Covid and pregnancy in the United States - an update as of August 2022.

COVID-19 is caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The first cases of COVID-19 were identified in December 2019, and the first United States (US) case was identified on January 20th, 2020. Since then, COVID-19 has spread throughout the world and was declared a pandemic by the WHO on March 11, 2020. As of July 2022, about 90 million persons have been infected with COVID-19 in the US, and there have been over 1 million deaths There have been 224,587 pregnant patients infected with COVID-19, and 34,527 were hospitalized. Pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease associated with COVID-19 and vaccinated patients are significantly less likely to develop severe disease. Adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes are more common among women infected with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy, especially among those with severe disease, and vaccination also protects the newborn infant. The intrauterine transmission of SARS-CoV-2 appears to be rare. COVID-19 vaccinations and booster shots in pregnancy are safe. In addition, the available data suggest that vaccination during pregnancy is associated with the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to the fetus. The vaccination of lactating women is associated with high levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the breast milk. It is important that with future pandemics the concept of vaccine recommendations in pregnancy should be made early on to prevent maternal, fetal, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Physicians and other healthcare professionals should strongly recommend COVID-19 vaccination to patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, and to those who are breastfeeding.

Reversing physician hesitancy to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant patients.

Physician hesitancy is said to occur when physicians do not recommend COVID-19 vaccination, and it is a contributing factor for the low vaccination rate for COVID-19 in pregnant women. Physician hesitancy has become a major, unaddressed problem with regard to the quality and safety of obstetrical care. We identify 3 root causes of physician hesitancy and describe how professional ethics in obstetrics should guide in reversing these root causes. They are clinical misapplications of key components of professionally responsible obstetrical practice: therapeutic nihilism, shared decision-making, and respect for patient autonomy. Therapeutic nihilism directs the obstetrician to avoid any clinical interventions during pregnancy to prevent teratogenic effects that might be unknown. Therapeutic nihilism is misapplied when there is a documented net clinical benefit with no evidence of clinical harm. Shared decision directs the obstetrician to only offer but not recommend clinical management. Shared decision-making plays a major role when there is uncertainty in clinical judgment but is misapplied when it becomes a universal model. It does not apply when there is a net clinical benefit. When there is a net clinical benefit, clinical management should be recommended, not simply offered. The ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy plays an indispensable role in decision-making with patients. It is misapplied when it is assumed that respect for autonomy requires physicians not to make recommendations and to defer to and implement patients' decisions without exception. There is evidence that the obstetrician's recommendations about the management of pregnancy are the most important factor in a pregnant woman's decision-making. Simply deferring to the patient's decisions makes for misapplied respect for patient autonomy. Obstetricians must end physician hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant women by reversing these 3 root causes of physician hesitancy. Reversing the root causes of physician hesitancy is an urgent matter of patient safety. The longer physician hesitancy continues and the longer the low vaccine acceptance rate of pregnant women lasts, preventable serious diseases, deaths of pregnant women, intensive care unit admissions, stillbirths, and other maternal and fetal complications of unvaccinated women will continue to occur. Physician hesitancy should not be permitted to influence the response to future pandemics.

John Stuart Mill is relevant to COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy today.

The scientific evidence about COVID-19 and pregnancy is conclusive: COVID-19 infections increase the risk of stillbirths and preterm births, and pregnant and postpartum patients are more likely to get severely ill with COVID-19 and die when compared with people who are not pregnant. Getting a COVID-19 vaccine protects from severe illness from COVID-19 and risk of death. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for pregnant patients, those trying to conceive, and who are breastfeeding, or might become pregnant in the future. The justification for government involvement in public health measures that restrict personal liberty that we are so familiar with today emanated from a philosophical source at the same time as the progress in managing infectious disease. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), an empiricist and a utilitarian, was not specifically addressing the ethics of public health in his classic On Liberty (1859), but his arguments have become the reference point for liberal democracies and public health measures. Mill was in search of a philosophical principle that could justify constraints on personal freedom. John Stuart Mill gives direct guidance to our approach supporting not only strong recommendations for pregnant patients to accept vaccinations against COVID-19 but also for those working in healthcare setting to be required to be vaccinated. This approach is respectful to our patient's liberty while doing all that's reasonable to protect them from harm. Based on our professional experience we recognize that some physicians and patients have fixed false beliefs. Physicians espousing fixed false beliefs against COVID-19 vaccines should be censured.

The Risk of Readmission after Early Postpartum Discharge during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether early postpartum discharge during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was associated with a change in the odds of maternal postpartum readmissions. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of uncomplicated postpartum low-risk women in seven obstetrical units within a large New York health system. We compared the rate of postpartum readmissions within 6 weeks of delivery between two groups: low-risk women who had early postpartum discharge as part of our protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic (April 1-June 15, 2020) and similar low-risk patients with routine postpartum discharge from the same study centers 1 year prior. Statistical analysis included the use of Wilcoxon's rank-sum and chi-squared tests, Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard curves, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 8,206 patients included, 4,038 (49.2%) were patients who had early postpartum discharge during the COVID-19 pandemic and 4,168 (50.8%) were patients with routine postpartum discharge prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The rates of postpartum readmissions after vaginal delivery (1.0 vs. 0.9%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-1.45) and cesarean delivery (1.5 vs. 1.9%; adjusted OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.29-1.45) were similar between the two groups. Demographic risk factors for postpartum readmission included Medicaid insurance and obesity. CONCLUSION: Early postpartum discharge during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with no change in the odds of maternal postpartum readmissions after low-risk vaginal or cesarean deliveries. Early postpartum discharge for low-risk patients to shorten hospital length of stay should be considered in the face of public health crises. KEY POINTS: · Early postpartum discharge was not associated with an increase in odds of hospital readmissions after vaginal delivery.. · Early postpartum discharge was not associated with an increase in odds of hospital readmissions after cesarean delivery.. · Early postpartum discharge for low-risk patients should be considered during a public health crisis..

Professionally responsible coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination counseling of obstetrical and gynecologic patients.

The development of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines in the current and planned clinical trials is essential for the success of a public health response. This paper focuses on how physicians should implement the results of these clinical trials when counseling patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed about vaccines with government authorization for clinical use. Determining the most effective approach to counsel patients about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is challenging. We address the professionally responsible counseling of 3 groups of patients-those who are pregnant, those planning to become pregnant, and those breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed. We begin with an evidence-based account of the following 5 major challenges: the limited evidence base, the documented increased risk for severe disease among pregnant coronavirus disease 2019-infected patients, conflicting guidance from government agencies and professional associations, false information about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines, and maternal mistrust and vaccine hesitancy. We subsequently provide evidence-based, ethically justified, practical guidance for meeting these challenges in the professionally responsible counseling of patients about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination. To guide the professionally responsible counseling of patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, and breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed, we explain how obstetrician-gynecologists should evaluate the current clinical information, why a recommendation of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination should be made, and how this assessment should be presented to patients during the informed consent process with the goal of empowering them to make informed decisions. We also present a proactive account of how to respond when patients refuse the recommended vaccination, including the elements of the legal obligation of informed refusal and the ethical obligation to ask patients to reconsider. During this process, the physician should be alert to vaccine hesitancy, ask patients to express their hesitation and reasons for it, and respectfully address them. In contrast to the conflicting guidance from government agencies and professional associations, evidence-based professional ethics in obstetrics and gynecology provides unequivocal and clear guidance: Physicians should recommend coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination to patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, and breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed. To prevent widening of the health inequities, build trust in the health benefits of vaccination, and encourage coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine and treatment uptake, in addition to recommending coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations, physicians should engage with communities to tailor strategies to overcome mistrust and deliver evidence-based information, robust educational campaigns, and novel approaches to immunization.

How fever is defined in COVID-19 publications: a disturbing lack of precision.

OBJECTIVES: Fever is the single most frequently reported manifestation of COVID-19 and is a critical element of screening persons for COVID-19. The meaning of "fever" varies depending on the cutoff temperature used, the type of thermometer, the time of the day, the site of measurements, and the person's gender and race. The absence of a universally accepted definition for fever has been especially problematic during the current COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This investigation determined the extent to which fever is defined in COVID-19 publications, with special attention to those associated with pregnancy. RESULTS: Of 53 publications identified in which "fever" is reported as a manifestation of COVID-19 illness, none described the method used to measure patient's temperatures. Only 10 (19%) publications specified the minimum temperature used to define a fever with values that varied from a 37.3 °C (99.1 °F) to 38.1 °C (100.6 °F). CONCLUSIONS: There is a disturbing lack of precision in defining fever in COVID-19 publications. Given the many factors influencing temperature measurements in humans, there can never be a single, universally accepted temperature cut-off defining a fever. This clinical reality should not prevent precision in reporting fever. To achieve the precision and improve scientific and clinical communication, when fever is reported in clinical investigations, at a minimum the cut-off temperature used in determining the presence of fever, the anatomical site at which temperatures are taken, and the instrument used to measure temperatures should each be described. In the absence of such information, what is meant by the term "fever" is uncertain.