A Primer on Monkeypox Virus for Obstetrician-Gynecologists: Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment.

Since May 2022, more than 6,900 cases of monkeypox virus infection have been reported in 52 countries. The World Health Organization is planning to rename the virus and its clades to reduce stigma. As of July 5, 2022, 556 cases have been reported in 33 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The initial cases were travel-associated; however, person-to-person transmission is now occurring domestically. Close, sustained skin-to-skin contact, including during sexual activity, appears to be the primary mode of transmission. The risk of widespread community transmission remains low; however, rapid identification of monkeypox virus infection and isolation of affected individuals is critical to prevent further transmission. Most but not all cases have occurred in males; some infections have started with anogenital lesions and can be mistaken for common sexually transmitted infections. To facilitate rapid, accurate diagnosis of monkeypox virus infection, obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) in the United States should ask about recent travel history and new ulcers or lesions and perform a thorough visual inspection of skin and mucosal sites (oral, genital, perianal area) in patients presenting with new rash. Obstetrician-gynecologists should become familiar with the appearance of monkeypox lesions and know whom to call to report a suspected case, how and when to test for monkeypox virus, and how to counsel patients. In the event of a suspected case, ob-gyns should follow infection-control guidelines to prevent transmission and make recommendations to prevent further community spread. This article outlines the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of monkeypox virus infection, monkeypox virus infection during pregnancy, and implications for practicing ob-gyns in the United States.

Characteristics and treatment of hospitalized pregnant women with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women less frequently receive COVID-19 vaccination and are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes from COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to first, describe the vaccination status, treatment, and outcomes of hospitalized, symptomatic pregnant women with COVID-19, and second, estimate whether treatment differs by pregnancy status among treatment-eligible (ie, requiring supplemental oxygen per National Institutes of Health guidelines at the time of the study) women. STUDY DESIGN: From January to November 2021, the COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network completed medical chart abstraction for a probability sample of 2715 hospitalized women aged 15 to 49 years with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these, 1950 women had symptoms of COVID-19 on admission, and 336 were pregnant. We calculated weighted prevalence estimates of demographic and clinical characteristics, vaccination status, and outcomes among pregnant women with symptoms of COVID-19 on admission. We used propensity score matching to estimate prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals of treatment-eligible patients who received remdesivir or systemic steroids by pregnancy status. RESULTS: Among 336 hospitalized pregnant women with symptomatic COVID-19, 39.6% were non-Hispanic Black, 24.8% were Hispanic or Latino, and 61.9% were aged 25 to 34 years. Among those with known COVID-19 vaccination status, 92.9% were unvaccinated. One-third (32.7%) were treatment-eligible. Among treatment-eligible pregnant women, 74.1% received systemic steroids and 61.4% received remdesivir. Among those that were no longer pregnant at discharge (n=180), 5.4% had spontaneous abortions and 3.5% had stillbirths. Of the 159 live births, 29.0% were preterm. Among a propensity score-matched cohort of treatment-eligible hospitalized women of reproductive age, pregnant women were less likely than nonpregnant women to receive remdesivir (prevalence ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.97) and systemic steroids (prevalence ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.87). CONCLUSION: Most hospitalized pregnant patients with symptomatic COVID-19 were unvaccinated. Hospitalized pregnant patients were less likely to receive recommended remdesivir and systemic steroids compared with similar hospitalized nonpregnant women. Our results underscore the need to identify opportunities for improving COVID-19 vaccination, implementation of treatment of pregnant women, and the inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials.

Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons.

BACKGROUND: Many pregnant persons in the United States are receiving messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines, but data are limited on their safety in pregnancy. METHODS: From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, we used data from the "v-safe after vaccination health checker" surveillance system, the v-safe pregnancy registry, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to characterize the initial safety of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines in pregnant persons. RESULTS: A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons than among nonpregnant women, whereas headache, myalgia, chills, and fever were reported less frequently. Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported. Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against Covid-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic. Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.

Contraceptive Use Among Women at Risk for Unintended Pregnancy in the Context of Public Health Emergencies - United States, 2016.

Ensuring access to and promoting use of effective contraception have been identified as important strategies for preventing unintended pregnancy (1). The importance of ensuring resources to prevent unintended pregnancy in the context of public health emergencies was highlighted during the 2016 Zika virus outbreak when Zika virus infection during pregnancy was identified as a cause of serious birth defects (2). Accordingly, CDC outlined strategies for state, local, and territorial jurisdictions to consider implementing to ensure access to contraception (3). To update previously published contraceptive use estimates* among women at risk for unintended pregnancy† and to estimate the number of women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services,§,¶ data on contraceptive use were collected during September-December 2016 through the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Results from 21 jurisdictions indicated that most women aged 18-49 years were at risk for unintended pregnancy (range across jurisdictions = 57.4%-76.8%). Estimates of the number of women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services ranged from 368 to 617 per 1,000 women aged 18-49 years. The percentage of women at risk for unintended pregnancy using a most or moderately effective contraceptive method** ranged from 26.1% to 65.7%. Jurisdictions can use this information to estimate the number of women who might seek contraceptive services and to plan and evaluate efforts to increase contraceptive use. This information is particularly important in the context of public health emergencies, such as the recent Zika virus outbreak, which have been associated with increased risk for adverse maternal-infant outcomes (2,4-6) and have highlighted the importance of providing women and their partners with resources to prevent unintended pregnancy.

Preparing for biological threats: Addressing the needs of pregnant women.

Intentional release of infectious agents and biological weapons to cause illness and death has the potential to greatly impact pregnant women and their fetuses. We review what is known about the maternal and fetal effects of seven biological threats: Bacillus anthracis (anthrax); variola virus (smallpox); Clostridium botulinum toxin (botulism); Burkholderia mallei (glanders) and Burkholderia pseudomallei (melioidosis); Yersinia pestis (plague); Francisella tularensis (tularemia); and Rickettsia prowazekii (typhus). Evaluating the potential maternal, fetal, and infant consequences of an intentional release of an infectious agent requires an assessment of several key issues: (1) are pregnant women more susceptible to infection or illness compared to the general population?; (2) are pregnant women at increased risk for severe illness, morbidity, and mortality compared to the general population?; (3) does infection or illness during pregnancy place women, the fetus, or the infant at increased risk for adverse outcomes and how does this affect clinical management?; and (4) are the medical countermeasures recommended for the general population safe and effective during pregnancy? These issues help frame national guidance for the care of pregnant women during an intentional release of a biological threat. Birth Defects Research 109:391-398, 2017.© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Population-based pregnancy and birth defects surveillance in the era of Zika virus.

BACKGROUND: Zika virus is a newly recognized human teratogen; monitoring its impact on the birth prevalence of microcephaly and other adverse pregnancy outcomes will continue to be an urgent need in the United States and worldwide. METHODS: When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) activated the Emergency Operations Center for the Zika virus outbreak response in January of 2016, public health leadership recognized that a joint, coordinated effort was required between activities focused on the effects of the infection among pregnant women and those focused on birth defects in fetuses and infants. Before the introduction of Zika virus in the Americas, population-based birth defects surveillance occurred independently of pregnancy surveillance activities. RESULTS: The coordination of pregnancy surveillance and birth defects surveillance implemented through the CDC Zika virus response represents a paradigm shift. CONCLUSION: Coordination of these surveillance systems provides an opportunity to capture information from both a prospective and retrospective approach. This relatively modest investment in the public health infrastructure can continue to protect pregnant women and their infants during the ongoing response to Zika virus and in the next emergent threat to maternal and child health. Birth Defects Research 109:372-378, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Studying the effects of emerging infections on the fetus: Experience with West Nile and Zika viruses.

Emerging infections have the potential to produce adverse effects on the pregnant woman or her fetus; however, studying these effects is often challenging. We review our experiences with investigating the prenatal effects of two mosquito-borne infections that emerged in the past 2 decades, West Nile virus (WNV) and Zika virus. Concerns regarding teratogenicity were raised about both viruses; Zika virus has been confirmed to be teratogenic, while WNV appears not to increase the risk for adverse outcomes, although teratogenicity has not been excluded. Study designs used to examine the effects of both viruses include case reports and series, pregnancy registries, and cohort studies. Case-control studies and birth defects surveillance systems are being used to study the effects during pregnancy of Zika virus, but not the effects of WNV, because a specific phenotype was observed among infants with congenital Zika infection, but not among infants with congenital WNV infection. Experimental data that demonstrated that Zika virus was neurotropic have also been useful because they provided biologic plausibility for Zika virus's teratogenic effects: these findings were consistent with observations in congenitally infected infants. Challenges encountered with studies to evaluate the effects of these infections include the broad range of possible adverse outcomes, the inability to include all infected pregnant women in studies because many infections are asymptomatic, and the difficulty with interpretation of diagnostic testing of infants (WNV and Zika) and pregnant women (Zika). This review might be helpful to guide future studies of the effects of emerging infections during pregnancy. Birth Defects Research 109:363-371, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Baseline Prevalence of Birth Defects Associated with Congenital Zika Virus Infection - Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Atlanta, Georgia, 2013-2014.

Zika virus infection during pregnancy can cause serious brain abnormalities, but the full range of adverse outcomes is unknown (1). To better understand the impact of birth defects resulting from Zika virus infection, the CDC surveillance case definition established in 2016 for birth defects potentially related to Zika virus infection* (2) was retrospectively applied to population-based birth defects surveillance data collected during 2013-2014 in three areas before the introduction of Zika virus (the pre-Zika years) into the World Health Organization's Region of the Americas (Americas) (3). These data, from Massachusetts (2013), North Carolina (2013), and Atlanta, Georgia (2013-2014), included 747 infants and fetuses with one or more of the birth defects meeting the case definition (pre-Zika prevalence = 2.86 per 1,000 live births). Brain abnormalities or microcephaly were the most frequently recorded (1.50 per 1,000), followed by neural tube defects and other early brain malformations† (0.88), eye abnormalities without mention of a brain abnormality (0.31), and other consequences of central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction without mention of brain or eye abnormalities (0.17). During January 15-September 22, 2016, the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry (USZPR) reported 26 infants and fetuses with these same defects among 442 completed pregnancies (58.8 per 1,000) born to mothers with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy (2). Although the ascertainment methods differed, this finding was approximately 20 times higher than the proportion of one or more of the same birth defects among pregnancies during the pre-Zika years. These data demonstrate the importance of population-based surveillance for interpreting data about birth defects potentially related to Zika virus infection.