Advertisement

When Is It Acceptable to Vaccinate Pregnant Women? Risk, Ethics, and Politics of Governance in Epidemic Crises

  • Ashley L. Graham
Vaccines in Pregnant Women & Infants (D Schwartz and C Krubiner, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Vaccines in Pregnant Women & Infants

Abstract

Purpose of Review

In some countries, pregnant women experience disproportionately high morbidity and mortality during infectious disease outbreaks due to a variety of gender-based factors and pregnancy-related immunological changes. Despite this, the interests of pregnant women have largely been absent from policies that guide the design of clinical trials and the deployment of vaccines in epidemic contexts. This review examines historic precedent for both excluding and including pregnant women in vaccine trials and considers the rights of pregnant women in epidemic crises.

Recent Findings

The latest research reveals that perceptions of risk and vulnerability of pregnant women in clinical research are beginning to change, resulting in modest policy and guideline amendments. A growing advocacy movement calling for “fair inclusion” has played an important role.

Summary

Despite the global-scale and far-reaching implications of vaccine research policies, the current debate appears to reside primarily in disciplinary siloes across Western academic and policymaking spaces. Conceptual ambiguity of “risk,” the pervasive view of pregnant women as “vulnerable,” and competing ethical values that construct research protocols, globally, call for more explicit guidelines.

Keywords

Pregnancy Maternal immunization Reproductive governance Fair inclusion Epidemic Risk 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Barrett R, Kuzawa CW, McDade T, Armelagos GJ. Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases: the third epidemiologic transition. Annu Rev Anthropol. 1998;27:247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menendez C, Lucas A, Munguambe K. Ebola crisis: the unequal impact on women and child’s health. Lancet. 2015;e130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70009-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bebell LM, Oduyebo T, Riley LE. Ebola virus disease and pregnancy – a review of the current knowledge of Ebola virus pathogenesis, maternal and neonatal outcomes. Birth Defects Res. 2017;109(5):353–62.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.23558.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caluwaerts S. Nubia’s mother: being pregnant in the time of experimental vaccines and therapeutics for Ebola. Reprod Health. 2017;14(3):157.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0429-8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Merkatz R. Inclusion of women in clinical trials: a historical overview of scientific, ethical, and legal issues. JOGNN. 1998;27(1):78–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allesee L, Gallagher CM. Pregnancy and protection: the ethics of limiting a pregnant woman’s participation in clinical trials. J Clin Res Bioeth. 2011;2(108).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Swan SH. Intrauterine exposure to diethylstilbestrol: long-term effects in humans. APMIS. 2000;108:793–804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• van der Graaf R, van der Zande ISE, van Delden JJM. How the CIOMS guidelines contribute to fair inclusion of pregnant women in research. Bioethics. 2019;33:377–83.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12520 van der Graaf and colleagues trace the revision of CIOMS guidelines since 2002, revealing recent changes that foster greater inclusion of pregnant women in research. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krubiner CB, Faden RR. Pregnant women should not be categorised as a ‘vulnerable population’ in biomedical research studies: ending a vicious cycle of ‘vulnerability’. J Med Ethics. 2017;43(10):664–5.  https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103955.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rubin R. Addressing barriers to inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials. JAMA. 2018;320(8):742–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Ethics Working Group on ZIKV Research and Pregnancy. Ethics, pregnancy, and ZIKV vaccine research & development. Vaccine. 2017;35:6819–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz DA. Maternal filovirus infection and death from Marburg and Ravn viruses: highly lethal to pregnant women and their fetuses similar to Ebola virus. In: Okware SI, editor. Re-emerging filovirus diseases. London: IntechOpen; 2019. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/maternal-filovirus-infection-and-death-from-marburg-and-ravn-viruses-highly-lethal-to-pregnant-women. Accessed 1 Sept 2019.
  13. 13.
    WHO Ethics Working Group. Ethical issues related to study design for trials on therapeutics for Ebola virus disease: WHO Ethics Working Group Meeting 20-21 October, Summary of Discussion. 2014. http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/137509. Accessed 1 Aug 2019.
  14. 14.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 646: ethical considerations for including women as research participants. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):e100–7 Reaffirmed 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. NIH guidelines on the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in clinical research. Fed Regist. 1994;59:14508–13.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. Geneva, Switzerland; 2002. Available from: http://cioms.ch/ethical-guidelines-2016/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2019.
  17. 17.
    Lyerly AD, Little MO, Faden R. The second wave: toward responsible inclusion of pregnant women in research. IJFAB: Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth. 2008;1(2):5–22. The Second Wave Initiative. Retrieved from http://secondwaveinitiative.org/. Accessed 28 Aug 2019.
  18. 18.
    PHASES. Pregnancy and HIV/AIDS: Seeking Equitable Study. http://www.hivpregnancyethics.org/. Accessed 25 June 2019.
  19. 19.
    • The PREVENT Working Group. Pregnant women & vaccines against emerging epidemic threats: ethics guidance for preparedness, research, and response. Baltimore, MD; 2018. Developed by a multidisciplinary, international team of experts, the PREVENT working group offers guidance for vaccine research and development to ensure the needs of pregnant women and their offspring are ethically and fairly addressed. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Little MO, Lyerly AD, Faden RR. Pregnant women and medical research: a moral imperative. Bioeth Forum. 2009;2:60–5.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones CE, Munoz FM, Spiegel HML, Heininger U, Zuber PLF, Edwards KM, et al. Guideline for collection, analysis and presentation of safety data in clinical trials of vaccines in pregnant women. Vaccine. 2016;34(49):5998–6006.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marshall H, McMillan M, Andrews RM, Macartney K, Edwards K. Vaccines in pregnancy: the dual benefit for pregnant women and infants. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2016;12(4):848–56.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2015.1127485.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohen J. Zika rewrites maternal immunization ethics. Science. 2017;357(6348):241.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.357.6348.241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Schwartz DA. Clinical trials and administration of Zika virus vaccine in pregnant women: lessons (that should have been) learned from excluding immunization with the Ebola vaccine during pregnancy and lactation. Vaccines. 2018;6(4).  https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines6040081. Schwartz analyzes the exclusion of pregnant women in West Africa and the DRC from receiving the lifesaving Ebola vaccine and discusses important implications for Zika vaccine trials. PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Henao-Restrepo AM, Longini IM, Egger M, Dean NE, Edmunds WJ, Camacho A, et al. Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine in preventing Ebola virus disease: final results from the Guinea ring vaccination, open-label, cluster-randomized trial (Ebola Ça Suffit!). Lancet. 2017;389:505–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32621-6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Faden, R, Karron R, Krubiner C. An ‘indefensible’ decision: not vaccinating pregnant and lactating women in an Ebola outbreak. STAT News August 27, 2018. https://www.statnews.com/2018/08/27/ebola-vaccine-pregnant-lactating-women/. Accessed 28 July 2019
  27. 27.
    Yellow Fever Vaccine (YF-VAX) product information. Sanofi Pasteur, June 2016. Accessed July 15, 2019.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    WHO yellow fever fact sheet. https://www.who.int/ith/vaccines/yf/en/. Accessed 15 July 2019.
  29. 29.
    Branswell H. Ebola vaccine will be provided to women who are pregnant, marking reversal in policy. STAT News. February 20, 2019. https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/20/ebola-pregnancy-reversal/. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  30. 30.
    Jones CE, Calvert A, Le Doare K. Vaccination in pregnancy – recent developments. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2018;37(2):192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilder-Smith A, Vannice K, Durbin A, Homach J, Thomas SJ, Thevarjan I, et al. Zika vaccines and therapeutics: landscape analysis and challenges ahead. BMC Med. 2018;16(84).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1067-x.
  32. 32.
    WHO, UNICEF. WHO/UNICEF Zika Virus (ZIKV) Vaccine Target Product Profile (TPP): vaccine to protect against congenital Zika syndrome for use during an emergency. Released July 2016. Updated February 2017. http://www.who.int/immunization/research/development/zika/en/.
  33. 33.
    Ballantyne A, Pullon S, Macdonald L, Barthow C, Wickens K, Crane J. The experiences of pregnant women in an interventional clinical trial: Research in Pregnancy Ethics (RIPE) study. Bioethics. 2017;31:476–83.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alirol E, Kuesel AC, Guraiib MM, de la Fuente-Núñez V, Saxena A, Gomes MF. Ethics review of studies during public health emergencies – the experience of the WHO ethics review committee during the Ebola virus disease epidemic. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18:43.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0201-1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    •• Heyrana K, Byers HM, Stratton P. Increasing the Participation of Pregnant Women in Clinical Trials. JAMA. 2018;320(20):2071.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.17716 Heyrana et al. outline three specific barriers that impede fair inclusion of pregnant women in vaccine trials: their designation as “vulnerable,” ambiguity around “acceptable risk,” and legal liability. They call for the appropriate engagement of pregnant women and their fetuses in clinical research to not only improve their health but also develop the evidence base. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Omer SB, Beigi RH. Pregnancy in the time of Zika: addressing barriers for developing vaccines and other measures for pregnant women. JAMA. 2016;315(12).  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.2237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Office for Human Research Protections. Revised common rule. Rockville: Office for Human Research Protections; 2018.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schopper D, Ravinetto R, Schwartz L, Kamaara E, Sheel S, Segelid M, et al. Research ethics governance in times of Ebola. Public Health Ethics. 2017;10(1):49–61 Accessed July 31, 2019.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rubin R. Addressing barriers to inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials. JAMA. 2018;320(8). Accessed July 31, 2019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Blehar MC, Spong C, Grady C, Goldkind SF, Sahin L, Clayton JA. Enrolling pregnant women: issues in clinical research. Womens Health Issues. 2013;23:e39–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    White A. Accelerating the paradigm shift toward inclusion of pregnant women in drug research: ethical and regulatory considerations. Semin Perinatol. 2015:537–40.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2015.08.008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    David A. Schwartz, personal communication, August 2019.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Petryna A. Ethical variability: drug development and globalizing clinical trials. Am Ethnol. 2005;32(2):183–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Aven T, Renn O. On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J Risk Res. 2009;12(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Adams J. Risk. London: UCL Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Baker B. Risk assessment kills bills. Bioscience. 1995;45(1):15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Douglas M. Risk and blame. London: Routledge; 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Althaus C. A Disciplinary perspective on the epistemological status of risk. Risk Anal. 2005;25(3):567–88.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00625.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Timmermans S, Buchbinder M. Saving babies? The consequences of newborn genetic screening. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2013. p. 13.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stewart K. Anthropological perspectives in bioethics. Int Encycl Publ Health. 2017;1:113 Accessed June 14, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    World Health Organization (WHO). Ethics guidance: for the implementation of the end TB strategy 2017. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kleinman A. Moral experience and ethical reflection: can ethnography reconcile them: a quandary for “the new bioethics” Daedalus. 1999;128(4):69-97.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Collier SJ, Ong A. Global assemblages, anthropological problems. In: Ong A, Collier SJ, editors. Global assemblages: technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems. Malden: Blackwell; 2005. p. 3–21.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lakoff A. Unprepared: global health in a time of emergency. Oakland: University of California Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Morgan LM, Roberts EFS. Reproductive governance in Latin America. Anthropol Med. 2012;19(2):241–54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2012.675046.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ginsburg F, Rapp R. The politics of reproduction. Annu Rev Anthropol. 1991;20:311–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ginsburg F, Rapp R. Conceiving the new world order: the global politics of reproduction: University of California Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hallowell E. “Between the wall and the sword”: reproductive governance and the technology of emergency in Guatemalan maternity care. Fem Form. 2014;26(3):100–21.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Addiss DG, Amon JJ. Apology and unintended harm in global health. Health Hum Rights. 2019;21(1):19–32.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Feierman S, Kleinman A, Stewart K, Farmer P, Das V. Anthropology, knowledge-flows, and global health. Glob Publ Health. 2010;5:122–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chamberlain AT, Lavery JV, White A, Omer SB. Ethics of maternal vaccination: involvement of women is critical in establishing guidelines. Sci Mag. 2017;358(6362):453 http://science.sciencemag.org/ Accessed 25 June 25 2019.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashley L. Graham
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.AtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations