COVID-19 mitigation measures increase preterm birth and low birth weight in the public healthcare system in Uruguay.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on preterm birth (PB) and low birth weight (LBW), comparing public and private healthcare systems of the National Integrated Health System in Uruguay, where the mitigation measures for the COVID-19 pandemic generated an immediate socioeconomic and psychological crisis, which caused a sharp widening of existing socioeconomic inequalities. METHODS: A national observational study was conducted comparing perinatal outcomes in the first 6 months of 2020 (period of the pandemic without pregnancy infections), which was the beginning of the pandemic, with the same period of the previous year 2019 (pre-pandemic period with no mitigation measures) among pregnant women from the public and private health systems. Data were retrieved from the national database (Informatic Perinatal System) and analyzed by healthcare system category. RESULTS: A total of 36 559 deliveries were assessed: 18 563 in the 2019 study period and 17 996 in the 2020 study period. In the public system, there was a significant increase in the risk of LBW (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.36) and of the composite outcome (PB or LBW) (aRR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.26). In the private system, by contrast, there was a non-statistically significant decrease of LBW and there were no changes in the incidence of PB and the composite outcome in 2020. CONCLUSION: The different evolution of birth outcomes in the public and private systems suggests an unequal impact of mitigation measures on populations of different socioeconomic levels. Given that no COVID-19 infections were identified in pregnant women during the study period, this research offers an opportunity to differentiate the biologic effects of the virus from the psychological and social impacts derived from containment measures. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT05087160.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of COVID-19 vaccines safety during pregnancy is urgently needed. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components and technological platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy and animal studies to complement direct evidence. We searched literature databases from its inception to September 2021 without language restriction, COVID-19 vaccine websites, and reference lists of other systematic reviews and the included studies. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, data extracted, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. (PROSPERO CRD42021234185). RESULTS: We retrieved 8,837 records from the literature search; 71 studies were included, involving 17,719,495 pregnant persons and 389 pregnant animals. Most studies (94%) were conducted in high-income countries, were cohort studies (51%), and 15% were classified as high risk of bias. We identified nine COVID-19 vaccine studies, seven involving 309,164 pregnant persons, mostly exposed to mRNA vaccines. Among non-COVID-19 vaccines, the most frequent exposures were AS03 and aluminum-based adjuvants. A meta-analysis of studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed no association with adverse outcomes, regardless of the vaccine or the trimester of vaccination. Neither the reported rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes nor reactogenicity exceeded expected background rates, which was the case for ASO3- or aluminum-adjuvanted non-COVID-19 vaccines in the proportion meta-analyses of uncontrolled studies/arms. The only exception was postpartum hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccination (10.40%; 95% CI: 6.49-15.10%), reported by two studies; however, the comparison with non-exposed pregnant persons, available for one study, found non-statistically significant differences (adjusted OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.56-2.12). Animal studies showed consistent results with studies in pregnant persons. CONCLUSION: We found no safety concerns for currently administered COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Additional experimental and real-world evidence could enhance vaccination coverage. Robust safety data for non-mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are still needed.

Safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous vaccines have been evaluated and approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since pregnant persons have been excluded from most clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, sufficient data regarding the safety of these vaccines for the pregnant person and their fetus have rarely been available at the time of product licensure. However, as COVID-19 vaccines have been deployed, data on the safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and neonates are becoming increasingly available. A living systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and newborns could provide the information necessary to help guide vaccine policy decisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis based on biweekly searches of medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries to systematically identify relevant studies of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons. Pairs of reviewers will independently select, extract data, and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, and case reports. Primary outcomes will be the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons, including neonatal outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be immunogenicity and reactogenicity. We will conduct paired meta-analyses, including prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We will use the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Using maternal and neonatal data collection systems for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines active safety surveillance in low- and middle-income countries: an international modified Delphi study: [version 1;peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

Background: Given that pregnant women are now included among those for receipt coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, it is important to ensure that information systems can be used (or available) for active safety surveillance, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to build consensus about the use of existing maternal and neonatal data collection systems in LMICs for COVID-19 vaccines active safety surveillance, a basic set of variables, and the suitability and feasibility of including pregnant women and LMIC research networks in COVID-19 vaccines pre-licensure activities. Methods: A three-stage modified Delphi study was conducted over three months in 2020. An international multidisciplinary panel of 16 experts participated. Ratings distributions and consensus were assessed, and ratings’ rationale was analyzed. Results: The panel recommended using maternal and neonatal data collection systems for active safety surveillance in LMICs (median 9;disagreement index [DI] -0.92), but there was no consensus (median 6;DI 1.79) on the feasibility of adapting these systems. A basic set of 14 maternal, neonatal, and vaccination-related variables. Out of 16 experts, 11 supported a basic set of 14 maternal, neonatal, and vaccination-related variables for active safety surveillance. Seven experts agreed on a broader set of 26 variables.The inclusion of pregnant women for COVID-19 vaccines research (median 8;DI -0.61) was found appropriate, although there was uncertainty on its feasibility in terms of decision-makers’ acceptability (median 7;DI 10.00) and regulatory requirements (median 6;DI 0.51). There was no consensus (median 6;DI 2.35) on the feasibility of including research networks in LMICs for conducting clinical trials amongst pregnant women. Conclusions: Although there was some uncertainty regarding feasibility, experts recommended using maternal and neonatal data collection systems and agreed on a common set of variables for COVID-19 vaccines active safety surveillance in LMICs.

Safety of components and platforms of COVID-19 vaccines considered for use in pregnancy: A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Rapid assessment of COVID-19 vaccine safety during pregnancy is urgently needed. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review, to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines selected by the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access-Maternal Immunization Working Group in August 2020, including their components and their technological platforms used in other vaccines for pregnant persons. We searched literature databases, COVID-19 vaccine pregnancy registries, and explored reference lists from the inception date to February 2021 without language restriction. Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies through COVIDENCE, and performed the data extraction and the risk of bias assessment. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021234185). RESULTS: We retrieved 6757 records and 12 COVID-19 pregnancy registries from the search strategy; 38 clinical and non-clinical studies (involving 2,398,855 pregnant persons and 56 pregnant animals) were included. Most studies (89%) were conducted in high-income countries and were cohort studies (57%). Most studies (76%) compared vaccine exposures with no exposure during the three trimesters of pregnancy. The most frequent exposure was to AS03 adjuvant, in the context of A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccines, (n = 24) and aluminum-based adjuvants (n = 11). Only one study reported exposure to messenger RNA in lipid nanoparticles COVID-19 vaccines. Except for one preliminary report about A/H1N1 influenza vaccination (adjuvant AS03), corrected by the authors in a more thorough analysis, all studies concluded that there were no safety concerns. CONCLUSION: This rapid review found no evidence of pregnancy-associated safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines or of their components or platforms when used in other vaccines. However, the need for further data on several vaccine platforms and components is warranted, given their novelty. Our findings support current WHO guidelines recommending that pregnant persons may consider receiving COVID-19 vaccines, particularly if they are at high risk of exposure or have comorbidities that enhance the risk of severe disease.

COVID-19 and pregnancy: An umbrella review of clinical presentation, vertical transmission, and maternal and perinatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) summarizing the best evidence regarding the effect of COVID-19 on maternal and child health following Cochrane methods and PRISMA statement for reporting (PROSPERO-CRD42020208783). METHODS: We searched literature databases and COVID-19 research websites from January to October 2020. We selected relevant SRs reporting adequate search strategy, data synthesis, risk of bias assessment, and/or individual description of included studies describing COVID-19 and pregnancy outcomes. Pair of reviewers independently selected studies through COVIDENCE web-software, performed the data extraction, and assessed its quality through the AMSTAR-2 tool. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Each SR's results were synthesized and for the most recent, relevant, comprehensive, and with the highest quality, by predefined criteria, we presented GRADE evidence tables. RESULTS: We included 66 SRs of observational studies out of 608 references retrieved and most (61/66) had "critically low" overall quality. We found a relatively low degree of primary study overlap across SRs. The most frequent COVID-19 clinical findings during pregnancy were fever (28-100%), mild respiratory symptoms (20-79%), raised C-reactive protein (28-96%), lymphopenia (34-80%), and pneumonia signs in diagnostic imaging (7-99%). The most frequent maternal outcomes were C-section (23-96%) and preterm delivery (14-64%). Most of their babies were asymptomatic (16-93%) or presented fever (0-50%), low birth weight (5-43%) or preterm delivery (2-69%). The odds ratio (OR) of receiving invasive ventilation for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 pregnant women was 1.88 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.36-2.60) and the OR that their babies were admitted to neonatal intensive care unit was 3.13 (95%CI 2.05-4.78). The risk of congenital transmission or via breast milk was estimated to be low, but close contacts may carry risks. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive overview supports that pregnant women with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes and low risk of congenital transmission.

COVID-19: Implications for People with Chagas Disease.

As the global COVID-19 pandemic advances, it increasingly impacts those vulnerable populations who already bear a heavy burden of neglected tropical disease. Chagas disease (CD), a neglected parasitic infection, is of particular concern because of its potential to cause cardiac, gastrointestinal, and other complications which could increase susceptibility to COVID-19. The over one million people worldwide with chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy require special consideration because of COVID-19's potential impact on the heart, yet the pandemic also affects treatment provision to people with acute or chronic indeterminate CD. In this document, a follow-up to the WHF-IASC Roadmap on CD, we assess the implications of coinfection with SARS-CoV-2 and Trypanosoma cruzi, the etiological agent of CD. Based on the limited evidence available, we provide preliminary guidance for testing, treatment, and management of patients affected by both diseases, while highlighting emerging healthcare access challenges and future research needs.

Using Prenatal Blood Samples to Evaluate COVID-19 Rapid Serologic Tests Specificity.

INTRODUCTION: Background cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses may reduce the specificity of COVID-19 rapid serologic tests. The vast majority of women attend prenatal care, which is a unique source of population-based blood samples appropriate for validation studies. We used stored 2018 serum samples from an existing pregnancy cohort study to evaluate the specificity of COVID-19 serologic rapid diagnostic tests. METHODS: We randomly selected 120 stored serum samples from pregnant women enrolled in a cohort in 2018 in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, at least 1 year before the COVID-19 pandemic. We used stored serum to evaluate four lateral flow rapid diagnostic tests, following manufacturers' instructions. Pictures were taken for all tests and read by two blinded trained evaluators. RESULTS: We evaluated 120, 80, 90, and 90 samples, respectively. Specificity for both IgM and IgG was 100% for the first two tests (95% confidence intervals [CI] 97.0-100 and 95.5-100, respectively). The third test had a specificity of 98.9% (95% CI 94.0-100) for IgM and 94.4% (95% CI 87.5-98.2) for IgG. The fourth test had a specificity of 88.9% (95% CI 80.5-94.5) for IgM and 100% (95% CI 96.0-100) for IgG. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 serologic rapid tests are of variable specificity. Blood specimens from sentinel prenatal clinics provide an opportunity to validate serologic tests with population-based samples.