Dataset Information

Maternal transmission of SARS-COV-2 to the neonate, and possible routes for such transmission: a systematic review and critical analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Early reports of COVID-19 in pregnancy described management by caesarean, strict isolation of the neonate and formula feeding. Is this practice justified?

Objective

To estimate the risk of the neonate becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 by mode of delivery, type of infant feeding and mother-infant interaction.

Search strategy

Two biomedical databases were searched between September 2019 and June 2020.

Selection criteria

Case reports or case series of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19, where neonatal outcomes were reported.

Data collection and analysis

Data were extracted on mode of delivery, infant infection status, infant feeding and mother-infant interaction. For reported infant infection, a critical analysis was performed to evaluate the likelihood of vertical transmission.

Main results

Forty nine studies included information on mode of delivery and infant infection status for 655 women and 666 neonates. In all, 28/666 (4%) tested positive postnatally. Of babies born vaginally, 8/292 (2.7%) tested positivecompared with 20/374 (5.3%) born by Caesarean. Information on feeding and baby separation were often missing, but of reported breastfed babies 7/148 (4.7%) tested positive compared with 3/56 (5.3%) for reported formula fed ones. Of babies reported as nursed with their mother 4/107 (3.7%) tested positive, compared with 6/46 (13%) for those who were reported as isolated.

Conclusions

Neonatal COVID-19 infection is uncommon, rarely symptomatic, and the rate of infection is no greater when the baby is born vaginally, breastfed or remains with the mother.

Tweetable abstract

Risk of neonatal infection with COVID-19 by delivery route, infant feeding and mother-baby interaction.

SUBMITTER: Walker KF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7323034 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has hugely impacted global public health and economy. The COVID-19 has also shown potential impacts on maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes. This systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence from existing systematic reviews about the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infections on maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, from 1 December 2019 to 7 July 2021, for published review studies that included case reports, primary studies, clinical practice guidelines, overviews, case-control studies, and observational studies. Systematic reviews that reported the plausibility of mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19 (also known as vertical transmission), maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes, and review studies that addressed the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy were also included. We identified 947 citations, of which 69 studies were included for further analysis. Most (>70%) of the mother-to-child infection was likely due to environmental exposure, although a significant proportion (about 20%) was attributable to potential vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Further results of the review indicated that the mode of delivery of pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 could not increase or decrease the risk of infection for the newborns (outcomes), thereby emphasizing the significance of breastfeeding. The issue of maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to worsen during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, increasing maternal and neonatal mortality, stillbirth, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and maternal depression. Based on this study, we observed increasing rates of cesarean delivery from mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also found that SARS-CoV-2 could be potentially transmitted vertically during the gestation period. However, more data are needed to further investigate and follow-up, especially with reports of newborns infected with SARS-CoV-2, in order to examine a possible long-term adverse effect.

Project description:Leprosy is a chronic infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae (M. leprae) and the more recently discovered Mycobacterium lepromatosis (M. lepromatosis). The two leprosy bacilli cause similar pathologic conditions. They primarily target the skin and the peripheral nervous system. Currently it is considered a Neglected Tropical Disease, being endemic in specific locations within countries of the Americas, Asia, and Africa, while in Europe it is only rarely reported. The reason for a spatial inequality in the prevalence of leprosy in so-called endemic pockets within a country is still largely unexplained. A systematic review was conducted targeting leprosy transmission research data, using PubMed and Scopus as sources. Publications between January 1, 1945 and July 1, 2019 were included. The transmission pathways of M. leprae are not fully understood. Solid evidence exists of an increased risk for individuals living in close contact with leprosy patients, most likely through infectious aerosols, created by coughing and sneezing, but possibly also through direct contact. However, this systematic review underscores that human-to-human transmission is not the only way leprosy can be acquired. The transmission of this disease is probably much more complicated than was thought before. In the Americas, the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) has been established as another natural host and reservoir of M. leprae. Anthroponotic and zoonotic transmission have both been proposed as modes of contracting the disease, based on data showing identical M. leprae strains shared between humans and armadillos. More recently, in red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) with leprosy-like lesions in the British Isles M. leprae and M. lepromatosis DNA was detected. This finding was unexpected, because leprosy is considered a disease of humans (with the exception of the armadillo), and because it was thought that leprosy (and M. leprae) had disappeared from the United Kingdom. Furthermore, animals can be affected by other leprosy-like diseases, caused by pathogens phylogenetically closely related to M. leprae. These mycobacteria have been proposed to be grouped as a M. leprae-complex. We argue that insights from the transmission and reservoirs of members of the M. leprae-complex might be relevant for leprosy research. A better understanding of possible animal or environmental reservoirs is needed, because transmission from such reservoirs may partly explain the steady global incidence of leprosy despite effective and widespread multidrug therapy. A reduction in transmission cannot be expected to be accomplished by actions or interventions from the human healthcare domain alone, as the mechanisms involved are complex. Therefore, to increase our understanding of the intricate picture of leprosy transmission, we propose a One Health transdisciplinary research approach.

Project description:BackgroundQuantification of acquisition routes of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) is pivotal for understanding transmission dynamics and designing cost-effective interventions. Different methods have been used to quantify the importance of transmission routes, such as relative risks, odds ratios (OR), genomic comparisons and basic reproduction numbers. We systematically reviewed reported estimates on acquisition routes' contributions of ARB in humans, animals, water and the environment and assessed the methods used to quantify the importance of transmission routes.MethodsPubMed and EMBASE were searched, resulting in 6054 articles published up until January 1st, 2019. Full text screening was performed on 525 articles and 277 are included.ResultsWe extracted 718 estimates with S. aureus (n = 273), E. coli (n = 157) and Enterobacteriaceae (n = 99) being studied most frequently. Most estimates were derived from statistical methods (n = 560), mainly expressed as risks (n = 246) and ORs (n = 239), followed by genetic comparisons (n = 85), modelling (n = 62) and dosage of ARB ingested (n = 17). Transmission routes analysed most frequently were occupational exposure (n = 157), travelling (n = 110) and contacts with carriers (n = 83). Studies were mostly performed in the United States (n = 142), the Netherlands (n = 87) and Germany (n = 60). Comparison of methods was not possible as studies using different methods to estimate the same route were lacking. Due to study heterogeneity not all estimates by the same method could be pooled.ConclusionDespite an abundance of published data the relative importance of transmission routes of ARB has not been accurately quantified. Links between exposure and acquisition are often present, but the frequency of exposure is missing, which disables estimation of transmission routes' importance. To create effective policies reducing ARB, estimates of transmission should be weighed by the frequency of exposure occurrence.

Project description:Background and Purpose Many of the statutes comprising the shelter-in-place and phased-reopening orders are centered around minimizing asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission. Assumptions about the presence and relative importance of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission are based on case reports, the failing of quarantine measures aimed at sequestering ill patients, viral dynamic studies suggesting SARS-CoV-2 production peaks before symptoms appear, and modeling evidence that calculates serial interval between successive generations of infection. In aggregate, these data offer compelling evidence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, but individually these studies have notable shortcomings that undermine their conclusions. The purpose of this review is to discuss the literature of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, highlight limitations of recent studies, and propose experiments that, if conducted, would provide a more definitive analysis of the relative role of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods We conducted a systematic review of literature on PubMed using search filters that relate to asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission as well as serial interval and viral dynamics. We focused on studies that provided primary clinical data. Results 34 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review: 11 case reports pertaining to asymptomatic transmission, 9 viral kinetic studies, 13 serial interval studies, and 1 study with viral kinetics and serial interval. Conclusion Different approaches to determining the presence and prevalence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission have notable shortcomings, which were highlighted in this review and limit our ability to draw definitive conclusions. Conducting high quality studies with the aim of understanding the relative role of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission is instrumental to developing the most informed policies on reopening our cities, states, and countries.