nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Current clinical guidelines for the management of smoking during pregnancy recommend against the use of varenicline, whilst supporting the use of NRT. However, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of these smoking cessation therapies among pregnant women. Routinely-collected records of all births in two Australian States during 2011 and 2012 were used to create a population-based cohort of women who smoked during the first half of pregnancy. Pharmaceutical dispensing data were used to identify varenicline and nicotine patch dispensings in the first half of pregnancy. Propensity score matching was used to account for the potentially different distribution of confounding factors between the treatment groups. The outcome was defined as smoking abstinence during the second half of pregnancy. After propensity score-matching, our cohort comprised 60 women who used varenicline and 60 who used nicotine patches during the first half of pregnancy. More varenicline users (33.3%, 95% CI: 21.7%-46.7%) quit smoking than nicotine patch users (13.3%, 95% CI: 5.9%-24.6%). The adjusted rate difference was 24.2% (95% CI: 10.2%-38.2%) and the adjusted relative risk was 2.8 (95% CI: 1.4-5.7). Varenicline was almost three times more effective than nicotine patches in assisting pregnant women to quit smoking. Further studies are needed to corroborate our results. Together with data on the safety of varenicline during pregnancy, evidence regarding the relative benefit of varenicline and NRT during pregnancy important for informing clinical decisions for pregnant smokers. This study is the first to measure the comparative effectiveness of varenicline and nicotine patches during pregnancy - women using varenicline were almost three times as likely to quit smoking than those using nicotine patches. This study addressed a clinically important question using an observational study, noting that there is an absence of evidence from randomized controlled trials because of the ethical issues associated with including pregnant women in clinical trials of medicines of unknown safety.