Receipt of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine had no adverse influence on embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage in early pregnancy

Yapeng Wang; Wang Y; Ren X; Xiulian Ren; Zhongwei Wang; Wang Z; Feng X; Xue Feng; Ming Li; Li M; Liu P; Ping Liu

doi:10.1007/s11427-022-2133-3

Receipt of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine had no adverse influence on embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage in early pregnancy

Yapeng Wang, Wang Y, Ren X, Xiulian Ren, Zhongwei Wang, Wang Z, Feng X, Xue Feng, Ming Li, Li M, Liu P, Ping Liu

Science China. Life sciences · 2022 · vol. 65(11) , pp. 2332–2334 · doi:10.1007/s11427-022-2133-3 · PMID:35696015 · PMC9189441

Other OA: gold publisher-OA-unknown

📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View on PubMed View at publisher

⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite+body, 2026-08-03 ⓘ

This study analyzed data from 460 patients undergoing IVF and found that receiving two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine did not negatively impact embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy, or miscarriage rates.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-10 · read from full text ⓘ

This retrospective study analyzed data from 460 patients who received two doses of an inactivated COVID-19 vaccine prior to embryo thawing and transplantation, comparing them against unvaccinated controls. The researchers found no statistically significant differences in embryo implantation rates, clinical pregnancy rates, or miscarriage rates between the vaccinated groups and the control group across both cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfers. Although the authors acknowledge limitations regarding sample size and short follow-up duration, the results indicate that vaccination does not adversely affect early pregnancy outcomes in vitro fertilization cycles. Relevance to endometriosis: listed as one indication for GnRH antagonists, though the paper's main focus is uterine fibroids.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Full text 10,728 characters · extracted from oa-pdf · 2 sections · click to expand

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China for Young Scholars (81601275, 31801251) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82071721).

References

Allotey, J., Stallings, E., Bonet, M., Yap, M., Chatterjee, S., Kew, T., Debenham, L., Llavall, A.C., Dixit, A., Zhou, D., et al. (2020). Clinical Table 1 Baseline clinical characteristics and embryo warming-transferred cycle outcomes of patients V ariable Group 1 (n=192) Control (n=451) P value (adjusted) Group 2 (n=268) Control (n=585) P value (adjusted) Female age (year) 33.20±4.74 32.56±4.20 0.159 33.95±4.47 33.69±4.03 0.615 Male age (year) 34.47±6.43 33.88±4.83 0.088 34.95±5.29 35.04±5.22 0.658 Female BMI 22.34±3.71 22.70±3.70 0.608 22.46±3.11 22.41±3.32 0.062 Male BMI 25.04±3.67 25.76±4.02 0.327 25.23±4.62 25.36±3.90 0.692 Type of infertility 0.829 0.884 Primary 129/192 (67.19) 295/451 (65.41) 145/268 (54.10) 330/585 (56.41) Secondary 63/192 (32.81) 156/451 (33.59) 123/268 (45.90) 255/585 (43.59) Duration of infertility 4.66±3.11 4.42±3.19 0.320 5.51±4.02 4.90±3.52 0.651 Etiology of infertility 0.333 0.703 Tubal 55/192 (28.65) 116/451 (25.72) 61/268 (22.76) 142/585 (24.27) Male factor 31/192 (16.15) 96/451 (21.29) 49/268 (18.28) 107/585 (18.29) Endometriosis 7/192 (3.65) 38/451 (8.43) 13/268 (4.85) 28/585 (4.79) Ovulatory disorder 45/192 (23.44) 109/451 (24.17) 62/268 (23.13) 141/585 (24.10) Uterine factor 4/451 (0.89) 4/268 (1.49) 7/585 (1.20) Unexplained infertility 9/192 (4.69) 44/451 (9.76) 11/268 (4.10) 46/585 (7.86) Others 45/192 (23.44) 44/451 (9.76) 68/268 (25.37) 114/585 (19.49) Endometrial thickness on transfer day (mm) 10.23±1.65 9.87±1.76 0.181 9.77±1.68 9.96±1.61 0.494 Number of transferred embryo 1.92±1.65 1.90±0.29 0.402 1.02±0.14 105±0.03 0.877 Implantation rate (%) 25.00 (92/368) 28.47 (244/857) 0.663 38.46 (105/273) 39.22 (242/617) 0.692 Clinical pregnancy rate (%) 39.58 (76/192) 43.43 (196/451) 0.088 38.43 (103/268) 40.00 (234/585) 0.797 Miscarriage rate (%) 6.58 (5/76) 7.65 (15/196) 0.543 13.59 (14/103) 10.68 (25/234) 0.477 Ectopic pregnancy rate (n) 2 1 NS 0 1 NS 2333Wang, Y., et al. Sci China Life Sci November (2022) Vol.65 No.11 manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ m3320. Flynn, A.C., Kavanagh, K., Smith, A.D., Poston, L., and White, S.L. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pregnancy planning behaviors. Womens Health Rep 2, 71–77. Jing, Y ., Run-Qian, L., Hao-Ran, W., Hao-Ran, C., Ya-Bin, L., Yang, G., and Fei, C. (2020). Potential influence of COVID-19/ACE2 on the female reproductive system. Mol Hum Reprod 26, 367–373. Li, X.N., Huang, Y ., Wang, W., Jing, Q.L., Zhang, C.H., Qin, P .Z., Guan, W.J., Gan, L., Li, Y .L., Liu, W.H., et al. (2021). Effectiveness of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against the Delta variant infection in Guangzhou: a test-negative case-control real-world study. Emerg Microbes Infect 10, 1751–1759. Lu, L., Zhang, H., Zhan, M., Jiang, J., Yin, H., Dauphars, D.J., Li, S.Y ., Li, Y ., and He, Y .W. (2020). Antibody response and therapy in COVID-19 patients: what can be learned for vaccine development? Sci China Life Sci 63, 1833–1849. Orvieto, R., Segev-Zahav, A., and Aizer, A. (2021). Does COVID-19 infection influence patients’ performance during IVF-ET cycle?: an observational study. Gynecol Endocrinol 37, 895–897. Rouse, C.E., Eckert, L.O., Babarinsa, I., Fay, E., Gupta, M., Harrison, M.S., Kawai, A.T., Kharbanda, E.O., Kucuku, M., Meller, L., et al. (2017). Spontaneous abortion and ectopic pregnancy: case definition & guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of maternal immunization safety data. V accine35, 6563–6574. Y ue, L., Zhou, J., Zhou, Y ., Y ang, X., Xie, T., Yang, M., Zhao, H., Zhao, Y ., Yang, T., Li, H., et al. (2021). Antibody response elicited by a third boost dose of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine can neutralize SARS- CoV-2 variants of concern. Emerg Microbes Infect 10, 2125–2127. Y ue, L., Xie, T., Yang, T., Zhou, J., Chen, H., Zhu, H., Li, H., Xiang, H., Wang, J., Yang, H., et al. (2022). A third booster dose may be necessary to mitigate neutralizing antibody fading after inoculation with two doses of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. J Med Virol 94, 35–38. 2334 Wang, Y., et al. Sci China Life Sci November (2022) Vol.65 No.11

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-pdf ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

MeSH descriptors

Abortion, Spontaneous COVID-19 COVID-19 COVID-19 Vaccines COVID-19 Vaccines Embryo Implantation Embryo Transfer Female Humans Pregnancy Retrospective Studies

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc: last seen: 2026-10-11T09:27:45.537177+00:00
pubmed: last seen: 2026-10-08T21:35:28.158265+00:00
unpaywall: last seen: 2026-05-21T05:10:58.409756+00:00

License: publisher-OA-unknown · commercial use NOT OK · attribution required