Changes in the Antenatal Utilization of High-Risk Obstetric Services and Stillbirth Rate during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-related changes in the antenatal utilization of high-risk obstetric services. Our secondary objective was to characterize change in stillbirth rate during the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective, observational study performed at a single, tertiary care center. Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) visits, ultrasounds, and antenatal tests of fetal well-being during the pandemic epoch (2020), which spans the first 12 weeks of the year to include pandemic onset and implementation of mitigation efforts, were compared with the same epoch of the three preceding years visually and using general linear models to account for week and year effect. An analysis of stillbirth rate comparing the pandemic time period to prepandemic was also performed. RESULTS: While there were decreased MFM visits and antenatal tests of fetal well-being during the pandemic epoch compared with prepandemic epochs, only the decrease in MFM visits by year was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The stillbirth rate during the pandemic epoch was not significantly different when compared with the prepandemic period and accounting for both week (p = 0.286) and year (p = 0.643) effect. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant decrease in MFM visits, whereas obstetric ultrasounds and antenatal tests of fetal well-being remained unchanged. While we observed no change in the stillbirth rate compared with the prepandemic epoch, our study design and sample size preclude us from making assumptions of association. Our findings may support future work investigating how changes in prenatal care for high-risk obstetric patients influence perinatal outcomes. KEY POINTS: · MFM visits significantly decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic epoch.. · The overall stillbirth rate during the COVID-19 pandemic epoch was not significantly changed.. · Larger studies are needed to capitalize on these changes to evaluate rare outcomes such as stillbirth..

Offering onsite COVID-19 vaccination to high-risk obstetrical patients: initial findings.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate effect on pregnant women, with higher rates of viral infection and disease severity.1 The development of highly effective vaccines has significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission and clinical disease.2 However, vaccine uptake has been low in the pregnant population.3 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance suggests that limited vaccine access, not vaccine hesitancy, has driven the lower uptake rates in at-risk populations.4 We describe our experience with vaccination uptake rates among high-risk obstetrical patients before and after onsite BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccination availability in outpatient clinics as part of a pilot program to improve vaccine access among pregnant patients. STUDY DESIGN: This was a quality improvement project at a single academic medical center. Onsite vaccination was available once a week at 2 high-risk obstetrical clinics staffed by obstetrical residents, maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) fellows, and MFM attendings were selected for our vaccine pilot program. Onsite vaccinations were immediately available for use in the clinic starting May 11, 2021. Data were collected over a 4-week period (April 27, 2021, to May 20, 2021), which included 4 clinic days before onsite vaccine availability (April 27, 2021 to May 10, 2021) and 4 days with onsite vaccine availability (May 11, 2021, to May 20, 2021). Patients were considered exposed to onsite vaccination if they had any clinic visits during the latter 2 weeks of the study period. All patients were counseled by providers at each visit using our institution's standardized COVID-19 vaccination discussion tool designed for pregnant and breastfeeding patients.5 Counseling was documented in each patient's chart per the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Before and throughout the study period, pregnancy was listed as a qualifying condition for priority vaccination in Missouri and Illinois. At this time, vaccinations were readily available in the local area surrounding our clinical space. Data on vaccine administration were collected via the Missouri and Illinois state databases over a period of 1 month after the pilot program was closed, allowing for the collection of data on patients who pursued vaccination offsite for scheduling or personal reasons. This project was deemed exempt by the Office for Human Research Protections. RESULTS: We reviewed data from 124 clinic visits, where a total of 93 individual patients were seen in the 4-week period; 6 had previously been vaccinated at external sites and the remaining 87 were eligible (Figure). The majority of our patient population was non-Hispanic Black women with public or no insurance (Table). Of the 32 eligible patients seen and counseled before onsite vaccination availability, 1 (3%) proceeded to receive the vaccination offsite. Of the 55 eligible patients seen and counseled after onsite vaccination availability, 2 (3%) proceeded with onsite vaccination and an additional 4 (7%) proceeded with vaccination offsite. Onsite vaccination availability did not significantly increase the vaccination rates (3% vs 11%; P=.22). Of the 55 eligible patients counseled during onsite vaccination availability, 25 were seen and counseled exclusively during the onsite vaccination pilot period and none of these patients accepted onsite vaccination or pursued vaccination offsite. CONCLUSION: Because only 3% of eligible, high-risk obstetrical patients proceeded with onsite vaccination, our experience suggests that vaccine hesitancy, not availability, is a critical driver of the low vaccination rates in this population. Although a larger sample size may have demonstrated statistical difference, the overall low vaccination uptake rate forced the closure of our pilot program over concerns for wasted vaccination doses. In a population at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, only 14% of our study population was vaccinated, whereas Missouri reported a 41% vaccination rate during this time.6 These findings suggest that increased access alone may not improve vaccination rates in obstetrical patients even after counseling by expert clinicians. These findings are limited by the pre/post nature of the comparison, exposing the sample to bias as vaccination recommendations and population sentiment was rapidly evolving during this time period. However, the consistency of counseling and patient population provided by a single clinical setting limited other sources of bias during the study period. Vaccine hesitancy is multifactorial and complex and urgently requires more evaluation in this high-risk population. Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy is well documented, but early reports suggest that the COVID-19 vaccination uptake rate is markedly lower than that of other vaccines during pregnancy. Our finding that none of the women who were seen exclusively during the onsite vaccination period accepted vaccination may suggest that repeat clinic visits and the associated establishment of rapport and trust is a vital part of vaccine decision making. Earlier intervention, before patient views on novel therapeutics such as vaccinations can be formulated and fixed, may aid in uptake. Further qualitative work and inclusion of pregnant women in vaccine trials is an initial step.

Pregnancy as a risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 using standardized clinical criteria.

BACKGROUND: As of November 18, 2020, more than 11 million people have been infected with coronavirus disease 2019 and almost 250,000 people have died from the disease in the United States, less than 1 year since its discovery. Although literature is beginning to emerge on pregnancy as a risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019, these studies are heterogeneous and use primary outcomes such as intensive care unit admission or hospitalization as surrogate markers that may subject analyses to misclassification bias in pregnant patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 among pregnant women with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 compared with nonpregnant women using nonadmission-based, standardized clinical criteria for severe disease. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of women aged 13 to 45 years and diagnosed as having symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 between May 28, 2020, and July 22, 2020. The primary outcome was severe coronavirus disease 2019 as defined by 2 sets of nonadmission-based, clinical criteria: the World Health Organization Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement and the Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team. Adjusted risk ratios were estimated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 262 women aged 13 to 45 years with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019, 22 (8.4%) were pregnant and 240 (91.6%) were nonpregnant. After adjusting for covariates potentially associated with the primary outcome, symptomatic pregnant women were at a significantly increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 compared with nonpregnant women using both the World Health Organization Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (adjusted relative risk, 3.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-7.01) and Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team (adjusted relative risk, 5.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-17.31) criteria. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy significantly increases the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 as defined by nonadmission-based, clinical criteria.