Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes in Patients with Suspected COVID-19 and Their Relationship with a Negative RT-PCR Result

Expression Levels of PF4, ALOX12, ITGA2B, F131A in Pregnant COVID-19 Survivors

COVID-19 is viral illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. The immediate complications of COVID-19 are well defined and associated with increased mortality. A global effort is required to determine its effects on implantation, fetal growth and labor. Post COVID-19 recovery period presents a further challenge regarding service provision, prevention, and management. To assess the expression of Platelet Factor 4 (PF4), Arachidonate 12-lipoxygenase (ALOX 12), Integrin alpha-IIb (ITGA2B) & Coagulation Factor XIII A Chain F13A1 in post-acute COVID-19 survivors pregnant women. Prospective case control study, conducted on 400 pregnant women. Case group consists of 200 singleton pregnancies who had recovered from COVID-19 since 4-6 weeks before conception. Control group consists of 200 singleton pregnancies with no history for COVID-19. Expression levels of ALOX12, PF4, ITGA2B, and F13A1genes were determined using quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction method (qRT-PCR). Expression levels of ALOX12, ITGA2B, and F13A1, were significantly higher in the patients group (3.82±9.6, 6.63±8.45, and 8.9±9.1, respectively) (p < 0.05) compared to those in the control group (1.0±6.0, 1.0±8.1, and 0.6±7.6, respectively). No significant difference in PF4 expression between patients and control group (p = 0.3). Results obtained from enrichment analysis have also supported the above findings. Relative expression levels of these candidate genes could be distinguished between post-acute COVID-19 survivors' pregnant women and control group, significant relative gene expression of ALOX12, ITGA2B, and F13A1 may be associated with an increased risk of placenta-mediated adverse pregnancy outcomes.

The coronavirus disease 2019 infection in pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak which started in December 2019 rapidly developed into a global health concern. Pregnant women are susceptible to respiratory infections and can experience adverse outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared pregnancy outcomes according to COVID-19 disease status. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published between December 1, 2019, and October 19, 2022. Main inclusion criterion was any population-based, cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control study that assessed pregnancy outcomes in women with or without laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Sixty-nine studies including 1,606,543 pregnant women (39,716 [2.4%] diagnosed with COVID-19) were retrieved. COVID-19-infected pregnant women had a higher risk of preterm birth (odds ratio [OR], 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-1.78), preeclampsia (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.30-1.53), low birth weight (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.30-1.79), cesarean delivery (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.30), stillbirth (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.39-2.10), fetal distress (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.54-4.03), neonatal intensive care unit admission (OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.72-3.16), perinatal mortality (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.15-3.34), and maternal mortality (OR, 6.15; 95% CI, 3.74-10.10). There were no significant differences in total miscarriage, preterm premature rupture of membranes, postpartum hemorrhage, cholestasis, or chorioamnionitis according to infection. This review demonstrates that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes. This information could aid researchers and clinicians in preparing for another pandemic caused by newly discovered respiratory viruses. The findings of this study may assist with evidence-based counseling and help clinicians manage pregnant women with COVID-19.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.

Outcomes from birth to 6 months of publicly insured infants born to mothers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in the United States

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated inpatient management, transition to home, breastfeeding, growth, and clinical outcomes of infants born to mothers diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy and followed in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC), that serves a diverse and low-income patient population, from birth through 6 months of life.

METHODS

Infants born between 4/3/20 and 7/26/20 at Prentice Women's Hospital with mothers who received prenatal care at Erie Family Health Center (Erie), the second largest FQHC in Illinois, and had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy were included. Data were abstracted from delivery hospital admission and outpatient follow-up appointments between 4/8/20 and 2/4/21.

RESULTS

Thirty-three infants met inclusion criteria. Average gestational age was 38.9 weeks (IQR 37.6-40.4), 3 (10%) were premature and 5 (15%) required NICU admission. Nearly all (97%) mothers expressed intent to breastfeed. Outpatient follow-up rates were similar to historical cohorts and 82% (23/28) of infants were vaccination compliant. Growth parameters showed normal distributions at all time points. At 6 months, any and exclusive breast milk feeding rates were lower compared to historic cohorts (18 vs. 36%, p<0.05, 0 vs. 21%, p<0.01). Three infants (10%) received development-related referrals, one carried an underlying genetic diagnosis. Outpatient visits were predominantly face-to-face with telemedicine use comprising only 6% of visits (11/182).

CONCLUSIONS

Longitudinal follow-up of 33 publicly insured infants born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy followed in an FQHC showed high rates of follow-up and vaccination compliance, normal growth patterns and reassuring clinical status, and lower than expected rates of breastfeeding.

The Pivotal Role of the Placenta in Normal and Pathological Pregnancies: A Focus on Preeclampsia, Fetal Growth Restriction, and Maternal Chronic Venous Disease

The placenta is a central structure in pregnancy and has pleiotropic functions. This organ grows incredibly rapidly during this period, acting as a mastermind behind different fetal and maternal processes. The relevance of the placenta extends far beyond the pregnancy, being crucial for fetal programming before birth. Having integrative knowledge of this maternofetal structure helps significantly in understanding the development of pregnancy either in a proper or pathophysiological context. Thus, the aim of this review is to summarize the main features of the placenta, with a special focus on its early development, cytoarchitecture, immunology, and functions in non-pathological conditions. In contraposition, the role of the placenta is examined in preeclampsia, a worrisome hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, in order to describe the pathophysiological implications of the placenta in this disease. Likewise, dysfunction of the placenta in fetal growth restriction, a major consequence of preeclampsia, is also discussed, emphasizing the potential clinical strategies derived. Finally, the emerging role of the placenta in maternal chronic venous disease either as a causative agent or as a consequence of the disease is equally treated.

Prediction of in-hospital recurrence and false-negative results in patients with COVID-19 by red blood cell values on admission

The clinical characteristics and risk factors of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with re-positive or false-negative test results have so far remained to be determined. The present study provides a cross-sectional observational study on 134 hospitalized patients selected from Huoshenshan Hospital (Wuhan, China) using cluster sampling. A total of 68 patients had reduced red blood cell (RBC) counts, 55 a decrease in the hemoglobin concentration (HBC) and 73 a decline in hematocrit (HCT). The false-negative rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA detection in pharyngeal swab specimens was 18.7%. The absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), RBC, HBC and HCT levels in false-negative patients were significantly higher than those in patients who tested positive for viral nucleic acids. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that RBC [odds ratio (OR)=0.43, 95% CI: 0.18-0.99], HBC (OR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.94-0.99) and ALC (OR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.20-0.91) were the factors influencing the negative testing results for viral nucleic acid. The rate of re-positive patients was 16.4%. The white blood cell, RBC, HBC and HCT values in re-positive patients were lower than those in non-re-positive patients. The median (interquartile range) values for RBC, HBC and HCT of male re-positive patients were 3.95 (3.37, 4.2) x10¹²/l, 123 (103, 133) g/l and 36.6 (31.1, 39.2)%, respectively, while the RBC, HBC and HCT of female re-positive patients were 3.54 (3.13, 3.74) x10¹²/l, 115 (102, 118) g/l and 34.2 (28.5, 34.9)%, respectively. It was determined that RBC, HBC and HCT values had moderate accuracy in predicting SARS-CoV-2 recurrence in patients with COVID-19 using receiver operating curve analysis. The present study suggested that RBC may have an important role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and maternal-perinatal outcomes among pregnant women admitted for delivery: Experience from COVID-19-dedicated maternity hospital in Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir (India)

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women and their neonates is an area of research interest nowadays. To date, there is limited knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, maternal and perinatal outcomes of pregnant women at term in middle- and low-income countries. In the present retro-prospective study, medical records of pregnant women admitted for delivery were reviewed from the largest Covid-19 dedicated Shri Maharaja Gulab Singh (SMGS) maternity hospital. The SARS-CoV-2 screening was carried out for all pregnant women admitted for delivery using RT-PCR. All neonates born from SARS-CoV-2-positive mothers were isolated and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of the pregnant women (90.6%) were asymptomatic at the time of admission with a low prevalence (3.4%) of SARS-CoV-2. A higher rate of asymptomatic prevalence (86.1%) was found among SARS-CoV-2-positive pregnant women. On the basis of the RT-PCR result (negative vs. positive), statistically significant differences were found for maternal characteristics, such as mean gestational age (37.5 ± 2.2 vs. 36.6 ± 3.3), medical comorbidity (2.9% vs. 7.4%), and maternal outcomes like the C-section rate (29.8% vs. 58.3%), preterm delivery (14.6% vs. 28.3), and neonatal outcomes like mean birth weight (2840 ± 450 vs. 2600 ± 600), low Apgar score (2.7% vs. 6.48%), and fetal distress (10.9% vs. 22.2%) among SARS-CoV-2 negative and positive cases, respectively. No neonate from SARS-CoV-2-positive pregnant women was found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Is the Immunization of Pregnant Women against COVID-19 Justified?

Maternal immunization against some infectious diseases can offer significant advantages for women, preventing maternal morbidity and mortality, or for offspring, preventing fetal disease and conferring passive immunity to neonates. Recently, clinical trials specifically to evaluate the immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of some of the available coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in pregnant and lactating women have been planned, initiated and, in some cases, completed. This paper discusses whether the immunization of pregnant women against COVID-19 is justified and presents knowledge about the immunogenicity and safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for these subjects. The results of recent studies indicate that pregnant women are at increased risk of developing severe disease compared with nonpregnant women of the same age. Studies carried out with mRNA vaccines indicate that the immunogenicity, safety and tolerability of these preventive measures in pregnant women are not different from those in nonpregnant women of the same age. Moreover, antibodies are efficiently transferred through the placenta and can be detected in breastmilk, suggesting a potential prevention of infection in the child. All these findings authorize the use of mRNA vaccines in pregnant women to protect both the mother and the child. However, further studies with larger sample size and with follow-up of the pregnant women vaccinated during different periods of pregnancy and their children are needed to better characterize the immune response of pregnant women, to define when these vaccines should be administered to obtain the best protection, and to measure vaccine efficacy against virus variants in both mothers and infants. COVID-19 vaccines based on different technological platforms cannot presently be used, and their role in pregnant women should be clarified.

Influence of the Human Development Index on the Maternal-Perinatal Morbidity and Mortality of Pregnant Women with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Importance for Personalized Medical Care

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is perhaps the most worrisome pandemic in the 21st century, having entailed devastating consequences for the whole society during the last year. Different studies have displayed an existing association between pregnancy and COVID-19 severity due to the various physiological changes that occur during gestation. Recent data identified maternal country of origin as an important determinant of COVID-19 presentation in pregnant women. However, the explanation of this fact remains to be fully elucidated. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to analyze the possible relationship between Human Development Index (HDI) of maternal country of origin with the morbimortality of pregnant women and their newborns. Here, we conducted a multicentric, ambispective, observational case-control study (1:1 ratio) and compare with the HDI of each country (group 1-very high HDI, group 2-high HDI, group 3-medium HDI, and group 4-low HDI). In total, 1347 pregnant women with confirmed SARV-CoV-2 infection (cases) were enrolled, and each was paired with one control to give a total number of 2694 participants from 81 tertiary care centers. Among the women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, more cases were produced of perinatal mortality, overall maternal morbidity, COVID-19 maternal morbidity, C-sections, hypertensive maternal morbidity, and perinatal morbidity. Our results described an inverse association between HDI and maternofetal morbidity and mortality. Moreover, the countries with an HDI lower than 1 showed higher rates of patients with maternal COVID-19-related morbidity (6.0% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.001), a need for oxygen therapy (4.7% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001), and maternal ICU admission (2.6% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.007). Compared to other risk factors such as overweight, obesity, preexisting and obstetric comorbidities, HDI emerged as an independent risk factor explaining much of the increased maternal-perinatal morbidity and mortality detected in our group of cases. Further research is needed to establish to confirm the real impact of this factor and its components on pregnancy outcomes.

Comparing Infection Profiles of Expectant Mothers with COVID-19 and Impacts on Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes between the First Two Waves of the Pandemic

During 2020, Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) incidence fluctuated in two clear waves across the spring and autumn periods. This study was designed to compare the maternal and perinatal clinical outcomes in obstetrics patients with COVID-19 between the two waves of infection in Spain. We conducted an observational, analytical, ambispective cohort study with longitudinal follow-up of mothers with confirmed SARV-CoV-2 infection from different hospitals in our country between March–November 2020. We recruited 1295 pregnant women with SARS-CoV2 infection from 78 hospitals, 846 (65.3%) of whom were diagnosed during the first wave and 449 (34.7%) during the second wave. Our results show that patients developing COVID-19 during the first wave had more symptoms at triage, early in pregnancy with greater rates of COVID-19-related maternal morbidity; caesarean section and preterm birth in the first wave. We register two cases of maternal mortality and only during the first wave. Maternal morbidity events showed a strong link to perinatal mortality events in the first wave compared to the second wave, in which maternal morbidity was more associated with pneumonia. Likewise, maternal morbidity showed a strong correlation with perinatal morbidity events in both waves. We describe the differences between the patients’ profiles and management between the two waves and related to maternal and perinatal outcomes. Differences were also observed in the management of pregnant women with COVID-19. Thus, there were fewer caesarean sections, and maternal and perinatal morbidity events were reduced in the second wave, while the impacts of respiratory symptoms and their severity, including a greater need for maternal treatment, were greater in this last period. Identifying the impact that changes in the profile as well as in the treatment have on maternal–perinatal morbidity and mortality will help improve the well-being of our patients and their newborns.

Incidence de la COVID-19 sur les issues de grossesse: examen systématique et méta-analyse

Contexte:

La nature exacte des répercussions de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) sur la santé maternelle et néonatale reste à préciser. Nous avons cherché à évaluer l’association entre l’infection par le coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 (SRAS-CoV-2) pendant la grossesse et les issues défavorables de la grossesse.

MÉTHODES:

Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique et une méta-analyse d’études observationnelles fournissant des données comparatives sur l’infection par le SRAS-CoV-2 et la gravité de la COVID-19 pendant la grossesse. Nous avons sélectionné les études admissibles à partir des bases de données MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov , medRxiv et Cochrane au 29 janvier 2021, en utilisant les Medical Subject Headings (vedettes matière en médecine) et les expressions clés « severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 OR SARS-CoV-2 OR coronavirus disease 2019 OR COVID-19 » (coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 ou SRAS-CoV-2 ou maladie à coronavirus 2019 ou COVID-19) AND « pregnancy » (grossesse). Nous avons ensuite évalué la qualité méthodologique de toutes les études retenues avec l’échelle de Newcastle–Ottawa. Les issues primaires étaient la prééclampsie et la naissance prématurée. Les issues secondaires incluaient la mortinaissance et le diabète gestationnel, ainsi que d’autres issues de grossesse. Nous avons calculé des rapports de cotes (RC) sommaires ou des différences moyennes pondérées avec des intervalles de confiance (IC) à 95 % par méta-analyse à effets aléatoires.

RÉSULTATS:

Nous avons retenu 42 études portant sur 438 548 personnes enceintes. Comparativement à une absence d’infection par le SRAS-CoV-2 pendant la grossesse, le diagnostic de COVID-19 a été associé à la prééclampsie (RC 1,33; IC à 95 % 1,03–1,73), à la naissance prématurée (RC 1,82; IC à 95 % 1,38–2,39) et à la mortinaissance (RC 2,11; IC à 95 % 1,14–3,90). Par rapport à la COVID-19 légère, la COVID-19 grave était fortement associée à la prééclampsie (RC 4,16; IC à 95 % 1,55–11,15), à la naissance prématurée (RC 4,29; IC à 95 % 2,41–7,63), au diabète gestationnel (RC 1,99; IC à 95 % 1,09–3,64) et au faible poids à la naissance (RC 1,89; IC à 95 % 1,14–3,12).

INTERPRÉTATION:

La COVID-19 pourrait être associée à un risque accru de prééclampsie, de naissance prématurée et d’autres issues défavorables de la grossesse.

A New Multiplatform Model for Outpatient Prenatal and Postpartum Care in a Cohort of COVID-19-Affected Obstetric Patients

Spain was one of the epicenters of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe in this article the design and results of a new telephone-and-telematic multiplatform model of systematic prenatal and postpartum follow-up for COVID-19-affected women implemented in a tertiary reference hospital in Madrid. We included patients with RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 during pregnancy or delivery from 10 March 2020 to 15 December 2020. We had a total of 211 obstetric patients: 148 (70.1%) were tested at the onset of suspicious clinical manifestations and 62 (29.4%) were tested in the context of routine screening. Of all the patients, 60 women (28.4%) were asymptomatic and 97 (46%) presented mild symptoms. Fifty-one women (24.2%) were admitted to our hospital for specific treatment because of moderate or severe symptoms. We had no missed cases and a good adherence. The mean number of calls per patient was 2.3. We performed 55 in-person visits. We analyzed the complexity of our program over time, showing a two-wave-like pattern. One patient was identified as needing hospitalization and we did not record major morbidity. Telemedicine programs are a strong and reproducible tool to reach to pregnant population affected by COVID-19, to assess its symptoms and severity, and to record for pregnancy-related symptoms both in an outpatient regime and after discharge from hospital.

An Updated Review of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and the Importance of Effective Vaccination Programs in Pandemic Times

Since the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic was declared a year ago, the search for vaccines has become the top priority in order to restore normalcy after 2.5 million deaths worldwide, overloaded sanitary systems, and a huge economic burden. Vaccine development has represented a step towards the desired herd immunity in a short period of time, owing to a high level of investment, the focus of researchers, and the urge for the authorization of the faster administration of vaccines. Nevertheless, this objective may only be achieved by pursuing effective strategies and policies in various countries worldwide. In the present review, some aspects involved in accomplishing a successful vaccination program are addressed, in addition to the importance of vaccination in a pandemic in the face of unwillingness, conspiracy theories, or a lack of information among the public. Moreover, we provide some updated points related to the landscape of the clinical development of vaccine candidates, specifically, the top five vaccines that are already being assessed in Phase IV clinical trials (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, and CoronaVac).

The impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on maternal and newborn health is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the association between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies with comparison data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and severity of COVID-19 during pregnancy. We searched for eligible studies in MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv and Cochrane databases up to Jan. 29, 2021, using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords for "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 OR SARS-CoV-2 OR coronavirus disease 2019 OR COVID-19" AND "pregnancy." We evaluated the methodologic quality of all included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Our primary outcomes were preeclampsia and preterm birth. Secondary outcomes included stillbirth, gestational diabetes and other pregnancy outcomes. We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 42 studies involving 438 548 people who were pregnant. Compared with no SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy, COVID-19 was associated with preeclampsia (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.73), preterm birth (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.39) and stillbirth (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.90). Compared with mild COVID-19, severe COVID-19 was strongly associated with preeclampsia (OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.55 to 11.15), preterm birth (OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.41 to 7.63), gestational diabetes (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.64) and low birth weight (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12).

INTERPRETATION

COVID-19 may be associated with increased risks of preeclampsia, preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

The Profile of the Obstetric Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection According to Country of Origin of the Publication: A Systematic Review of the Literature

SARS-CoV-2 is the novel member of coronavirus responsible for the worldwide pandemic COVID-19, affecting all types of people. In this context, established research identified pregnant women as a susceptible group of SARS-CoV-2 infection, although there is still limited data regarding the real impact of COVID-19 in this group. With that purpose, we conducted a systematic review describing the maternal-fetal results of pregnant women infected by SARS-CoV-2, in aim to analyze the profile of the obstetric patients according to the country of origin of the publication. A total of 38 articles were included in this systematic review with 2670 patients from 7 countries, with 20 works published from China (52.6%). We reported significative differences according to the median maternal age, with Spain as the country with the highest age (34.6 years); The percentage of tabaquism; proportion of symptomatic patients in the triage; type of radiological exam (China and France conduct CT scans on all their patients in comparison to the use of chest X-Ray in the rest of the countries studied); percentages of C-sections (83.9% in China; 35.9% Spain, p < 0.001); maternal mortality rate, proportion of patients who need treatments, the use of antivirals, antibiotics, and anticoagulants as well as measurements of the newborns. Perinatal results are favorable in the majority of countries, with very low rates of vertical transmission in the majority of works. The studies collected in this review showed moderate to high index of quality. The different works describe the affectation during the first wave of the pandemic, where the pregnant woman with SARS-CoV-2 infection is generally symptomatic during the third trimester of gestation along with other factors associated with worse prognosis of the disease, such as higher age, body mass index, and further comorbidities developed during pregnancy. In the obstetric patient, proportion of C-sections are elevated together with prematurity, increasing maternal perinatal morbimortality. Differences found between countries could be based on the proper profile of the patient in each region, the period of the pandemic directly affecting how it was managed, and the variations regarding in situ medical attention.

A Predictive Model and Risk Factors for Case Fatality of COVID-19

This study aimed to create an individualized analysis model of the risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients as a tool for the rapid clinical management of hospitalized patients in order to achieve a resilience of medical resources. This is an observational, analytical, retrospective cohort study with longitudinal follow-up. Data were collected from the medical records of 3489 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 using RT-qPCR in the period of highest community transmission recorded in Europe to date: February-June 2020. The study was carried out in in two health areas of hospital care in the Madrid region: the central area of the Madrid capital (Hospitales de Madrid del Grupo HM Hospitales (CH-HM), n = 1931) and the metropolitan area of Madrid (Hospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias (MH-HUPA) n = 1558). By using a regression model, we observed how the different patient variables had unequal importance. Among all the analyzed variables, basal oxygen saturation was found to have the highest relative importance with a value of 20.3%, followed by age (17.7%), lymphocyte/leukocyte ratio (14.4%), CRP value (12.5%), comorbidities (12.5%), and leukocyte count (8.9%). Three levels of risk of ICU/death were established: low-risk level (<5%), medium-risk level (5-20%), and high-risk level (>20%). At the high-risk level, 13% needed ICU admission, 29% died, and 37% had an ICU-death outcome. This predictive model allowed us to individualize the risk for worse outcome for hospitalized patients affected by COVID-19.