Acute Respiratory Failure in Pregnancy.

Respiratory failure may affect up to 1 in 500 pregnancies, due to pregnancy-specific conditions, conditions aggravated by the pregnant state, or other causes. Management during pregnancy is influenced by altered maternal physiology, and the presence of a fetus influencing imaging, and drug therapy choices. Few studies have addressed the approach to invasive mechanical ventilatory management in pregnancy. Hypoxemia is likely harmful to the fetus, but precise targets are unknown. Hypocapnia reduces uteroplacental circulation, and some degree of hypercapnia may be tolerated in pregnancy. Delivery of the fetus may be considered to improve maternal respiratory status but improvement does not always occur.

COVID-19 critical illness in pregnancy.

Although the pregnant population was affected by early waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing transmission and severity due to new viral variants has resulted in an increased incidence of severe illness during pregnancy in many regions. Critical illness and respiratory failure are relatively uncommon occurrences during pregnancy, and there are limited high-quality data to direct management. This paper reviews the current literature on COVID-19 management as it relates to pregnancy, and provides an overview of critical care support in these patients. COVID-19 drug therapy is similar to that used in the non-pregnant patient, including anti-inflammatory therapy with steroids and IL-6 inhibitors, although safety data are limited for antiviral drugs such as remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies. As both pregnancy and COVID-19 are thrombogenic, thromboprophylaxis is essential. Endotracheal intubation is a higher risk during pregnancy, but mechanical ventilation should follow usual principles. ICU management should be directed at optimizing maternal well-being, which in turn will benefit the fetus.

Inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women in nonobstetrical randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to prioritize and expedite the inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women in research. Characterizing trials that have successfully included these populations could inform the design and execution of future studies. In addition, up-to-date data on their inclusion in clinical research could assist in setting benchmarks, establishing targets, and monitoring progress toward more equitable inclusion. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the eligibility and enrollment of pregnant and breastfeeding women in randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for nonobstetrical conditions experienced by, but not limited to, these populations. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a literature search in collaboration with an information specialist. We included randomized controlled trials published between 2017 and 2019 in the 5 highest-impact general medicine journals and the 3 highest-impact specialty journals in cardiovascular disease, critical care, general infectious diseases, HIV, and psychiatry. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated screening, diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of nonobstetrical medical conditions. We excluded randomized controlled trials exclusively focused on males, pediatrics, geriatrics, oncology, or postmenopausal women, and publications reporting subgroup, pooled, or follow-up analyses of previously published randomized controlled trials. We screened titles and abstracts independently and in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. We entered data into a standardized electronic case report form. We reviewed study protocols, appendices, and trial registries for additional data. RESULTS: Of the 1333 randomized controlled trials, pregnant and breastfeeding women were eligible for 13 (1.0%) and 6 (0.5%), respectively. Pregnancy and breastfeeding eligibility criteria were not addressed in 383 of 1333 (28.7%) and 710 of 1333 (53.3%) randomized controlled trials, respectively. In total, 102 of 937 (10.9%) and 33 of 617 (5.3%) randomized controlled trials that explicitly excluded pregnant and breastfeeding women documented the rationale. Most studies excluding pregnant women (542/937; 57.8%) required at least 1 method of contraception and/or pregnancy testing as part of trial participation for women with reproductive capacity. Among the 13 randomized controlled trials that allowed inclusion of pregnant women, 3 restricted eligibility to specific trimesters. Two randomized controlled trials enrolled pregnant women after the first year of the study following interim review of safety results in nonpregnant participants. Four randomized controlled trials reported the number of pregnant women enrolled, which ranged from 0.7% to 3.4% of the study population. None of the studies reported on pregnancy or perinatal outcomes. Compared with randomized controlled trials that excluded pregnant women, those including them more commonly had an infectious disease focus (12/13 [92.3%] vs 270/937 [28.8%]; p<.0001), including HIV (5/13 [38.5%] vs 96/937 [10.2%]; p=.0079), enrolled participants in sub-Saharan Africa (5/13 [38.5%] vs 111/937 [11.8%]; p=.0143), and had exclusively nonindustry sponsorship (13/13 [100%] vs 559/937 [59.7%]; p=.0025); inclusion varied by study phase, randomization level, and intervention type. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates a major inequity in research involving pregnant and breastfeeding women. As new health challenges arise, including novel pandemics, and the research community mobilizes to develop therapies and innovate in patient care, it is crucial that pregnant and breastfeeding women not be left behind. Greater regulatory support, in the form of explicit requirements and incentives, will be needed to ensure these populations are integrated into the research agenda.

Clinical decision analysis of elective delivery vs expectant management for pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant individuals are vulnerable to COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. There is a lack of high-quality evidence on whether elective delivery or expectant management leads to better maternal and neonatal outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether elective delivery or expectant management are associated with higher quality-adjusted life expectancy for pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome and their neonates. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a clinical decision analysis using a patient-level model in which we simulatedpregnant individuals and their unborn children. We used a patient-level model with parallel open-cohort structure, daily cycle length, continuous discounting, lifetime horizon, sensitivity analyses for key parameter values, and 1000 iterations for quantification of uncertainty. We simulated pregnant individuals at 32 weeks of gestation, invasively ventilated because of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. In the elective delivery strategy, pregnant individuals received immediate cesarean delivery. In the expectant management strategy, pregnancies continued until spontaneous labor or obstetrical decision to deliver. For both pregnant individuals and neonates, model outputs were hospital or perinatal survival, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years, summarized by the mean and 95% credible interval. Maternal utilities incorporated neonatal outcomes in accordance with best practices in perinatal decision analysis. RESULTS: Model outputs for pregnant individuals were similar when comparing elective delivery at 32 weeks' gestation with expectant management, including hospital survival (87.1% vs 87.4%), life-years (difference, -0.1; 95% credible interval, -1.4 to 1.1), and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, -0.1; 95% credible interval, -1.3 to 1.1). For neonates, elective delivery at 32 weeks' gestation was estimated to lead to a higher perinatal survival (98.4% vs 93.2%; difference, 5.2%; 95% credible interval, 3.5-7), similar life-years (difference, 0.9; 95% credible interval, -0.9 to 2.8), and higher quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, 1.3; 95% credible interval, 0.4-2.2). For pregnant individuals, elective delivery was not superior to expectant management across a range of scenarios between 28 and 34 weeks of gestation. Elective delivery in cases where intrauterine death or maternal mortality were more likely resulted in higher neonatal quality-adjusted life expectancy, as did elective delivery at 30 weeks' gestation (difference, 1.1 years; 95% credible interval, 0.1 - 2.1) despite higher long-term complications (4.3% vs 0.5%; difference, 3.7%; 95% credible interval, 2.4-5.1), and in cases where intrauterine death or maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome mortality were more likely. CONCLUSION: The decision to pursue elective delivery vs expectant management in pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome should be guided by gestational age, risk of intrauterine death, and maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. For the pregnant individual, elective delivery is comparable but not superior to expectant management for gestational ages from 28 to 34 weeks. For neonates, elective delivery was superior if gestational age was ≥30 weeks and if the rate of intrauterine death or maternal mortality risk were high. We recommend basing the decision for elective delivery vs expectant management in a pregnant individual with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome on gestational age and likelihood of intrauterine or maternal death.

Characterizing the inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding people in infectious diseases randomized controlled trials: a targeted literature review.

OBJECTIVES: Severe complications of infectious diseases can occur during pregnancy. Evidence-based prevention and treatment strategies are critical to improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Despite this medical need, pregnant and breastfeeding people have been systematically excluded from biomedical research. The objective of this study was to characterize representation of pregnant and breastfeeding people in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating a broad range of interventions for infectious diseases. METHODS: Pregnancy and breastfeeding inclusion criteria were examined in infectious diseases RCTs published between 1 January 2017, and 31 December 2019, in the top five highest impact general medicine and the top three highest impact infectious diseases and HIV journals. RESULTS: Of 376 RCTs, 5.3% and 1.9% included pregnant and breastfeeding people, respectively. Justification for exclusion was documented in 36/271 (13.3%) studies that explicitly excluded pregnant people. Most studies excluding pregnant people (177/271, 65.3%) required at least one form of contraception, abstinence and/or negative pregnancy test(s) as part of participation. Only 11/271 (4.1%) studies excluding pregnant people allowed participants to continue the intervention if unintended pregnancy occurred during the study. When both pregnant and non-pregnant people were eligible, pregnant people made up <3% of participants. Only 2/48 (4.2%) vaccine studies included pregnant people; 13/234 (5.5%) drug studies included pregnant people. All studies of procedures, devices, behaviour/education and supplements/vitamins explicitly excluded or did not address pregnancy eligibility criteria. Only 2/20 (10.0%) RCTs including pregnant people collected pharmacokinetic data. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates widespread exclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding people from infectious disease RCTs.

Tocilizumab for coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy and lactation: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody that interrupts interleukin-6 signalling, reducing downstream effects on inflammation and the innate immune response. It was shown to reduce mortality in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Pregnant and breastfeeding people were largely excluded from clinical trials and hence, the extent to which results can be applied to these populations is not clear. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize published data on tocilizumab in pregnancy and lactation, highlight important knowledge gaps, and help inform clinical decision-making about tocilizumab's use in these populations with COVID-19. SOURCES: PubMed was searched for studies evaluating tocilizumab in pregnancy and lactation for COVID-19 and other indications. Literature on pharmacokinetics and reproductive/fetal safety of monoclonal antibodies in general was also sought. The US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency guidance for the industry and regulatory approval documents were reviewed. CONTENT: Published data on tocilizumab in pregnancy include 610 cases (n = 20 with COVID-19) together with seven mother-infant breastfeeding pairs. Higher rates of spontaneous abortion and premature birth have been reported compared with the general population, but multiple confounding variables limit interpretation. There is little data on tocilizumab exposure in the second and third trimesters when transplacental transport is highest. The effects of tocilizumab on the developing immune system are unclear. Pregnant patients with COVID-19 who received tocilizumab were often critically ill and corticosteroid use was uncommon. Neonatal follow up was limited. Tocilizumab appears to be compatible with breastfeeding. IMPLICATIONS: Although the available data do not raise serious safety signals, they have significant limitations and are not sufficient to delineate the complete spectrum of potential adverse outcomes that may be associated with tocilizumab exposure during pregnancy and lactation. Diligent follow up and documentation of pregnancy outcomes will be important moving forward. A more effective regulatory framework to ensure equitable inclusion of pregnant people in research is clearly needed.

Physician Perspectives on Including Pregnant Women in Covid-19 Clinical Trials: Time for a Paradigm Change.

Excluding pregnant people from Covid-19 clinical trials may lead to unintended harmful consequences. For this study, an online questionnaire was sent to physicians belonging to Canadian professional medical associations in order to evaluate their perspectives on the participation of pregnant women in Covid-19 clinical trials. The majority of respondents expressed support for including pregnant women in Covid-19 trials (119/165; 72%), especially those investigating therapies with a prior safety record in pregnancy (139/164; 85%). The main perceived barriers to inclusion identified were unwillingness of pregnant patients to participate and of treating teams to offer participation, the burden of regulatory approval, and a general "culture of exclusion" of pregnant women from trials. We describe why some physicians may be reluctant to include pregnant individuals in trials, and we identify barriers to the appropriate participation of pregnant people in clinical research.

A review of remdesivir for COVID-19 in pregnancy and lactation.

Mounting evidence suggests that pregnant people have an elevated risk of severe COVID-19-related complications compared with their non-pregnant counterparts, underscoring the need for effective prevention and treatment strategies. However, despite progress in innovative and flexible trial designs during the COVID-19 pandemic, regressive policies excluding pregnant and breastfeeding people from biomedical research persist. Remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral, was the first drug licensed for the treatment of COVID-19, based on data showing it reduced the time to recovery in hospitalized patients. Pregnant and breastfeeding people were specifically excluded from all clinical trials of remdesivir in COVID-19, but data are accumulating from post-marketing registries, compassionate use programmes and case series/reports. In this review we synthesize these data and highlight key knowledge gaps to help inform clinical decision-making about its use in pregnancy and lactation.

Variability in intensive care unit admission among pregnant and postpartum women in Canada: a nationwide population-based observational study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy-related critical illness results in approximately 300,000 deaths globally each year. The objective was to describe the variation in ICU admission and the contribution of patient- and hospital-based factors in ICU admission among acute care hospitals for pregnant and postpartum women in Canada. METHODS: A nationwide cohort study between 2004 and 2015, comprising all pregnant or postpartum women admitted to Canadian hospitals. The primary outcome was ICU admission. Secondary outcomes were severe maternal morbidity (a potentially life-threatening condition) and maternal death (during and within 6 weeks after pregnancy). The proportion of total variability in ICU admission rates due to the differences among hospitals was described using the median odds ratio from multi-level logistic regression models, adjusting for individual hospital clusters. RESULTS: There were 3,157,248 identifiable pregnancies among women admitted to 342 Canadian hospitals. The overall ICU admission rate was 3.2 per 1000 pregnancies. The rate of severe maternal morbidity was 15.8 per 1000 pregnancies, of which 10% of women were admitted to an ICU. The most common severe maternal morbidity events included postpartum hemorrhage (n = 16,364, 0.52%) and sepsis (n = 11,557, 0.37%). Of the 195 maternal deaths (6.2 per 100,000 pregnancies), only 130 (67%) were admitted to ICUs. Patients dying in hospital, without admission to ICU, included those with cardiovascular compromise, hemorrhage, and sepsis. For 2 pregnant women with similar characteristics at different hospitals, the average (median) odds of being admitted to ICU was 1.92 in 1 hospital compared to another. Hospitals admitting the fewest number of pregnant patients had the highest incidence of severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Patient-level factors associated with ICU admission were maternal comorbidity index (OR 1.88 per 1 unit increase, 95%CI 1.86-1.99), urban residence (OR 1.09, 95%CI 1.02-1.16), and residing at the lowest income quintile (OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.34-1.55). CONCLUSIONS: Most women who experience severe maternal morbidity are not admitted to an ICU. There exists a wide hospital-level variability in ICU admission, with patients living in urban locations and patients of lowest income levels most likely to be admitted to ICU. Cardiovascular compromise, hemorrhage, and sepsis represent an opportunity for improved patient care and outcomes.

Association of Maternal Age With Severe Maternal Morbidity and Mortality in Canada.

Importance: Over the past 2 decades, there has been a trend toward increasing maternal age in many high-income countries. Maternal age may lead to greater attendant morbidity and mortality for Canadian mothers. Objective: To investigate the association of maternal age, adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level factors, with severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and maternal death in Canada. Design, Setting, and Participants: A nationwide population-based cohort study of all antepartum, peripartum, and postpartum women and adolescents seen at Canadian acute care hospitals from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2015. All analyses were completed on September 13, 2018. Exposures: Maternal age at the index delivery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Severe maternal morbidity and maternal death during pregnancy and within 6 weeks after termination of pregnancy. Results: During the study period, there were 3 162 303 new pregnancies (mean [SD] maternal age, 29.5 [5.6] years) and 3 533 259 related hospital admissions. There were 54 219 episodes of SMM (17.7 cases per 1000 deliveries) in the entire study period, with a 9.8% relative increase from 2004-2005 to 2014-2015, in addition to an increasing proportion of pregnancies to older mothers. Independent patient-level factors associated with SMM included increasing Maternal Comorbidity Index; maternal age 19 years or younger and 30 years or older, with the greatest risk experienced by women 45 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 2.69; 95% CI, 2.34-3.06 compared with maternal age 20-24 years); and lowest income quintile (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.22 compared with highest income quintile). Hospital-level factors associated with SMM included specific provinces. Independent patient-level factors associated with maternal mortality included increasing Maternal Comorbidity Index, age 40 to 44 years (OR, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.68-6.82 compared with age 20-24 years), age 45 years or older (OR, 4.39; 95% CI, 1.01-19.10 compared with age 20-24 years), and lowest income quintile (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.03-8.50 compared with highest income quintile). Hospital-level factors associated with maternal mortality included lowest hospital pregnancy volume. Conclusions and Relevance: In Canada, maternal age and SMM have increased over the past decade. Results of this study suggest that province of residence, maternal comorbidity, residence income quintile, and extremes of maternal age, especially those 45 years or older, were associated with SMM and mortality. These findings are relevant to prospective parents, their health care team, and public health planning.

Special Populations: Disaster Care Considerations in Chronically Ill, Pregnant, and Morbidly Obese Patients.

Special populations, which include the morbidly obese and patients with chronic, complex medical conditions that require long-term health care services and infrastructure, are at increased risk for morbidity and mortality when these services are disrupted during a disaster. Past experiences have identified significant challenges in restoring necessary care services to these patients following major environmental events. This article describes the impact of disasters on special populations, provides a framework for future disaster preparation and planning, and identifies areas in need of further research. Gravid patients, who are often overlooked in disaster planning and preparation, are also discussed.