21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring and timing of mother-to-child transmission: living systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 3 , 4 , 3 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 5 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 12 , 12 , 12 , 12 , 12 , 1 , 3 , 4 , 12 , 13 , 1 , 14 ,
      The BMJ
      BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To assess the rates of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the timing of mother-to-child transmission and perinatal outcomes, and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 status in offspring.

          Design

          Living systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Data sources

          Major databases between 1 December 2019 and 3 August 2021.

          Study selection

          Cohort studies of pregnant and recently pregnant women (including after abortion or miscarriage) who sought hospital care for any reason and had a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and also provided data on offspring SARS-CoV-2 status and risk factors for positivity. Case series and case reports were also included to assess the timing and likelihood of mother-to-child transmission in SARS-CoV-2 positive babies.

          Data extraction

          Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. A random effects model was used to synthesise data for rates, with associations reported using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Narrative syntheses were performed when meta-analysis was inappropriate. The World Health Organization classification was used to categorise the timing of mother-to-child transmission (in utero, intrapartum, early postnatal).

          Results

          472 studies (206 cohort studies, 266 case series and case reports; 28 952 mothers, 18 237 babies) were included. Overall, 1.8% (95% confidence interval 1.2% to 2.5%; 140 studies) of the 14 271 babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection tested positive for the virus with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Of the 592 SARS-CoV-2 positive babies with data on the timing of exposure and type and timing of tests, 14 had confirmed mother-to-child transmission: seven in utero (448 assessed), two intrapartum (18 assessed), and five during the early postnatal period (70 assessed). Of the 800 SARS-CoV-2 positive babies with outcome data, 20 were stillbirths, 23 were neonatal deaths, and eight were early pregnancy losses; 749 babies were alive at the end of follow-up. Severe maternal covid-19 (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 4.4), maternal death (14.1, 4.1 to 48.0), maternal admission to an intensive care unit (3.5, 1.7 to 6.9), and maternal postnatal infection (5.0, 1.2 to 20.1) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring. Positivity rates using RT-PCR varied between regions, ranging from 0.1% (95% confidence interval 0.0% to 0.3%) in studies from North America to 5.7% (3.2% to 8.7%) in studies from Latin America and the Caribbean.

          Conclusion

          SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates were found to be low in babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence suggests confirmed vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2, although this is likely to be rare. Severity of maternal covid-19 appears to be associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring.

          Systematic review registration

          PROSPERO CRD42020178076.

          Readers’ note

          This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement.

          In the course of performing systematic reviews on the prevalence of low back and neck pain, we required a tool to assess the risk of study bias. Our objectives were to (1) modify an existing checklist and (2) test the final tool for interrater agreement. The final tool consists of 10 items addressing four domains of bias plus a summary risk of bias assessment. Two researchers tested the interrater agreement of the tool by independently assessing 54 randomly selected studies. Interrater agreement overall and for each individual item was assessed using the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic. Raters found the tool easy to use, and there was high interrater agreement: overall agreement was 91% and the Kappa statistic was 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.76, 0.86). Agreement was almost perfect for the individual items on the tool and moderate for the summary assessment. We have addressed a research gap by modifying and testing a tool to assess risk of study bias. Further research may be useful for assessing the applicability of the tool across different conditions. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV viral load dynamics, duration of viral shedding, and infectiousness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            Background Viral load kinetics and duration of viral shedding are important determinants for disease transmission. We aimed to characterise viral load dynamics, duration of viral RNA shedding, and viable virus shedding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in various body fluids, and to compare SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) viral dynamics. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Europe PubMed Central, medRxiv, and bioRxiv, and the grey literature, for research articles published between Jan 1, 2003, and June 6, 2020. We included case series (with five or more participants), cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials that reported SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, or MERS-CoV infection, and reported viral load kinetics, duration of viral shedding, or viable virus. Two authors independently extracted data from published studies, or contacted authors to request data, and assessed study quality and risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist tools. We calculated the mean duration of viral shedding and 95% CIs for every study included and applied the random-effects model to estimate a pooled effect size. We used a weighted meta-regression with an unrestricted maximum likelihood model to assess the effect of potential moderators on the pooled effect size. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020181914. Findings 79 studies (5340 individuals) on SARS-CoV-2, eight studies (1858 individuals) on SARS-CoV, and 11 studies (799 individuals) on MERS-CoV were included. Mean duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding was 17·0 days (95% CI 15·5–18·6; 43 studies, 3229 individuals) in upper respiratory tract, 14·6 days (9·3–20·0; seven studies, 260 individuals) in lower respiratory tract, 17·2 days (14·4–20·1; 13 studies, 586 individuals) in stool, and 16·6 days (3·6–29·7; two studies, 108 individuals) in serum samples. Maximum shedding duration was 83 days in the upper respiratory tract, 59 days in the lower respiratory tract, 126 days in stools, and 60 days in serum. Pooled mean SARS-CoV-2 shedding duration was positively associated with age (slope 0·304 [95% CI 0·115–0·493]; p=0·0016). No study detected live virus beyond day 9 of illness, despite persistently high viral loads, which were inferred from cycle threshold values. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract appeared to peak in the first week of illness, whereas that of SARS-CoV peaked at days 10–14 and that of MERS-CoV peaked at days 7–10. Interpretation Although SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples can be prolonged, duration of viable virus is relatively short-lived. SARS-CoV-2 titres in the upper respiratory tract peak in the first week of illness. Early case finding and isolation, and public education on the spectrum of illness and period of infectiousness are key to the effective containment of SARS-CoV-2. Funding None.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Universal Screening for SARS-CoV-2 in Women Admitted for Delivery

              To the Editor: In recent weeks, Covid-19 has rapidly spread throughout New York City. The obstetrical population presents a unique challenge during this pandemic, since these patients have multiple interactions with the health care system and eventually most are admitted to the hospital for delivery. We first diagnosed a case of Covid-19 in an obstetrical patient on March 13, 2020, and we previously reported our early experience with Covid-19 in pregnant women, including two initially asymptomatic women in whom symptoms developed and who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, after delivery. 1,2 After these two cases were identified, we implemented universal testing with nasopharyngeal swabs and a quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction test to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in women who were admitted for delivery. Between March 22 and April 4, 2020, a total of 215 pregnant women delivered infants at the New York–Presbyterian Allen Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center . All the women were screened on admission for symptoms of Covid-19. Four women (1.9%) had fever or other symptoms of Covid-19 on admission, and all 4 women tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of the 211 women without symptoms, all were afebrile on admission. Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from 210 of the 211 women (99.5%) who did not have symptoms of Covid-19; of these women, 29 (13.7%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Thus, 29 of the 33 patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at admission (87.9%) had no symptoms of Covid-19 at presentation. Of the 29 women who had been asymptomatic but who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 on admission, fever developed in 3 (10%) before postpartum discharge (median length of stay, 2 days). Two of these patients received antibiotics for presumed endomyometritis (although 1 patient did not have localizing symptoms), and 1 patient was presumed to be febrile due to Covid-19 and received supportive care. One patient with a swab that was negative for SARS-CoV-2 on admission became symptomatic postpartum; repeat SARS-CoV-2 testing 3 days after the initial test was positive. Our use of universal SARS-CoV-2 testing in all pregnant patients presenting for delivery revealed that at this point in the pandemic in New York City, most of the patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at delivery were asymptomatic, and more than one of eight asymptomatic patients who were admitted to the labor and delivery unit were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Although this prevalence has limited generalizability to geographic regions with lower rates of infection, it underscores the risk of Covid-19 among asymptomatic obstetrical patients. Moreover, the true prevalence of infection may be underreported because of false negative results of tests to detect SARS-CoV-2. 3 The potential benefits of a universal testing approach include the ability to use Covid-19 status to determine hospital isolation practices and bed assignments, inform neonatal care, and guide the use of personal protective equipment. Access to such clinical data provides an important opportunity to protect mothers, babies, and health care teams during these challenging times.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: lecturer in epidemiology and women’s health
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: statistician
                Role: researcher
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: research fellow
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: researcher
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: clinical associate professor
                Role: senior lecturer
                Role: clinical epidemiologist
                Role: medical specialist
                Role: managing editor
                Role: senior lecturer and consultant in respiratory medicine
                Role: professor of obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine
                Role: doctor of public health
                Role: sexually transmitted infections and cervical cancer specialist
                Role: public health specialist
                Role: medical officer
                Role: professor in global infectious disease epidemiology
                Role: head of maternal and perinatal health unit
                Role: professor in biostatistics
                Role: perinatal health epidemiologist
                Role: paediatric infectious disease specialist
                Role: professor of maternal and perinatal health
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2022
                16 March 2022
                16 March 2022
                : 376
                : e067696
                Affiliations
                [1 ]WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women’s Health, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [2 ]Birmingham Medical School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [3 ]Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain
                [4 ]CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
                [5 ]University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
                [6 ]University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
                [7 ]Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [8 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [9 ]Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                [10 ]Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
                [11 ]St George’s University London, London, UK
                [12 ]UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                [13 ]Elizabeth Glaser Paediatric AIDS Foundation, Washington DC, USA
                [14 ]Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: S Thangaratinam, WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK s.thangaratinam.1@ 123456bham.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4254-460X
                Article
                bmj-2021-067696.R1 allj067696
                10.1136/bmj-2021-067696
                8924705
                35296519
                dc479c58-17e6-42d4-a355-9a2b6c342129
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 01 February 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004423, World Health Organization;
                Categories
                Research
                2474

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article