Search

Objective: To investigate the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity in asymptomatic pregnant women admitted to hospital for delivery in a Turkish pandemic center.Study Design: This prospective cohort study was conducted in Ankara City Hospital between April, 15, 2020 and June, 5, 2020. A total of 206 asymptomatic pregnant women (103 low-risk pregnant women without any defined risk factor and 103 high-risk pregnant women) were screened for SARS-CoV-2 positivity upon admission to hospital for delivery. Detection of SARS-CoV2 in nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples was performed by Real Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) method targeting RdRp (RNA dependent RNA polymerase) gene. Two groups were compared in terms of demographic features, clinical characteristics and SARS-CoV-2 positivity.Results: Three of the 206 pregnant women participating in the study had positive RT-PCR tests (1.4 %) and all positive cases were in the high-risk pregnancy group. Although, one case in the high-risk pregnancy group had developed symptoms highly suspicious for COVID-19, two repeated RT-PCR tests were negative. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity rate was significantly higher in the high-risk pregnancy group (2.9 % vs 0%, p = 0.04).Conclusion: Healthcare professionals should be cautious in the labor and delivery of high-risk pregnant women during the pandemic period and universal testing for COVID-19 may be considered in selected populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine the costs and outcomes of different screening strategies for Down Syndrome (DS) in singleton pregnancies.Study Design: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the costs and the outcomes of different prenatal screening strategies. Five strategies were compared for women under 35-year of age: 1A) triple test (TT), 2A); combined test (CT), 3A) Non-invasive Prenatal Screening Test by using cell free fetal DNA (NIPT), 4A) and 5A) NIPT as a second-step screening for high-risk patients detected by either TT, or CT respectively. For women ≥35-year of age, 1B) implementing invasive test (amniocentesis -AC) and 2B) NIPT for all women were compared. Data was analyzed to obtain the outcomes, total costs, the cost per women and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for screening strategies.Results: Among the current strategies for women under 35 years old, CT is clearly dominated to TT, as it is more effective and less costly. Although, the current routine practice (2A) is the least-costly strategy, implementing NIPT as a second step screening to high-risk women identified by CT (5A) would be more effective than 2A; leading to a 10.2% increase in the number of detected DS cases and a 96.3% reduction in procedural related losses (PRL). However, its cost to the Social Security Institution that is a public entity would be 17 times higher and increase screening costs by 1.5 times. Strategy 5A would result in an incremental cost effectiveness of 6,873,082 (PPP) US$ when compared to the current one (2A). Strategy 1B-for offering AC to all women ≥35-year of age is dominated over NIPT (2B), as it would detect more DS cases and would be less costly. On the other hand, there would be 206 PRL associated with AC, but NIPT provides clear clinical benefits as there would be no PRL with NIPT.Conclusions: NIPT leads to very high costs despite its high effectiveness in terms of detecting DS cases and avoiding PRL. The cost of NIPT should be decreased, otherwise, only individuals who can afford to pay from out-of-pocket could benefit. We believe that reliable cost-effective prenatal screening policies are essential in countries with low and smiddle income and high birth rates as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]