ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2015
Pregnancy Outcomes after a Mass Vaccination Campaign with an Oral Cholera Vaccine in Guinea: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety of a bivalent, killed, whole-cell oral cholera vaccine in pregnant women in Bangladesh: evidence from a randomized placebo-controlled trial.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Trial
- Defining and reporting adverse events of special interest in comparative maternal vaccine studies: a systematic review.Vaccine: X · 2024Review
- The effects of an epidemic on prenatal investments, childhood mortality and health of surviving children.Journal of population economics · 2023Article
- Cholera Infection Risks and Cholera Vaccine Safety in Pregnancy.Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology · 2023Review
- Diagnosis, Management, and Future Control of Cholera.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022Review
- Maternal vaccination: a review of current evidence and recommendations.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Review
- Licensed and Recommended Inactivated Oral CholeraVaccines: From Development to Innovative Deployment.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2021Review
- Pregnant women & vaccines against emerging epidemic threats: Ethics guidance for preparedness, research, and response.Vaccine · 2021Review
- Global oral cholera vaccine use, 2013-2018.Vaccine · 2020Review
- Oral cholera vaccines and their impact on the global burden of disease.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2019Review
- Progress and Challenges in Using Oral Cholera Vaccines to Control Outbreaks: The Médecins Sans Frontières Experience.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Cholera.Current epidemiology reports · 2018Article
- Safety of oral cholera vaccines during pregnancy in developing countries.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2017Article
- Cholera vaccination: pregnant women excluded no more.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Safety of a killed oral cholera vaccine (Shanchol) in pregnant women in Malawi: an observational cohort study.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2017Observational
- Article
- Highlights of the 8th International Conference on Vaccines for Enteric Diseases: the Scottish Encounter To Defeat Diarrheal Diseases.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSince 2010, WHO has recommended oral cholera vaccines as an additional strategy for cholera control. During a cholera episode, pregnant women are at high risk of complications, and the risk of fetal death has been reported to be 2-36%. Due to a lack of safety data, pregnant women have been excluded from most cholera vaccination campaigns. In 2012, reactive campaigns using the bivalent killed whole-cell oral cholera vaccine (BivWC), included all people living in the targeted areas aged ≥ 1 year regardless of pregnancy status, were implemented in Guinea. We aimed to determine whether there was a difference in pregnancy outcomes between vaccinated and non-vaccinated pregnant women. METHODS AND
findingsFrom 11 November to 4 December 2013, we conducted a retrospective cohort study in Boffa prefecture among women who were pregnant in 2012 during or after the vaccination campaign. The primary outcome was pregnancy loss, as reported by the mother, and fetal malformations, after clinical examination. Primary exposure was the intake of the BivWC vaccine (Shanchol) during pregnancy, as determined by a vaccination card or oral history. We compared the risk of pregnancy loss between vaccinated and non-vaccinated women through binomial regression analysis. A total of 2,494 pregnancies were included in the analysis. The crude incidence of pregnancy loss was 3.7% (95%CI 2.7-4.8) for fetuses exposed to BivWC vaccine and 2.6% (0.7-4.5) for non-exposed fetuses. The incidence of malformation was 0.6% (0.1-1.0) and 1.2% (0.0-2.5) in BivWC-exposed and non-exposed fetuses, respectively. In both crude and adjusted analyses, fetal exposure to BivWC was not significantly associated with pregnancy loss (adjusted risk ratio (aRR = 1.09 [95%CI: 0.5-2.25], p = 0.818) or malformations (aRR = 0.50 [95%CI: 0.13-1.91], p = 0.314).
conclusionsIn this large retrospective cohort study, we found no association between fetal exposure to BivWC and risk of pregnancy loss or malformation. Despite the weaknesses of a retrospective design, we can conclude that if a risk exists, it is very low. Additional prospective studies are warranted to add to the evidence base on OCV use during pregnancy. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable during cholera episodes and should be included in vaccination campaigns when the risk of cholera is high, such as during outbreaks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.