Search

Objective: The use of Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine in pregnant women is controversial and still not performed in Italy. Our objective was to evaluate the propensity of a population of Italian women to receive the vaccine and its psychological impact., Methods: A prospective, observational study was performed on pregnant women attending Ospedale Cristo Re Università Roma TorVergata. A multi-section questionnaire was sent to each included woman on the first day of available SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Part-A was finalized to acquire maternal characteristics and to test the women's perception of vaccinations in pregnancy and their fear-induced by vaccines. Part-B included the State-Trait-Anxiety-Inventory (STAI) a validated test for scoring trait anxiety (basal anxiety, STAI-T) and state anxiety (STAI-S). An abnormal value of STAI was considered when ≥40. Comparisons of maternal variables were performed according to their vaccine attitude., Results: The questionnaire was completed by 161 women (80.5% of the population considered). A positive attitude toward the vaccine was present in 136 (84.5%) women (positive) while the remaining 25.5% considered the vaccine not useful (negative). Among the former group 52.9% were favorable to obtain the vaccine during pregnancy despite the current national limitations, a percentage significantly higher ( p  = .02) than in the negative groups. Women with a negative attitude to the vaccine had a lower educational ( p  = .002) and employment level ( p  = .016) when compared to the positive group. In all the women a significant increase of STAI-S from STAI-T values was evidenced ( p  < .0001). The incidence of abnormal STAI T values (basal anxiety) was similar between the 2 groups ( p  = .81), while there was a significant increase of STAI-S values in the negative group (negative 88.0%; vs positive 63.4%; p  = .018)., Conclusions: The majority of pregnant women considered have a positive attitude to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Vaccine campaign seems to increase the maternal level of anxiety and this increase is more marked with a negative attitude toward the vaccine.

Background: Since coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines have been distributed, a debate has raised on whether pregnant women should get the vaccine. No available data exist so far regarding the safety, efficacy, and toxicology of these vaccines when administered during pregnancy. Most of the Obstetrics and Gynecology societies suggested that pregnant could agree to be vaccinated, after a thorough counseling of risks and benefits with their gynecologists, thus leading to an autonomous decision., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the attitude to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination in pregnant and breastfeeding women in Italy., Study Design: A survey was made at the University of Naples Federico II and the Ospedale Cristo Re, Tor Vergata University of Rome, on pregnant and breastfeeding women asking their perspectives on the available vaccines after reading the recommendations issued by our national Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Neonatology societies. The questionnaire included 12 items finalized to evaluate general features of the women and 6 items specifically correlated to their attitudes toward the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare group differences of categorical variables and Wilcoxon signed rank or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of the University of Naples Federico II (ref. no. 409/2020) and the Ospedale Cristo Re, Tor Vergata University of Rome (ref. #Ost4-2020)., Results: Most of the included women did not agree to eventually receive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine during pregnancy (40 [28.2%] vs 102 [71.8%]). Being pregnant was considered a determinant factor to refuse the vaccine prophylaxis (99 [69.7%] vs 43 [30.3%]; chi-square test=24.187; P<.001), even if a very large percentage declared to be generally in favor of vaccines (128 [90.1%] vs 14 [9.9%]; chi-square test=6.091; P=.014) and most of them confirmed they received or would receive other recommended vaccines during pregnancy (75 [52.8%] vs 67 [47.2%]; chi-square test=10.996; P=.001)., Conclusion: Urgent data are needed on the safety, efficacy, and toxicology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccines during pregnancy to modify this trend and to help obstetricians during the counseling. Furthermore, pregnant women should be included in future vaccine development trials to not incur again in such uncertainty., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been used as a rescue strategy for pregnant women affected by COVID-19. To explore its impact on maternal-fetal health, we included all observational studies reporting maternal, fetal, delivery and neonatal outcomes in women who underwent mAbs infusion for COVID-19. Primary outcome was the percentage of preterm delivery. We used meta-analyses of proportions to combine data for maternal, fetal, delivery and neonatal outcome of women treated with mAbs for COVID-19 and reported pooled proportions and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables or mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals for continuous variables. Preterm birth was observed in 22.8% of cases (95% CI 12.9–34.3). Fetal distress was reported in 4.2% (95% CI 1.6–8.2). Gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia were observed in 3.0% (95% CI 0.8–6.8) and 3.4% (95% CI 0.8–7.5) of cases, respectively. Fetal growth restriction was observed in 3.2% of fetuses (95% CI 0.8–7.0). Secondary prophylaxis with mAbs is currently considered the best treatment option for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 disease. More attention should be paid to infants born from mothers who were treated with mAbs, for the risk of immunosuppression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic, utilization of emergency care units has been reported to be reduced for obstetrical and gynaecological reasons. The aim of this systematic review is to assess if this phenomenon reduced the rate of hospitalizations for any reason and to evaluate the main reasons for seeking care in this subset of the population. The search was conducted using the main electronic databases from January 2020 to May 2021. The studies were identified with the use of a combination of: "emergency department" OR "A&E" OR "emergency service" OR "emergency unit" OR "maternity service" AND "COVID-19" OR "COVID-19 pandemic" OR "SARS-COV-2" and "admission" OR "hospitalization". All the studies that evaluated women going to obstetrics & gynecology emergency department (ED) during the COVID-19 pandemic for any reason were included. The pooled proportion (PP) of hospitalizations increased from 22.7 to 30.6% during the lockdown periods, in particular from 48.0 to 53.9% for delivery. The PP of pregnant women suffering from hypertensive disorders increased (2.6 vs 1.2%), as well as women having contractions (52 vs 43%) and rupture of membranes (12.0 vs 9.1%). Oppositely, the PP of women having pelvic pain (12.4 vs 14.4%), suspected ectopic pregnancy (1.8 vs 2.0), reduced fetal movements (3.0 vs 3.3%), vaginal bleeding both for obstetrical (11.7 vs 12.8%) and gynecological issues (7.4 vs 9.2%) slightly reduced. During the lockdown, an increase in the proportion of hospitalizations for obstetrical and gynecological reasons has been registered, especially for labor symptoms and hypertensive disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore perinatal outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2)‐vaccinated pregnant women compared with unvaccinated counterparts. Methods: Search was conducted using Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, MEDLINE, Embase, OVID, and Cochrane Library as electronic databases. We included observational studies evaluating pregnant women undergoing SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination and compared pregnancy and perinatal outcomes with those in unvaccinated women. Categorical variables were assessed using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas for continuous variables, the results were expressed as mean difference with their 95% CI. All analyses were performed by adopting the random effect model of DerSimonian and Laird. Results: There was no difference in the probability of having a small‐for‐gestational‐age fetus (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85–1.09; P = 0.570), but we observed a reduced probability of a non‐reassuring fetal monitoring, a reduced gestational age at delivery, and a reduced probability of premature delivery in vaccinated pregnant women versus unvaccinated ones. Conclusion: The probability of small for gestational age is similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women, and the former also had a slightly reduced rate of premature delivery. Synopsis: Probability of small for gestational age and other adverse perinatal outcomes is similar between SARS‐CoV‐2‐vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since there is no available data on temporal trends of caesarean section (CS) rates in pregnant women with COVID-19 through the pandemic, we aimed to analyze the trends in caesarean section rate in a large cohort of pregnant women with COVID-19, according to the Robson Ten Group Classification System of deliveries. Methods: We prospectively enrolled pregnant women with a diagnosis of COVID-19 who delivered in our center between March 2020 and November 2021. Deliveries were classified, according to the Robson group classification, and according to three time periods: (1) deliveries from March 2020 to December 2020; (2) deliveries from January 2021 to April 2021; (3) deliveries from May 2021 to November 2021. We compared pregnancy characteristics and incidence of caesarean section, according to the Robson category in the total population, and according to the three time periods. Results: We included 457 patients matching the inclusion criteria in our analysis. We found that overall CS rate significantly decreased over time from period 1 to period 3 (152/222, 68.5% vs. 81/134, 60.4% vs. 58/101, 57.4%, χ2 = 4.261, p = 0.039). CS rate significantly decreased over time in Robson category 1 (48/80, 60% vs. 27/47,57.4% vs. 8/24, 33.3%, χ2 = 4.097, p = 0.043) and Robson category 3 (13/42, 31% vs. 6/33, 18.2% vs. 2/22, 9.1%, χ2 = 4.335, p = 0.037). We also found that the incidence of induction of labor significantly increased over time (8/222, 3.6% vs. 12/134, 9% vs. 11/101, 10.9%, χ2 = 7.245, p = 0.027). Conclusion: Our data provide an overview of the temporal changes in the management and obstetric outcome of COVID-19 pregnant women through the pandemic, confirming that standards of obstetrical assistance for pregnancies complicated by SARS-CoV-2 infection improved over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has been recommended to pregnant women, but survey studies showed contrasting findings worldwide in relation to the willingness to accept vaccination during pregnancy.Objective: To evaluate the evidence from the literature regarding the acceptance rate of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in pregnant and breastfeeding women.Study Design: We performed a systematic review on the main databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, ISI Web of Science) searching for all the peer-reviewed survey studies analyzing the eventual acceptance rate of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among pregnant and breastfeeding women. To combine data meta-analyses of proportions and pooled proportions with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.Results: 15 studies including 25,839 women were included in the analysis. The proportion of women actually willing to be vaccinated during pregnancy is 49.1% (95% CI, 42.3-56.0), and the proportion of breastfeeding women is 61.6% (95% CI, 50.0-75.0).Conclusion: The cumulative SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance rate among pregnant women appears still low. Vaccinal campaign are urgently needed to drive more confidence into the vaccine to help reducing the spread of the infection and the possible consequences during pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To report the changes in volume and characteristics of medical activities in the Vatican City State during COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: Data for general / emergency procedures , specialty consultations, radiology examinations and diagnostic procedures delivered by the Directorate of Health and Hygiene of the Vatican City State were retrospectively analysed. Analysis focused on the entire year 2020 and on the lockdown period 9 March – 18 May 2020. Results: In 2020, 73.932 procedures were performed compared to 95.218 in 2019 (−22.4%). During lockdown, general / emergency activities decreased by 61.1%, specialty consultations by 85.3%, radiology examinations by 95.8%, and diagnostic procedures by 96.5%. A decrease was found for nearly all specialties; the most affected were occupational medicine and dermatology, whilst an increase was found for legal medicine, psychiatry and angiology. Conclusion: Medical activities of the Vatican City State have been severely impacted, especially during the first months of the pandemic. However, organizational efforts allowed rapid restoration to near‐normal volumes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]