ABSTRACT
Objectives To describe the severity of maternal infection when the omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant (B.1.1.529) was dominant (15 December 2021 to 14 March 2022) and describe outcomes by symptoms and vaccination status. Design Prospective, national cohort study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System. Setting 94 hospitals in the UK with a consultant led maternity unit. Participants Pregnant women admitted to hospital for any cause with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Main outcome measures Symptomatic or asymptomatic infection, vaccination status by doses before admission, and severity of maternal infection (moderate or severe infection according to modified World Health Organization's criteria). Results Of 3699 women who were admitted to hospital, 986 (26.7%, 95% confidence interval 25.3% to 28.1%) had symptoms;of these, 144 (14.6%, 12.5% to 17.0%) had a moderate to severe infection, 99 (10.4%, 8.6% to 12.5%) of 953 received respiratory support, and 30 (3.0%, 2.1% to 4.3%) were admitted to an intensive care unit. Covid-19 specific drug treatment was given to 13 (43.3%) of the 30 women in intensive care. Four women with symptoms died (0.4%, 0.1% to 1.1%). Vaccination status was known for 845 (85.6%) women with symptoms;489 (58.9%) were unvaccinated and only 55 (6.5%) had three doses. Moderate to severe infection was reported for 93 (19.0%) of 489 unvaccinated women with symptoms, decreasing to three (5.5%) of 55 after three doses. Among the 30 women with symptoms who were admitted to intensive care, 23 (76.7%) were unvaccinated and none had received three doses. Conclusion Most women with severe covid-19 disease were unvaccinated and vaccine coverage among pregnant women admitted to hospital with SARS-CoV-2 was low. Ongoing action to prioritise and advocate for vaccine uptake in pregnancy is essential. A better understanding of the persistent low use of drug treatments is an urgent priority. Trial registration ISRCTN 40092247.
ABSTRACT
Objective To compare the severity of maternal infection and perinatal outcomes during periods in which wildtype, alpha variant, and delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 were dominant in the UK. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting 194 obstetric units across the UK, during the following periods: between 1 March and 30 November 2020 (wildtype dominance), between 1 December 2020 and 15 May 2021 (alpha variant dominance), and between 16 May and 31 October 2021 (delta variant dominance). Participants 4436 pregnant women admitted to hospital with covid-19 related symptoms. Main outcome measures Moderate to severe maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection (indicated by any of the following: oxygen saturation <95% on admission, need for oxygen treatment, evidence of pneumonia on imaging, admission to intensive care, or maternal death), and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes (including mode and gestation of birth, stillbirth, live birth, admission to neonatal intensive care, and neonatal death). Results 1387, 1613, and 1436 pregnant women were admitted to hospital with covid-19 related symptoms during the wildtype, alpha, and delta dominance periods, respectively;of these women, 340, 585, and 614 had moderate to severe infection, respectively. The proportion of pregnant women admitted with moderate to severe infection increased during the subsequent alpha and delta dominance periods, compared with the wildtype dominance period (wildtype 24.5% v alpha 36.2% (adjusted odds ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.66% to 2.37%);wildtype 24.5% v delta 42.8% (2.66, 2.21 to 3.20)). Compared with the wildtype dominance period, women admitted during the alpha dominance period were significantly more likely to have pneumonia, require respiratory support, and be admitted to intensive care;these three risks were even greater during the delta dominance period (wildtype v delta: pneumonia, adjusted odds ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval 2.06 to 3.09;respiratory support, 1.90, 1.52 to 2.37;and intensive care, 2.71, 2.06 to 3.56). Of 1761 women whose vaccination status was known, 38 (2.2%) had one dose and 16 (1%) had two doses before their diagnosis (of whom 14 (88%) had mild infection). The proportion of women receiving drug treatment for SARS-CoV-2 management was low, but did increase between the wildtype dominance period and the alpha and delta dominance periods (10.4% wildtype v 14.9% alpha (2.74, 2.08 to 3.60);10.4% wildtype v 13.6% delta (2.54, 1.90 to 3.38)). Conclusions While limited by the absence of variant sequencing data, these findings suggest that during the periods when the alpha and delta variants of SARS-CoV-2 were dominant, covid-19 was associated with more severe maternal infection and worse pregnancy outcomes than during the wildtype dominance period. Most women admitted with SARS-CoV-2 related symptoms were unvaccinated. Urgent action to prioritise vaccine uptake in pregnancy is essential. Study registration ISRCTN40092247.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Over the last few decades, 3 pathogenic pandemics have impacted the global population; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and SARS-CoV-2. The global disease burden has attributed to millions of deaths and morbidities, with the majority being attributed to SARS-CoV-2. As such, the evaluation of the mental health (MH) impact across healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients and the general public would be an important facet to evaluate to better understand short, medium and long-term exposures. AIM: To identify and report: (1) MH conditions commonly observed across all 3 pandemics; (2) Impact of MH outcomes across HCPs, patients and the general public associated with all 3 pandemics; and (3) The prevalence of the MH impact and clinical epidemiological significance. METHODS: A systematic methodology was developed and published on PROSPERO (CRD42021228697). The databases PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used as part of the data extraction process, and publications from January 1, 1990 to August 1, 2021 were searched. MeSH terms and keywords used included Mood disorders, PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, Psychological stress, Psychosis, Bipolar, Mental Health, Unipolar, Self-harm, BAME, Psychiatry disorders and Psychological distress. The terms were expanded with a 'snowballing' method. Cox-regression and the Monte-Carlo simulation method was used in addition to I 2 and Egger's tests to determine heterogeneity and publication bias. RESULTS: In comparison to MERS and SARS-CoV, it is evident SAR-CoV-2 has an ongoing MH impact, with emphasis on depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSION: It was evident MH studies during MERS and SARS-CoV was limited in comparison to SARS-CoV-2, with much emphasis on reporting symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress and sleep disturbances. The lack of comprehensive studies conducted during previous pandemics have introduced limitations to the "know-how" for clinicians and researchers to better support patients and deliver care with limited healthcare resources.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of population level data on risk factors and impact of severe COVID-19 in pregnancy. The aims of this study were to determine the characteristics, and maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with severe COVID-19 in pregnancy compared with those with mild and moderate COVID-19 and to explore the impact of timing of birth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a national, prospective cohort study. All pregnant women admitted to hospital in the UK with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 from March 1, 2020 to October 31, 2021 were included. The severity of maternal infection (need for high flow or invasive ventilation, intensive care admission or died), pregnancy and perinatal outcomes, and the impact of timing of birth were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 4436 pregnant women, 13.9% (n = 616) had severe infection. Women with severe infection were more likely to be aged ≥30 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] aged 30-39 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.83), be overweight or obese (aOR 1.73, 95% CI 1.34-2.25 and aOR 2.52 95% CI 1.97-3.23, respectively), be of mixed ethnicity (aOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.17-3.21) or have gestational diabetes (aOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.09-1.87) compared with those with mild or moderate infection. Women with severe infection were more likely to have a pre-labor cesarean birth (aOR 8.84, 95% CI 6.61-11.83), a very or extreme preterm birth (28-31+ weeks' gestation, aOR 18.97, 95% CI 7.78-14.85; <28 weeks' gestation, aOR 12.35, 95% CI 6.34-24.05) and their babies were more likely to be stillborn (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 1.35-4.66) or admitted to a neonatal unit (aOR 11.61, 95% CI 9.28-14.52). Of 112 women with severe infection who were discharged and gave birth at a later admission, the majority gave birth ≥36 weeks (85.7%), noting that three women in this group (2.7%) had a stillbirth. CONCLUSIONS: Severe COVID-19 in pregnancy increases the risk of adverse outcomes. Information to promote uptake of vaccination should specifically target those at greatest risk of severe outcomes. Decisions about timing of birth should be informed by multidisciplinary team discussion; however, our data suggest that women with severe infection who do not require early delivery have mostly good outcomes but that those with severe infection at term may warrant rapid delivery.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Premature Birth , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Stillbirth/epidemiology , United Kingdom/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The global impact of COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the lives of billions of people with recurrent waves. Healthcare systems are struggling to manage pre-existing patient care and recurring covid-19 demands. As a result, we evaluated the mental health impact using systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken from April 2020 to 22nd January 2021 using multiple electronic databases. A systematic review protocol was developed and published on PROSPERO registration; CRD42020181481. A random-effects model was used to compute pooled estimates of anxiety, depression, PTSD, insomnia and suicidal thoughts. FINDINGS: Our search yielded 11,295 studies and of those 287 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of 206 studies revealed minimal differences in prevalence of anxiety, depression, and PTSD among HCPs compared with the public during the pandemic but higher prevalence of suicidal thoughts/ideation or self-harm (11% vs 5.8%) and lower prevalence of wellbeing (28.2% vs 52.6%) among the public compared to HCPs. INTERPRETATION: The pandemic has led to a high mental health burden especially amongst HCPs and higher suicidal ideation and lower wellbeing in general public which warrants further investigation and management globally. These findings highlight an emerging critical public health issue that requires urgent solutions.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to examine the prevalence of adverse mental health outcomes, both short-term and long-term, among SARS patients, healthcare workers and the general public of SARS-affected regions, and to examine the protective and risk factors associated with these mental health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature using databases such as Medline, Pubmed, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection, CNKI, the National Central Library Online Catalog and dissertation databases to identify studies in the English or Chinese language published between January 2003 to May 2020 which reported psychological distress and mental health morbidities among SARS patients, healthcare workers, and the general public in regions with major SARS outbreaks. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 6984 titles. Screening resulted in 80 papers for the review, 35 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of post-recovery probable or clinician-diagnosed anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among SARS survivors were 19, 20 and 28%, respectively. The prevalence of these outcomes among studies conducted within and beyond 6 months post-discharge was not significantly different. Certain aspects of mental health-related quality of life measures among SARS survivors remained impaired beyond 6 months post-discharge. The prevalence of probable depressive disorder and PTSD among healthcare workers post-SARS were 12 and 11%, respectively. The general public had increased anxiety levels during SARS, but whether there was a clinically significant population-wide mental health impact remained inconclusive. Narrative synthesis revealed occupational exposure to SARS patients and perceived stigmatisation to be risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among healthcare workers, although causality could not be determined due to the limitations of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: The chronicity of psychiatric morbidities among SARS survivors should alert us to the potential long-term mental health complications of covid-19 patients. Healthcare workers working in high-risk venues should be given adequate mental health support. Stigmatisation against patients and healthcare workers should be explored and addressed. The significant risk of bias and high degree of heterogeneity among included studies limited the certainty of the body of evidence of the review.
Subject(s)
Disease Outbreaks , Mental Disorders , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Disease Outbreaks/history , History, 21st Century , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Protective Factors , Risk Factors , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/history , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/psychologyABSTRACT
Pandemics disrupt clinical trials worldwide, with lasting effects on research. It can severely impact clinical trialists ability to conduct safe and ethically uncompromised trials. Hence, the mounting pressure results in ethically and morally distressing decisions faced by clinical trial professionals during pandemic situations. Whilst clinical trialists attempt to think about preparedness and responses during a pandemic, the need to have an ethical framework that has real-world applicability is imperative. Pandemics are a challenging time for all, however, the safety and access to support for clinical trialists and patients within clinical trials should be at the forefront for their organisations and the government.