To accurately assess COVID-19 vaccination’s impact on menstrual cycle length, only individuals vaccinated within the first 38 days of their cycle were included. This criterion helped exclude individuals with potential preexisting cycle irregularities. Individuals experiencing menopause or using hormonal contraception were ineligible for participation.
For each individual, menstrual cycle data was collected from a minimum of 4 consecutive cycles between October 1, 2020, to November 7, 2021. For vaccinated individuals, the 4 cycles included 3 prevaccination cycles and at least the cycle in which the first vaccine dose was received. For unvaccinated individuals, the 4 cycles were collected during a similar time frame.
Initial COVID-19 vaccines were administered between January 2, 2021, and October 31, 2021. For the vaccinated cohorts, cycle 4 was considered the first vaccination cycle, and for the unvaccinated cohort, cycles 4 and 5 were designated as the notional first and second vaccination cycles. The second vaccination cycle for the vaccinated cohorts varied depending on when individuals received their second dose but was most commonly cycle 5.
READ MORE: Study Finds No Link Between COVID-19 Vaccination, Preterm Birth
Among the final study cohort of 19,497 individuals, 9279 received their first vaccine dose in the follicular phase, 5532 received their first dose in the luteal phase, and 4686 individuals did not receive a vaccination. Most vaccinated individuals received an mRNA vaccine (63.8%) and were younger than age 35 years (80.1%), whereas the unvaccinated cohort had a greater proportion of individuals younger than 25 years (19.4% vs about 10% for both vaccinated groups).
Most notably, a 1-day increase in cycle length (98.75% CI, 0.88-1.13) was observed from the 3 prevaccination cycle average to the first vaccination cycle among individuals who were vaccinated in the follicular phase. No changes in cycle length were observed among individuals vaccinated in the luteal phase (–0.09-day change; 98.75% CI –0.26 to 0.07) or among unvaccinated individuals (0.08-day change; 98.75% CI, –0.10 to 0.27).
In the first vaccination cycle, individuals who received a vaccination during the follicular phase experienced the largest clinically significant change in cycle length (8 days or more) at 6.8%, followed by 5% of unvaccinated individuals and 3.3% of individuals vaccinated in the luteal phase (P < .001 for each pairwise comparison). In the second vaccination cycle, the same ranking occurred: 6.8% of individuals vaccinated in the follicular phase had a clinically significant change in cycle length (8 days or more), followed by 5% of unvaccinated individuals, and 4.7% of individuals vaccinated in the luteal phase (P < .001 for each pairwise comparison).
Younger individuals (aged 18-29 years) were more susceptible to clinically significant changes in cycle length for both doses (P < .001 both doses).
Study findings clarifying what to expect regarding the menstrual cycle after COVID-19 vaccination could help address low vaccine uptake, brought forth by concerns about vaccine safety, side effects, and health outcomes. According to the WHO, vaccine hesitancy is one of the top 10 threats to global health.3
“Understanding these changes on a population level allows us to more effectively counsel patients about what to expect with a COVID-19 vaccine,” said Edelman.2 “We hope this work helps validate the public’s experiences and ease fears and anxiety around vaccination.”
READ MORE: COVID-19 Resource Center
References
1. Edelman A, Boniface ER, Male V, et al. Timing of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and effects on menstrual cycle changes. Obstetrics & Gynecology. Published online February 27, 2024. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005550
2. Timing of COVID-19 shot can change menstrual cycle length. News release. EurekAlert. February 29, 2024. Accessed March 1, 2024. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1036157
3. Kumar S, Shah Z, Garfield S. Causes of vaccine hesitancy in adults for the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic literature review. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(9):1518. doi:10.3390/vaccines10091518