Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
J Infect Dis ; 2021 Dec 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1597371

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection has been associated with increased risk of adverse perinatal health outcomes. However, few large-scale, community-based epidemiological studies have been conducted. METHODS: We conducted a national cohort study using de-identified administrative claims data for 78,283 pregnancies with estimated conception before 30 April 2020 and pregnancy end after 11 March 2020. We identified maternal infections using diagnostic and laboratory testing data. We compared the risk of pregnancy outcomes using Cox proportional hazard models treating COVID-19 as a time-varying exposure and adjusting for baseline covariates. RESULTS: 2,655 (3.4%) pregnancies had a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection; 3.4% required admission to intensive care, invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO treatment. COVID-19 during pregnancy was not associated with risk of miscarriage, antepartum hemorrhage, or stillbirth, but was associated with 2-3 fold higher risk of induced abortion (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.60, 95% CI 1.17-5.78), c-section (aHR 1.99, 95% CI 1.71-2.31), clinician-initiated preterm birth (2.88; 95% CI 1.93, 4.30), spontaneous preterm birth (aHR 1.79, 95% CI 1.37-2.34), fetal growth restriction (aHR 2.04, 95% CI 1.72-2.43), and postpartum hemorrhage (aHR 2.03, 95% CI 1.6-2.63). CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Prevention could have fetal health benefits.

2.
J Obstet Gynaecol Can ; 2021 Dec 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1587183

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the population-level impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related obstetric practice changes on maternal and newborn outcomes. METHODS: Segmented regression analysis examined changes that occurred 240 weeks pre-pandemic through the first 32 weeks of the pandemic using data from Ontario's Better Outcomes Registry & Network. Outcomes included birth location, length of stay, labour analgesia, mode of delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth. Immediate and gradual effects were modelled with terms representing changes in intercepts and slopes, corresponding to the start of the pandemic. RESULTS: There were 799 893 eligible pregnant individuals included in the analysis; 705 767 delivered in the pre-pandemic period and 94,126 during the pandemic wave 1 period. Significant immediate decreases were observed for hospital births (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99), length of stay (median change -3.29 h; 95% CI -3.81 to -2.77), use of nitrous oxide (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.13) and general anesthesia (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.58- 0.81), and trial of labour after cesarean (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.96). Conversely, there were significant immediate increases in home births (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.21-1.51), and use of epidural (RR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04) and regional anesthesia (RR 1.01; 95% CI 1.01-1.02). There were no significant immediate changes for any other outcomes, including preterm birth (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05) and stillbirth (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.87-1.42). CONCLUSION: Provincial health system changes implemented at the start of the pandemic resulted in immediate clinical practice changes but no significant increases in adverse outcomes.

3.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand ; 2021 Nov 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501369

ABSTRACT

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.

4.
N Engl J Med ; 385(21): 2008-2010, 2021 11 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475543
5.
Braz J Infect Dis ; 25(5): 101620, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1437404

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about COVID-19 in pregnancy is limited, and evidence on the impact of the infection during pregnancy and postpartum is still emerging. AIM: To analyze maternal morbidity and mortality due to severe acute respiratory infections (SARI), including COVID-19, in Brazil. METHODS: National surveillance data from the SIVEP-Gripe (Sistema de Informação de Vigilância Epidemiológica da Gripe) was used to describe currently and recently pregnant women aged 10-49 years hospitalized for SARI from January through November, 2020. SARI cases were grouped into: COVID-19; influenza or other detected agent SARI; and SARI of unknown etiology. Characteristics, symptoms and outcomes were presented by SARI type and region. Binomial proportion and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for outcomes were obtained using the Clopper-Pearson method. RESULTS: Of 945,460 SARI cases in the SIVEP-Gripe, we selected 11,074 women aged 10-49 who were pregnant (7964) or recently pregnant (3110). COVID-19 was confirmed in 49.4% cases; 1.7% had influenza or another etiological agent; and 48.9% had SARI of unknown etiology. The pardo race/ethnic group accounted for 50% of SARI cases. Hypertension/Other cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, and obesity were the most common comorbidities. A total of 362 women with COVID-19 (6.6%; 95%CI 6.0-7.3) died. Mortality was 4.7% (2.2-8.8) among influenza patients, and 3.3% (2.9-3.8) among those with SARI of unknown etiology. The South-East, Northeast and North regions recorded the highest frequencies of mortality among COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: Mortality among pregnant and recently pregnant women with SARIs was elevated among those with COVID-19, particularly in regions where maternal mortality is already high.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Respiratory Tract Infections , Brazil/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnant Women , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
6.
BMJ ; 374: n1943, 2021 08 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1367424

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of mRNA covid-19 vaccines against symptomatic infection and severe outcomes (hospital admission or death). DESIGN: Test negative design study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada between 14 December 2020 and 19 April 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 324 033 community dwelling people aged ≥16 years who had symptoms of covid-19 and were tested for SARS-CoV-2. INTERVENTIONS: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and hospital admissions and deaths associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multivariable logistic regression was adjusted for personal and clinical characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 and vaccine receipt to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection and severe outcomes. RESULTS: Of 324 033 people with symptoms, 53 270 (16.4%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 21 272 (6.6%) received at least one dose of vaccine. Among participants who tested positive, 2479 (4.7%) were admitted to hospital or died. Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection observed ≥14 days after one dose was 60% (95% confidence interval 57% to 64%), increasing from 48% (41% to 54%) at 14-20 days after one dose to 71% (63% to 78%) at 35-41 days. Vaccine effectiveness observed ≥7 days after two doses was 91% (89% to 93%). Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission or death observed ≥14 days after one dose was 70% (60% to 77%), increasing from 62% (44% to 75%) at 14-20 days to 91% (73% to 97%) at ≥35 days, whereas vaccine effectiveness observed ≥7 days after two doses was 98% (88% to 100%). For adults aged ≥70 years, vaccine effectiveness estimates were observed to be lower for intervals shortly after one dose but were comparable to those for younger people for all intervals after 28 days. After two doses, high vaccine effectiveness was observed against variants with the E484K mutation. CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of mRNA covid-19 vaccines were observed to be highly effective against symptomatic infection and severe outcomes. Vaccine effectiveness of one dose was observed to be lower, particularly for older adults shortly after the first dose.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Ontario/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
7.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand ; 100(10): 1756-1770, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1258895

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Stillbirth/epidemiology , Causality , Female , Global Health , Humans , Infant, Low Birth Weight , Infant, Newborn , Pregnancy
8.
Vaccine ; 39(14): 1882-1886, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1117762

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 vaccines are now being deployed as essential tools in the public health response to the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Pregnant individuals are a unique subgroup of the population with distinctive considerations regarding risk and benefit that extend beyond themselves to their fetus/newborn. As a complement to traditional pharmacovigilance and clinical studies, evidence to comprehensively assess COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy will need to be generated through observational epidemiologic studies in large populations. However, there are several unique methodological challenges that face observational assessments of vaccination during pregnancy, some of which may be more pronounced for COVID-19 studies. In this contribution, we discuss the most critical study design, data collection, and analytical issues likely to arise. We offer brief guidance to optimize the quality of such studies to ensure their maximum value for informing public health decision-making.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Maternal Exposure , Observational Studies as Topic , Vaccination , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Female , Fetus , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Pregnancy , Research Design , Vaccination/adverse effects
9.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 20, 2021 02 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067229

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is little information on care-seeking patterns for sexual assault and domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to examine the changes in emergency department (ED) admissions for sexual assault and domestic violence since the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. METHODS: Observational ED admissions data from The Ottawa Hospital were analyzed from March 4 to May 5 (62 days) in 2020 (COVID-19 period) and compared to the same period in 2018 (pre-COVID-19). Total and mean weekly admissions were calculated for all-cause ED admissions and for sexual and domestic violence cases. A Poisson regression (without offset term) was used to calculate the weekly case count ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between the two time periods. Case characteristics were compared using chi-square tests, and percent differences were calculated. RESULTS: Compared to pre-COVID-19, total ED admissions dropped by 1111.22 cases per week (32.9% reduction), and the Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Program cases dropped 4.66 cases per week. The weekly case count ratio for sexual assault cases was 0.47 (95% CI 0.79-0.27), equivalent of 53.49% reduction in cases, and 0.52 (95% CI 0.93-0.29), equivalent to a 48.45% reduction in physical assault cases. The characteristics of presenting cases were similar by age (median 25 years), sex (88.57% female), assault type (57.14% sexual assault, 48.57% physical assault), and location (31.43% patient's home, 40.00% assailant's home). There was a significant increase in psychological abuse (11.69% vs 28.57%) and assaults occurring outdoors (5.19% vs 22.86%). CONCLUSION: This study found a decrease in ED admissions for sexual assault and domestic violence during COVID-19, despite societal conditions that elevate risk of violence. Trends in care-seeking and assault patterns will require ongoing monitoring to inform the provision of optimal support for individuals experiencing violence, particularly as countries begin to re-open or lock-down again.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Domestic Violence/trends , Emergency Service, Hospital/trends , Pandemics , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Sex Offenses/trends , Adult , COVID-19/psychology , Communicable Disease Control/trends , Domestic Violence/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Ontario/epidemiology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Sex Offenses/psychology , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...