Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41383270›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in drug safety and regulation2025

Post-approval safety studies of vaccines in pregnancy: available regulatory guidance and next steps towards the more efficient generation of safety evidence.

Sarah C MacDonald, Adrienne P Guignard, Flor M Munoz, Eileen O Dareng, Kourtney J Davis, Marina Amaral de Avila Machado, Shahar Shmuel, Laura Taddei, Lydie Marcelon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in drug safety and regulation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sarah C MacDonaldSafety Surveillance Research, Worldwide Medical and Safety, Pfizer, Inc., Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Adrienne P GuignardGlobal Epidemiology, Organization of the Chief Medical Officer, GlaxoSmithKline, Wavre, Belgium.
Flor M MunozDepartments of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.
Eileen O DarengSafety Epidemiology and Risk Management, Global Patient Safety, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Kourtney J DavisGlobal Epidemiology, Johnson & Johnson, Horsham, PA, United States.
Marina Amaral de Avila MachadoEpidemiology & Benefit-Risk, Sanofi, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shahar ShmuelSafety Surveillance Research, Worldwide Medical and Safety, Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, United States.
Laura TaddeiGlobal Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Siena, Italy.
Lydie MarcelonEpidemiology & Benefit-Risk, Sanofi, Lyon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The "Beyond COVID-19 Monitoring Excellence" (BeCOME) initiative was established to leverage the successful multi-stakeholder collaborations achieved during the COVID-19 pandemic to increase efficiencies for future pandemic preparedness. At the first BeCOME cross-stakeholder meeting, the following key challenge was identified: Inconsistent guidance from regulatory authorities on the conduct of post-marketing safety studies in pregnant people. Objectives: This article aims to describe examples of post-approval safety studies sponsored by marketing authorization holders (MAHs) for vaccines in pregnancy, analyze existing regulatory guidelines for these studies, and identify areas warranting more detailed guidance. Example Studies: Fifteen vaccine post-approval safety studies in pregnant people with publicly available methodology were identified from the European Union (EU) Post-authorisation Study (PAS) Register and supplemented by a literature search. Studies were selected to cover both primary data collection and secondary use of data, as well as for vaccines recommended and not recommended during pregnancy. The identified studies varied in their type (active vs. passive surveillance), comparators, outcomes, exposure windows, target sample sizes, and study durations. Existing Guidance: Five applicable guidance documents were identified from two health authorities [the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA)], ranging in publication date from 2005-2023. Available guidance from both agencies included robust discussions of comparator groups, outcomes, and exposure periods. However, vaccine-specific recommendations were notably lacking. Actionable Recommendations: Additional vaccine-specific guidance is needed across regulatory authorities. Key areas of focus should include: the selection of study design by vaccine type, appropriate comparators for vaccine research, vaccine-specific recommendations for ascertaining exposure, a harmonized and prioritized list of outcomes, greater understanding of the role of outcome validation, pre-defined target minimal detectable risks by priority outcomes, appropriate durations of follow-up, additional guidance regarding the implementation of multi-stakeholder collaborations, and a framework for the use of rapid cycle analyses. Conclusion: There is wide variation in study designs and approaches for assessing vaccine safety in pregnancy post-approval, influenced by differences in vaccines, target populations, sponsors, and study periods. Harmonizing regulatory guidance and standards will enhance the consistency of data collection, as well as the comparability and validity of study conclusions.

Indexed as

maternal immunizationpharmacovigilancepost-approval studiespregnancypregnancy registriesregulatory guidancesafetyvaccines

Identifiers

PMID41383270
PMCPMC12690392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.