Systematic review and critical evaluation of quality of clinical practice guidelines on the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy

The association between parental SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy and fetal growth restriction

OBJECTIVES

Although the relationship between maternal viral infections and fetal growth restriction (FGR) is well established, the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy and FGR remains unclear. We investigated the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy and FGR at a single county hospital.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study with cohorts matched by gestational age and month of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing between April 2020 and July 2022. Individuals were included if they had a SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing up to 32 weeks of gestation and had a third trimester ultrasound. Primary outcome was a diagnosis of FGR, while secondary outcomes were rates of preeclampsia, small for gestational age (SGA) and birthweight. Univariate analyses, chi-square test and logistic regression were used for analysis.

RESULTS

Our cohorts constituted of 102 pregnant individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result and 103 pregnant individuals with a negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result in pregnancy. FGR rates were 17.8 % and 19.42 % among positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 cohorts respectively. While a statistical difference in preeclampsia rates was noted (34.31 % vs. 21.36 %, p=0.038) between cohorts, odds of getting preeclampsia based on SARS-CoV-2 test result was not significant (aOR 1.01, CI=0.97-1.01, p=0.75). No statistical difference was noted in demographics, FGR and SGA rates, and birthweight.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest no association between SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy and FGR at a single institution. Our results validate emerging data that additional fetal growth ultrasonographic assessment is not indicated solely based on SARS-CoV-2 infection status.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on obstetrics and gynecology hospitalization rate and on reasons for seeking emergency care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During the lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic, utilization of emergency care units has been reported to be reduced for obstetrical and gynaecological reasons. The aim of this systematic review is to assess if this phenomenon reduced the rate of hospitalizations for any reason and to evaluate the main reasons for seeking care in this subset of the population.

METHODS

The search was conducted using the main electronic databases from January 2020 to May 2021. The studies were identified with the use of a combination of: "emergency department" OR "A&E" OR "emergency service" OR "emergency unit" OR "maternity service" AND "COVID-19" OR "COVID-19 pandemic" OR "SARS-COV-2" and "admission" OR "hospitalization". All the studies that evaluated women going to obstetrics & gynecology emergency department (ED) during the COVID-19 pandemic for any reason were included.

RESULTS

The pooled proportion (PP) of hospitalizations increased from 22.7 to 30.6% during the lockdown periods, in particular from 48.0 to 53.9% for delivery. The PP of pregnant women suffering from hypertensive disorders increased (2.6 vs 1.2%), as well as women having contractions (52 vs 43%) and rupture of membranes (12.0 vs 9.1%). Oppositely, the PP of women having pelvic pain (12.4 vs 14.4%), suspected ectopic pregnancy (1.8 vs 2.0), reduced fetal movements (3.0 vs 3.3%), vaginal bleeding both for obstetrical (11.7 vs 12.8%) and gynecological issues (7.4 vs 9.2%) slightly reduced.

CONCLUSION

During the lockdown, an increase in the proportion of hospitalizations for obstetrical and gynecological reasons has been registered, especially for labor symptoms and hypertensive disorders.

Efficacy and safety of therapies for COVID-19 in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical evidence suggests that pregnant women are more vulnerable to COVID-19, since they are at increased risk for disease progression and for obstetric complications, such as premature labor, miscarriage, preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, fetal growth restriction and perinatal death. Despite this evidence, pregnant women are often excluded from clinical trials, resulting in limited knowledge on COVID-19 management. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide better evidence on the efficacy and safety of available COVID-19 treatment in pregnant women.

METHODS

Four authors searched major electronic databases from inception until 1 st November-2022 for controlled trials/observational studies, investigating outcomes after the administration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatments in pregnant women affected by COVID-19. The analyses investigated the cumulative incidence of delivery and maternal outcomes in pregnant women, comparing those taking active medication vs standard care. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Statistical significance was assessed using the random effects model and inverse-variance method. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the updated 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol has been registered in Prospero (number registration: CRD42023397445).

RESULTS

From initially 937 non duplicate records, we assessed the full texts of 40 articles, finally including ten studies. In six studies, including 1627 patients, the use of casirivimab/imdevimab (CAS/IMD), remdesivir, and IFN-alpha 2b significantly decreased the need of cesarean section ((RR = 0.665; 95%CI: 0.491-0.899; p = 0.008; I 2 = 19.5%;) (Table 1, (Fig. 1). Treatments did not decrease the risk of preterm delivery, admission to neonatal ICU, or stillbirth/perinatal loss (p-values > 0.50 for all these outcomes) and did not prevent the progression of disease towards severe degrees (k = 8; 2,374 pregnant women; RR = 0.778; 95%CI: 0.550-1.099; p = 0.15; I 2 = 0%). Moreover, the use of medications during pregnancy did not modify the incidence of maternal death in two studies (Table 2).

CONCLUSIONS

To our analysis, CAS/IMD, remdesivir, and IFN alpha 2b reduced the number of cesarean sections but demonstrated no effect on disease progression and other obstetric and COVID-19 related outcomes. The inability to evaluate the influence of viral load on illness development in pregnant women was attributed to lack of data. In our systematic review, no major side effects were reported. Though, it is essential for the medical community to focus more on clinical trials and less on episodic case reports and case series, with standardization of fetal and maternal outcomes.

A Mother's Dilemma: The 5-P Model for Vaccine Decision-Making in Pregnancy

Pregnant women are a highly vaccine-resistant population and face unique circumstances that complicate vaccine decision-making. Pregnant women are also at increased risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes to many vaccine-preventable diseases. Several models have been proposed to describe factors informing vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. However, none of these existing models are applicable to the complex decision-making involved with vaccine acceptance during pregnancy. We propose a model for vaccine decision-making in pregnancy that incorporates the following key factors: (1) perceived information sufficiency regarding vaccination risks during pregnancy, (2) harm avoidance to protect the fetus, (3) relationship with a healthcare provider, (4) perceived benefits of vaccination, and (5) perceived disease susceptibility and severity during pregnancy. In addition to these factors, the availability of research on vaccine safety during pregnancy, social determinants of health, structural barriers to vaccine access, prior vaccine acceptance, and trust in the healthcare system play roles in decision-making. As a final step, the pregnant individual must balance the risks and benefits of vaccination for themselves and their fetus, which adds greater complexity to the decision. Our model represents a first step in synthesizing factors informing vaccine decision-making by pregnant women, who represent a highly vaccine-resistant population and who are also at high risk for adverse outcomes for many infectious diseases.

Evolution of National Guidelines on Medicines Used to Treat COVID-19 in Pregnancy in 2020-2022: A Scoping Review

The lack of inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of medicines to treat COVID-19 has made it difficult to establish evidence-based treatment guidelines for pregnant women. Our aim was to provide a review of the evolution and updates of the national guidelines on medicines used in pregnant women with COVID-19 published by the obstetrician and gynecologists' societies in thirteen countries in 2020-2022. Based on the results of the RECOVERY (Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial, the national societies successively recommended against prescribing hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin. Guidelines for remdesivir differed completely between countries, from compassionate or conditional use to recommendation against. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was authorized in Australia and the UK only in research settings and was no longer recommended in the UK at the end of 2022. After initial reluctance to use corticosteroids, the results of the RECOVERY trial have enabled the recommendation of dexamethasone in case of severe COVID-19 since mid-2020. Some societies recommended prescribing tocilizumab to pregnant patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation from June 2021. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies were authorized at the end of 2021 with conditional use in some countries, and then no longer recommended in Belgium and the USA at the end of 2022. The gradual convergence of the recommendations, although delayed compared to the general population, highlights the importance of the inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials and of international collaboration to improve the pharmacological treatment of pregnant women with COVID-19.

Fetal brain biometry and cortical development after maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy: A prospective case-control study

OBJECTIVES

To assess cerebral growth and the development of fetal cortex using neurosonography in fetuses from pregnancies experiencing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) according to infection timing.

METHODS

Pregnancies with by SARS-CoV-2 during first and second trimesters were prospectively studied and matched with unaffected controls. Enclosed women underwent neurosonography at 30-34 weeks of gestation and corpus callosum (CC) and cerebellar vermis (CV) lengths measured. Further Sylvian fissure (SF), insula. Parieto-occipital fissure (POF), and calcarine sulci fissures (CSF) depths were obtained. The ultrasonographic variables considered were normalized with fetal head size.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy four consecutive pregnancies experiencing SARS COV 2 infection (81 before 14 weeks and 93 later) and 131 not affected pregnancies were considered. General and pregnancy characteristics were similar between the three groups of women. No significant differences existed in CC and CV lengths across groups. Similarly, insula, SF, POF And CSF depth did not result changed in fetuses of affected mothers.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 infection does nor resulted associate with differential fetal cortical development or brain growth in mildly symptomatic pregnant women. This information may be useful to reassure infected mothers on the health of their fetuses.

Do Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies Have an Impact on Pregnancy Outcome? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been used as a rescue strategy for pregnant women affected by COVID-19. To explore its impact on maternal-fetal health, we included all observational studies reporting maternal, fetal, delivery and neonatal outcomes in women who underwent mAbs infusion for COVID-19. Primary outcome was the percentage of preterm delivery. We used meta-analyses of proportions to combine data for maternal, fetal, delivery and neonatal outcome of women treated with mAbs for COVID-19 and reported pooled proportions and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables or mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals for continuous variables. Preterm birth was observed in 22.8% of cases (95% CI 12.9-34.3). Fetal distress was reported in 4.2% (95% CI 1.6-8.2). Gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia were observed in 3.0% (95% CI 0.8-6.8) and 3.4% (95% CI 0.8-7.5) of cases, respectively. Fetal growth restriction was observed in 3.2% of fetuses (95% CI 0.8-7.0). Secondary prophylaxis with mAbs is currently considered the best treatment option for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 disease. More attention should be paid to infants born from mothers who were treated with mAbs, for the risk of immunosuppression.

Thromboprophylaxis in Pregnant Women with COVID-19: An Unsolved Issue

SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women is of growing interest due to controversy over the use of antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant drugs during pregnancy and postpartum. Pregnant women are susceptible to develop severe forms of viral infections due to pregnancy-related immune alterations, changes in lung functions, and hypercoagulability. The association of pregnancy with SARS-CoV-2 infection can cause an increased incidence of thrombotic complications, especially in the case of patients with some genetic variants that favor inflammation and thrombosis. Compared to the general population, pregnant women may be at increased risk of thrombotic complications related to COVID-19. The lack of extensive clinical trials on thromboprophylaxis and extrapolating data from non-pregnant patients lead to major discrepancies in treating pregnant women with COVID-19. Currently, a multidisciplinary team should determine the dose and duration of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy for these patients, depending on the disease severity, the course of pregnancy, and the estimated due date. This narrative review aims to evaluate the protective effect of thromboprophylaxis in pregnant women with COVID-19. It is unknown at this time whether antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy initiated at the beginning of pregnancy for various diseases (preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, thrombophilia) offers a degree of protection. The optimal scheme for thromboprophylaxis in pregnant women with COVID-19 must be carefully established through an individualized decision concerning gestational age and the severity of the infection.

No observable influence of COVID-19 inactivated vaccines on pregnancy and birth outcomes in the first trimester of gestation

BACKGROUND

While studies have demonstrated that certain COVID-19 vaccines administered during pregnancy did not affect neonatal or maternal outcomes significantly, the safety of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in China, given during the first trimester, remains to be fully elucidated.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving female participants who gave birth from January to October 2021. The study compared pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes between subjects who received one or two doses of the inactivated COVID-19 vaccines during their first trimester and unvaccinated control subjects.

RESULTS

A total of 2658 pregnant women was recruited. Among them, 2358 (88.7%) reported ongoing pregnancies; 326 (13.8%) of these were vaccinated. Additionally, 277 (10.4%) experienced spontaneous miscarriages between 6 to 20 gestational weeks; 40 (14.4%) of these were vaccinated, yielding an odds ratio of 0.67-1.36 (95% confidence interval) for COVID-19 vaccination. The comparison of neonatal complications, including an Apgar score less than 7, preterm birth, low birth weight, and newborn respiratory complications, between unvaccinated and vaccinated participants revealed no statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The administration of COVID-19 inactivated vaccines during the first trimester of pregnancy is not associated with adverse pregnancy or neonatal outcomes, providing a substantial ground for pertinent health education.

Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women's Attitudes and Fears Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Contracting coronavirus disease (COVID-19) during pregnancy has been linked to an increased risk of severe maternal and fetal complications. Mass vaccination is considered a promising solution to successfully combat the COVID-19 pandemic. It includes vaccinating of pregnant and breastfeeding women. The success of a vaccine is determined not only by its efficacy, but also by its acceptability. Therefore, our study aimed to explore the acceptability and reluctance of pregnant and breastfeeding women to receive COVID-19 vaccination in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in Saudi Arabia from March 2022-beginning to June 2022-end. Using an online self-administered questionnaire with a convenience sampling technique, we assessed women for pregnancy, gravidity, parity, high-risk pregnancy, trimester of pregnancy, and current or planned breastfeeding. Furthermore, we assessed patients with preexisting chronic illnesses. The questionnaire comprised sociodemographic data and items drawn from Goncu Ayhan et al, including vaccination history, perception of risk related to the COVID-19 pandemic, impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and acceptance and attitude toward future COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

A total of 854 women (615 pregnant and 192 breastfeeding women) were included. Predictors of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance were found in women with a high level of education, those who lived with an elderly family member, and had close contact with a COVID-19-positive person. The reasons for declining vaccination included COVID-19 diagnosis during pregnancy and concerns about side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. A total of 503 (58.9%) women believed that COVID-19 vaccines had the potential to harm their babies. Only 415 (48.6%) agreed they would take the COVID-19 vaccine if it were recommended for pregnant women.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant and breastfeeding women fear COVID-19 vaccination due to safety concerns for their babies. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance varies among pregnant and breastfeeding women, regardless of whether they receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Our study underlines the importance of public education campaigns to improve the overall quality of information on COVID-19 vaccination, particularly among pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Early Adverse Events and Immune Response Following Second and Third COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy

(1) Background: The adverse-effect profile and short-term obstetric and neonatal outcomes among pregnant women who were vaccinated with the BNT162b2 vaccine at any stage of pregnancy do not indicate any safety concerns. The vaccine is effective in generating a humoral immune response in pregnant women. (2) Objective: To determine the vaccine-induced immunity and adverse events associated with the third (booster) dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine compared to the first and second dose of the vaccine among pregnant women. (3) Study design: A prospective cohort study in a tertiary referral center comparing pregnant women who were vaccinated by the first and second dose of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine to pregnant women vaccinated by a third (booster) dose, between January and November 2021. A digital questionnaire regarding adverse events was filled by both groups 2−4 weeks after vaccination. Blood samples were collected and tested for SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies 28−32 days after the administration of the second or third BNT162b2 dose. (4) Results: Seventy-eight pregnant women who received the first and second doses of the vaccine were compared to eighty-four pregnant women who received the third dose of the vaccine. In terms of adverse events following vaccination, local rash/pain/swelling (93.6% vs. 72.6%, p < 0.001) was significantly less common after the third vaccination compared to after the second vaccination. Other adverse events, including early obstetric complications, did not differ between the two groups. SARS-CoV-2 IgG serum levels 28−32 days after the vaccination were significantly higher after the third vaccination compared to the second vaccination (1333.75 vs. 2177.93, respectively, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusion: This study confirms the safety regarding early adverse events and immunogenicity, and the lack of early obstetric complications of the BNT162b2 second- and third-dose vaccine in pregnant women. The third (booster) dose is effective in generating a stronger humoral immune response in pregnant women compared with the second dose.

Changes in prenatal care and vaccine willingness among pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

Concerns about SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in health care settings have resulted in changes in prenatal care and birth plans, such as shifts to in-person visits and increased Cesarean delivery. These changes may affect quality of care and limit opportunities for clinicians to counsel pregnant individuals, who are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes, about prevention and vaccination.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of United States adults on changes in prenatal care, COVID-19 vaccine willingness, and reasons for unwillingness to receive a vaccine. We summarized changes in access to care and examined differences in vaccine willingness between pregnant and propensity-score matched non-pregnant controls using chi-squared tests and multivariable conditional logistic regression.

Results

Between December 15–23, 2020, 8481 participants completed the survey, of which 233 were pregnant. Three-quarters of pregnant women (n = 186) experienced a change in prenatal care, including format of care (n = 84, 35%) and reduced visits (n = 69, 24%). Two-thirds experienced a change in birth plans, from a hospital birth to home birth (n = 45, 18%) or vaginal birth to a Cesarean delivery (n = 42, 17%). Although 40% of pregnant women (n = 78) were unwilling to receive COVID-19 vaccination, they had higher, though non-significant, odds of reporting willingness to receive vaccination compared to similar non-pregnant women (aOR 1.38, 95% CI: 0.95, 2.00).

Conclusion

To support pregnant women through the perinatal care continuum, maternity care teams should develop protocols to foster social support, patient-centered education around infection prevention that focuses on improved risk perception, expected changes in care due to COVID-19, and vaccine effectiveness and safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-022-04882-x.

Remote care and triage of obstetric patients with COVID-19 in the community: operational considerations

Background

During the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, routine antenatal care was disrupted, and pregnant women positive for COVID-19 were at increased risk of caesarean section, intensive care admission or neonatal unit admission for their baby. Virtual care and telehealth can reduce barriers to care and improve maternity outcomes, and adoption has been encouraged by health authorities in the United Kingdom.

Methods

Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals Trust deployed a flexible maternity virtual ward (MVW) service using the Current Health platform to care for pregnant women during the pandemic. Patients were monitored either intermittently with finger pulse oximetry or continuously with a wearable device. We outline the MVW technology, intervention and staffing model, triage criteria and patient feedback, as an example of an operational model for other institutions.

Results

Between October 2021 and February 2022, 429 patients were referred, of which 228 were admitted to the MVW. Total bed-days was 1,182, mean length of stay was 6 days (SD 2.3, range 1–14 days). Fifteen (6.6%) required hospital admission and one (0.4%) critical care. There were no deaths. Feedback alluded to feelings of increased safety, comfort, and ease with the technology.

Conclusions

The MVW offered a safety net to pregnant women positive for COVID-19. It provided reassurance for staff, while relieving pressures on infrastructure. When setting up similar services in future, attention should be given to identifying clinical champions, triage criteria, technology and alarm selection, and establishing flexible escalation pathways that can adapt to changing patterns of disease.