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.

Oncofertility and COVID-19: At the Crossroads between Two Time-Sensitive Fields.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection has dominated our lives and left its mark on it. The impact on fertility is major, and the long-term consequences may be disastrous. When we talk about oncofertility, we are talking about those patients worried about the delay in receiving medical services (possible cancelation of surgery, decreased availability of medical services, reorientation of medical resources) due to COVID-19. Finally, patients' worsening biological and reproductive statuses, associated with high levels of anxiety and depression, are closely related to social restrictions, economic impact, reorientation of medical resources, health policies, and fears of SARS-CoV-2 infection. AIM: We reviewed the current literature on fertility during the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on cancer patients. Specifically, how cancer treatment can affect fertility, the options to maintain fertility potential, and the recovery options available after treatment are increasingly common concerns among cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using two main central databases (PubMed®/MEDLINE, and Web of Science) to identify relevant studies using keywords SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, oncofertility, young cancer patient, cryopreservation, assisted reproductive techniques (ART), psychosocial, telemedicine. RESULTS: In the present study, 45 papers were included, centered on the six main topics related to COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Fertility preservation (FP) should not be discontinued, but instead practiced with adjustments to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients requires screening for COVID-19 before FP procedures, among both patients and medical staff in FP clinics, to prevent infection that would rapidly worsen the condition and lead to severe complications.

The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in triage-negative patients and staff of a fertility setting from lockdown release throughout 2020.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in triage-negative patients undergoing ART and fertility care providers after lockdown release and throughout 2020? SUMMARY ANSWER: Out of the triage-negative patients whose blood samples were assessed for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies over 6 months, 5.2% yielded positive results with a significantly higher rate in health care workers (HCWs) and a significant month-by-month increase in those with evidence of antibodies. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Patients of reproductive age are more prone to asymptomatic or minimal forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as compared to older age groups, and the identification of those with active infection and those already exposed (and probably immunized) is important for safety and cost-effective use of testing resources in the fertility setting. Data on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in ART patients are limited and encompass short time frames; current rates are unknown. There is also no consensus on the optimal way of screening triage-negative ART patients in moderate/high-risk areas. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A prospective longitudinal unicentric study on triage negative ART patients (n = 516) and clinical staff (n = 30) was carried out. We analyzed 705 serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 sampled between 17 May 2020 (the first working day after lockdown release) up to 1 December 2020, to assess the positivity rates for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: We collected data on the serological status for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in 516 triage-negative men (n = 123) and women (n = 393) undergoing ART at a private fertility center and 30 HCWs that were at work during the study period. Antibodies were detected with a capture chemiluminescence assay (CLIA) targeting the highly Immunogenic S1 and S2 domains on the virus spike protein. We also analyzed the molecular test results of the cases exhibiting a positive serology. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The data showed that 5.2% of the triage-negative ART patients had a positive serological result for SARS-CoV-2, with an overall conversion rate of 2.1% for IgG and 4.6% for IgM. There was no significant difference in seroprevalence between sexes. The small cohort (n = 30) of HCWs had a markedly increased seroprevalence (12.9% for Ig M and 22.6% for IgG). The highest seropositivity in our cohort was recorded in November (16.2%). The IgM positivity rates revealed significant monthly increments, paralleling official prevalence rates based on nasopharyngeal swabs. No positive molecular tests were identified in cases exhibiting a solitary positive IgG result. We show that despite a 6-fold increase in the number of ART patients with a positive serology between May and December 2020, most of our patients remain unexposed to the virus. The study was undertaken in a high-risk area for COVID-19, with a 20-times increase in the active cases across the study period. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The geographical restriction, alongside the lack of running a second, differently-targeted immunoassay (orthogonal testing), could limit the generalizability and translation of our results to other fertility settings or other immunoassays. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The low positivity rates for IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein seen at the end of 2020 imply that most of the fertility patients are still at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Until mass vaccination and other measures effectively diminish the pandemic, risk mitigation strategies must be maintained in the fertility units in the foreseeable future. Patients with a solitary IgG+ status are most likely 'non-infectious' and can elude further testing without giving up the strict use of universal protective measures. With increasing seroprevalences owing to infection or vaccination, and with the consecutive increase in test performance, it is possible that serological screening of ART patients might be more cost-effective than PCR testing, especially for the many patients with repeat treatments/procedures in a time-frame of months. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This research received no external funding. All authors declare having no conflict of interest with regard to this trial.