Clinicians' perspectives and experiences of providing cervical ripening at home or in-hospital in the United Kingdom.

Induction of labour, or starting labour artificially, is offered when the risks of continuing pregnancy are believed to outweigh the risks of the baby being born. In the United Kingdom, cervical ripening is recommended as the first stage of induction. Increasingly, maternity services are offering this outpatient or 'at home', despite limited evidence on its acceptability and how different approaches to cervical ripening work in practice. There is also a paucity of literature on clinicians' experiences of providing induction care in general, despite their central role in developing local guidelines and delivering this care. This paper explores induction, specifically cervical ripening and the option to return home during that process, from the perspective of midwives, obstetricians and other maternity staff. As part of a process evaluation involving five case studies undertaken in British maternity services, interviews and focus groups were conducted with clinicians who provide induction of labour care. The thematic findings were generated through in-depth analysis and are grouped to reflect key points within the process of cervical ripening care: 'Implementing home cervical ripening', 'Putting local policy into practice', 'Giving information about induction' and 'Providing cervical ripening'. A range of practices and views regarding induction were recorded, showing how the integration of home cervical ripening is not always straightforward. Findings demonstrate that providing induction of labour care is complex and represents a significant workload. Home cervical ripening was seen as a solution to managing this workload; however, findings highlighted ways in which this expectation might not be borne out in practice. More comprehensive research is needed on workload impacts and possible lateral effects within other areas of maternity services.

Pregnancy outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection in periods dominated by delta and omicron variants in Scotland: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1·1.529) is associated with lower risks of adverse outcomes than the delta (B.1.617.2) variant among the general population. However, little is known about outcomes after omicron infection in pregnancy. We aimed to assess and compare short-term pregnancy outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron infection in pregnancy. METHODS: We did a national population-based cohort study of women who had SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy between May 17, 2021, and Jan 31, 2022. The primary maternal outcome was admission to critical care within 21 days of infection or death within 28 days of date of infection. Pregnancy outcomes were preterm birth and stillbirth within 28 days of infection. Neonatal outcomes were death within 28 days of birth, and low Apgar score (<7 of 10, for babies born at term) or neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection in births occurring within 28 days of maternal infection. We used periods when variants were dominant in the general Scottish population, based on 50% or more of cases being S-gene positive (delta variant, from May 17 to Dec 14, 2021) or S-gene negative (omicron variant, from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) as surrogates for variant infections. Analyses used logistic regression, adjusting for maternal age, deprivation quintile, ethnicity, weeks of gestation, and vaccination status. Sensitivity analyses included restricting the analysis to those with first confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and using periods when delta or omicron had 90% or more predominance. FINDINGS: Between May 17, 2021, and Jan 31, 2022, there were 9923 SARS-CoV-2 infections in 9823 pregnancies, in 9817 women in Scotland. Compared with infections in the delta-dominant period, SARS-CoV-2 infections in pregnancy in the omicron-dominant period were associated with lower maternal critical care admission risk (0·3% [13 of 4968] vs 1·8% [89 of 4955]; adjusted odds ratio 0·25, 95% CI 0·14-0·44) and lower preterm birth within 28 days of infection (1·8% [37 of 2048] vs 4·2% [98 of 2338]; 0·57, 95% CI 0·38-0·87). There were no maternal deaths within 28 days of infection. Estimates of low Apgar scores were imprecise due to low numbers (5 [1·2%] of 423 with omicron vs 11 [2·1%] of 528 with delta, adjusted odds ratio 0·72, 0·23-2·32). There were fewer stillbirths in the omicron-dominant period than in the delta-dominant period (4·3 [2 of 462] per 1000 births vs 20·3 [13 of 639] per 1000) and no neonatal deaths during the omicron-dominant period (0 [0 of 460] per 1000 births vs 6·3 [4 of 626] per 1000 births), thus numbers were too small to support adjusted analyses. Rates of neonatal infection were low in births within 28 days of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection, with 11 cases of neonatal SARS-CoV-2 in the delta-dominant period, and 1 case in the omicron-dominant period. Of the 15 stillbirths, 12 occurred in women who had not received two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccination at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy. All 12 cases of neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in women who had not received two or more doses of vaccine at the time of maternal infection. Findings in sensitivity analyses were similar to those in the main analyses. INTERPRETATION: Pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 were substantially less likely to have a preterm birth or maternal critical care admission during the omicron-dominant period than during the delta-dominant period. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, Tommy's charity, Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Health Data Research UK, National Core Studies-Data and Connectivity, Public Health Scotland, Scottish Government Health and Social Care, Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office, National Research Scotland.

A population-based matched cohort study of major congenital anomalies following COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Evidence on associations between COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection and the risk of congenital anomalies is limited. Here we report a national, population-based, matched cohort study using linked electronic health records from Scotland (May 2020-April 2022) to estimate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and, separately, SARS-CoV-2 infection between six weeks pre-conception and 19 weeks and six days gestation and the risk of [1] any major congenital anomaly and [2] any non-genetic major congenital anomaly. Mothers vaccinated in this pregnancy exposure period mostly received an mRNA vaccine (73.7% Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and 7.9% Moderna mRNA-1273). Of the 6731 babies whose mothers were vaccinated in the pregnancy exposure period, 153 had any anomaly and 120 had a non-genetic anomaly. Primary analyses find no association between any vaccination and any anomaly (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 1.01, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.83-1.24) or non-genetic anomalies (aOR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.81-1.22). Primary analyses also find no association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and any anomaly (aOR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.66-1.60) or non-genetic anomalies (aOR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.57-1.54). Findings are robust to sensitivity analyses. These data provide reassurance on the safety of vaccination, in particular mRNA vaccines, just before or in early pregnancy.

A population-based matched cohort study of early pregnancy outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in early pregnancy are limited. We conducted a national, population-based, matched cohort study assessing associations between COVID-19 vaccination and miscarriage prior to 20 weeks gestation and, separately, ectopic pregnancy. We identified women in Scotland vaccinated between 6 weeks preconception and 19 weeks 6 days gestation (for miscarriage; n = 18,780) or 2 weeks 6 days gestation (for ectopic; n = 10,570). Matched, unvaccinated women from the pre-pandemic and, separately, pandemic periods were used as controls. Here we show no association between vaccination and miscarriage (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], pre-pandemic controls = 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.96-1.09) or ectopic pregnancy (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.92-1.38). We undertook additional analyses examining confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection as the exposure and similarly found no association with miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. Our findings support current recommendations that vaccination remains the safest way for pregnant women to protect themselves and their babies from COVID-19.

Risk of COVID-19 hospitalizations among school-aged children in Scotland: A national incident cohort study.

Background: There is considerable policy, clinical and public interest about whether children should be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and, if so, which children should be prioritised (particularly if vaccine resources are limited). To inform such deliberations, we sought to identify children and young people at highest risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. Methods: We used the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) platform to undertake a national incident cohort analysis to investigate the risk of hospitalization among 5-17 years old living in Scotland in risk groups defined by the living risk prediction algorithm (QCOVID). A Cox proportional hazard model was used to derive hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between risk groups and COVID-19 hospital admission. Adjustments were made for age, sex, socioeconomic status, co-morbidity, and prior hospitalization. Results: Between March 1, 2020 and November 22, 2021, there were 146 183 (19.4% of all 752 867 children in Scotland) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections among 5-17 years old. Of those with confirmed infection, 973 (0.7%) were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was higher in those within each QCOVID risk group compared to those without the condition. Similar results were found in age stratified analyses (5-11 and 12-17 years old). Risk groups associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 hospital admission, included (adjusted HR, 95% CIs): sickle cell disease 14.35 (8.48-24.28), chronic kidney disease 11.34 (4.61-27.87), blood cancer 6.32 (3.24-12.35), rare pulmonary diseases 5.04 (2.58-9.86), type 2 diabetes 3.04 (1.34-6.92), epilepsy 2.54 (1.69-3.81), type 1 diabetes 2.48 (1.47-4.16), Down syndrome 2.45 (0.96-6.25), cerebral palsy 2.37 (1.26-4.47), severe mental illness 1.43 (0.63-3.24), fracture 1.41 (1.02-1.95), congenital heart disease 1.35 (0.82-2.23), asthma 1.28 (1.06-1.55), and learning disability (excluding Down syndrome) 1.08 (0.82-1.42), when compared to those without these conditions. Although our Cox models were adjusted for a number of potential confounders, residual confounding remains a possibility. Conclusions: In this national study, we observed an increased risk of COVID-19 hospital admissions among school-aged children with specific underlying long-term health conditions compared with children without these conditions.

Second-dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events in Scotland.

We investigated thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events following a second dose of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 using a self-controlled case series analysis. We used a national prospective cohort with 2.0 million(m) adults vaccinated with two doses of ChAdOx or 1.6 m with BNT162b2. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) 14-20 days post-ChAdOx1 second dose was 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-5.08. The incidence of ITP post-second dose ChAdOx1 was 0.59 (0.37-0.89) per 100,000 doses. No evidence of an increased risk of CVST was found for the 0-27 day risk period (IRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.16 to 4.26). However, few (≤5) events arose within this risk period. It is perhaps noteworthy that these events all clustered in the 7-13 day period (IRR 4.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 17.51). No other associations were found for second dose ChAdOx1, or any association for second dose BNT162b2 vaccination. Second dose ChAdOx1 vaccination was associated with increased borderline risks of ITP and CVST events. However, these events were rare thus providing reassurance about the safety of these vaccines. Further analyses including more cases are required to determine more precisely the risk profile for ITP and CVST after a second dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine.

Impact on emergency and elective hospital-based care in Scotland over the first 12 months of the pandemic: interrupted time-series analysis of national lockdowns.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 has resulted in the greatest disruption to National Health Service (NHS) care in its over 70-year history. Building on our previous work, we assessed the ongoing impact of pandemic-related disruption on provision of emergency and elective hospital-based care across Scotland over the first year of the pandemic. DESIGN: We undertook interrupted time-series analyses to evaluate the impact of ongoing pandemic-related disruption on hospital NHS care provision at national level and across demographics and clinical specialties spanning the period 29 March 2020-28 March 2021. SETTING: Scotland, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients receiving hospital care from NHS Scotland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used the percentage change of accident and emergency attendances, and emergency and planned hospital admissions during the pandemic compared to the average admission rate for equivalent weeks in 2018-2019. RESULTS: As restrictions were gradually lifted in Scotland after the first lockdown, hospital-based admissions increased approaching pre-pandemic levels. Subsequent tightening of restrictions in September 2020 were associated with a change in slope of relative weekly admissions rate: -1.98% (-2.38, -1.58) in accident and emergency attendance, -1.36% (-1.68, -1.04) in emergency admissions and -2.31% (-2.95, -1.66) in planned admissions. A similar pattern was seen across sex, socioeconomic status and most age groups, except children (0-14 years) where accident and emergency attendance, and emergency admissions were persistently low over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial disruption to urgent and planned inpatient healthcare provision in hospitals across NHS Scotland. There is the need for urgent policy responses to address continuing unmet health needs and to ensure resilience in the context of future pandemics.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination rates in pregnant women in Scotland.

Population-level data on COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnancy and SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are lacking. We describe COVID-19 vaccine uptake and SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women in Scotland, using whole-population data from a national, prospective cohort. Between the start of a COVID-19 vaccine program in Scotland, on 8 December 2020 and 31 October 2021, 25,917 COVID-19 vaccinations were given to 18,457 pregnant women. Vaccine coverage was substantially lower in pregnant women than in the general female population of 18-44 years; 32.3% of women giving birth in October 2021 had two doses of vaccine compared to 77.4% in all women. The extended perinatal mortality rate for women who gave birth within 28 d of a COVID-19 diagnosis was 22.6 per 1,000 births (95% CI 12.9-38.5; pandemic background rate 5.6 per 1,000 births; 452 out of 80,456; 95% CI 5.1-6.2). Overall, 77.4% (3,833 out of 4,950; 95% CI 76.2-78.6) of SARS-CoV-2 infections, 90.9% (748 out of 823; 95% CI 88.7-92.7) of SARS-CoV-2 associated with hospital admission and 98% (102 out of 104; 95% CI 92.5-99.7) of SARS-CoV-2 associated with critical care admission, as well as all baby deaths, occurred in pregnant women who were unvaccinated at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.

Uptake, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in children and young people in Scotland: Protocol for early pandemic evaluation and enhanced surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II).

BACKGROUND: The dynamics of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and severity of disease among children and young people (CYP) across different settings are of considerable clinical, public health and societal interest. Severe COVID-19 cases, requiring hospitalisations, and deaths have been reported in some CYP suggesting a need to extend vaccinations to these age groups. As part of the ongoing Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) study, we aim to investigate the uptake, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in children and young people (CYP) aged 0 to 17 years in Scotland. Specifically, we will estimate: (i) uptake of vaccines against COVID-19, (ii) vaccine effectiveness (VE) against the outcomes of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death; (iii) VE for first/second dose timing among different age groups and risk groups; and (iv) the safety of vaccines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct an open prospective cohort study classifying exposure as time-varying. We will compare outcomes amongst first dose vaccinated and second dose vaccinated CYP to those not yet vaccinated. A Test Negative Design (TND) case control study will be nested within this national cohort to investigate VE against symptomatic infection. The primary outcomes will be (i) uptake of vaccines against COVID-19, (ii) time to COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, ICU admissions or death, and (iii) adverse events related to vaccines. Vaccination status (unvaccinated, one dose and two doses) will be defined as a time-varying exposure. Data from multiple sources will be linked using a unique identifier. We will conduct descriptive analyses to explore trends in vaccine uptake, and association between different exposure variables and vaccine uptake will be determined using multivariable logistic regression models. VE will be assessed from time-dependent Cox models or Poisson regression models, adjusted for relevant confounders, including age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities. We will employ self-controlled study designs to determine the risk of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee, South East Scotland 02. We will present findings of this study at international conferences, in peer-reviewed journals and to policy-makers.

Feasibility and design of a trial regarding the optimal mode of delivery for preterm birth: the CASSAVA multiple methods study.

BACKGROUND: Around 60,000 babies are born preterm (prior to 37 weeks' gestation) each year in the UK. There is little evidence on the optimal birth mode (vaginal or caesarean section). OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of the CASSAVA project was to determine if a trial to define the optimal mode of preterm birth could be carried out and, if so, determine what sort of trial could be conducted and how it could best be performed. We aimed to determine the specific groups of preterm women and babies for whom there are uncertainties about the best planned mode of birth, and if there would be willingness to recruit to, and participate in, a randomised trial to address some, but not all, of these uncertainties. This project was conducted in response to a Heath Technology Assessment programme commissioning call (17/22 'Mode of delivery for preterm infants'). METHODS: We conducted clinician and patient surveys (n = 224 and n = 379, respectively) to identify current practice and opinion, and a consensus survey and Delphi workshop (n = 76 and n = 22 participants, respectively) to inform the design of a hypothetical clinical trial. The protocol for this clinical trial/vignette was used in telephone interviews with clinicians (n = 24) and in focus groups with potential participants (n = 13). RESULTS: Planned sample size and data saturation was achieved for all groups except for focus groups with participants, as this had to be curtailed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and data saturation was not achieved. There was broad agreement from parents and health-care professionals that a trial is needed. The clinician survey demonstrated a variety of practice and opinion. The parent survey suggested that women and their families generally preferred vaginal birth at later gestations and caesarean section for preterm infants. The interactive workshop and Delphi consensus process confirmed the need for more evidence (hence the case for a trial) and provided rich information on what a future trial should entail. It was agreed that any trial should address the areas with most uncertainty, including the management of women at 26-32 weeks' gestation, with either spontaneous preterm labour (cephalic presentation) or where preterm birth was medically indicated. Clear themes around the challenges inherent in conducting any trial emerged, including the concept of equipoise itself. Specific issues were as follows: different clinicians and participants would be in equipoise for each clinical scenario, effective conduct of the trial would require appropriate resources and expertise within the hospital conducting the trial, potential participants would welcome information on the trial well before the onset of labour and minority ethnic groups would require tailored approaches. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of evidence and the variation of practice and opinion in this area, and having listened to clinicians and potential participants, we conclude that a trial should be conducted and the outlined challenges resolved. FUTURE WORK: The CASSAVA project could be used to inform the design of a randomised trial and indicates how such a trial could be carried out. Any future trial would benefit from a pilot with qualitative input and a study within a trial to inform optimal recruitment. LIMITATIONS: Certainty that a trial could be conducted can be determined only when it is attempted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12295730. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 60,000 babies are born preterm each year in the UK. We do not know what the safest mode of birth is for these babies. Birth options include a vaginal birth or a caesarean section (which involves an operation for the mother). Normally, the ideal way to find out what clinical options are best is to carry out a 'randomised trial' in which participants are allocated to a particular treatment group (in this case, vaginal birth or caesarean section) by chance. It is not clear if women who have their babies preterm would want to take part in such a trial or that the clinicians looking after the women would be happy to ask them to, as previous trials have failed to recruit sufficient participants. The purpose of the CASSAVA research project was to find out what people think is the best and safest method of delivering preterm babies, their views on doing a research trial and what sort of research trial could be carried out. We conducted a survey asking clinicians and women their views. We gathered clinicians and women together to discuss and agree the key questions for a trial to answer. We then developed a protocol (plan) for a possible trial. Using this trial protocol, we conducted telephone interviews with clinicians, asking them if they would be willing to be involved and if they would be willing to ask pregnant women to participate. We also conducted focus groups with women, using a vignette (storyboard) about a possible trial. We found that there is a lot of uncertainty about the best way for preterm babies to be born. Clinicians and women broadly agreed that it would be good to resolve this uncertainty through a trial. We were able to identify some areas of the greatest uncertainty where clinicians and women would consider participating in a study. We gained a lot of useful information about how we could best set up a trial and support clinicians and women to get involved.

The international Perinatal Outcomes in the Pandemic (iPOP) study: protocol.

Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant death worldwide, but the causes of preterm birth are largely unknown. During the early COVID-19 lockdowns, dramatic reductions in preterm birth were reported; however, these trends may be offset by increases in stillbirth rates. It is important to study these trends globally as the pandemic continues, and to understand the underlying cause(s). Lockdowns have dramatically impacted maternal workload, access to healthcare, hygiene practices, and air pollution - all of which could impact perinatal outcomes and might affect pregnant women differently in different regions of the world. In the international Perinatal Outcomes in the Pandemic (iPOP) Study, we will seize the unique opportunity offered by the COVID-19 pandemic to answer urgent questions about perinatal health. In the first two study phases, we will use population-based aggregate data and standardized outcome definitions to: 1) Determine rates of preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirth and describe changes during lockdowns; and assess if these changes are consistent globally, or differ by region and income setting, 2) Determine if the magnitude of changes in adverse perinatal outcomes during lockdown are modified by regional differences in COVID-19 infection rates, lockdown stringency, adherence to lockdown measures, air quality, or other social and economic markers, obtained from publicly available datasets. We will undertake an interrupted time series analysis covering births from January 2015 through July 2020. The iPOP Study will involve at least 121 researchers in 37 countries, including obstetricians, neonatologists, epidemiologists, public health researchers, environmental scientists, and policymakers. We will leverage the most disruptive and widespread "natural experiment" of our lifetime to make rapid discoveries about preterm birth. Whether the COVID-19 pandemic is worsening or unexpectedly improving perinatal outcomes, our research will provide critical new information to shape prenatal care strategies throughout (and well beyond) the pandemic.

Association between multimorbidity and mortality in a cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in Scotland.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the association between multimorbidity among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and their subsequent risk of mortality. We also explored the interaction between the presence of multimorbidity and the requirement for an individual to shield due to the presence of specific conditions and its association with mortality. DESIGN: We created a cohort of patients hospitalised in Scotland due to COVID-19 during the first wave (between 28 February 2020 and 22 September 2020) of the pandemic. We identified the level of multimorbidity for the patient on admission and used logistic regression to analyse the association between multimorbidity and risk of mortality among patients hospitalised with COVID-19. SETTING: Scotland, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients hospitalised due to COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality as recorded on National Records of Scotland death certificate and being coded for COVID-19 on the death certificate or death within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test. RESULTS: Almost 58% of patients admitted to the hospital due to COVID-19 had multimorbidity. Adjusting for confounding factors of age, sex, social class and presence in the shielding group, multimorbidity was significantly associated with mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.48, 95%CI 1.26-1.75). The presence of multimorbidity and presence in the shielding patients list were independently associated with mortality but there was no multiplicative effect of having both (adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95%CI 0.64-1.29). CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity is an independent risk factor of mortality among individuals who were hospitalised due to COVID-19. Individuals with multimorbidity could be prioritised when making preventive policies, for example, by expanding shielding advice to this group and prioritising them for vaccination.

COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccinations in 2·57 million people in Scotland (EAVE II): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme has prioritised vaccination of those at the highest risk of COVID-19 mortality and hospitalisation. The programme was rolled out in Scotland during winter 2020-21, when SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were at their highest since the pandemic started, despite social distancing measures being in place. We aimed to estimate the frequency of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death in people who received at least one vaccine dose and characterise these individuals. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) national surveillance platform, which contained linked vaccination, primary care, RT-PCR testing, hospitalisation, and mortality records for 5·4 million people (around 99% of the population) in Scotland. Individuals were followed up from receiving their first dose of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines until admission to hospital for COVID-19, death, or the end of the study period on April 18, 2021. We used a time-dependent Poisson regression model to estimate rate ratios (RRs) for demographic and clinical factors associated with COVID-19 hospitalisation or death 14 days or more after the first vaccine dose, stratified by vaccine type. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and April 18, 2021, 2 572 008 individuals received their first dose of vaccine-841 090 (32·7%) received BNT162b2 and 1 730 918 (67·3%) received ChAdOx1. 1196 (<0·1%) individuals were admitted to hospital or died due to COVID-19 illness (883 hospitalised, of whom 228 died, and 313 who died due to COVID-19 without hospitalisation) 14 days or more after their first vaccine dose. These severe COVID-19 outcomes were associated with older age (≥80 years vs 18-64 years adjusted RR 4·75, 95% CI 3·85-5·87), comorbidities (five or more risk groups vs less than five risk groups 4·24, 3·34-5·39), hospitalisation in the previous 4 weeks (3·00, 2·47-3·65), high-risk occupations (ten or more previous COVID-19 tests vs less than ten previous COVID-19 tests 2·14, 1·62-2·81), care home residence (1·63, 1·32-2·02), socioeconomic deprivation (most deprived quintile vs least deprived quintile 1·57, 1·30-1·90), being male (1·27, 1·13-1·43), and being an ex-smoker (ex-smoker vs non-smoker 1·18, 1·01-1·38). A history of COVID-19 before vaccination was protective (0·40, 0·29-0·54). INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths were uncommon 14 days or more after the first vaccine dose in this national analysis in the context of a high background incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and with extensive social distancing measures in place. Sociodemographic and clinical features known to increase the risk of severe disease in unvaccinated populations were also associated with severe outcomes in people receiving their first dose of vaccine and could help inform case management and future vaccine policy formulation. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Scottish Government, and Health Data Research UK.

Pregnancy and COVID-19.

There are many unknowns for pregnant women during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Clinical experience of pregnancies complicated with infection by other coronaviruses e.g., Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome, has led to pregnant woman being considered potentially vulnerable to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Physiological changes during pregnancy have a significant impact on the immune system, respiratory system, cardiovascular function, and coagulation. These may have positive or negative effects on COVID-19 disease progression. The impact of SARS-CoV-2 in pregnancy remains to be determined, and a concerted, global effort is required to determine the effects on implantation, fetal growth and development, labor, and neonatal health. Asymptomatic infection presents a further challenge regarding service provision, prevention, and management. Besides the direct impacts of the disease, a plethora of indirect consequences of the pandemic adversely affect maternal health, including reduced access to reproductive health services, increased mental health strain, and increased socioeconomic deprivation. In this review, we explore the current knowledge of COVID-19 in pregnancy and highlight areas for further research to minimize its impact for women and their children.