Search

In the late 2020s, less than 1 year into the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines were introduced on a worldwide scale, with a significant positive impact on the consequences of the disease for several high-risk population groups. In the case of most bacterial or viral respiratory infections, pregnant women are at increased risk of complications, however, neither pregnant nor breastfeeding women were included in the first round of randomized clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, because of safety and ethical concerns. Nevertheless, most anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have not been expressly contraindicated during pregnancy or breastfeeding, and observational data on immune response, adverse effects, and clinical efficacy in pregnant and breastfeeding women have been progressively gathered during 2021. The vast majority of these data is reassuring for what concerns side effects for women and infants and points out the efficacy of vaccines in protecting women against COVID-19-related complications. Despite this, the hesitancy of pregnant and breastfeeding women at being vaccinated is still real. In this mini-review, we resume the available data on the clinical consequences of COVID-19 in pregnant women, as well as adverse effects, systemic and mucosal immune response, and clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and breastfeeding women. Moreover, we offer an updated overview of European, North American, and Australasian recommendations concerning COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant and breastfeeding women, in order to safely ensure the highest protection of women and their infants.

After 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, data concerning SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women and their neonates are progressively taking the place of complete uncertainty. Here, we summarize updated evidence regarding several critical aspects of perinatal SARS-CoV-2 infection, including 1) vertical transmission of the virus in utero, which is possible but seems rare according to current epidemiological data; 2) how COVID-19 during pregnancy can shape maternal and neonatal outcomes, either directly or indirectly; 3) how recommendations regarding the management of infected dyads have been progressively modified in light of new scientific evidence; and 4) how maternal infection or vaccination can induce the passive protection of fetuses and neonates against the infection, through the transfer of specific antibodies before and after birth.

In the context of suspected neonatal sepsis, early diagnosis and stratification of patients according to clinical severity is not yet effectively achieved. In this diagnostic trial, we aimed to assess the accuracy of presepsin (PSEP) for the diagnosis and early stratification of supposedly septic neonates. PSEP, C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin (PCT) were assessed at the onset of sepsis suspicion (T0), every 12–24 h for the first 48 h (T1–T4), and at the end of antibiotic therapy (T5). Enrolled neonates were stratified into three groups (infection, sepsis, septic shock) according to Wynn and Wong’s definitions. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) according to the severity of clinical conditions were assessed. We enrolled 58 neonates with infection, 77 with sepsis, and 24 with septic shock. PSEP levels were higher in neonates with septic shock (median 1557.5 pg/mL) and sepsis (median 1361 pg/mL) compared to those with infection (median 977.5 pg/mL) at T0 (p &lt, 0.01). Neither CRP nor PCT could distinguish the three groups at T0. PSEP’s AUC was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.854–0.943) for sepsis and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.885–0.988) for septic shock. Maximum Youden index was 1013 pg/mL (84.4% sensitivity, 88% specificity) for sepsis, and 971.5 pg/mL for septic shock (92% sensitivity, 86% specificity). However, differences in PSEP between neonates with positive and negative blood culture were limited. Thus, PSEP was an early biomarker of neonatal sepsis severity, but did not support the early identification of neonates with positive blood culture.

Importance The management of mother-infant dyads during the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic constitutes a major issue for neonatologists. In mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection, current recommendations suggest either to separate the dyad or encourage protected rooming-in under appropriate precautions. No data are available regarding the risk of mother-to-infant transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during rooming-in. Objective To evaluate the risk of postnatal transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from infected mothers to their neonates following rooming-in and breastfeeding. Design, Setting, and Participants A prospective, multicenter study enrolling mother-infant dyads from March 19 to May 2, 2020, followed up for 20 days of life (range, 18-22 days), was performed. The study was conducted at 6 coronavirus disease 2019 maternity centers in Lombardy, Northern Italy. Participants included 62 neonates born to 61 mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were eligible for rooming-in practice based on the clinical condition of the mother and infants whose results of nasopharyngeal swabs were negative at birth. Exposures Mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection were encouraged to practice rooming-in and breastfeeding under a standardized protocol to minimize the risk of viral transmission. Main Outcomes and Measures Clinical characteristics and real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 on neonatal nasopharyngeal swabs at 0, 7, and 20 days of life. Results Of the 62 neonates enrolled (25 boys), born to 61 mothers (median age, 32 years; interquartile range, 28-36 years), only 1 infant (1.6%; 95% CI, 0%-8.7%) was diagnosed as having SARS-CoV-2 infection at postbirth checks. In that case, rooming-in was interrupted on day 5 of life because of severe worsening of the mother’s clinical condition. The neonate became positive for the virus on day 7 of life and developed transient mild dyspnea. Ninety-five percent of the neonates enrolled were breastfed. Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this cohort study provide evidence-based information on the management of mother-infant dyads in case of SARS-CoV-2 maternal infection suggesting that rooming-in and breastfeeding can be practiced in women who are able to care for their infants.

SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in the neonatal period poses previously unmet challenges to obstetricians and neonatologists, but several key questions are yet to be answered. Few cases of presumed in utero vertical transmission of the virus from infected mothers to fetuses have been reported, but stronger evidence is needed, from larger datasets with multiple biospecimens rigorously analyzed. Whether acquired before or after birth, SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in neonates can be symptomatic, but our comprehension of neonatal immune response and the subsequent clinical characteristics of COVID‐19 in early life are incomplete. Finally, the pandemic challenged several dogmas regarding the management of mother‐infant dyads, and again more robust data are needed to support the formulation of evidence‐based guidelines. Here, we briefly summarize existing evidence and key unresolved questions about SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 in the neonatal period.