A Pregnant Adolescent with COVID-19 and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a new condition related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the pediatric population, was recognized by physicians in the United Kingdom in April 2020. Given those up to the age of 21 years can be affected, pregnant adolescents and young adults are susceptible. However, there is scant information on how MIS-C may affect pregnancy and whether the presentation differs in the pregnant population. We report a case of a pregnant adolescent with COVID-19 and MIS-C with a favorable outcome. This case highlights the considerations in managing a critically ill pregnant patient with a novel illness and the importance of a multidisciplinary team in coordinating care.

Acceptance of Routine Vaccines in Pregnancy during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the rates of vaccination against infectious diseases (Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis [Tdap] and influenza) in pregnancy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic compared to contemporary historical controls. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing rates of Tdap and influenza vaccination in pregnant people who received care at NYU Langone Health and delivered from September 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021 ("COVID cohort") to the same period the prior year ("2019 cohort"). Demographic information, trimester of initiation of prenatal care, insurance status, and medical comorbidities were evaluated. Outcomes were analyzed using chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and multivariable logistic regression, with significance of p < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 1,713 pregnant people were included. Compared to historical controls, the COVID cohort differed in age, race, timing of initiation of prenatal care, insurance status, and medical comorbidities. After adjusting for these covariates, pregnant people were significantly more likely to accept influenza vaccine in the COVID cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-2.29) and had similar Tdap acceptance (aOR 1.5, 95% CI 0.99-2.17). However, this trend was not observed for the entire obstetric population; public insurance status and medical comorbidities were associated with lower vaccine rates during the pandemic. For those who had public insurance, rates of influenza vaccination decreased from 83% in 2019 to 40% during COVID (aOR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10-0.24) and for Tdap rates decreased from 93 to 54% (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.21). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic era, pregnant people at large were more likely to accept the influenza vaccine. However, this trend did not apply to Tdap, and high-risk groups with public insurance and medical comorbidities. This study highlights potential disparities in vaccination rates, which need to be accounted for when evaluating national vaccine trends. These data support increased efforts in vaccine counseling for high-risk populations. KEY POINTS: · Antenatal flu vaccination increased during the pandemic.. · Antenatal Tdap vaccination was unchanged during the pandemic.. · High-risk pregnant patients had decreased vaccine uptake.. · High-risk subgroups were not included in overarching vaccination trends..

Perinatal depression before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Quarantining and isolation during previous pandemics have been associated with higher levels of depression symptomatology. Studies in other countries found elevated rates of anxiety and/or depression among pregnant people during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with prepandemic rates. New York City was the initial epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, and the effects of the pandemic on perinatal depression in this population are not well known. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the rates of perinatal depression before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients screened for perinatal depression with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale at 2 private academic practices in New York City. This screen is done in these practices at the time of the glucose challenge test and at the postpartum visit. Patients aged ≥18 years who completed a screen at a postpartum visit and/or glucose challenge test from February 1, 2019 to July 31, 2019 and from February 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020 were identified, and the 2019 and 2020 groups were compared. The primary outcome was a positive screen, defined as ≥13 and ≥15 for postnatal and prenatal screens, respectively. Secondary outcomes included monthly changes in rates of positive screens and factors associated with perinatal depression. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square, or Fisher exact test, and univariate and multivariate analyses with P<.05 defined as significant. RESULTS: A total of 1366 records met the inclusion criteria; 75% of the prepandemic (2019) records were included, as opposed to 65% of pandemic (2020) records due to a lower screen completion rate in the pandemic cohort. The 2020 cohort had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients (P=.003) and higher rates of diabetes mellitus (P=.007), preterm labor (P=.03), and current or former drug use (P<.001). The 2019 cohort had higher rates of hypertension (P=.002) and breastfeeding (P=.03); 4.6% of the 2020 cohort had a suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There was no difference in perinatal depression between the 2019 and 2020 cohorts (2.8% vs 2.6%; P>.99). This finding persisted after adjusting for baseline differences (adjusted odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.86; P=.76). There were no differences in rates of positive Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale by month. Several risk factors were associated with a positive screen, including being unmarried (P<.001), pulmonary disease (P=.02), depression (P<.001), anxiety (P=.01), bipolar disorder (P=.009), and use of anxiolytics (P=.04). CONCLUSION: There were no differences in the rates of perinatal depression between the periods before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of perinatal depression in this cohort was below the reported averages in the literature. Fewer women were screened for perinatal depression in 2020, which likely underestimated the prevalence of depression in our cohort. These findings highlight potential gaps in care in a pandemic setting.

Postpartum depression, mode of delivery, and indication for unscheduled cesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between postpartum depression (PPD), mode of delivery (MOD), and indication for unscheduled cesarean delivery (uCD). METHODS: Patients with antenatal and postpartum Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) scores were compared by MOD and indication for uCD if applicable. Patients with an antenatal EPDS>12 were excluded to ascertain the incidence of new depression. The primary outcome was EPDS≥13 by MOD. The secondary outcome was EPDS≥13 by indication for uCD. RESULTS: Seven hundred and thirty eight patients met inclusion criteria. There were statistically significant differences in MOD by age, race, BMI, and multi-gestation pregnancy. Patients delivered via uCD had a higher rate of peripartum complications and NICU admission. There were no differences in medical comorbidities or use of psychiatric medications by MOD. There was no difference in EPDS by MOD. The rate of PPD was higher in patients with uCD for non-reassuring fetal heart tones (NRFHT) compared to other indications for uCD (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: While there was no difference in the incidence of PPD by MOD, the incidence of PPD was higher among patients delivered via uCD for NRFHT. These findings may have implications for patient counseling, post-operative mental health surveillance, and support of postpartum patients.

Predictors of severe and critical disease in pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread widely in the US and worldwide. Pregnant women are more likely to develop severe or critical illness than their non-pregnant counterparts. Known risk factors for severe and critical disease outside of pregnancy, such as asthma, diabetes, and obesity have not been well-studied in pregnancy. We aimed to determine which clinical and pregnancy-related factors were associated with severe and critical COVID illness in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of women with confirmed intrauterine pregnancy and positive nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 who presented to an academic medical center in New York City from 1 March 2020 to 1 July 2020. Severe and critical COVID-19 disease was defined by World Health Organization criteria. Women with severe/critical disease were compared to women with asymptomatic/mild disease. Continuous variables were compared with Mann-Whitney or t-test and categorical variables were compared using chi-square and Fisher's exact. Statistical significance was set at p < .05. Multivariable logistic regression was performed including variables that were significantly different between groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-three patients were included, 186 (79.8%) with asymptomatic/mild disease and 47 (20.2%) with severe/critical disease. Women with asymptomatic/mild disease were compared to those with severe/critical disease. Women with severe/critical disease were more likely to have a history of current or former smoking (19.6 vs. 5.4%, p = .004), COVID-19 diagnosis in the 2nd trimester (42.6 vs. 11.8%, p = .001), and asthma or other respiratory condition (21.3 vs. 7.0%, p = .01). Women with severe/critical disease were more likely to have cesarean delivery (35.5 vs. 15.6%, p < .01) and preterm delivery <37 weeks (25.8 vs. 3.8%, p < .01). After adjustment, history of smoking remained significantly predictive of severe/critical disease [aOR 3.84 (95% CI, 1.25-11.82)]. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women with a history of smoking, asthma, or other respiratory condition, and COVID-19 diagnosis in the second trimester of pregnancy were more likely to develop severe/critical disease. These findings may be useful in counseling women on their individual risk of developing the severe or critical disease in pregnancy and may help determine which women are good candidates for vaccination during pregnancy.

COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy: early experience from a single institution.

OBJECTIVE: Pregnant women are at increased risk for morbidity owing to infection with the COVID-19 virus.1 Vaccination presents an important strategy to mitigate illness in this population. However, there is a paucity of data on vaccination safety and pregnancy outcomes because pregnant women were excluded from the initial phase III clinical trials. Our objective was to describe the maternal, neonatal, and obstetrical outcomes of women who received a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination while pregnant during the first 4 months of vaccine availability. STUDY DESIGN: This was an institutional review board-approved descriptive study of pregnant women at New York University Langone Health who received at least 1 dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccination approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) from the time of the FDA Emergency Use Authorization to April 22, 2021. Eligible women were identified via search of the electronic medical record (EMR) system. Vaccine administration was ascertained via immunization records from the New York State Department of Health. Women were excluded if they were vaccinated before conception or during the postpartum period. Charts were reviewed for maternal demographics and pregnancy outcomes. Descriptive analyses were performed using the R software version 4.0.2 (The R Foundation, Boston, MA). RESULTS: We identified 424 pregnant women who received an mRNA vaccination. Of those, 348 (82.1%) received both doses and 76 (17.9%) received only 1 dose. The maternal characteristics and vaccination information are shown in Table 1. Of the included women, 4.9% had a history of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis before vaccination. After vaccination, no patient in our cohort was diagnosed with COVID-19. In terms of the pregnancy outcomes, 9 women had spontaneous abortions, 3 terminated their pregnancies, and 327 have ongoing pregnancies. Of the women included, 85 delivered liveborn infants. There were no stillbirths in our population. Of the 9 spontaneous abortions, 8 occurred during the first trimester at a range of 6 to 13 weeks' gestation. There was 1 second trimester loss. The rate of spontaneous abortion among women vaccinated in the first trimester was 6.5%. The 327 women with ongoing pregnancies have been followed for a median of 4.6 weeks (range, 0-17 weeks) following their most recent dose. A total of 113 (34.6%) women, initiated vaccination during the first trimester, 178 (54.4%) initiated vaccination during the second trimester, and 36 (11.0%) during the third trimester. Following the vaccination, 2 fetuses (0.6%) developed intrauterine growth restriction, whereas 5 (1.5%) were diagnosed with anomalies. Outcomes for the 85 women who delivered are shown in Table 2. Of the women who delivered, 18.8% were diagnosed with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. The rate of preterm birth was 5.9%. One preterm delivery was medically indicated, whereas the remaining 3 were spontaneous. A total of 15.3% of neonates required admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Of the NICU admissions, 61.5% were because of hypoglycemia or an evaluation for sepsis. Other reasons for admission included prematurity, hypothermia, and transient tachypnea of the newborn. Of all the neonates, 12.2% were small for gestational age (SGA) per the World Health Organization standards. CONCLUSION: This series describes our experience with women who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. In line with other published findings,2 we observed no concerning trends. There were no stillbirths. Our 6.5% rate of spontaneous abortion is within the expected rate of 10%,3 and our preterm birth rate of 5.9% is below the national average of 9.5%.4 Our rate of pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders is higher than our baseline institutional rate of 9.5%, however, this may be because of the underlying characteristics of our study population or skewing of our small sample size. Our 12.2% rate of SGA neonates is near the expected value based on the definition that 10% of neonates will be SGA at birth. The NICU admission rate is at par with our institutional rate of 12%. To date, most women in this series have had uncomplicated pregnancies and have delivered at-term. Strengths of this study include using the EMR system to identify subjects and gather data. We did not rely on self-enrollment and self-report, thereby reducing selection and recall bias. By performing manual chart reviews, we obtained detailed and reliable information about individual patients. One limitation of this study is the lack of a matched control group consisting of unvaccinated pregnant women and therefore direct conclusions could not be drawn about the relative risks of complications. In addition, our cohort is small and may not be generalizable. Finally, many women included are healthcare workers who had early access to vaccinations. As more pregnant women become eligible for the COVID-19 vaccinations, there is an urgent need to report on the maternal, neonatal, and obstetrical outcomes of COVID-19 vaccinations during pregnancy. The results of this study can be used to counsel and reassure pregnant patients facing this decision.

Differential Uptake of Telehealth for Prenatal Care in a Large New York City Academic Obstetrical Practice during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in New York City, telehealth was rapidly implemented for obstetric patients. Though telehealth for prenatal care is safe and effective, significant concerns exist regarding equity in access among low-income populations. We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating utilization of telehealth for prenatal care in a large academic practice in New York City, comparing women with public and private insurance. We found that patients with public insurance were less likely to have at least one telehealth visit than women with private insurance (60.9 vs. 87.3%, p < 0.001). After stratifying by borough, this difference remained significant in Brooklyn, one of the boroughs hardest hit by the pandemic. As COVID-19 continues to spread around the country, obstetric providers must work to ensure that all patients, particularly those with public insurance, have equal access to telehealth. KEY POINTS: · Telehealth for prenatal care is frequently utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic.. · Significant concerns exist regarding equity in access among lower-income populations.. · Women with public insurance in New York City were less likely to access telehealth for prenatal care..

COVID-19 in pregnancy: creating an outpatient surveillance model in a public hospital system.

Objectives We describe a standardized, scalable outpatient surveillance model for pregnant women with COVID-19 with several objectives: (1) to identify and track known, presumed, and suspected COVID-positive pregnant patients both during their acute illness and after recovery, (2) to regularly assess patient symptoms and escalate care for those with worsening disease while reducing unnecessary hospital exposure for others, (3) to educate affected patients on warning symptoms, hygiene, and quarantine recommendations, and (4) to cohort patient care, isolating stable infected patients at home and later within the same physical clinic area upon their return to prenatal care. Methods Pregnant women in an urban public hospital system with presumed or confirmed COVID-19 were added to a list in our electronic medical record as they came to the attention of providers. They received a series of phone calls based on their illness severity and were periodically assessed until deemed stable. Results A total of 83 patients were followed between March 19 and May 31, 2020. Seven (8%) were asymptomatic, 62 (75%) had mild disease, 11 (13%) had severe disease, and three (4%) had critical illness. Conclusions We encourage others to develop and utilize outpatient surveillance systems to facilitate appropriate care and to optimize maternal and fetal well-being.