Abstract

Background. Group A meningococcal disease occurs in large epidemics within the meningitis belt of Africa that includes northern Ghana. Major epidemics in the meningitis belt have infection rates ranging from 100 to 800 per 100 000 population. In 2012, a group A meningococcal conjugate vaccine, PsA-TT (MenAfriVac), was introduced into the region in large campaigns.

Methods. We report here on the safety of this vaccine when used in pregnant women in the Navrongo region of Ghana.

Results. Rates of events in 1730 immunized pregnant women and their infants were compared to the rates of the same events in pregnant women who did not receive the vaccine during the campaign and also to women who were pregnant in the prior year.

Conclusions. We found no evidence of any safety concerns when this vaccine was administered during pregnancy.

Group A meningococcal disease occurs in large epidemics within the “meningitis belt” of Africa, which includes northern Ghana. Major epidemics in the meningitis belt have infection rates ranging from 100 to 800 per 100 000 population [1]. These outbreaks also cause significant morbidity and mortality in pregnant women. A monovalent meningococcal group A conjugate vaccine, PsA-TT (MenAfriVac), was specifically developed to provide protection against these life-threatening epidemics [2]. There is no evidence of risk from vaccinating pregnant women or those who are breastfeeding, although live viral vaccines are generally not given during pregnancy [3, 4]. Although it is recommended that women of childbearing age be vaccinated because pregnant women are at risk, there has been no formal evaluation of PsA-TT vaccine in pregnant women. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) of the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended such an evaluation. This recommendation was the outcome of a meeting held in December 2011, where the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts asked GACVS to provide support to the review of current evidence on the safety of vaccinations in pregnant and lactating women [5]. At this time, Ghana was one of the next countries that had still to implement widespread immunization using this vaccine, and the country also had a demographic and epidemiologic surveillance site in the northern sector (in the meningitis belt), thus providing a unique opportunity to obtain this assessment.

The Navrongo Health Research Centre (NHRC) is located in the Kassena-Nankana municipality in the Upper East Region in northeastern Ghana and is 1 of the 3 field research centers of the Ghana Health Service with a specific mandate to research prevailing health issues in the 3 northern regions of Ghana. Geographically, the Navrongo Health and Demographic Surveillance area lies between latitude 10°30′N and 11°00′N and longitude 1°30′W and covers a total land area of about 1675 km2. The estimated population of the surveillance area is about 157 000 living in about 30 000 households, all of whom are under continuous demographic surveillance [6]. Within this area, there is 1 district hospital, 7 health centers, and 27 community health compounds as well as other primary care clinics.

Since 1993, the NHRC has maintained a Health and Demographic Surveillance System, a longitudinal population registration system that monitors the health and demographic dynamics of the study area. Vital demographic events such as pregnancies, births, vaccination, marriages, deaths, and migration are updated every 4 months. Sociodemographic characteristics are collected annually. Verbal autopsies are conducted to elucidate the circumstances surrounding and possible causes of all recorded deaths. To enhance spatial analysis of those data being collected, the HDSS also runs the data linkage system that enables it to link health facility–based information with vital events. Routine HDSS data collection is performed by field workers who receive initial training for a period of up to 1 month and regular retraining for a period of 1 week between data collection rounds. The NHRC is a member of the International Network for the Demographic Evaluation of Populations and Their Health in Developing Countries (INDEPTH), a global network of members who conduct longitudinal health and demographic evaluation of populations in low- and middle-income countries [7].

The study population was composed of 3 cohorts of women: women who received PsA-TT during the national campaign in Ghana in October 2012, and 2 control groups (women who were pregnant during the vaccination campaign but did not receive vaccine, and a second control group of unvaccinated women who were pregnant during the same time period in the prior year). This study was approved by the ethics review committee of the NHRC and was granted a waiver of review by the WHO ethics review committee.

METHODS

This was an observational comparative cohort study in which the rates of prespecified events were compared between pregnant women who received PsA-TT and the 2 control groups defined above. Prespecified outcomes included spontaneous abortions (fetal deaths occurring at <28 weeks’ gestation), stillbirths (fetal deaths ≥28 weeks’ gestation), perinatal deaths (infant deaths within 48 hours of the onset of labor), premature birth (<36 weeks’ gestation), very premature birth (<28 weeks’ gestation), low birth weight (<2500 g), small for gestational age, cesarean delivery, and maternal all-cause mortality. All events and vaccine exposure information were routinely identified from the routine scripted demographic surveillance surveys conducted within the Navrongo surveillance population. Gestational age was calculated based on the date of the last menstrual period of the woman and her delivery date. Rates of the events were compared using Poisson regression analyses that adjusted for age and place of residence (rural/urban).

RESULTS

Overall, a total of 1730 pregnant women were immunized with PsA-TT within the Navrongo surveillance site during the immunization program. Of these, 619 were immunized in the first trimester, 534 in the second trimester, and 577 in the third trimester. The age distribution of the immunized cohort, unimmunized concurrent controls, and the unimmunized historical control groups are shown in Table 1. Information on the trimester of immunization stratified by age is shown in Table 2.

Table 1.

Age Distribution of the 3 Cohorts of Pregnant Women in Navrongo

Age Group, yImmunized Cohort 2012Unimmunized Historical ControlsUnimmunized Concurrent Controls
2012
15–19276562114
20–24463950191
25–29431880170
30–34330676217
35–39153320135
40–446012768
45–49173624
Total17303551919
Age Group, yImmunized Cohort 2012Unimmunized Historical ControlsUnimmunized Concurrent Controls
2012
15–19276562114
20–24463950191
25–29431880170
30–34330676217
35–39153320135
40–446012768
45–49173624
Total17303551919
Table 1.

Age Distribution of the 3 Cohorts of Pregnant Women in Navrongo

Age Group, yImmunized Cohort 2012Unimmunized Historical ControlsUnimmunized Concurrent Controls
2012
15–19276562114
20–24463950191
25–29431880170
30–34330676217
35–39153320135
40–446012768
45–49173624
Total17303551919
Age Group, yImmunized Cohort 2012Unimmunized Historical ControlsUnimmunized Concurrent Controls
2012
15–19276562114
20–24463950191
25–29431880170
30–34330676217
35–39153320135
40–446012768
45–49173624
Total17303551919
Table 2.

Trimester of Immunization for the Immunized Cohort, Stratified by Age

Age Group, yTrimester
FirstSecondThirdTotal
15–1910668102276
20–24165139159463
25–29172128131431
Total4433353921170
Age Group, yTrimester
FirstSecondThirdTotal
15–1910668102276
20–24165139159463
25–29172128131431
Total4433353921170
Table 2.

Trimester of Immunization for the Immunized Cohort, Stratified by Age

Age Group, yTrimester
FirstSecondThirdTotal
15–1910668102276
20–24165139159463
25–29172128131431
Total4433353921170
Age Group, yTrimester
FirstSecondThirdTotal
15–1910668102276
20–24165139159463
25–29172128131431
Total4433353921170

The mean birth weight and gestational age in the 3 cohorts were 2939 g and 38.0 weeks, 2935 g and 38.0 weeks, and 2896 g and 38.1 weeks in the vaccinated, concurrent control, and historical control groups, respectively. A comparison of 3 different birth weight strata in the vaccinated women with the 2 control groups is shown in Table 3. There were no significant differences in the birth weight strata distributions between the 3 groups.

Table 3.

Comparison of Birth Weights in Vaccinated Women Versus Controls

OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Concurrent Control Cohort (n = 921)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Birth weight (>2500 g)159192.084391.5
Low birth weight (<2500 g)1327.6707.60.98.82–1.17.82
Very low birth weight (<1500 g)70.460.70.85.40–1.78.66
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Concurrent Control Cohort (n = 921)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Birth weight (>2500 g)159192.084391.5
Low birth weight (<2500 g)1327.6707.60.98.82–1.17.82
Very low birth weight (<1500 g)70.460.70.85.40–1.78.66
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Historical Control Cohort (n = 3551)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Birth weight (>2500 g)159192.0321990.7
Low birth weight (<2500 g)1327.63098.70.90.75–1.08.25
Very low birth weight (<1500 g)70.4230.60.78.39–1.56.49
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Historical Control Cohort (n = 3551)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Birth weight (>2500 g)159192.0321990.7
Low birth weight (<2500 g)1327.63098.70.90.75–1.08.25
Very low birth weight (<1500 g)70.4230.60.78.39–1.56.49

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

Table 3.

Comparison of Birth Weights in Vaccinated Women Versus Controls

OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Concurrent Control Cohort (n = 921)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Birth weight (>2500 g)159192.084391.5
Low birth weight (<2500 g)1327.6707.60.98.82–1.17.82
Very low birth weight (<1500 g)70.460.70.85.40–1.78.66
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Concurrent Control Cohort (n = 921)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Birth weight (>2500 g)159192.084391.5
Low birth weight (<2500 g)1327.6707.60.98.82–1.17.82
Very low birth weight (<1500 g)70.460.70.85.40–1.78.66
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Historical Control Cohort (n = 3551)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Birth weight (>2500 g)159192.0321990.7
Low birth weight (<2500 g)1327.63098.70.90.75–1.08.25
Very low birth weight (<1500 g)70.4230.60.78.39–1.56.49
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Historical Control Cohort (n = 3551)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Birth weight (>2500 g)159192.0321990.7
Low birth weight (<2500 g)1327.63098.70.90.75–1.08.25
Very low birth weight (<1500 g)70.4230.60.78.39–1.56.49

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

Similarly, when birth outcomes and delivery mode were also compared between vaccinated women and the 2 control groups, no significant differences were observed, as can be seen in Table 4. Of note is that data on delivery method were not available for the historical control group; hence, such comparisons were not possible. In Table 5, miscarriages were further evaluated to look for clustering of this event following vaccination. No such clustering was seen (P = .25). Similarly, for stillbirth there was no clustering in time between the date of vaccination and the event (P = .44). Comparisons for neonatal outcomes are shown in Table 6. There were no significant differences in the rates of prematurity or neonatal mortality between vaccine recipients and controls.

Table 4.

Comparison of Birth Outcome and Delivery Mode Between Vaccinated Pregnant Women and Controls

OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Concurrent Controls (n = 919)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Live birth169297.889997.8
Stillbirth221.3141.50.95.62–1.46.80
Miscarriage160.960.71.06.65–1.74.82
Maternal Mortality0030.3
Normal delivery164294.987194.8
Cesarean delivery372.1232.50.95.69–1.32.77
Vacuum delivery80.570.80.82.41–1.63
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Concurrent Controls (n = 919)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Live birth169297.889997.8
Stillbirth221.3141.50.95.62–1.46.80
Miscarriage160.960.71.06.65–1.74.82
Maternal Mortality0030.3
Normal delivery164294.987194.8
Cesarean delivery372.1232.50.95.69–1.32.77
Vacuum delivery80.570.80.82.41–1.63
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Historical Controls (n = 3551)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Live birth169297.8346897.7
Still birth221.3471.30.97.64–1.48.89
Miscarriage160.9361.00.94.58–1.54.80
Maternal Mortality0000
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Historical Controls (n = 3551)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Live birth169297.8346897.7
Still birth221.3471.30.97.64–1.48.89
Miscarriage160.9361.00.94.58–1.54.80
Maternal Mortality0000

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

Table 4.

Comparison of Birth Outcome and Delivery Mode Between Vaccinated Pregnant Women and Controls

OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Concurrent Controls (n = 919)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Live birth169297.889997.8
Stillbirth221.3141.50.95.62–1.46.80
Miscarriage160.960.71.06.65–1.74.82
Maternal Mortality0030.3
Normal delivery164294.987194.8
Cesarean delivery372.1232.50.95.69–1.32.77
Vacuum delivery80.570.80.82.41–1.63
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Concurrent Controls (n = 919)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Live birth169297.889997.8
Stillbirth221.3141.50.95.62–1.46.80
Miscarriage160.960.71.06.65–1.74.82
Maternal Mortality0030.3
Normal delivery164294.987194.8
Cesarean delivery372.1232.50.95.69–1.32.77
Vacuum delivery80.570.80.82.41–1.63
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Historical Controls (n = 3551)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Live birth169297.8346897.7
Still birth221.3471.30.97.64–1.48.89
Miscarriage160.9361.00.94.58–1.54.80
Maternal Mortality0000
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Historical Controls (n = 3551)Control Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Live birth169297.8346897.7
Still birth221.3471.30.97.64–1.48.89
Miscarriage160.9361.00.94.58–1.54.80
Maternal Mortality0000

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

Table 5.

Timing of Miscarriages Observed in the Vaccine Group

Interval Between Vaccination and Event, wkNo. (%)
12 (9.1)
35 (22.8)
41 (4.5)
51 (4.5)
82 (9.1)
125 (22.8)
176 (27.2)
Total22 cases
Interval Between Vaccination and Event, wkNo. (%)
12 (9.1)
35 (22.8)
41 (4.5)
51 (4.5)
82 (9.1)
125 (22.8)
176 (27.2)
Total22 cases
Table 5.

Timing of Miscarriages Observed in the Vaccine Group

Interval Between Vaccination and Event, wkNo. (%)
12 (9.1)
35 (22.8)
41 (4.5)
51 (4.5)
82 (9.1)
125 (22.8)
176 (27.2)
Total22 cases
Interval Between Vaccination and Event, wkNo. (%)
12 (9.1)
35 (22.8)
41 (4.5)
51 (4.5)
82 (9.1)
125 (22.8)
176 (27.2)
Total22 cases
Table 6.

Neonatal Outcomes

OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Control CohortControl Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Concurrent controls (n = 921)
 Prematurity623.6293.11.0.81–1.34.76
 Neonatal mortality120.791.00.88.50–1.54.65
Historical controls (n = 3551)
 Prematurity623.61975.60.72.56–.93.011
 Neonatal mortality120.7421.20.68.38–1.19.179
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Control CohortControl Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Concurrent controls (n = 921)
 Prematurity623.6293.11.0.81–1.34.76
 Neonatal mortality120.791.00.88.50–1.54.65
Historical controls (n = 3551)
 Prematurity623.61975.60.72.56–.93.011
 Neonatal mortality120.7421.20.68.38–1.19.179

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

Table 6.

Neonatal Outcomes

OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Control CohortControl Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Concurrent controls (n = 921)
 Prematurity623.6293.11.0.81–1.34.76
 Neonatal mortality120.791.00.88.50–1.54.65
Historical controls (n = 3551)
 Prematurity623.61975.60.72.56–.93.011
 Neonatal mortality120.7421.20.68.38–1.19.179
OutcomeGroup A Cohort (n = 1730)Group A Rate/100Control CohortControl Rate/100IRR95% CIP Value
Concurrent controls (n = 921)
 Prematurity623.6293.11.0.81–1.34.76
 Neonatal mortality120.791.00.88.50–1.54.65
Historical controls (n = 3551)
 Prematurity623.61975.60.72.56–.93.011
 Neonatal mortality120.7421.20.68.38–1.19.179

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of the group A meningococcal conjugate vaccine, PsA-TT, in pregnant women. Although the number of women in this study is not extremely large, the results in >1700 pregnant women show no evidence of any safety concerns for the multiple maternal and neonatal outcomes measured. Given that pregnant women in the African meningitis belt and their infants are at high risk of disease sequelae and death due to group A meningococcal disease, these results should provide support for the current recommendation to vaccinate pregnant women in this area with this vaccine.

The results of this study also have important implications for the feasibility of conducting large phase 4 assessments of vaccine safety in developing countries. By employing and building on existing epidemiologic infrastructure and expertise within the INDEPTH network at the Navrongo site that has been developed for other purposes, it has been possible to perform a thorough assessment of this vaccine. This has important implications for future vaccine introductions where such infrastructure at INDEPTH sites and other sites with similar infrastructure could be employed to assure that newly introduced vaccines are safe and that public confidence of vaccination programs is maintained in low- and middle-income countries introducing the vaccine.

In conclusion, it has been possible to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the PsA-TT vaccine at the Navrongo epidemiologic surveillance site in Ghana. This evaluation has revealed no evidence of any safety concerns when this vaccine was used in pregnant women. Although this study was performed within Ghana alone, and the background rates of events might vary from country to country, the results and conclusions of this study are generalizable to other countries in the African meningitis belt that have similar demographic characteristics.

Notes

Acknowledgments. The authors thank the Navrongo Health and Demographic Surveillance System of the Navrongo Health Research Centre for making data available for this evaluation. We are grateful to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for sponsoring the conduct of this study. Finally, our profound gratitude goes to the reviewers for their critical review of the initial manuscript.

Disclaimers. 1) The authors and editors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions, or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated; 2) The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of PATH or the World Health Organization (WHO) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement; 3) The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by PATH or the WHO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.

Supplement sponsorship. This article appears as part of the supplement “The Meningitis Vaccine Project: The Development, Licensure, Introduction, and Impact of a New Group A Meningococcal Conjugate Vaccine for Africa,” sponsored by the Meningitis Vaccine Project through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: No potential conflicts of interest.

All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

References

1

Frasch
CE
.
Recent developments in Neisseria meningitidis group A conjugate vaccines
.
Expert Opin Bio Ther
2005
;
5
:
273
80
.

2

Frasch
CE
,
Preziosi
M-P
,
LaForce
FM
.
Development of a group A meningococcal conjugate vaccine, MenAfriVac™
.
Hum Vaccin Immunother
2012
;
8
:
715
24
.

3

Englund
J
,
Glezen
WP
,
Piedra
PA
.
Maternal immunization against viral disease
.
Vaccine
1998
;
16
:
1456
63
.

4

Keller-Stanislawski
B
,
Englund
JA
,
Kang
G
et al. .
Safety of immunization during pregnancy: a review of the evidence of selected inactivated and live attenuated vaccines
.
Vaccine
2014
;
32
:
7057
64
.

5

World Health Organization
.
Report on safety on immunization during pregnancy
.
Geneva, Switzerland
:
WHO
,
2013
.

6

Oduro
AR
,
Wak
G
,
Azongo
D
et al. .
Profile of the Navrongo health and demographic surveillance system
.
Int J Epidemiol
2012
;
41
:
968
76
.

7

International Network for the Demographic Evaluation of Populations and Their Health in Developing Countries
.
INDEPTH network
.
Available at: http://www.indepth-network.org. Accessed 13 January 2015
.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Comments

0 Comments
Submit a comment
You have entered an invalid code
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. Your comment will be reviewed and published at the journal's discretion. Please check for further notifications by email.