Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Hepatitis E Vaccination in Reproductive-Age Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection presents a significant health risk in endemic regions, especially for pregnant women, who face higher risks of severe complications, including maternal and fetal mortality. The recombinant HEV vaccine, HEV239, has demonstrated high efficacy in the general population, yet data on its safety and efficacy in women of a childbearing age remain limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of HEV239 in this specific population, with a focus on pregnancy-related outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they reported outcomes on HEV239′s safety or efficacy in women of childbearing age, with data being extracted and analyzed for immunogenicity, HEV incidence, and maternal adverse events. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane and Newcastle Ottawa Scales, and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Results: Three studies, enrolling over 23,000 participants, were included in the current systematic review, with two meeting the criteria for meta-analysis. HEV239 demonstrated high efficacy in preventing hepatitis E infection, with no significant increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirth or elective termination. However, there was an elevated risk of miscarriage (odds ratio [OR], 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99–2.57). The analysis revealed high heterogeneity for miscarriage outcomes (I2 = 67%), reflecting variability in study designs and populations. Conclusions: HEV239 is effective in preventing HEV infection among women of childbearing age, although caution is advised when administering the vaccine near conception due to potential miscarriage risks. Future studies should focus on understanding the biological mechanisms and timing-specific safety to guide vaccination recommendations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".