The 2022 monkeypox outbreak, caused by the zoonotic monkeypox virus, has spread across 6 World Health Organization regions (the Americas, Africa, Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, Western Pacific, and South-East Asia) and was declared a public health emergency of international concern on July 23, 2022. The global situation is especially concerning given the atypically high rate of person-to-person transmission, which suggests viral evolution to an established human pathogen. Pregnant women are at heightened risk of vertical transmission of the monkeypox virus because of immune vulnerability and natural depletion of population immunity to smallpox among reproductive-age women, and because orthopoxviral cell entry mechanisms can overcome the typically viral-resistant syncytiotrophoblast barrier within the placenta. Data on pregnancy outcomes following monkeypox infection are scarce but include reports of miscarriage, intrauterine demise, preterm birth, and congenital infection. This article forecasts the issues that maternity units might face and proposes guidelines to protect the health of pregnant women and fetuses exposed to the monkeypox virus. We review the pathophysiology and clinical features of monkeypox infection and discuss the obstetrical implications of the unusually high prevalence of anogenital lesions. We describe the use of real-time polymerase chain reaction tests from mucocutaneous and oropharyngeal sites to confirm infection, and share an algorithm for the antenatal management of pregnant women with monkeypox virus exposure. On the basis of the best available knowledge from prenatal orthopoxvirus infections, we discuss the sonographic features of congenital monkeypox and the role of invasive testing in establishing fetal infection. We suggest a protocol for cesarean delivery to avoid the horizontal transmission of the monkeypox virus at birth and address the controversy of mother-infant separation in the postpartum period. Obstetrical concerns related to antiviral therapy with tecovirimat and vaccinia immune globulin are highlighted, including the risks of heart rate-corrected QT-interval prolongation, inaccuracies in blood glucose monitoring, and the predisposition to iatrogenic venous thromboembolism. The possibility of monkeypox vaccine hesitancy during pregnancy is discussed, and strategies are offered to mitigate these risks. Finally, we conclude with a research proposal to address knowledge gaps related to the impact of monkeypox infection on maternal, fetal, and neonatal health.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The ConcePTION project aims to improve the way medication use during pregnancy is studied. This includes exploring the possibility of developing a distributed data processing and analysis infrastructure using a common data model that could form a foundational platform for future surveillance and research. A prerequisite would be that data from various data access providers (DAPs) can be harmonised according to an agreed set of standard rules concerning the structure and content of the data. To do so, a reference framework of core data elements (CDEs) recommended for primary data studies on drug safety during pregnancy was previously developed. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of several public and private DAPs using different primary data sources focusing on multiple sclerosis, as a pilot, to map their respective data variables and definitions with the CDE recommendations framework. METHODS: Four pregnancy registries (Gilenya, Novartis; Aubagio, Sanofi; the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists [OTIS]; Aubagio, Sanofi; the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register, Lareb), two enhanced pharmacovigilance programmes (Gilenya PRIM, Novartis; MAPLE-MS, Merck Healthcare KGaA) and four Teratology Information Services (UK TIS, Jerusalem TIS, Zerifin TIS, Swiss TIS) participated in the study. The ConcePTION primary data source CDE includes 51 items covering administrative functions, the description of pregnancy, maternal medical history, maternal illnesses arising in pregnancy, delivery details, and pregnancy and infant outcomes. For each variable in the CDE, the DAPs identified whether their variables were: identical to the one mentioned in the CDE; derived; similar but with a divergent definition; or not available. RESULTS: The majority of the DAP data variables were either directly taken (85%, n = 305/357, range 73-94% between DAPs) or derived by combining different variables (12%, n = 42/357, range 0-24% between DAPs) to conform to the CDE variables and definitions. For very few of the DAP variables, alignment with the CDE items was not possible, either because of divergent definitions (1%, n = 3/357, range 0-2% between DAPs) or because the variables were not available (2%, n = 7/357, range 0-4% between DAPs). CONCLUSIONS: Data access providers participating in this study presented a very high proportion of variables matching the CDE items, indicating that alignment of definitions and harmonisation of data analysis by different stakeholders to accelerate and strengthen pregnancy pharmacovigilance safety data analyses could be feasible.

We urgently need answers to basic epidemiological questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant and postpartum women and its effect on their newborns. While many national registries, health facilities, and research groups are collecting relevant data, we need a collaborative and methodologically rigorous approach to better combine these data and address knowledge gaps, especially those related to rare outcomes. We propose that using a sequential, prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is the best approach to generate data for policy- and practice-oriented guidelines. As the pandemic evolves, additional studies identified retrospectively by the steering committee or through living systematic reviews will be invited to participate in this PMA. Investigators can contribute to the PMA by either submitting individual patient data or running standardized code to generate aggregate data estimates. For the primary analysis, we will pool data using two-stage meta-analysis methods. The meta-analyses will be updated as additional data accrue in each contributing study and as additional studies meet study-specific time or data accrual thresholds for sharing. At the time of publication, investigators of 25 studies, including more than 76,000 pregnancies, in 41 countries had agreed to share data for this analysis. Among the included studies, 12 have a contemporaneous comparison group of pregnancies without COVID-19, and four studies include a comparison group of non-pregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19. Protocols and updates will be maintained publicly. Results will be shared with key stakeholders, including the World Health Organization (WHO) Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Research Working Group. Data contributors will share results with local stakeholders. Scientific publications will be published in open-access journals on an ongoing basis.

Introduction

Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies.

Methods

We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection-as compared with uninfected pregnant women-were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias.

Conclusions

This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol.