Safety and Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines During Pregnancy: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant persons are susceptible to significant complications following COVID-19, even death. However, worldwide COVID-19 vaccination coverage during pregnancy remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines administered to pregnant persons and shared this evidence via an interactive online website. METHODS: We followed Cochrane methods to conduct this living systematic review. We included studies assessing the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons. We conducted searches every other week for studies until October 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status, in ten databases, guidelines, preprint servers, and COVID-19 websites. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched to identify additional relevant studies. Pairs of review authors independently selected eligible studies using the web-based software COVIDENCE. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by pairs of authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of adjusted relative effects for relevant confounders of comparative studies and proportional meta-analyses to summarize frequencies from one-sample studies using R statistical software. We present the GRADE certainty of evidence from comparative studies. Findings are available on an interactive living systematic review webpage, including an updated evidence map and real-time meta-analyses customizable by subgroups and filters. RESULTS: We included 177 studies involving 638,791 participants from 41 countries. Among the 11 types of COVID-19 vaccines identified, the most frequently used platforms were mRNA (154 studies), viral vector (51), and inactivated virus vaccines (17). Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination may result in minimal to no important differences compared to no vaccination in all assessed maternal and infant safety outcomes from 26 fewer to 17 more events per 1000 pregnant persons, and 13 fewer to 9 more events per 1000 neonates, respectively. We found statistically significant reductions in emergency cesarean deliveries (9%) with mRNA vaccines, and in stillbirth (75-83%) with mRNA/viral vector vaccines. Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination during pregnancy with mRNA vaccines may reduce severe cases or hospitalizations in pregnant persons with COVID-19 (72%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 42-86), symptomatic COVID-19 (78%; 95% CI 21-94), and virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (82%; 95% CI 39-95). Reductions were lower with other vaccine types and during Omicron variant dominance than Alpha and Delta dominance. Infants also presented with fewer severe cases or hospitalizations due to COVID-19 and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (64%; 95% CI 37-80 and 66%; 95% CI 37-81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found a large body of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. While the certainty of evidence is not high, it stands as the most reliable option available, given the current absence of pregnant individuals in clinical trials. Results are shared in near real time in an accessible and interactive format for scientists, decision makers, clinicians, and the general public. This living systematic review highlights the relevance of continuous vaccine safety and effectiveness monitoring, particularly in at-risk populations for COVID-19 impact such as pregnant persons, during the introduction of new vaccines. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021281290.

User-reported quality of care: findings from the first round of the People's Voice Survey in 14 countries.

High-quality care is essential for improving health outcomes, although many health systems struggle to maintain good quality. We use data from the People's Voice Survey-a nationally representative survey conducted in 14 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries-to describe user-reported quality of most recent health care in the past 12 months. We described ratings for 14 measures of care competence, system competence, and user experience and assessed the relationship between visit quality factors and user recommendation of the facility. We disaggregated the data by high-need and underserved groups. The proportion of respondents rating their most recent visit as high quality ranged from 25% in Laos to 74% in the USA. The mean facility recommendation score was 7·7 out of 10. Individuals with high needs or who are underserved reported lower-quality services on average across countries. Countries with high health expenditure per capita tended to have better care ratings than countries with low health expenditure. Visit quality factors explained a high proportion of variation in facility recommendations relative to facility or demographic factors. These results show that user-reported quality is low but increases with high national health expenditure. Elevating care quality will require monitoring and improvements on multiple dimensions of care quality, especially in public systems.

Inequalities in health system coverage and quality: a cross-sectional survey of four Latin American countries.

The premise of health as a human right in Latin America has been challenged by health system fragmentation, quality gaps, a growing burden of chronic disease, sociopolitical upheaval, and the COVID-19 pandemic. We characterised inequities in health system quality in Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay. We did a cross-sectional telephone survey with up to 1250 adults in each country. We created binary outcomes in coverage, user experience, system competence, and confidence in the system and calculated the slope index of inequality by income and education. Although access to care was high, only a third of respondents reported having a high-quality source of care and 25% of those with mental health needs had those needs met. Two-thirds of adults were able to access relevant preventive care and 42% of older adults were screened for cardiovascular disease. Telehealth access, communication and autonomy in most recent visit, reasonable waiting times, and receiving preventive health checks showed inequalities favouring people with a high income. In Uruguay, inequality between government and social security services explained a substantial proportion of disparities in preventive health access. In other study countries, inequalities were also substantial within government and social security subsectors. Essential health system functions are unequal in these four Latin American countries.

Health system quality and COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional analysis in 14 countries.

The social and behavioural determinants of COVID-19 vaccination have been described previously. However, little is known about how vaccinated people use and rate their health system. We used surveys conducted in 14 countries to study the health system correlates of COVID-19 vaccination. Country-specific logistic regression models were adjusted for respondent age, education, income, chronic illness, history of COVID-19, urban residence, and minority ethnic, racial, or linguistic group. Estimates were summarised across countries using random effects meta-analysis. Vaccination coverage with at least two or three doses ranged from 29% in India to 85% in Peru. Greater health-care use, having a regular and high-quality provider, and receiving other preventive health services were positively associated with vaccination. Confidence in the health system and government also increased the odds of vaccination. By contrast, having unmet health-care needs or experiencing discrimination or a medical mistake decreased the odds of vaccination. Associations between health system predictors and vaccination tended to be stronger in high-income countries and in countries with the most COVID-19-related deaths. Access to quality health systems might affect vaccine decisions. Building strong primary care systems and ensuring a baseline level of quality that is affordable for all should be central to pandemic preparedness strategies.

Measuring people's views on health system performance: Design and development of the People's Voice Survey.

Todd Lewis and co-authors discuss development and use of the People's Voice Survey for health system assessment.

A systematic review of population and patient perspectives and experiences as measured in Latin American and Caribbean surveys.

High-quality health systems must provide accessible, people-centred care to both improve health and maintain population trust in health services. Furthermore, accurate measurement of population perspectives is vital to hold health systems accountable and to inform improvement efforts. To describe the current state of such measures in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), we conducted a systematic review of facility and population-based assessments that included patient-reported experience and satisfaction measures. Five databases were searched for publications on quantitative surveys assessing healthcare quality in Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking LAC countries, focusing on the domains of processes of care and quality impacts. We included articles published since 2011 with a national sampling frame or inclusion of multiple subnational regions. We tabulated and described these articles, identifying, classifying and summarizing the items used to assess healthcare quality into the domains mentioned earlier. Of the 5584 publications reviewed, 58 articles met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were cross-sectional (95%), assessed all levels of healthcare (57%) and were secondary analyses of existing surveys (86%). The articles yielded 33 unique surveys spanning 12 LAC countries; only eight of them are regularly administered surveys. The most common quality domains assessed were satisfaction (in 33 out of 58 articles, 57%), evidence-based/effective care (34%), waiting times (33%), clear communication (33%) and ease of use (31%). Items and reported ratings varied widely among instruments used, time points and geographical settings. Assessment of patient-reported quality measures through population- and facility-based surveys is present but heterogeneous in LAC countries. Satisfaction was measured frequently, although its use in accountability or informing quality improvement is limited. Measurement of healthcare quality in LAC needs to be more systematic, regular, comprehensive and to be led collaboratively by researchers, governments and policymakers to enable comparison of results across countries and to effectively inform policy implementation.

Quality improvement collaborative to optimize heart failure care in patients from a network of clinics in Argentina during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heart failure (HF) is a major clinical and public health problem associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and health-care costs. Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the optimal treatment of HF, the quality of care remains suboptimal. Our aim was to increase the use a care bundle in 50% of enrolled subjects during their hospitalization and discharge and to reduce their readmission for HF causes by 10%. We conducted an uncontrolled before-after study in eight hospitals in Argentina to evaluate the effect of a quality improvement intervention on the use of an HF care bundle in patients with HF New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II-III. The HF bundle of care included medication, continuum of care, lifestyle habits, and predischarge examinations. Training and follow-up of multidisciplinary teams in each center were performed through learning sessions and plan-do-study-act improvement cycles. Data collectors reviewed bundle compliance in the health records of recruited patients after their hospital discharge and verified readmissions through phone calls to patients within 30-40 days after discharge. We recruited 200 patients (83 before and 127 during the intervention phase), and bundle compliance increased from 9.6% to 28.3% [odds ratio 3.71, 95% confidence interval (8.46; 1.63); P = .002]. Despite a slow improvement during the first months, bundle compliance gained momentum near the end of the intervention surpassing 80%. We observed a non-significant decreased readmission rate within 30 days of discharge due to HF in the postintervention period [8.4% vs. 5.5%, odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI (1.88; 0.21); P = .410]. Qualitative analysis showed that members of the intervention teams acknowledged the improvement of work organization and standardization of care, teamwork, shared mental model, and health record completeness as well as the utility of training fellows. Despite the challenges related to the pandemic, better care of patients with HF NYHA Class II-III was possible through simple interventions and collaborative work. Graphical abstract.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of COVID-19 vaccines safety during pregnancy is urgently needed. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components and technological platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy and animal studies to complement direct evidence. We searched literature databases from its inception to September 2021 without language restriction, COVID-19 vaccine websites, and reference lists of other systematic reviews and the included studies. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, data extracted, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. (PROSPERO CRD42021234185). RESULTS: We retrieved 8,837 records from the literature search; 71 studies were included, involving 17,719,495 pregnant persons and 389 pregnant animals. Most studies (94%) were conducted in high-income countries, were cohort studies (51%), and 15% were classified as high risk of bias. We identified nine COVID-19 vaccine studies, seven involving 309,164 pregnant persons, mostly exposed to mRNA vaccines. Among non-COVID-19 vaccines, the most frequent exposures were AS03 and aluminum-based adjuvants. A meta-analysis of studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed no association with adverse outcomes, regardless of the vaccine or the trimester of vaccination. Neither the reported rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes nor reactogenicity exceeded expected background rates, which was the case for ASO3- or aluminum-adjuvanted non-COVID-19 vaccines in the proportion meta-analyses of uncontrolled studies/arms. The only exception was postpartum hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccination (10.40%; 95% CI: 6.49-15.10%), reported by two studies; however, the comparison with non-exposed pregnant persons, available for one study, found non-statistically significant differences (adjusted OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.56-2.12). Animal studies showed consistent results with studies in pregnant persons. CONCLUSION: We found no safety concerns for currently administered COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Additional experimental and real-world evidence could enhance vaccination coverage. Robust safety data for non-mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are still needed.

Safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous vaccines have been evaluated and approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since pregnant persons have been excluded from most clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, sufficient data regarding the safety of these vaccines for the pregnant person and their fetus have rarely been available at the time of product licensure. However, as COVID-19 vaccines have been deployed, data on the safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and neonates are becoming increasingly available. A living systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and newborns could provide the information necessary to help guide vaccine policy decisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis based on biweekly searches of medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries to systematically identify relevant studies of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons. Pairs of reviewers will independently select, extract data, and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, and case reports. Primary outcomes will be the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons, including neonatal outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be immunogenicity and reactogenicity. We will conduct paired meta-analyses, including prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We will use the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Data collection systems for active safety surveillance of vaccines during pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries: developing and piloting an assessment tool (VPASS).

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for active safety surveillance to monitor vaccine exposure during pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Existing maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) data collection systems could serve as platforms for post-marketing active surveillance of maternal immunization safety. To identify sites using existing systems, a thorough assessment should be conducted. Therefore, this study had the objectives to first develop an assessment tool and then to pilot this tool in sites using MNCH data collection systems through virtual informant interviews. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of the literature to identify frameworks on population health or post-marketing drug surveillance. Four frameworks that met the eligibility criteria were identified and served to develop an assessment tool capable of evaluating sites that could support active monitoring of vaccine safety during pregnancy. We conducted semi-structured interviews in six geographical sites using MNCH data collection systems (DHIS2, INDEPTH, and GNMNHR) to pilot domains included in the assessment tool. RESULTS: We developed and piloted the "VPASS (Vaccines during Pregnancy - sites supporting Active Safety Surveillance) assessment tool" through interviews with nine stakeholders, including central-level systems key informants and site-level managers from DHIS2 and GNMNHR; DHIS2 in Kampala (Uganda) and Kigali (Rwanda); GNMNHR from Belagavi (India) and Lusaka (Zambia); and INDEPTH from Nanoro (Burkina Faso) and Manhica (Mozambique). The tool includes different domains such as the system's purpose, the scale of implementation, data capture and confidentiality, type of data collected, the capability of integration with other platforms, data management policies and data quality monitoring. Similarities among sites were found regarding some domains, such as data confidentiality, data management policies, and data quality monitoring. Four of the six sites met some domains to be eligible as potential sites for active surveillance of vaccinations during pregnancy, such as a routine collection of MNCH individual data and the capability of electronically integrating individual MNCH outcomes with information related to vaccine exposure during pregnancy. Those sites were: Rwanda (DHIS2), Manhica (IN-DEPTH), Lusaka (GNMNHR), and Belagavi (GNMNHR). CONCLUSION: This study's findings should inform the successful implementation of active safety surveillance of vaccines during pregnancy by identifying and using active individual MNCH data collection systems in LMICs.

Ecografía para prevenir lesiones del nervio sural en la reparación del tendón de Aquiles. Estudio cadavérico / Ultrasound to prevent sural nerve injury in Achilles tendon repair. A cadaveric study

Introducción: Las técnicas mínimamente invasivas son las preferidas para tratar las roturas agudas del tendón de Aquiles. Representan una opción para evitar las complicaciones tegumentarias, y la lesión del nervio sural es uno de sus principales problemas. El objetivo de este estudio fue comprobar la utilidad de la ecografía para prevenir la lesión del nervio sural durante la reparación del tendón de Aquiles con técnicas percutáneas. materiales y métodos: Estudio en 12 piezas cadavéricas. Se recreó una lesión en el tendón de Aquiles 5 cm proximales de su inserción distal. En uno de los miembros del cadáver, se identificó el nervio sural o su vena satélite mediante ecografía. Se reparó el nervio sural por vía percutánea con dos agujas proximales y dos agujas distales a la lesión, y se representó el recorrido del nervio sural. En el miembro contralateral, no se identificó el nervio sural mediante ecografía. Se efectuó la reparación percutánea de las lesiones mediante la técnica de Ma y Griffith. Resultados: En el grupo ecográfico, no se identificaron lesiones del nervio sural. En el grupo de control, se observaron dos lesiones del nervio sural (p = 0,6). En todos los casos, la identificación del nervio sural mediante ecografía fue correcta. Conclusión: La asistencia ecográfica en el tratamiento percutáneo de las lesiones del tendón de Aquiles es un método eficaz y confiable para evitar las lesiones del nervio sural. Nivel de Evidencia: III

Introduction: Minimally invasive techniques are preferred to treat acute Achilles tendon ruptures. They represent an option to avoid integumentary complications, and sural nerve injury is one of its main problems. This study aims to verify the usefulness of ultrasound in preventing sural nerve injury during Achilles repair with percutaneous techniques. materials and methods: Study in 12 cadaveric pieces. We recreated an injury at the level of the Achilles tendon, 5 cm proximally to its distal insertion. In one of the cadaver limbs, the sural nerve and/or its satellite vein were identified by ultrasonography. We repaired the sural nerve percutaneously with two needles at the proximal level and two needles at the distal level of the lesion and represented the path of the sural nerve. In the contralateral limb, the sural nerve was not identified by ultrasound. We performed the percutaneous repair of the injuries using the Ma & Griffith technique. Results: In the ultrasound group, no sural nerve injuries were identified. In the control group, two sural nerve injuries were observed (p=0.6). In all cases, the identification of the sural nerve by ultrasound was correct. Conclusion: Ultrasound assistance in the percutaneous treatment of Achilles tendon injuries is an effective and reliable method to prevent sural nerve injuries. Level of Evidence: III

Safety of components and platforms of COVID-19 vaccines considered for use in pregnancy: A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Rapid assessment of COVID-19 vaccine safety during pregnancy is urgently needed. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review, to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines selected by the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access-Maternal Immunization Working Group in August 2020, including their components and their technological platforms used in other vaccines for pregnant persons. We searched literature databases, COVID-19 vaccine pregnancy registries, and explored reference lists from the inception date to February 2021 without language restriction. Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies through COVIDENCE, and performed the data extraction and the risk of bias assessment. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021234185). RESULTS: We retrieved 6757 records and 12 COVID-19 pregnancy registries from the search strategy; 38 clinical and non-clinical studies (involving 2,398,855 pregnant persons and 56 pregnant animals) were included. Most studies (89%) were conducted in high-income countries and were cohort studies (57%). Most studies (76%) compared vaccine exposures with no exposure during the three trimesters of pregnancy. The most frequent exposure was to AS03 adjuvant, in the context of A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccines, (n = 24) and aluminum-based adjuvants (n = 11). Only one study reported exposure to messenger RNA in lipid nanoparticles COVID-19 vaccines. Except for one preliminary report about A/H1N1 influenza vaccination (adjuvant AS03), corrected by the authors in a more thorough analysis, all studies concluded that there were no safety concerns. CONCLUSION: This rapid review found no evidence of pregnancy-associated safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines or of their components or platforms when used in other vaccines. However, the need for further data on several vaccine platforms and components is warranted, given their novelty. Our findings support current WHO guidelines recommending that pregnant persons may consider receiving COVID-19 vaccines, particularly if they are at high risk of exposure or have comorbidities that enhance the risk of severe disease.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines, their components or their platforms for pregnant women: A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with COVID-19 are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness as well as adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Many countries are vaccinating or considering vaccinating pregnant women with limited available data about the safety of this strategy. Early identification of safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components, or their technological platforms is therefore urgently needed. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review, as the first phase of an ongoing full systematic review, to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women, including their components, and their technological platforms (whole virus, protein, viral vector or nucleic acid) used in other vaccines, following the Cochrane methods and the PRISMA statement for reporting (PROSPERO-CRD42021234185).We searched literature databases, COVID-19 and pregnancy registries from inception February 2021 without time or language restriction and explored the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews retrieved. We selected studies of any methodological design that included at least 50 pregnant women or pregnant animals exposed to the vaccines that were selected for review by the COVAX MIWG in August 2020 or their components or platforms included in the COVID-19 vaccines, and evaluated adverse events during pregnancy and the neonatal period.Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies through the COVIDENCE web software and performed the data extraction through a previously piloted online extraction form. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: We identified 6768 records, 256 potentially eligible studies were assessed by full-text, and 37 clinical and non-clinical studies (38 reports, involving 2,397,715 pregnant women and 56 pregnant animals) and 12 pregnancy registries were included.Most studies (89%) were conducted in high-income countries. The most frequent study design was cohort studies (n=21), followed by surveillance studies, randomized controlled trials, and registry analyses. Most studies (76%) allowed comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women (n=25) or animals (n=3) and reported exposures during the three trimesters of pregnancy.The most frequent exposure was to AS03 adjuvant in the context of A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccines (n=24), followed by aluminum-based adjuvants (n=11). Aluminum phosphate was used in Respiratory Syncytial Virus Fusion candidate vaccines (n=3) and Tdap vaccines (n=3). Different aluminum-based adjuvants were used in hepatitis vaccines. The replication-deficient simian adenovirus ChAdOx1 was used for a Rift Valley fever vaccine. Only one study reported exposure to messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines that also used lipid nanoparticles. Except for one preliminary report about A/H1N1 influenza vaccination (adjuvant AS03) - corrected by the authors in a more thorough analysis, all studies concluded that there were no safety concerns. CONCLUSION: This rapid review found no evidence of pregnancy-associated safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines that were selected for review by the COVAX MIWG or of their components or platforms when used in other vaccines. However, the need for further data on several vaccine platforms and components is warranted given their novelty. Our findings support current WHO guidelines recommending that pregnant women may consider receiving COVID-19 vaccines, particularly if they are at high risk of exposure or have comorbidities that enhance the risk of severe disease.

COVID-19 and pregnancy: An umbrella review of clinical presentation, vertical transmission, and maternal and perinatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) summarizing the best evidence regarding the effect of COVID-19 on maternal and child health following Cochrane methods and PRISMA statement for reporting (PROSPERO-CRD42020208783). METHODS: We searched literature databases and COVID-19 research websites from January to October 2020. We selected relevant SRs reporting adequate search strategy, data synthesis, risk of bias assessment, and/or individual description of included studies describing COVID-19 and pregnancy outcomes. Pair of reviewers independently selected studies through COVIDENCE web-software, performed the data extraction, and assessed its quality through the AMSTAR-2 tool. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Each SR's results were synthesized and for the most recent, relevant, comprehensive, and with the highest quality, by predefined criteria, we presented GRADE evidence tables. RESULTS: We included 66 SRs of observational studies out of 608 references retrieved and most (61/66) had "critically low" overall quality. We found a relatively low degree of primary study overlap across SRs. The most frequent COVID-19 clinical findings during pregnancy were fever (28-100%), mild respiratory symptoms (20-79%), raised C-reactive protein (28-96%), lymphopenia (34-80%), and pneumonia signs in diagnostic imaging (7-99%). The most frequent maternal outcomes were C-section (23-96%) and preterm delivery (14-64%). Most of their babies were asymptomatic (16-93%) or presented fever (0-50%), low birth weight (5-43%) or preterm delivery (2-69%). The odds ratio (OR) of receiving invasive ventilation for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 pregnant women was 1.88 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.36-2.60) and the OR that their babies were admitted to neonatal intensive care unit was 3.13 (95%CI 2.05-4.78). The risk of congenital transmission or via breast milk was estimated to be low, but close contacts may carry risks. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive overview supports that pregnant women with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes and low risk of congenital transmission.

The development of the WHO Labour Care Guide: an international survey of maternity care providers.

BACKGROUND: The partograph is the most commonly used labour monitoring tool in the world. However, it has been used incorrectly or inconsistently in many settings. In 2018, a WHO expert group reviewed and revised the design of the partograph in light of emerging evidence, and they developed the first version of the Labour Care Guide (LCG). The objective of this study was to explore opinions of skilled health personnel on the first version of the WHO Labour Care Guide. METHODS: Skilled health personnel (including obstetricians, midwives and general practitioners) of any gender from Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America were identified through a large global research network. Country coordinators from the network invited 5 to 10 mid-level and senior skilled health personnel who had worked in labour wards anytime in the last 5 years. A self-administered, anonymous, structured, online questionnaire including closed and open-ended questions was designed to assess the clarity, relevance, appropriateness of the frequency of recording, and the completeness of the sections and variables on the LCG. RESULTS: A total of 110 participants from 23 countries completed the survey between December 2018 and January 2019. Variables included in the LCG were generally considered clear, relevant and to have been recorded at the appropriate frequency. Most sections of the LCG were considered complete. Participants agreed or strongly agreed with the overall design, structure of the LCG, and the usefulness of reference thresholds to trigger further assessment and actions. They also agreed that LCG could potentially have a positive impact on clinical decision-making and respectful maternity care. Participants disagreed with the value of some variables, including coping, urine, and neonatal status. CONCLUSIONS: Future end-users of WHO Labour Care Guide considered the variables to be clear, relevant and appropriate, and, with minor improvements, to have the potential to positively impact clinical decision-making and respectful maternity care.

A multifaceted intervention to improve syphilis screening and treatment in pregnant women in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Lusaka, Zambia: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite international recommendations, coverage of syphilis testing in pregnant women and treatment of those found seropositive remains limited in sub-Saharan Africa. We assessed whether combining the provision of supplies with a behavioural intervention was more effective than providing supplies only, to improve syphilis screening and treatment during antenatal care. METHODS: In this 18-month, cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) 26 urban antenatal care clinics in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Lusaka, Zambia, to receive a behavioural intervention (opinion leader selection, academic detailing visits, reminders, audits and feedback, and supportive supervision) plus supplies for syphilis testing and treatment (intervention group) or to receive supplies only (control group). The primary outcomes were proportion of pregnant women who had syphilis screening out of the total who attended the clinic; and the proportion of women who had treatment with benzathine benzylpenicillin out of those who tested positive for syphilis at their first antenatal care visit. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02353117. FINDINGS: The 18-month study period was Feb 1, 2016, to July 14, 2017. 18 357 women were enrolled at the 13 intervention clinics and 17 679 women were enrolled at the 13 control clinics at their first antenatal care visit. Syphilis screening was done in a median of 99·9% (IQR 99·0-100·0) of women in the intervention clinics and 93·8% (85·0-98·9) in the control clinics (absolute difference 6·1% [95% CI 1·1-14·1]; p=0·00092). Syphilis treatment at the first visit was done in a median of 100% (IQR 99·7-100·0) of seropositive women in intervention clinics and 43·2% (2·6-83·2) of seropositive women in control clinics (absolute difference 56·8% [12·8-99·0]; p=0·0028). INTERPRETATION: A behavioural intervention, together with the provision of supplies, can lead to more than 95% of women being screened and treated for syphilis. The sole provision of supplies is sufficient to reach such levels of screening coverage but is not sufficient to ensure high levels of treatment. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Odon device for instrumental vaginal deliveries: results of a medical device pilot clinical study.

BACKGROUND: A prolonged and complicated second stage of labour is associated with serious perinatal complications. The Odon device is an innovation intended to perform instrumental vaginal delivery presently under development. We present an evaluation of the feasibility and safety of delivery with early prototypes of this device from an early terminated clinical study. METHODS: Hospital-based, multi-phased, open-label, pilot clinical study with no control group in tertiary hospitals in Argentina and South Africa. Multiparous and nulliparous women, with uncomplicated singleton pregnancies, were enrolled during the third trimester of pregnancy. Delivery with Odon device was attempted under non-emergency conditions during the second stage of labour. The feasibility outcome was delivery with the Odon device defined as successful expulsion of the fetal head after one-time application of the device. RESULTS: Of the 49 women enrolled, the Odon device was inserted successfully in 46 (93%), and successful Odon device delivery as defined above was achieved in 35 (71%) women. Vaginal, first and second degree perineal tears occurred in 29 (59%) women. Four women had cervical tears. No third or fourth degree perineal tears were observed. All neonates were born alive and vigorous. No adverse maternal or infant outcomes were observed at 6-weeks follow-up for all dyads, and at 1 year for the first 30 dyads. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery using the Odon device is feasible. Observed genital tears could be due to the device or the process of delivery and assessment bias. Evaluating the effectiveness and safety of the further developed prototype of the BD Odon Device™ will require a randomized-controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR ACTRN12613000141741 Registered 06 February 2013. Retrospectively registered.