Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID- 19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. Vaccine 38 (2020) 4542–4547 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Vaccine journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /vaccine Obstetrics risk Assessment: Evaluation of selection criteria for vaccine research studies in pregnant women https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.022 0264-410X/� 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. ⇑ Corresponding authors at: Unversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States, (Linda O. Eckert), Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, MC-BCM-280, Houston, TX 77030, United States (Flor M. Munoz). E-mail addresses: eckert@uw.edu (L.O. Eckert), florm@bcm.edu (F.M. Munoz). Linda O. Eckert a,b,⇑, Christine E. Jones c, Alisa Kachikis a, Azucena Bardají d, Fernanda Tavares Da Silva e, Judith Absalon f, Caroline E. Rouse g, Asma Khalil h, Clare L. Cutland i, Sonali Kochhar b,j,k, Flor M. Munoz l,⇑ aDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology University of Washington, School of Medicine Seattle, WA bDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA c Faculty of Medicine and Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK d ISGlobal, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain e Safety Evaluation and Risk Management, Glaxo SmithKline Biologicals, Wavre, Belgium fVaccines Research and Development, Pfizer Inc, NY, USA gDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN hDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, St. George’s Hospital, University of London, London, UK iMedical Research Council, Respiratory and Meningeal Pathogens Research Unit, African Leadership Iin Vaccinology Expertise, Faculty of Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa jGlobal Healthcare Consulting, India kDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands lDepartment of Pediatrics and Department of Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 2 January 2020 Received in revised form 18 April 2020 Accepted 6 May 2020 Available online 11 May 2020 Keywords: Maternal immunization Vaccine Vaccine safety Obstetric and neonatal risk factors Clinical trial Clinical research Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Pregnant women Vaccines designed for use in pregnancy and vaccine trials specifically involving pregnant women are rapidly expanding. One of the key challenges in designing maternal immunization trials is that develop- ing exclusion criteria requires understanding and quantifying the background risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes in the pregnancy being studied, which can occur independent of any intervention and be unre- lated to vaccine administration. The Global Alignment of Immunization Safety Assessment in Pregnancy (GAIA) project has developed and published case definitions and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and evaluation of maternal immunization safety in trials involving pregnant women. Complementing this work, we sought to under- stand how to best assess obstetric risk of adverse outcomes and differentiate it from the assessment of vaccine safety. Quantification of obstetric risk is based on prior and current obstetric, and maternal med- ical history. We developed a step-wise approach to evaluate and quantify obstetric and maternal risk fac- tors in pregnancy based on review of published literature and guidelines, and critically assessed these factors in the context of designing inclusion and exclusion criteria for maternal vaccine studies. We antic- ipate this risk assessment evaluation may assist clinical trialists with study design decisions, including selection of exclusion criteria for vaccine trials involving pregnant women, consideration of sub-group classification, such as high or low risk subjects, or schedule considerations, such as preferred trimester of gestation for an intervention during pregnancy. Additionally, this tool may be utilized in data stratifi- cation at time of study analyses. � 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1. Introduction Immunization of pregnant women, or maternal immunization, is a practical, evidence-based strategy to prevent severe morbidity and reduce mortality in mothers, neonates and young infants [1]. Vaccine research requires careful assessment of safety and efficacy http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.022&domain=pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.022 mailto:eckert@uw.edu mailto:florm@bcm.edu https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.022 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0264410X http://www.elsevier.com/locate/vaccine L.O. Eckert et al. / Vaccine 38 (2020) 4542–4547 4543 in all study participants. When administering a vaccine to pregnant women, safety evidence must encompass the mother, the developing fetus, and subsequently the neonate, infant, and the child. Accumulating this safety data with the ability to reliably measure potential adverse events of interest is improved by stan- dardization of definitions of potential adverse events and data col- lection in a manner that is applicable across all resource settings. With the goal towards broadening future maternal immuniza- tion trials, in 2014 the World Health Organization (WHO) con- vened a stakeholder meeting where key obstetric and neonatal terms were identified and prioritized for standardization of def- initions [2]. The Global Alignment of Immunization Safety Assessment in Pregnancy (GAIA) project was established, and since 2014, GAIA [3], utilizing Brighton Collaboration methodol- ogy, has developed and published case definitions and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of maternal immu- nization safety data in trials involving pregnant women for twenty-one obstetric and neonatal terms [4]. These case defini- tions and tools have been adopted in recent maternal immuniza- tion studies to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes, including use in a recent Phase III maternal immunization trial [5,6]. Clinical trials in pregnant women are complex because, even in healthy pregnant women, adverse obstetric outcomes (such as fetal abnormalities, preterm birth, miscarriage, growth restriction and preeclampsia) occur and thus can also be antic- ipated to occur in the setting of a clinical trial, independent of the intervention. Many of the women who develop these prob- lems do not have risk factors, making complications which occur in pregnancy difficult to predict. The risk of pregnancy complications can be, in part, informed by the background rates of these events in any given population. However, data on back- ground rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes may not always be available [7]. Hence, it is challenging for clinical investigators to know which prior and current pregnancy risk factors are appropriate study exclusion criteria. The selection of criteria for inclusion or exclu- sion of subjects in the study is among the more critical study design decisions. In early phase clinical trials, it is common to enroll the healthiest populations to minimize risk. As the product profile is better defined in later stage studies, a broader group of individuals are generally enrolled. By Phase 3, study participants more closely mirror the target population for the vaccine and are enrolled in larger numbers, and it is typical to have fewer exclusion criteria. Currently, standardized guidance is lacking that may inform the choice of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant participants for any of the vaccine trial development phases. Understanding the obstet- ric risk of common inclusion and exclusion criteria may facilitate not only a more informed choice of inclusion and exclusion criteria in these clinical studies of vaccines in pregnant women, but also a tailored use of these criteria based on the phase of development (I- IV) of the vaccine. In an effort to assist clinical investigators in maternal immu- nization trials, a GAIA Working Group with broad geographic and specialty representation was formed to evaluate the selec- tion criteria that have previously been used to select women for participation in clinical trials of vaccines in pregnancy and to develop a strategy to help assess obstetric risks for designing maternal immunization trials. The overriding aim is to develop a consolidated evaluation and quantification of risk factors in pregnancy that would be useful to investigators in designing vaccine trials involving pregnant women. While this assessment is designed specifically for vaccine trials, it may also offer appli- cability for other interventions being assessed in pregnant women. 2. Methods We used several methods to identify the criteria previously used for inclusion and exclusion of study participants in studies of vaccines in pregnancy. We searched the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials.gov database to to identify current, completed or withdrawn studies of vaccines in pregnant women. Studies were identified the search terms ‘‘pregnancy”, ‘‘pregnant women”, ‘‘maternal”, ‘‘mothers”, ‘‘immu- nization”, ‘‘vaccination”, ‘‘vaccine”, ‘‘vaccines”, and a combination of the term ‘‘pregnancy” or ‘‘maternal” with specific vaccines including ‘‘influenza”, ‘‘tetanus”, ‘‘Tdap”, ‘‘pertussis”, ‘‘respiratory syncytial virus”, ‘‘RSV”, ‘‘group B streptococcus”, ‘‘GBS”, ‘‘pneumo- coccal”, ‘‘pneumococcus”, ‘‘meningitis”, ‘‘meningococcal”, ‘‘hepati- tis”, ‘‘pandemic”, ‘‘seasonal”. All relevant studies listed in the ClinTrials.gov through 07 October 2018 were included. We identi- fied a total of 43 interventional and 21 observational studies of vaccines in pregnant women. We abstracted and reviewed the complete list of inclusion and exclusion criteria utilized in each of these studies. Appendix A delineates the list of included studies We used similar search terms to conduct a literature search (2005–2018) in Medline, Embase, and leading textbooks to identify and catalogue published US and international guidelines used to classify pregnancies based on obstetric risk, and to identify guide- lines for referral from a mid level provider to a high risk provider, or from a low risk facility to a high risk or tertiary facility. We chose to include guidelines for referral in our approach because high risk prenatal referral guidelines represent what pregnancy care provi- ders utilize to judge increased obstetric risk, and could inform trial design. Lastly, we conducted a literature review searching for arti- cles listing obstetric risk factors as they pertained to clinical trials and vaccine trials. Based on these findings, we derived a comprehensive matrix of exclusion criteria and obstetric conditions used to determine the risk of adverse outcomes during pregnancy. We classified these into broad categories, including past obstetric and gynaecological history, family history, medical and obstetric conditions during the current pregnancy and fetal conditions. Individual tables were then derived from this matrix for interventional studies classified by development phase (phase I to IV), observational studies, and practice guidelines, detailing the number of studies or guidelines where each potential risk factor was cited. Based on this matrix, we created a heat map to indicate frequency of occurrence. After creating this matrix, we identified the most commonly listed exclusion criteria in clinical studies conducted in pregnant women, and considered the most common factors that could increase the risk for adverse outcomes during pregnancy. In order to provide more detail about the risk of adverse events in the cur- rent pregnancy associated with these exclusion criteria, we looked for studies documenting risk of various adverse pregnancy out- comes when the identified condition listed as an exclusion criteria occured during pregnancy. 3. Results 3.1. Exclusion factors matrix Sixty three maternal immunization studies (25 Phase I/II, 7 Phase III, 11 post licensure, 21 observational) were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov (Appendix A)and six practice guidelines were identified by obstetric experts. Table 1 is an alphabetical and cate- gorized line listing of the most common exclusion factors by study type with their respective frequency. Appendix B is a summation of all exclusion factors included in these studies and risk factors in practice guidelines. The exclusion and risk factors were grouped Table 1 Enumeration of most frequent exclusion factors in study types and risk factors in antenatal clinical care guidelines. Exclusion factors Phase I/II studies (n = 25) Phase III studies (n = 7) Phase IV studies (n = 11) Observational studies (n = 21) Guidelines (n = 6) Total (n = 70) A) Current General risk factors Advanced maternal age 17 4 6 2 4 33 Current alcohol or drug misuse/dependency/ teratogenic drug 8 2 3 0 5 18 Young maternal age 19 4 8 16 4 51 B) Past Obstetric history Cesarean section 0 1 0 0 6 7 Congenital anomaly (genetic or structural) 3 2 4 0 5 14 Hypertensive disease (pre-eclampsia/ eclampsia) 5 1 4 0 6 16 Perinatal death/Stillbirth 6 2 2 0 6 16 Postpartum hemorrhage 2 0 0 0 5 7 Preterm birth 7 2 4 0 5 18 Spontaneous abortion 5 0 2 0 3 10 C) Current Maternal Medical Conditions during Pregnancy Anemia 2 1 1 1 5 10 Autoimmune/connective tissue disorder 8 2 4 2 5 21 Blood group antibodies (e.g. Kell, RH) 1 1 1 1 5 9 Cardiac disorders 12 1 3 3 4 23 Congenital or acquired clotting or bleeding disorders 8 1 4 1 4 18 Hepatitis B 8 1 4 1 4 18 HIV 15 1 8 5 5 34 Obesity 2 1 0 0 6 9 Psychiatric disorders 14 2 5 2 4 27 Renal disorders 7 1 3 3 4 18 Sickle cell disease 1 1 1 0 5 8 Systemic lupus erythematosus 3 1 0 1 4 9 Type 1 diabetes mellitus 9 1 4 1 5 20 Type 2 diabetes mellitus 5 1 4 0 5 15 D) Current pregnancy-related conditions and fetal conditions Fetal congenital anomaly (genetic or structural) 6 0 4 3 3 16 Gestational Diabetes 4 1 4 0 3 12 Gestational hypertension 5 3 2 1 5 16 Pre-eclampsia 9 4 3 1 4 21 Premature labor 7 3 3 3 5 21 Phase I/II studies Phase III studies Post licensure studies Observational studies Guidelines All studies and guidelines Total exclusion factors and risk factors listed* 119 74 73 48 140 164 * Total number of exclusion or risks factors listed in each study type or clinical guideline. 4544 L.O. Eckert et al. / Vaccine 38 (2020) 4542–4547 by MedDRA criteria/organ system classification. Because the exclu- sion factors listed and referral risk factors were consistent, they were included in one matrix for ease of analysis. 3.2. Exclusion factors tabulation When evaluating the matrix, for all phases of studies and for the practice guidelines investigated, a few obstetric risk factors were most commonly chosen as exclusion criteria. These included gen- eral risk factors present during the current pregnancy such as advanced (over 35) or young (10–19 years) maternal age, and cur- rent alcohol or drug use; past obstetric history of congenital anomalies, hypertensive disease during pregnancy, perinatal death or stillbirth, prior preterm birth, and spontaneous abortion; cur- rent maternal medical conditions varying from HIV or other immunodeficiency, to psychiatric disorders (see Box 1). 3.3. Exclusion criteria and study development Phase More exclusion criteria were utilized in earlier phase clinical trials, as depicted in the overall heat map (Appendix B) of potential factors. In Phase I/II trials (n = 25), the number of exclusion criteria listed at least one time was 119. Thus far, the number of Phase 3 clinical trials in maternal immunization was limited (n = 7). While the number of exclusion criteria (74 ) was less than in the Phase I/II trials, exclusion criteria were extensive. As expected, in observa- tional studies (n = 21), we observed the least exclusion criteria (48) (Table 1). 3.4. Adverse outcomes for the most common exclusion criteria While Table 1 presents the frequencies that each of these fac- tors were listed as exclusion criteria in different phases of clinical trials of vaccines in pregnancy and in relevant practice guidelines. Table 2 summarizes the risks of adverse outcomes for some of the factors. In addition to the Table 2 summary of risk factors, we used our literature search to provide more detailed and highly referenced text discussions of these risk factors in Appendix C. Due to the length of this discussion on these 15 most common exclusion cri- teria (listed in Box 1), this text discussion is presented in Appendix C as Supplemental Material. 4. Discussion The purpose of this project was to provide clinical researchers with data that may be helpful in selecting appropriate exclusion criteria for maternal vaccine clinical trials. We created a compre- Table 2 Elevation of Adverse Pregnancy, Maternal or Neonatal Outcomes Associated with Exclusion Criteria. Factor Outcome in current pregnancy, OR (95% CI) SAB Pretermlabour Preterm birth Stillbirth Adverse neonatal outcome Adverse obstetric outcome AMA [8,9] 1.2 (1.1–1.2) 1.5 (1.4–1.7) ND 1.4 (1.3–1.5) MM 1.7 (1.2–2.6) Young Age [10–14] 1.6 (1.2–1.9) 1.3 (1.1–1.6) 1.6 (1.2–1.7) Eclampsia Infections C/D rate Drug and Alcohol use [15,16] "IUFD 5.1 (3.3–7.2) 2.1 (2.0–2.3) 3.38 (2.7–4.2) 3.0 (1.4–6.4) 1.5 (1.3–1.8) FGR 2.7 (2.4–2.9)Cong Anom 33–100%y Plac ABR 2.4 (2.1–2.6)*Plac ABR 5.5 (4.9–6.3) �Plac ABR 3.9 (2.8–5.5) š Hypertension [17–22] 2.7 (1.9–3.6) ND 4.2 (2.706.5)LBW 2.7 (1.9–3.8)NICU 3.2 (2.2–4.4) Plac ABR 2-fold 29% pregnancies SIPE Prior Stillbirth [23–29] 4.9 (1.5–15) 2–10 fold Prior Preterm Birth [30] 22% vs 9% 5.6 (1.8–17) Prior Pregnancy Loss [31] 1.4 (1.1–1.9) LBW 1.4 (1.2–1.6) Bleeding Disorder s [32–35] FVL 1.7 (1.1–2.6) ACA 3.4 (1.3–8.7) FGR, ACA 6.9 (2.7–17.7) FVL, PIH 2.2 (1.5–3.3) Plac ABR, FVL 4.7 (1.1–19.6) PIH, ACA 2.7 (1.7–4.5) Pre-gestational Diabetes Mellitus [36–42] 1.6 (1.2–2.2) iPTD 8.1 (6.0–10.9) 6.1 (4.4–8.4) Cong Anom 2.4 (1.9–3.1) C/D 1.6 (1.3–2.0) PIH 1.3 (1.2–1.4) HIV Positive [43–46] 4.0 (2.8–6.0) 1.8 (1.6–2.1) 3.9 (2.7–5.8) FGR 1.7 (1.4–2.0)ND 1.8 (1.1–2.8) MM 1.8 (1.0–3.3) Obesity (BMI > 30) [47,48] 1.4 (1.1–1.7) GDM 3.6 (3.3–4.0) PIH 2.1 (1.9–2.5) IOL 1.8 (1.7–1.9) C/D 1.8 (1.7–1.9) PPH 1.4 (1.3–1.5) Wound infection 2.3 (1.9–2.6) Abbreviations: ACA, anti-cardiolipin antibodies; AMA, advanced maternal age; C/D, cesarean delivery; FGR, fetal growth restriction; FVL, Factor V Leiden; GDM, Gestational Diabetes Mellitus; IOL, Induction of labour; iPTD, iatrogenic or medically indicated preterm birth; LBW, low birth weight; MM, maternal mortality; ND, neonatal death; NICU, neonatal intensive care admission; PIH, Pre-eclampsia / Pregnancy induced hypertension; Plac ABR, placental abruption; PPH, postpartum haemorrhage; SAB, spontaneous abortion. * Opioid use. y Alcohol. � Methamphetamine use. š Cocaine use. L.O. Eckert et al. / Vaccine 38 (2020) 4542–4547 4545 hensive matrix of exclusion and risk factors delineating the fre- quency of exclusion criteria and risk factors used across the spec- trum of clinical studies of vaccines in pregnancy. The selection of subjects and the selection of the risk threshold that is acceptable will depend on the type of vaccine being used, the phase of the clinical study, and various other factors such as the perception of risk and potential real risks in a given population. We sought to catalogue and provide specific data on adverse pregnancy out- comes associated with the more commonly utilized exclusion cri- teria, to guide the use of obstetric risks for the selection of participants in clinical trials of maternal immunization. Adverse outcomes may occur in normal low risk pregnancies without inter- ventions. These obstetric risks do not imply an increased risk of vaccination. Therefore, a better understanding of obstetric risks may facilitiate not only a more informed choice of inclusion and exclusion criteria in these clinical studies of vaccines in pregnant women, but also a tailored use of obstetric risk criteria based on the phase of development of the vaccine. The field of maternal immunization has continued to evolve and rapidly expanded after the 2009 influenza pandemic. Because of obstetrics risks and the complexity of the maternal-fetal dyad, pregnant women have been considered a vulnerable population, excluded from participation in experimental trials of vaccines and drugs, particularly when these are not intended for the man- agement of obstetric conditions. To facilitate inclusion of pregnant women in studies and research on immunizations targeting preg- nant women, bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institues of Health have addressed and published guidance on inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials. Topics addressed have included ethical and consent consideration [49], and development of standards for laboratory and physiologic parameters in pregnant women to assist in evaluation of outcomes in pregnant women participating in clinical trials [50–54]. General guidance on the conduct of research in pregnancy has been devel- oped by the National Institutes of Health after conducting clinical trials of licensed and experimental vaccines since the 19800s, and global experience has been growing as more studies funded by industry and other organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are being pursued in all resource settings in the last decade [1]. Consensus statements, such as PREVENT, advocating for inclusion of pregnant women in vaccine trials are now pub- lished [55]. The exclusion of pregnant women and their infants from the benefits of potentially life-saving drugs and vaccines through clinical trials is no longer considered acceptable [56,57]. At present, vaccines specifically for use in pregnant women against at least two pathogens: Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and Group B Streptococcus (GBS), are in clinical development. Active evaluation of these and other vaccines for women during or prior to pregnancy is ongoing (eg. Pertussis, Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Hepatitis E). 4546 L.O. Eckert et al. / Vaccine 38 (2020) 4542–4547 Complications in pregnancy can occur even in normal low risk pregnancies, and all medicinal products including vaccines can have side effects – although not everyone has them. In clinical studies where there is a placebo or comparator group, similar fre- quency of obstetric adverse events is expected to occur in both groups. For Phase III trials, ideally the study population should mir- ror the target population. Exclusion criteria based on selection of women with low risk for obstetric complications can be too restric- tive and limit the ability to assess safety of the vaccine in the pop- ulations who need it the most. Additionally, exclusion criteria may act indirectly to alter study results by excluding participants who would otherwise be at increased risk for a condition. For example, Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is considered an important cause of stillbirth and preterm labor globally. Eliminating pregnant women with a prior stillbirth or prior preterm labor from participation in clinical research on GBS may also impact efficacy results of an intervention and may add bias to the study [58,59]. In fact, inclu- sion of ‘‘higher risk” populations may better allow the ability to demonstrate differences between vaccine and control and poten- tially make a vaccine available to women sooner. Researchers should determine what population they will evalu- ate (such as healthy and at risk), understand the potential risks (obstetric risks versus vaccine risks), and wherever possible, utilize the background rates of certain obstetric, maternal and neonatal events of interest in the general population for interpretation and assessment of these risks to determine if vaccination would poten- tially increase the occurrence of these events above such expected background rates. While the assessment of exclusion criteria pre- sented in this article does not differentiate obstetric risks from vac- cine risks, the quantitation of risk may facilitate trialists’ ability to consider appropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria that reaches a balance between minimizing risk to participants and enabling inclusion of relevant populations. Its use may facilitiate not only a more informed choice of inclusion and exclusion criteria in these clinical studies of vaccines in pregnant women, but also a tailored use of these criteria based on the phase of development of the vac- cine. Having more granular information about the obstetric risks, as provided in Appendix C, may help trialists to anticipate the potential obstetric risks in each trimester. For instance, with spontaneous abortion risks mostly in the first trimester, or pre-eclampsia in the third trimester, a trialist could have a more accurate estimation of magnitude of adverse events, and consider these combined with the expected (background) risk in the studied population, the known or anticipated product safety profile, and the timing of the intervention (trimester of exposure) in preg- nancy. Its use may facilitiate not only a more informed choice of inclusion and exclusion criteria in these clinical studies of vaccines in pregnant women, but also a tailored use of these criteria based on the phase of development of the vaccine. Using the information provided in this manuscript and its sup- plements may actually be most useful for the design of the studies that are currently being planned for some emerging infections. This is because there is a need to be more inclusive (with less restrictive criteria) which may be associated with the occurrence of adverse events linked to the population being evaluated. However, we cannot choose to leave pregnant women out of the opportunity to benefit from vaccines that are being given to or studied in the general population, such as Ebola or those to protect against coro- navirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In fact, the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in studies of vaccines in epidemic or pandemic settings has been a topic of debate and publication even before the current COVID-19 pandemic [55,60–62]. This approach has several strengths. To our knowledge, this delination and frequency mapping of exclusion criteria based on a comprehensive search of prior maternal immunization trials has not been done previously. Adding stratification by study phase offers additional information for trialists. Including referral guide- lines for high risk pregnancies in the matrix adds an obstetric pro- vider perception of risk factors for adverse events. Another unique aspect of our approach and perhaps of the most useful to trialists may be to offer more quantitative information about these factors for the most commonly listed exclusion criteria. This obstetrics risk assessment method we present here is not exhaustive nor is it meant to be prescriptive. This tool will not replace the need for detailed literature reviews about potential risk factors and exclusion criteria for specific products in pregnant pop- ulations, nor will it replace the need for using background rates of adverse events to assess safety. It is not designed to replace the clinical acumen and knowledge base that is offered by involving experienced obstetric providers and vaccine evaluators in trial design of vaccines in pregnancy. However, given that a standard- ized approach to the selection of participants in studies of vaccines in pregnancy is necessary, this information may serve to help clin- ical researchers reassess how conservative they need to be as a product progresses in development. The balance between deciding exclusion criteria and choosing a study population that mirrors the general population is complex. As clinical trials for vaccines specif- ically designed for an indication in pregnant women are novel, ini- tial early phase trials may have more strict exclusion criteria. However, ongoing reassessment of criteria for inclusion in these and other protocols where pregnant women are study subjects will be imperative as data on background rates of expected obstetric events and safety information from epidemiologic studies and maternal immunization trials become more widely available. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Linda O Eckert: Site investigator: Novavax Trial. Received no personal funding for these activities. Christine E Jones: Investigator for clinical trials done on behalf of her institutions, sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, but receives no personal funding for these activities. Alisa Kachikis: Site investi- gator: Novavax Trial but receives no personal funding for these activities. Advisory Boards on Maternal Immunization for GSK and Pfizer. Azucena Bardaji: None]. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.022. References [1] Kachikis A, Eckert LO, Englund J. Who’s the Target: Mother or Baby?. Viral Immunol 2018;31(2):184–94. [2] Munoz FM, Eckert LO, Katz MA, et al. Key terms for the assessment of the safety of vaccines in pregnancy: Results of a global consultative process to initiate harmonization of adverse event definitions. Vaccine 2015;33(47):6441–52. [3] Bonhoeffer J, Kochhar S, Hirschfeld S, et al. Global alignment of immunization safety assessment in pregnancy - The GAIA project. Vaccine 2016;34 (49):5993–7. [4] Jones CE, Munoz FM, Spiegel HM, 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. [5] Munoz FM, Van Damme P, Dinleyici E, et al. The Fourth International Neonatal and Maternal Immunization Symposium (INMIS 2017): Toward Integrating Maternal and Infant Immunization Programs. mSphere 2018:3(6). [6] Munoz FM, Swamy GK, Hickman SP, et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of a Respiratory Syncytial Virus Fusion (F) Protein Nanoparticle Vaccine in Healthy Third-Trimester Pregnant Women and Their Infants. J Infect Dis 2019;220 (11):1802–15. [7] Kochhar Sonali, Bonhoeffer Jan, Jones Christine E, Muñoz Flor M, Honrado Angel, Bauwens Jorgen, Sobanjo-ter Meulen Ajoke, Hirschfeld Steven. Immunization in pregnancy clinical research in low- and middle-income https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.022 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0030 L.O. Eckert et al. / Vaccine 38 (2020) 4542–4547 4547 countries – Study design, regulatory and safety considerations. Vaccine 2017;35(48):6575–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.03.103. [8] World Health Organization. (2011). Evaluating the quality of care for severe pregnancy complications: the WHO near-miss approach for maternal health. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44692. [9] Laopaiboon M, Lumbiganon P, Intarut N, et al. Advanced maternal age and pregnancy outcomes: a multicountry assessment. BJOG : An Int J Obst Gynaecol 2014;121(Suppl 1):49–56. [10] Ganchimeg T, Ota E, Morisaki N, et al. Pregnancy and childbirth outcomes among adolescent mothers: a World Health Organization multicountry study. BJOG : An Int J Obst Gynaecol 2014;121(Suppl 1):40–8. [11] Gibbs CM, Wendt A, Peters S, Hogue CJ. The impact of early age at first childbirth on maternal and infant health. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2012;26 (Suppl 1):259–84. [12] Kirbas A, Gulerman HC, Daglar K. Pregnancy in Adolescence: Is It an Obstetrical Risk?. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2016;29(4):367–71. [13] Kawakita T, Wilson K, Grantz KL, Landy HJ, Huang CC, Gomez-Lobo V. Adverse Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Adolescent Pregnancy. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2016;29(2):130–6. [14] Thaithae S, Thato R. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of teenage pregnancies in Thailand. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2011;24(6):342–6. [15] Kesmodel U, Wisborg K, Olsen SF, Henriksen TB, Secher NJ. Moderate alcohol intake in pregnancy and the risk of spontaneous abortion. Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) 2002;37(1):87–92. [16] Kesmodel U, Wisborg K, Olsen SF, Henriksen TB, Secher NJ. Moderate alcohol intake during pregnancy and the risk of stillbirth and death in the first year of life. Am J Epidemiol 2002;155(4):305–12. [17] Vanek M, Sheiner E, Levy A, Mazor M. Chronic hypertension and the risk for adverse pregnancy outcome after superimposed pre-eclampsia. Int J Gynaecol Obstetrics: Off Organ Int Federation Gynaecol Obstetrics 2004;86(1):7–11. [18] Zetterstrom K, Lindeberg SN, Haglund B, Hanson U. Maternal complications in women with chronic hypertension: a population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005;84(5):419–24. [19] Ferrer RL, Sibai BM, Mulrow CD, Chiquette E, Stevens KR, Cornell J. Management of mild chronic hypertension during pregnancy: a review. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96(5 Pt 2):849–60. [20] Bramham K, Parnell B, Nelson-Piercy C, Seed PT, Poston L, Chappell LC. Chronic hypertension and pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2014;348:g2301. [21] Sibai BM, Mercer BM, Sarinoglu C. Severe preeclampsia in the second trimester: recurrence risk and long-term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165 (5):1408–12. [22] Bhattacharya S, Campbell DM, Smith NC. Pre-eclampsia in the second pregnancy: does previous outcome matter?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;144(2):130–4. [23] Lamont K, Scott NW, Jones GT, Bhattacharya S. Risk of recurrent stillbirth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2015;350: h3080. [24] Measey MA, Tursan d’Espaignet E, Charles A, Douglass C. Unexplained fetal death: are women with a history of fetal loss at higher risk?. The Australian New Zealand J Obst Gynaecol 2009;49(2):151–7. [25] Willinger M, Ko CW, Reddy UM. Racial disparities in stillbirth risk across gestation in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201(5). 469.e1-8. [26] Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Pattinson R, et al. Stillbirths: Where? When? Why? How to make the data count?. Lancet (London, England) 2011;377(9775):1448–63. [27] Reddy UM, Laughon SK, Sun L, Troendle J, Willinger M, Zhang J. Pregnancy risk factors for antepartum stillbirth in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116 (5):1119–26. [28] Group SCRNW. Association between stillbirth and risk factors known at pregnancy confirmation. JAMA 2011;306(22):2469–79. [29] ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 102: management of stillbirth. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113(3):748–61. [30] McManemy J, Cooke E, Amon E, Leet T. Recurrence risk for preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196(6). pp. 576.e1–6; discussion.e6-7. [31] Saccone G, Perriera L, Berghella V. Prior uterine evacuation of pregnancy as independent risk factor for preterm birth: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;214(5):572–91. [32] Obstetrical Complications Associated with Thrombophilias. 24th Edition. Table 52-3. Edited by Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Casey BM, Sheffield JS. Williams Obstetrics 2014: 1033. [33] Hematologic Disorders in Pregnancy. 24th Edition. Edited by Cunningham FG LK, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Casey BM, Sheffield JS. Williams Obstetrics 2014: 1118. [34] Burrows RF, Kelton JG. Fetal thrombocytopenia and its relation to maternal thrombocytopenia. New England J Med 1993;329(20):1463–6. [35] Platelet Disorders. 24th Edition. Edited by Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Casey BM, Sheffield JS. . Williams Obstetrics 2014: 1114. [36] Wahabi H, Fayed A, Esmaeil S, Mamdouh H, Kotb R. Prevalence and Complications of Pregestational and Gestational Diabetes in Saudi Women: Analysis from Riyadh Mother and Baby Cohort Study (RAHMA). Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:6878263. [37] Nelson DB, Moniz MH, Davis MM. Population-level factors associated with maternal mortality in the United States, 1997–2012. BMC Public Health 2018;18(1):1007. [38] Guariguata L, Linnenkamp U, Beagley J, Whiting DR, Cho NH. Global estimates of the prevalence of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2014;103(2):176–85. [39] Black MH, Sacks DA, Xiang AH, Lawrence JM. The relative contribution of prepregnancy overweight and obesity, gestational weight gain, and IADPSG- defined gestational diabetes mellitus to fetal overgrowth. Diabet Care 2013;36 (1):56–62. [40] Weissgerber TL, Mudd LM. Preeclampsia and diabetes. Curr DiabRep 2015;15 (3):9. [41] Girz BA, Divon MY, Merkatz IR. Sudden fetal death in women with well- controlled, intensively monitored gestational diabetes. J Perinatol Off J California Perinatal Association 1992;12(3):229–33. [42] Dudley DJ. Diabetic-associated stillbirth: incidence, pathophysiology, and prevention. Obst Gynecol Clin North America 2007;34(2):293–307. ix. [43] French R, Brocklehurst P. The effect of pregnancy on survival in women infected with HIV: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105(8):827–35. [44] Brocklehurst P, French R. The association between maternal HIV infection and perinatal outcome: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105(8):836–48. [45] Wedi CO, Kirtley S, Hopewell S, Corrigan R, Kennedy SH, Hemelaar J. Perinatal outcomes associated with maternal HIV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet HIV 2016;3(1):e33–48. [46] Uthman OA, Nachega JB, Anderson J, et al. Timing of initiation of antiretroviral therapy and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Lancet HIV 2017;4(1):e21–30. [47] Sebire NJ, Jolly M, Harris JP, et al. Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287,213 pregnancies in London. Int J Obesity Metabolic Disorders : J Int Association Study Obesity 2001;25(8):1175–82. [48] Reynolds RM, Allan KM, Raja EA, et al. Maternal obesity during pregnancy and premature mortality from cardiovascular event in adult offspring: follow-up of 1 323 275 person years. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2013;347:f4539. [49] Roberts JN, Graham BS, Karron RA, et al. Challenges and opportunities in RSV vaccine development: Meeting report from FDA/NIH workshop. Vaccine 2016;34(41):4843–9. [50] Beigi RH, Omer SB, Thompson KM. Key steps forward for maternal immunization: Policy making in action. Vaccine 2018;36(12):1521–3. [51] Sheffield JS, Munoz FM, Beigi RH, et al. Research on vaccines during pregnancy: reference values for vital signs and laboratory assessments. Vaccine 2013;31 (40):4264–73. [52] Beigi RH, Fortner KB, Munoz FM, et al. Maternal immunization: opportunities for scientific advancement. Clin Infect Dis Off Publicat Infect Dis Soc America 2014;59(Suppl 7):S408–14. [53] Munoz FM. The challenges of pregnancy in clinical trials for vaccines. Clin Invest 2014;4(2):103–5. [54] Munoz FM, Sheffield JS, Beigi RH, et al. Research on vaccines during pregnancy: protocol design and assessment of safety. Vaccine 2013;31(40):4274–9. [55] Krubiner CB, Faden RR, Karron RA, et al. Pregnant women & vaccines against emerging epidemic threats: Ethics guidance for preparedness, research, and response. Vaccine 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.01.011. [56] ‘‘21st Century Cures Act’’. An Act to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st century cures, and for other purposes. 114th Congress USA. December, 2016. [57] CIOMS Guide to vaccine safety communication. Report by topic group 3 of the CIOMS Working Group on Vaccine Safety. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) Geneva, Switzerland. 2018. [58] Bianchi-Jassir F, Seale AC, Kohli-Lynch M, et al. Preterm Birth Associated With Group B Streptococcus Maternal Colonization Worldwide: Systematic Review and Meta-analyses. Clin Infect Dis Off Publicat Infect Dis Soc America 2017;65 (suppl_2). S133-s42. [59] Seale AC, Blencowe H, Bianchi-Jassir F, et al. Stillbirth With Group B Streptococcus Disease Worldwide: Systematic Review and Meta-analyses. Clin Infect Dis Off Publicat Infect Dis Soc America 2017;65(suppl_2). S125-s32. [60] WHO. Weekly epidemiological record 31 MAY 2019, 94th YEAR Nos 22/23, 2019, 94, 261–280 2019. [61] Cao B, Wang Y, Wen D, et al. A Trial of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19. New England J Med 2020. [62] LaCourse SM, John-Stewart G, Adams Waldorf KM. Importance of inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women in COVID-19 therapeutic trials. Clin Infect Dis Off Publicat Infect Dis Soc America 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.03.103 https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44692 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0055 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0055 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0055 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0155 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0155 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0155 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0170 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0170 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0180 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0180 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0180 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0180 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0185 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0185 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0185 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0190 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0190 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0190 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0195 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0195 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0195 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0195 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0200 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0200 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0205 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0205 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0205 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0210 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0210 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0215 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0215 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0215 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0225 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0225 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0225 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0230 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0230 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0230 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0235 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0235 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0235 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0240 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0240 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0240 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0245 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0245 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0245 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0250 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0250 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0255 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0255 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0255 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0260 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0260 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0260 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0265 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0265 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0270 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0270 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.01.011 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0290 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0290 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0290 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0290 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0295 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0295 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0295 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0305 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0305 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0310 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0310 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-410X(20)30640-X/h0310