Menstrual irregularities following COVID-19 vaccination: A global cross-sectional survey.

Azza Sarfraz, Zouina Sarfraz, Muzna Sarfraz, Zainab Nadeem, Miguel Felix, Ivan Cherrez-Ojeda
Author Information
  1. Azza Sarfraz: The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
  2. Zouina Sarfraz: Fatima Jinnah Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
  3. Muzna Sarfraz: King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
  4. Zainab Nadeem: The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
  5. Miguel Felix: Universidad Espíritu Santo, Samborondón, Ecuador.
  6. Ivan Cherrez-Ojeda: Universidad Espíritu Santo, Samborondón, Ecuador.

Abstract

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination generates protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is no clear evidence of COVID-19 vaccine-induced menstrual irregularities.
Objective: To identify potential menstrual irregularities following COVID-19 vaccine among females.
Methods: A worldwide cross-sectional survey study was conducted from June 10, 2021, to July 10, 2021 using online mediums. The survey consisted of 15 questions divided into baseline characteristics, vaccination status and dosage, menstruation and relate factors, and thoughts and knowledge about menstrual irregularities. Non-probability convenience sampling method was used including 510 responses. The results were tabulated, with bivariate analysis and chi-square test results. The sensitivity and specificity test of factors associated to knowledge about menstrual irregularities post COVID-19 vaccination were analyzed by receiver operating characteristic analysis.
Results: The associations between healthcare worker (HCW) status and perceptions (χ2 = 10.422; p = 0.064), and knowledge about menstrual irregularities post-vaccination (χ2 = 1.966; p = 0.161) were found. Vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated women had a higher risk of change in inter-cycle length between periods (OR = 3.172; 95% CI = 0.470-21.431). Of 314 HCW vs. 196 non-HCW, 60 (19.1%) vs. 28 (14.3%) were knowledgeable about menstrual irregularities (OR = 1.338, 95% CI = 0.886-2.019 vs. OR = 0.944; 95% CI = 0.873-1.021). On asking the HCW vs. non-HCW about perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine-induced menstrual irregularities, 24 (7.6%) vs. 9 (4.6%) agreed, 139 (44.3%) vs. 67 (34.2%) disagreed, and 151 (48.1%) vs. 120 (61.2%) did not know or chose not applicable.
Conclusion: There is a gap in the current understanding of menstrual irregularities, even if temporary, following COVID-19 vaccination that requires further exploration. Misinformation may also be the culprit for the observed proportion of women that noticed changes in their menstrual periods after COVID-19 vaccination.

Keywords

References

  1. Aging Cell. 2015 Jun;14(3):309-21 [PMID: 25720438]
  2. Life Sci. 2014 Mar 28;100(1):61-6 [PMID: 24530740]
  3. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15(7-8):1628-1638 [PMID: 30676241]
  4. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Jan;4(1):73-82 [PMID: 27856395]
  5. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2012 Mar;145(3):382-7 [PMID: 21932046]
  6. J Thromb Haemost. 2017 Nov;15(11):2099-2114 [PMID: 28846826]
  7. Int J Surg. 2021 Dec;96:106165 [PMID: 34774726]
  8. J Prev Med Hyg. 2018 Sep 28;59(3):E194-E199 [PMID: 30397675]
  9. East Mediterr Health J. 2021 Sep 21;27(9):857-860 [PMID: 34569039]
  10. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Sep 1;178(9):1210-1222 [PMID: 30083701]
  11. Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 1;10(1):10762 [PMID: 32612121]
  12. Thromb Res. 2021 Jul;203:163-171 [PMID: 34029848]
  13. Epidemiol Rev. 2017 Jan 1;39(1):93-107 [PMID: 28486701]
  14. Front Immunol. 2020 Nov 06;11:589833 [PMID: 33240278]
  15. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022 Sep;81:104220 [PMID: 35957648]
  16. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2021 May 13;19(1):69 [PMID: 33985514]
  17. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2019 Oct;236(10):3063-3079 [PMID: 31359117]
  18. J Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 15;209 Suppl 3:S114-9 [PMID: 24966191]
  19. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Mar 19;8:635255 [PMID: 33816526]
  20. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Apr 30;70(17):651-656 [PMID: 33914723]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0COVID-19menstrualirregularitiesvsvaccinationfollowingsurveyknowledgeHCW95%CI = 0SARS-CoV-2vaccine-inducedcross-sectional102021statusfactorsresultsanalysistestperceptionsp = 0womenperiodsnon-HCW1%3%6%2%Introduction:coronavirusdisease2019generatesprotectiveimmunityinfectionclearevidenceObjective:identifypotentialvaccineamongfemalesMethods:worldwidestudyconductedJuneJulyusingonlinemediumsconsisted15questionsdividedbaselinecharacteristicsdosagemenstruationrelatethoughtsNon-probabilityconveniencesamplingmethodusedincluding510responsestabulatedbivariatechi-squaresensitivityspecificityassociatedpostanalyzedreceiveroperatingcharacteristicResults:associationshealthcareworkerχ2 = 10422064post-vaccinationχ2 = 1966161foundVaccinatedcomparednon-vaccinatedhigherriskchangeinter-cyclelengthOR = 3172470-2143131419660192814knowledgeableOR = 1338886-2019OR = 0944873-1021asking24794agreed139446734disagreed1514812061knowchoseapplicableConclusion:gapcurrentunderstandingeventemporaryrequiresexplorationMisinformationmayalsoculpritobservedproportionnoticedchangesMenstrualvaccination:globalMenstruationVaccinationWomen'shealth

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)