Influenza and pertussis vaccine coverage in pregnancy in Australia, 2016-2021.

Vaccination in pregnancy is the best strategy to reduce complications from influenza or pertussis infection in infants who are too young to be protected directly from vaccination. Pregnant women are also at risk of influenza complications preventable through antenatal vaccination. Both vaccines are funded under the National Immunisation Program for pregnant women in Australia, but coverage is not routinely reported nationally. We reviewed all reported Australian maternal influenza and pertussis vaccine coverage data for the period 2016-2021, to identify gaps and information needs. Maternal influenza vaccine coverage was suboptimal at < 58% for 2016-2018, with higher coverage of 62-75% reported in two states (Victoria and Western Australia) for 2019-2021. Maternal pertussis vaccine coverage from 2016 was generally higher than for influenza at > 70%, with the highest jurisdictional coverage of 89% reported in Western Australia in 2020. Vaccination rates were often suboptimal among First Nations pregnant women and up to 20% lower than among non-First Nations Australian women; while data were limited, coverage was low among culturally and linguistically diverse women and among women of lower socio-economic status. Jurisdictional perinatal data collections were the best source of information on antenatal vaccine coverage but were only available for a minority of the population; a nationally consistent systematic approach is lacking. Timely and comprehensive data are needed to provide feedback to improve maternal vaccination coverage, particularly among groups with higher risk and/or low uptake, and as new vaccines are recommended, including COVID-19 vaccination.

The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce: pregnancy and perinatal guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women are at higher risk of severe illness from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than non-pregnant women of a similar age. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that evidenced-based guidance was needed, and that it would need to be updated rapidly. The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce provided a resource to guide care for people with COVID-19, including during pregnancy. Care for pregnant and breastfeeding women and their babies was included as a priority when the Taskforce was set up, with a Pregnancy and Perinatal Care Panel convened to guide clinical practice. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: As of May 2022, the Taskforce has made seven specific recommendations on care for pregnant women and those who have recently given birth. This includes supporting usual practices for the mode of birth, umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, and using antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate as clinically indicated. There are 11 recommendations for COVID-19-specific treatments, including conditional recommendations for using remdesivir, tocilizumab and sotrovimab. Finally, there are recommendations not to use several disease-modifying treatments for the treatment of COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The recommendations are continually updated to reflect new evidence, and the most up-to-date guidance is available online (https://covid19evidence.net.au). CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINES: The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been a critical component of the infrastructure to support Australian maternity care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Taskforce has shown that a rapid living guidelines approach is feasible and acceptable.

How COVID-19 has impacted immunisation service delivery in Australia: a national study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on the delivery of adult, maternal and childhood immunisation services in Australia in 2020 prior to the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, and to understand the adaptations made at a service delivery level that may have contributed to the successful delivery of immunisation services during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to immunisation providers and pharmacists in all states and territories in Australia between November 2020 and December 2020. It explored interruption to the delivery of immunisation services, strategies implemented to maintain services, prioritisation of populations, and self-reported challenges and solutions initiated by providers. RESULTS: A total of 850 people responded to the survey. Of these, the most common professional groups identified were pharmacists followed by nurse immunisers, nurses/midwives and general practitioners. Several changes were implemented including relocation of vaccination clinics, change to bookings rather than walk-in appointments, infection prevention measures, clients waiting in cars pre- and post-vaccination and reduced observation period post-vaccination. CONCLUSION: The pandemic has provided opportunities for services to trial new and innovative strategies such as electronic pre-assessment, electronic consent and drive-through vaccination services. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Immunisation providers mostly viewed these changes positively and intend to continue many post-pandemic. The experience gained from the trialling of these strategies may be adapted for vaccine delivery and National Immunisation Program vaccines beyond the pandemic.

Impact of COVID-19 vaccinations on emergency department presentations.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to describe the burden of patients presenting to the ED with symptoms occurring after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study performed over a 4-month period across two EDs. Participants were eligible for inclusion if it was documented in the ED triage record that their ED attendance was associated with the receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination. Data regarding the type of vaccine (Comirnaty or ChAdOx1) were subsequently extracted from their electronic medical record. Primary outcome was ED length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes included requests for imaging and ED disposition destination. RESULTS: During the study period of 22 February 2021 to 21 June 2021, 632 patients were identified for inclusion in the present study, of which 543 (85.9%) had received the ChAdOx1 vaccination. The highest proportion of COVID-19 vaccine-related attendances occurred in June 2021 and accounted for 21 (8%) of 262 total daily ED attendances. Patients who had an ED presentation related to ChAdOx1 had a longer median ED LOS (253 vs 180 min, P < 0.001) compared to Comirnaty and a higher proportion had haematology tests and imaging requested in the ED. Most patients (n = 588, 88.8%) were discharged home from the ED. CONCLUSION: There was a notable proportion of ED attendances related to recent COVID-19 vaccination administration, many of which were associated with lengthy ED stays and had multiple investigations. In the majority of cases, the patients were able to be discharged home from the ED.

Victorian Specialist Immunisation Services (VicSIS) - bolstering adult clinics for COVID-19 vaccines.

The Victorian Specialist Immunization Services (VicSIS) was established in Victoria, Australia, in February 2021, aiming to enhance vaccine safety services for Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines. VicSIS supports practitioners and patients with complex vaccine safety questions, including those who experience adverse events following immunization (AEFI) after COVID-19 vaccines. VicSIS provides individual vaccination recommendations, allergy testing, vaccine challenges, and vaccination under supervision. VicSIS initially comprised of eight adult COVID-19 specialist vaccination clinics, subsequently, expanding to better support pediatric patients as the Australian vaccine roll-out extended to adolescents and children. Since their establishment to September 2021, the inaugural VicSIS clinics received a total of 26,401 referrals and reviewed 6,079 patients. Consults were initially predominantly for pre-vaccination reviews, later predominantly becoming post-vaccination AEFI reviews as the program progressed. Regardless of the type of consult, the most common consult outcome was a recommendation for routine vaccination (73% and 55% of consult outcomes respectively). VicSIS is an integral component of the COVID-19 vaccination program and supports confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety by providing consistent advice across the state. VicSIS aims to strengthen the health system through the pandemic, bolstering specialist immunization services beyond COVID-19 vaccines, including training the next generation of vaccinology experts.

Global Perspectives on Immunization Against SARS-CoV-2 During Pregnancy and Priorities for Future Research: An International Consensus Paper From the World Association of Infectious Diseases and Immunological Disorders.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in pregnancy is associated with a higher risk for severe morbidity and mortality when compared with infection in non-pregnant women of childbearing age. An increasing number of countries recommend immunization against SARS-CoV-2 in pregnant women. Recent studies provide preliminary and supportive evidence on safety, immunogenicity and effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in pregnant women; however, important knowledge gaps remain which warrant further studies. This collaborative consensus paper provides a review of the current literature on COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women, identifies knowledge gaps and outlines priorities for future research to optimize protection against SARS-CoV-2 in the pregnant women and their infants.

Widespread implementation of a low-cost telehealth service in the delivery of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence is available on the use of telehealth for antenatal care. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed and implemented a new antenatal care schedule integrating telehealth across all models of pregnancy care. To inform this clinical initiative, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of telehealth in antenatal care. METHODS: We analysed routinely collected health data on all women giving birth at Monash Health, a large health service in Victoria (Australia), using an interrupted time-series design. We assessed the impact of telehealth integration into antenatal care from March 23, 2020, across low-risk and high-risk care models. Allowing a 1-month implementation period from March 23, 2020, we compared the first 3 months of telehealth integrated care delivered between April 20 and July 26, 2020, with conventional care delivered between Jan 1, 2018, and March 22, 2020. The primary outcomes were detection and outcomes of fetal growth restriction, pre-eclampsia, and gestational diabetes. Secondary outcomes were stillbirth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks' gestation). FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2018, and March 22, 2020, 20 031 women gave birth at Monash Health during the conventional care period and 2292 women gave birth during the telehealth integrated care period. Of 20 154 antenatal consultations provided in the integrated care period, 10 731 (53%) were delivered via telehealth. Overall, compared with the conventional care period, no significant differences were identified in the integrated care period with regard to the number of babies with fetal growth restriction (birthweight below the 3rd percentile; 2% in the integrated care period vs 2% in the conventional care period, p=0·72, for low-risk care models; 5% in the integrated care period vs 5% in the conventional care period, p=0·50 for high-risk care models), number of stillbirths (1% vs 1%, p=0·79; 2% vs 2%, p=0·70), or pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia (3% vs 3%, p=0·70; 9% vs 7%, p=0·15), or gestational diabetes (22% vs 22%, p=0·89; 30% vs 26%, p=0·06). Interrupted time-series analysis showed a significant reduction in preterm birth among women in high-risk models (-0·68% change in incidence per week [95% CI -1·37 to -0·002]; p=0·049), but no significant differences were identified in other outcome measures for low-risk or high-risk care models after telehealth integration compared with conventional care. INTERPRETATION: Telehealth integrated antenatal care enabled the reduction of in-person consultations by 50% without compromising pregnancy outcomes. This care model can help to minimise in-person interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic, but should also be considered in post-pandemic health-care models. FUNDING: None.

Alignment of national COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant and lactating women.

The rapid development and roll-out of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is providing hope for a way to control the pandemic. As pregnant and lactating women are generally excluded from clinical trials, the vaccination programme was launched without adequate safety and efficacy data for pregnant women. Yet many professional organizations have recognized the need for administration of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy and have issued their own set of recommendations. The lack of evidence, however, has often led to confused messaging, inconsistent language and differing recommendations across organizations, potentially contributing to delay or refusal to accept vaccination by pregnant women. We summarize those differences and recommend that leaders collaborate at a country level to produce joint recommendations. We use the example of Australia, where two professional authorities along with the government and partners in New Zealand worked towards one message, consistent language and a unified recommendation. The aim was to help health professionals and women who are planning pregnancy or who are currently pregnant or breastfeeding to make an informed decision about COVID-19 vaccination. National advisory groups for immunization, professional obstetric organizations and government bodies should be encouraged to coordinate their statements on COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant and lactating women and to use similar language and phrasing for greater clarity.

La rapidité de développement et de déploiement des vaccins contre la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) entretient l'espoir d'un jour pouvoir contrôler la pandémie. Étant donné que les femmes enceintes et allaitantes sont généralement exclues des essais cliniques, le programme de vaccination a été lancé en l'absence de données adéquates sur l'efficacité et l'innocuité du vaccin au sein de cette catégorie. Pourtant, de nombreuses associations professionnelles ont reconnu la nécessité de vacciner contre la COVID-19 durant la grossesse, et ont émis leurs propres recommandations. L'absence de preuves a toutefois souvent donné lieu à une communication incohérente, à un discours contradictoire et à des recommandations divergentes d'une organisation à l'autre, ce qui pourrait avoir conduit certaines femmes enceintes à retarder ou refuser la vaccination. Dans le présent document, nous exposons ces différences et exhortons les dirigeants à collaborer au niveau national pour formuler des recommandations communes. Nous utilisons l'exemple de l'Australie, où deux autorités professionnelles ont travaillé avec le gouvernement et des partenaires en Nouvelle-Zélande afin de transmettre un message unique, d'adopter un langage cohérent et de fournir des directives homogènes. L'objectif était d'aider les soignants et les femmes enceintes, allaitantes ou planifiant une grossesse à prendre une décision éclairée en matière de vaccination contre la COVID-19. Les organes consultatifs nationaux sur la vaccination, les associations professionnelles d'obstétrique et les pouvoirs publics devraient être encouragés à aligner leurs déclarations concernant la vaccination contre la COVID-19 chez les femmes enceintes et allaitantes, ainsi qu'à employer des termes et énoncés similaires pour davantage de clarté.

El rápido desarrollo y puesta en marcha de las vacunas contra el coronavirus de la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) está dando esperanzas sobre una forma de controlar la pandemia. Como las mujeres embarazadas y lactantes suelen estar excluidas de los ensayos clínicos, el programa de vacunación se puso en marcha sin datos adecuados de seguridad y eficacia para las mujeres embarazadas. Sin embargo, muchas organizaciones profesionales han reconocido la necesidad de administrar las vacunas contra la COVID-19 durante el embarazo y han emitido su propio conjunto de recomendaciones. Sin embargo, la falta de pruebas a menudo ha ocasionado mensajes confusos, un lenguaje incoherente y recomendaciones diferentes en las distintas organizaciones, lo que puede contribuir a retrasar o rechazar la vacunación de las mujeres embarazadas. Resumimos esas diferencias y recomendamos que los líderes colaboren a nivel de país para elaborar recomendaciones conjuntas. Utilizamos el ejemplo de Australia, donde dos autoridades profesionales, junto con el gobierno y los socios de Nueva Zelanda, trabajaron para lograr transmitir un único mensaje con un lenguaje coherente y una recomendación unificada. El objetivo era ayudar a los profesionales sanitarios y a las mujeres que planean un embarazo o embarazadas o en periodo de lactancia a tomar una decisión informada sobre la vacunación contra la COVID-19. Hay que animar a los grupos consultivos nacionales de inmunización, a las organizaciones profesionales de obstetricia y a los organismos gubernamentales a que coordinen sus declaraciones sobre la vacunación contra la COVID-19 para las mujeres embarazadas y lactantes y a que utilicen un lenguaje y una redacción similares para mayor claridad.

Suppression of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) After a Second Wave in Victoria, Australia.

Countries worldwide are experiencing a second wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is proving to be difficult to control. We describe the combination of physical distancing, mandatory mask wearing, movement restrictions, and enhanced test, trace, and isolation efforts that can be used to successfully suppress community transmission to zero.

Coronavirus testing in women attending antenatal care.

BACKGROUND: Universal screening has been proposed as a strategy to identify asymptomatic individuals infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and mitigate transmission. AIM: To investigate the rate of positive tests among pregnant women in Melbourne, Australia. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional prevalence study at three maternity hospitals (one tertiary referral hospital and two secondary maternities) in Melbourne, Australia. SARS-CoV-2 testing was offered to all pregnant women attending face-to-face antenatal visits and to those attending the hospital with symptoms of possible coronavirus disease, between 6th and 19th of May 2020. Testing was performed by multiplex-tandem polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on combined oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs. The primary outcome was the proportion of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests. FINDINGS: SARS-CoV-2 testing was performed in 350 women, of whom 19 had symptoms of possible COVID-19. The median maternal age was 32 years (IQR 28-35 years), and the median gestational age at testing was 33 weeks and four days (IQR 28 weeks to 36 weeks and two days). All 350 tests returned negative results (p̂=0%, 95% CI 0-1.0%). CONCLUSION: In a two-week period of low disease prevalence, the rate of asymptomatic coronavirus infection among pregnant women in Australia during the study period was negligible, reflecting low levels of community transmission.