Search

The article examines the heightened risks and outcomes of infectious diseases during pregnancy. Topics discussed include the impact of infections like malaria and influenza on maternal and fetal health, the role of vaccines in managing these risks, and approaches to treating various infections encountered in obstetrics.

The majority of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 will have mild or asymptomatic disease, however, obstetric patients are uniquely at risk for disease progression and adverse outcomes. Preventive strategies including masking, physical distancing, vaccination, and chemoprophylaxis have been well studied, are critical to disease mitigation, and can be used in the pregnant population. High-quality data are needed to assess safety and effectiveness of therapeutics and vaccination in pregnancy, as well as long-term data on maternal and newborn outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To characterize maternal immune response after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during pregnancy and quantify the efficiency of transplacental antibody transfer.Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of pregnant patients who tested positive for SARS CoV-2 infection at any point in pregnancy and collected paired maternal and cord blood samples at the time of delivery. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and neutralization assays were performed to measure maternal plasma and cord blood concentrations and neutralizing potency of immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgA, and IgM antibodies directed against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Differences in concentrations according to symptomatic compared with asymptomatic infection and time from positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test result to delivery were analyzed using nonparametric tests of significance. The ratio of cord to maternal anti-receptor-binding domain IgG titers was analyzed to assess transplacental transfer efficiency.Results: Thirty-two paired samples were analyzed. Detectable anti-receptor-binding domain IgG was detected in 100% (n=32) of maternal and 91% (n=29) of cord blood samples. Functional neutralizing antibody was present in 94% (n=30) of the maternal and 25% (n=8) of cord blood samples. Symptomatic infection was associated with a significant difference in median (interquartile range) maternal anti-receptor-binding domain IgG titers compared with asymptomatic infection (log 3.2 [3.5-2.4] vs log 2.7 [2.9-1.4], P=.03). Median (interquartile range) maternal anti-receptor-binding domain IgG titers were not significantly higher in patients who delivered more than 14 days after a positive PCR test result compared with those who delivered within 14 days (log 3.3 [3.5-2.4] vs log 2.67 [2.8-1.6], P=.05). Median (range) cord/maternal antibody ratio was 0.81 (0.67-0.88).Conclusions: These results demonstrate robust maternal neutralizing and anti-receptor-binding domain IgG response after SARS-CoV-2 infection, yet a lower-than-expected efficiency of transplacental antibody transfer and a significant reduction in neutralization between maternal blood and cord blood. Maternal infection does confer some degree of neonatal antibody protection, but the robustness and durability of protection require further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Identification of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy research often uses hospital International Classification of Diseases v. 10 (ICD-10) codes meant for billing purposes, which may introduce misclassification error relative to medical records. We estimated the validity of ICD-10 codes for hypertensive disorders during pregnancy overall and by subdiagnosis, compared with medical record diagnosis, in a Southeastern United States high disease burden hospital.Methods: We linked medical record data with hospital discharge records for deliveries between 1 July 2016, and 30 June 2018, in an Atlanta, Georgia, public hospital. For any hypertensive disorder (with and without unspecified codes) and each subdiagnosis (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count [HELLP] syndrome, eclampsia, preeclampsia with and without severe features, chronic hypertension, superimposed preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension), we calculated positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) sensitivity, and specificity for ICD-10 codes compared with medical record diagnoses (gold standard).Results: Thirty-seven percent of 3,654 eligible pregnancies had a clinical diagnosis of any hypertensive disorder during pregnancy. Overall, ICD-10 codes identified medical record diagnoses well (PPV, NPV, specificity >90%; sensitivity >80%). PPV, NPV, and specificity were high for all subindicators (>80%). Sensitivity estimates were high for superimposed preeclampsia, chronic hypertension, and gestational hypertension (>80%); moderate for eclampsia (66.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 22.3%, 95.7%), HELLP (75.0%; 95% CI = 50.9%, 91.3%), and preeclampsia with severe features (58.3%; 95% CI = 52.6%, 63.8%); and low for preeclampsia without severe features (3.2%; 95% CI, 1.4%, 6.2%).Conclusions: We provide bias parameters for future US-based studies of hypertensive outcomes during pregnancy in high-burden populations using hospital ICD-10 codes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of billing codes (ICD-10) to identify and track cases of gestational and pregestational diabetes during pregnancy is common in clinical quality improvement, research, and surveillance. However, specific diagnoses may be misclassified using ICD-10 codes, potentially biasing estimates. The goal of this study is to provide estimates of validation parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) for pregestational and gestational diabetes diagnosis using ICD-10 diagnosis codes compared with medical record abstraction at a large public hospital in Atlanta, Georgia.Methods: This study includes 3,654 deliveries to Emory physicians at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, between 2016 and 2018. We linked information abstracted from the medical record to ICD-10 diagnosis codes for gestational and pregestational diabetes during the delivery hospitalization. Using the medical record as the gold standard, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for each.Results: For both pregestational and gestational diabetes, ICD-10 codes had a high-negative predictive value (>99%, Table 3) and specificity (>99%). For pregestational diabetes, the sensitivity was 85.9% (95% CI = 78.8, 93.0) and positive predictive value 90.8% (95% CI = 85, 97). For gestational diabetes, the sensitivity was 95% (95% CI = 92, 98) and positive predictive value 86% (95% CI = 81, 90).Conclusions: In a large public hospital, ICD-10 codes accurately identified cases of pregestational and gestational diabetes with low numbers of false positives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]