What Is the Prevalence of Measles Immunity among Pregnant Women?

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of measles immunity in a cohort of pregnant women in New York City and determine if there is a positive correlation of measles immunity with patient demographics, rubella immunity, number of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) doses received, and age at last vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study of pregnant patients seen at a single institution from January 2019 to May 2019. Patients were classified as measles and rubella immune or nonimmune using commercial immunoglobulin G (IgG) tests. Patient characteristics were compared using t-tests, Chi-square tests, or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate. The association of age at last vaccination with immunity status was assessed using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age at presentation. The utility of rubella IgG for distinguishing measles immunity was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: Serologic immunity for measles and rubella was obtained for 1,366 patients. Of these, 1,047 (77%) were measles immune and 1,291 (95%) were rubella immune. Patients born after 1989 were less likely to be immune to measles, while multiparity and private insurance were associated with increased measles immunity. Documentation of MMR vaccination was available for 140 (10%) patients. Of these, 44 (31%) were serologically nonimmune to measles and 9 (6.4%) were nonimmune to rubella. In patients known to have received one dose of MMR, 62% (24/39) were immune to measles with an improvement to 72% (69/96) among those who received two or more doses. Age at last vaccination was not associated with measles immunity. Rubella IgG level was a poor predictor of positive measles titer (area under the curve = 0.59). CONCLUSION: Approximately one of every four pregnant patients is serologically measles nonimmune, even among women with documented MMR vaccination or documented rubella immunity. These findings raise concerns that relying on vaccination history or rubella immune status may not be sufficient to assure protection from infection with measles. If further suggests that measles serology should be added to routine prenatal laboratory testing to identify nonimmune patients that may benefit from postpartum vaccination. KEY POINTS: · Approximately one of every four pregnant patients were serologically measles nonimmune.. · Rubella immunoglobulin G was a poor predictor of measles immunity status.. · Measles serology should be added to routine prenatal laboratory testing..

Integrating Microarrays into Routine Prenatal Diagnosis: Determinants of Decision Making.

OBJECTIVES: The explosion in genetic technologies, including array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), has increased the complexity of genetic counseling. We now offer chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and aCGH to all first-trimester patients, as this allows the prenatal diagnosis of an additional 1% of anomalies not otherwise detectable and can detect genetic copy number variants at a much higher resolution than conventional cytogenetics. Here, we explored some of the determinants of how patients are deciding to use or not use this new technology and evaluate risk-benefit analyses for that decision. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study of singleton and multiples pregnancies at our center. Those having aCGH testing along with CVS were defined as 'testers' and those who declined aCGH but had the CVS were 'nontesters'. RESULTS: Demographic data of 181 educated women who chose CVS were compared. Among those carrying singletons (n = 144), older women, defined as over 35 years of age (or 'advanced maternal age'; AMA), were more likely to choose the aCGH than younger women. Further, women who had a prior history of genetic testing and who wanted to know the gender of the fetus were more likely to choose the aCGH test. In women carrying multiples (n = 37), AMA ceases to be a predictor of choice. Having had prior genetic counseling remains a strong predictor for choosing aCGH, as does wanting to know the gender of the fetus. Neither prior abortions nor having prior children were significant for women carrying singletons or multiples. CONCLUSION: Offering pregnant couples an individualized choice regarding aCGH seems an appropriate approach. There are discrete patterns associated with the choice of taking the aCGH that varied depending on whether the patient was carrying a singleton or multiples.

Amniotic fluid embolism: despite progress, challenges remain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews the incidence, pathophysiology, risk factors, diagnosis, and management of amniotic fluid embolism (AFE). RECENT FINDINGS: AFE is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality despite an incidence of approximately 7 to 8 per 100,000 births. Recent reevaluation of AFE suggests that the presence of fetal tissue in maternal circulation alone is not sufficient to cause the clinical syndrome, but rather an individual's response to this fetal tissue. The 'anaphylactoid reaction' associated with AFE shares many clinical and metabolic aspects of septic shock. Acute dyspnea followed by cardiovascular collapse, coagulopathy, and neurological symptoms, such as coma and seizures may all be associated with the clinical AFE syndrome. Specific biochemical markers have been described, but are of limited clinical value because of the rapid progression of the disease process. Treatment is based on an interdisciplinary approach that consists of a combination of prompt, aggressive hemodynamic resuscitation, provision of end-organ support, correction of hemostatic disorders, and delivery. SUMMARY: Although AFE cannot be prevented, early diagnosis and intervention may lead to better outcomes for both the mother and the fetus. Clinical suspicion, traditional laboratory data, or intravascular cellular debris (demonstrated only in 50% of patients) are insufficient to make a definitive diagnosis of AFE. An evolving array of novel biomarkers may help differentiate AFE from other conditions, but none of them currently provide sufficient 'early warning' ability to make real-time impact on diagnosis and/or treatment of AFE.