Decision Analysis in SHared decision making for Thromboprophylaxis during Pregnancy (DASH-TOP): a sequential explanatory mixed-methods pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into formal methods of integrating patient preferences and clinical evidence to inform treatment decisions, we explored patients' experience with a personalised decision analysis intervention, for prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in the antenatal period. DESIGN: Mixed-methods explanatory sequential pilot study. SETTING: Hospitals in Canada (n=1) and Spain (n=4 sites). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted part of the study virtually. PARTICIPANTS: 15 individuals with a prior venous thromboembolism who were pregnant or planning pregnancy and had been referred for counselling regarding LMWH. INTERVENTION: A shared decision-making intervention that included three components: (1) direct choice exercise; (2) preference elicitation exercises and (3) personalised decision analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire to evaluate decision quality (decisional conflict, self-efficacy and satisfaction). Semistructured interviews were then conducted to explore their experience and perceptions of the decision-making process. RESULTS: Participants in the study appreciated the opportunity to use an evidence-based decision support tool that considered their personal values and preferences and reported feeling more prepared for their consultation. However, there were mixed reactions to the standard gamble and personalised treatment recommendation. Some participants could not understand how to complete the standard gamble exercises, and others highlighted the need for more informative ways of presenting results of the decision analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the challenges and opportunities for those who wish to incorporate decision analysis to support shared decision-making for clinical decisions.

Estimated Effectiveness of Postpartum Maternal Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccination Against Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Hospitalization in Infants Younger Than 6 Months.

This case-control study estimates the effectiveness of maternal postpartum messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination against Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization in infants younger than 6 months.

Maternal mRNA covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy and delta or omicron infection or hospital admission in infants: test negative design study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of maternal mRNA covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy against delta and omicron severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and hospital admission in infants. DESIGN: Test negative design study. SETTING: Community and hospital testing in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Infants younger than six months of age, born between 7 May 2021 and 31 March 2022, who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between 7 May 2021 and 5 September 2022. INTERVENTION: Maternal mRNA covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Laboratory confirmed delta or omicron infection or hospital admission of the infant. Multivariable logistic regression estimated vaccine effectiveness, with adjustments for clinical and sociodemographic characteristics associated with vaccination and infection. RESULTS: 8809 infants met eligibility criteria, including 99 delta cases (4365 controls) and 1501 omicron cases (4847 controls). Infant vaccine effectiveness from two maternal doses was 95% (95% confidence interval 88% to 98%) against delta infection and 97% (73% to 100%) against infant hospital admission due to delta and 45% (37% to 53%) against omicron infection and 53% (39% to 64%) against hospital admission due to omicron. Vaccine effectiveness for three doses was 73% (61% to 80%) against omicron infection and 80% (64% to 89%) against hospital admission due to omicron. Vaccine effectiveness for two doses against infant omicron infection was highest with the second dose in the third trimester (53% (42% to 62%)) compared with the first (47% (31% to 59%)) or second (37% (24% to 47%)) trimesters. Vaccine effectiveness for two doses against infant omicron infection decreased from 57% (44% to 66%) between birth and eight weeks to 40% (21% to 54%) after 16 weeks of age. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal covid-19 vaccination with a second dose during pregnancy was highly effective against delta and moderately effective against omicron infection and hospital admission in infants during the first six months of life. A third vaccine dose bolstered protection against omicron. Effectiveness for two doses was highest with maternal vaccination in the third trimester, and effectiveness decreased in infants beyond eight weeks of age.

Adapting obstetric and neonatal services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The provision of care to pregnant persons and neonates must continue through pandemics. To maintain quality of care, while minimizing physical contact during the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2) pandemic, hospitals and international organizations issued recommendations on maternity and neonatal care delivery and restructuring of clinical and academic services. Early in the pandemic, recommendations relied on expert opinion, and offered a one-size-fits-all set of guidelines. Our aim was to examine these recommendations and provide the rationale and context to guide clinicians, administrators, educators, and researchers, on how to adapt maternity and neonatal services during the pandemic, regardless of jurisdiction. METHOD: Our initial database search used Medical subject headings and free-text search terms related to coronavirus infections, pregnancy and neonatology, and summarized relevant recommendations from international society guidelines. Subsequent targeted searches to December 30, 2020, included relevant publications in general medical and obstetric journals, and updated society recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 846 titles and abstracts, of which 105 English-language publications fulfilled eligibility criteria and were included in our study. A multidisciplinary team representing clinicians from various disciplines, academics, administrators and training program directors critically appraised the literature to collate recommendations by multiple jurisdictions, including a quaternary care Canadian hospital, to provide context and rationale for viable options. INTERPRETATION: There are different schools of thought regarding effective practices in obstetric and neonatal services. Our critical review presents the rationale to effectively modify services, based on the phase of the pandemic, the prevalence of infection in the population, and resource availability.

Clinical decision analysis of elective delivery vs expectant management for pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant individuals are vulnerable to COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. There is a lack of high-quality evidence on whether elective delivery or expectant management leads to better maternal and neonatal outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether elective delivery or expectant management are associated with higher quality-adjusted life expectancy for pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome and their neonates. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a clinical decision analysis using a patient-level model in which we simulatedpregnant individuals and their unborn children. We used a patient-level model with parallel open-cohort structure, daily cycle length, continuous discounting, lifetime horizon, sensitivity analyses for key parameter values, and 1000 iterations for quantification of uncertainty. We simulated pregnant individuals at 32 weeks of gestation, invasively ventilated because of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. In the elective delivery strategy, pregnant individuals received immediate cesarean delivery. In the expectant management strategy, pregnancies continued until spontaneous labor or obstetrical decision to deliver. For both pregnant individuals and neonates, model outputs were hospital or perinatal survival, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years, summarized by the mean and 95% credible interval. Maternal utilities incorporated neonatal outcomes in accordance with best practices in perinatal decision analysis. RESULTS: Model outputs for pregnant individuals were similar when comparing elective delivery at 32 weeks' gestation with expectant management, including hospital survival (87.1% vs 87.4%), life-years (difference, -0.1; 95% credible interval, -1.4 to 1.1), and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, -0.1; 95% credible interval, -1.3 to 1.1). For neonates, elective delivery at 32 weeks' gestation was estimated to lead to a higher perinatal survival (98.4% vs 93.2%; difference, 5.2%; 95% credible interval, 3.5-7), similar life-years (difference, 0.9; 95% credible interval, -0.9 to 2.8), and higher quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, 1.3; 95% credible interval, 0.4-2.2). For pregnant individuals, elective delivery was not superior to expectant management across a range of scenarios between 28 and 34 weeks of gestation. Elective delivery in cases where intrauterine death or maternal mortality were more likely resulted in higher neonatal quality-adjusted life expectancy, as did elective delivery at 30 weeks' gestation (difference, 1.1 years; 95% credible interval, 0.1 - 2.1) despite higher long-term complications (4.3% vs 0.5%; difference, 3.7%; 95% credible interval, 2.4-5.1), and in cases where intrauterine death or maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome mortality were more likely. CONCLUSION: The decision to pursue elective delivery vs expectant management in pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome should be guided by gestational age, risk of intrauterine death, and maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. For the pregnant individual, elective delivery is comparable but not superior to expectant management for gestational ages from 28 to 34 weeks. For neonates, elective delivery was superior if gestational age was ≥30 weeks and if the rate of intrauterine death or maternal mortality risk were high. We recommend basing the decision for elective delivery vs expectant management in a pregnant individual with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome on gestational age and likelihood of intrauterine or maternal death.

Feasibility of establishing a Canadian Obstetric Survey System (CanOSS) for severe maternal morbidity: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Severe maternal morbidity (SMM)-an unexpected pregnancy-associated maternal outcome resulting in severe illness, prolonged hospitalisation or long-term disability-is recognised by many, as the preferred indicator of the quality of maternity care, especially in high-income countries. Obtaining comprehensive details on events and circumstances leading to SMM, obtained through maternity units, could complement data from large epidemiological studies and enable targeted interventions to improve maternal health. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of gathering such data from maternity units across Canadian provinces and territories, with the goal of establishing a national obstetric survey system for SMM in Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study. We will first distribute a cross-sectional survey to leads of all maternity units across Canada to gather information on (1) Whether the unit has a system for reviewing SMM and the nature and format of this system, (2) Willingness to share anonymised data on SMM by direct entry using a web-based platform and (3) Respondents' perception on the definition and leading causes of SMM at a local level. This will be followed by semistructured interviews with respondent groups defined a priori, to identify barriers and facilitators for data sharing. We will perform an integrated analysis to determine feasibility outcomes, a narrative description of barriers and facilitators for data-sharing and resource implications for data acquisition on an annual basis, and variations in top-5 causes of SMM. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Mount Sinai and Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Boards. The study findings will be presented at annual scientific meetings of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, North American Society of Obstetric Medicine, and International Network of Obstetric Survey Systems and published in an open-access peer-reviewed Obstetrics and Gynaecology or General Internal Medicine journal.

Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in general population: A living systematic review and meta-analysis (updated Aug 14, 2021).

INTRODUCTION: Conflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have surfaced. The objective of our study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase databases, reference lists of articles published up until August 14, 2021 and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID-19 pandemic time period and the pre-pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method. RESULTS: Forty-five studies with low-to-moderate risk of bias, reporting on 1 843 665 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 23 564 552 pregnancies during the pre-pandemic period, were included. There was significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (35 studies, unadjusted odds ratio [uaOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98), but not in adjusted estimates (six studies, adjusted OR [aOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.13). This reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (25 studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.96) but not in regional/national studies (10 studies, uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.02). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (six studies, uaOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.96) and induced PTB (five studies, uaOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.97). There was no difference in the odds of stillbirth between the pandemic and pre-pandemic time periods (24 studies, uaOR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97-1.26 and four studies, aOR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.38). There was an increase in mean birthweight during the pandemic period compared with the pre-pandemic period (six studies, mean difference 17 g, 95% CI 7-28 g). The odds of maternal mortality were increased (four studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26); however, only unadjusted estimates were available and the result was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no statistically significant difference in stillbirth between pandemic and pre-pandemic periods.

COVID-19 pandemic and population-level pregnancy and neonatal outcomes: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Conflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic have surfaced. The objective of our study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase databases, reference lists of articles published up until 14 May 2021 and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID-19 pandemic time period and pre-pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies with low-to-moderate risk of bias, reporting on 1 677 858 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 21 028 650 pregnancies during the pre-pandemic period, were included. There was a significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (28 studies, unadjusted odds ratio [uaOR] 0.94, 95% confidence [CI] 0.91-0.98) but not in adjusted estimates (six studies, adjusted OR [aOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.13). The reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94) but not in regional/national studies (uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.03). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (five studies, uaOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.98) and induced PTB (four studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-1.00). There was no reduction in PTB when stratified by gestational age <34, <32 or <28 weeks. There was no difference in stillbirths between the pandemic and pre-pandemic time periods (21 studies, uaOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94-1.23; four studies, aOR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.38). There was an increase in birthweight (six studies, mean difference 17 g, 95% CI 7-28 g) during the pandemic period. There was an increase in maternal mortality (four studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26), which was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic time period may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no difference in stillbirth between the pandemic and pre-pandemic period.

A critical review of the pathophysiology of thrombotic complications and clinical practice recommendations for thromboprophylaxis in pregnant patients with COVID-19.

Those who are infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related CoronaVirus-2 are theoretically at increased risk of venous thromboembolism during self-isolation if they have reduced mobility or are dehydrated. Should patients develop coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia requiring hospital admission for treatment of hypoxia, the risk for thromboembolic complications increases greatly. These thromboembolic events are the result of at least two distinct mechanisms - microvascular thrombosis in the pulmonary system (immunothrombosis) and hospital-associated venous thromboembolism. Since pregnancy is a prothrombotic state, there is concern regarding the potentially increased risk of thrombotic complications among pregnant women with COVID-19. To date, however, pregnant women do not appear to have a substantially increased risk of thrombotic complications related to COVID-19. Nevertheless, several organizations have vigilantly issued pregnancy-specific guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19. Discrepancies between these guidelines reflect the altruistic wish to protect patients and lack of high-quality evidence available to inform clinical practice. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the drug of choice for thromboprophylaxis in pregnant women with COVID-19. However, its utility in non-pregnant patients is only established against venous thromboembolism, as LMWH may have little or no effect on immunothrombosis. Decisions about initiation and duration of prophylactic anticoagulation in the context of pregnancy and COVID-19 must take into consideration disease severity, outpatient vs inpatient status, temporal relation between disease occurrence and timing of childbirth, and the underlying prothrombotic risk conferred by additional comorbidities. There is currently no evidence to recommend the use of intermediate or therapeutic doses of LMWH in thromboprophylaxis, which may increase bleeding risk without reducing thrombotic risk in pregnant patients with COVID-19. Likewise, there is no evidence to comment on the role of low-dose aspirin in thromboprophylaxis or of anti-cytokine and antiviral agents in preventing immunothrombosis. These unanswered questions are being studied within the context of clinical trials.