SARS-CoV-2 and the role of vertical transmission from infected pregnant women to their fetuses: systematic review

Background

Research on previous coronavirus outbreaks of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012 and the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2002-2003, assessed the risk of vertical transmission from infected mothers to their neonates and to date no cases of vertical transmission were reported^1,2. For SARS-CoV-2, several studies have assessed vertical transmission with some early reviews reporting no evidence of vertical transmission ^3,4, while others reported that vertical transmission was possible and could not be ruled out^4,5 although the risk appeared to be low ⁶. This study therefore aims to systematically review the evidence for vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

A WHO scientific brief ², published in February 2021, based on an evidence synthesis and expert consultation, considered three mechanisms of vertical transmission: (1) in utero, where the virus is present in the blood and crosses the maternal-placental interface; (2) intrapartum, occuring during labour and childbirth via contact with maternal blood, vaginal secretions or faeces; and (3) postnatal, via breast milk but can include contact with an infected mother, another infected caregiver or fomites. The WHO review highlighted that defining vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been challenging, as much of the reported vertical transmission has been based on a single positive neonatal RT-PCR in an upper respiratory tract specimen, with significant variation in the timing of sample collection. A proposed definition of confirmed in utero transmission was considered to be a positive RT-PCR test in one or more neonatal samples (including neonatal blood, respiratory swab, stool sample), amniotic fluid or a placental tissue sample; or positive serology, at age <24 hours, where there was evidence of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. Another study⁷ proposed a definition for vertical transmission as including a positive SARS-CoV-2 test in neonates in the first 24h of life (including respiratory tract swab, neonatal blood, cord blood or amniotic fluid) from mothers who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 14 days prior to birth and 2 days after birth. The UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS), however, defined vertical transmission as a positive neonatal sample taken within the first 12 h following birth to a mother with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection⁸. Given the challenges in defining vertical transmission and that many studies do not report what criteria were applied to define vertical transmission, in the current review, vertical transmission was considered as a positive test in the neonate (including RT-PCR testing of respiratory tract swabs, blood samples, placenta, amniotic fluid) at birth or up to 24h of life, where the mother had either tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 or had a recorded diagnosis of COVID-19.

Methods

We are undertaking an open evidence review investigating factors and circumstances that impact on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, based on our published protocol last updated on 1 December 2020 (Supplementary files, Protocol). This review aims to identify, appraise, and summarize the evidence (from peer-reviewed studies or studies awaiting peer review) assessing the occurrence of vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to their babies in utero. We are conducting an ongoing literature search in the WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar for

SARS-CoV-2 for keywords and associated synonyms. The search for this review was conducted up to 20 December 2020. We did not impose any language restrictions. (See Supplementary files for the search strategies). Studies of any design (including reviews and case reports) reporting vertical transmission were included. For the included primary studies, the risk of bias was assessed using five domains from the QUADAS-2 criteria ⁹; we adapted this tool because the included studies were not primarily designed as diagnostic accuracy studies. Due to the intrinsic difference in study designs, we did not conduct a quality appraisal of case reports reporting on only one or up to two cases, and data from these studies is reported separately in the Results. We checked the methodology of included reviews and recorded whether they fulfilled systematic review methodology; we did not perform formal assessments of the quality of included systematic reviews but summarized their findings, including quality of their included studies as reported by the authors. We extracted the following information from included primary studies: the country, setting and included population; study design; symptoms reported in mothers (including timing of symptoms if reported); the mode of delivery of babies (if reported); sample sources for SARS-CoV-2 testing for mothers and babies and SARS-CoV-2; and the numbers of neonates testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 from mothers with a COVID-19 positive diagnosis, as well as live culture results and any other relevant results (e.g. assessment of the placenta using histopathology and /or culture and/or immunostaining). We also extracted information on methodology used for RT-PCR, cycle threshold (Ct), and viral culture if reported. We defined “vertical transmission” as a positive test in the neonate within 24h of life, unless otherwise stated.

One reviewer (EAS) assessed the risk of bias from the primary studies (cohort and case series with > 2 cases) and these judgments were independently verified by a second reviewer (AP). Two reviewers (AP and EAS) extracted data from the included primary studies (including the case reports), each extracting data from half of the studes and independently verifying the data extraction of the other studies. One reviewer (AP) extracted data from the included systematic reviews, and these were independently checked by a second reviewer (EAS). Disagreements in the data extraction or bias assessments were resolved by consensus. A third author (IJO) was available in case consensus could not be reached. Results are presented in tabular format and a bar chart was used to represent the percentage of neonates testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 24h of birth: these were neonates born to mothers with a SARS-CoV-2 positive test or with a recorded COVID-19 diagnosis which included imaging or X-ray. We did not conduct meta-analysis because of substantial heterogeneity across the included studies.

Results

We found 123 studies assessing vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from pregnant women to their neonates (Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram). The studies assessed included 40 reviews and 83 primary studies. Laboratory studies, studies on breast milk only, one study describing a spa outbreak that did not report data for pregnant women, two case reports that did not provide data for testing of the baby, one study on oocytes, and one study that reported a subset of data of another included study¹⁰ were excluded (see Supplementary files, List of excluded studies). After removing duplicates we included a total of 106 studies: 40 reviews and 66 primary studies.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram

Amongst the 66 primary studies or reports (see Supplementary files, Table 1a. Characteristics of included studies), 32 were case reports (describing either single cases only or up to 2 cases) and the remaining 34 studies included prospective and retrospective cohort studies, prospective and retrospective case series, observational studies (including asymptomatic screening), database studies and a quality improvement project. Most studies reported results from testing of neonates, however one cohort study (Smithgall MC 2020) and one case series (Zhang P 2020) reported only on placental samples. Forty eight primary studies reported testing respiratory samples in neonates; in 10 studies the neonatal sample source was not clearly reported; the remainder of the studies examined placental, amniotic, umbilical and skin swab samples. The main findings of the included primary studies and systematic reviews are shown in Supplementary files Table 1b. Main findings of included primary studies and Table 1c. Main findings of included reviews.

Primary studies

We included 34 primary studies that were not case reports. The primary studies included eight case series (Chaudhary S 2020, Liu W 2020, Masmejan S 2020, Olivini N 2020, Pereira A 2020, Pissarra S 2020, Zhang L 2020, Zhang P 2020), 21 cohort studies (either prospective or retrospective) (Anand P 2020, Ayed A 2020, Bachani S 2020, Barbero P 2020, Gale C 2020, Fenizia B 2020, He Z 2020, Hu X 2020, Luo Q 2020, Khan MA 2020, Nayak AH 2020, Ogamba I 2020, Oncel MY 2020, Maraschini A 2020, Popofsky S 2020, Schwartz DA 2020, Smithgall MC 2020,Tang F 2020, Vinuela MC 2020, Vouga M 2020,Yang R 2020), 2 retrospective observational studies (Gao X 2020, Moreno SC 2020). and one quality improvement project (Cojocaru L 2020), one longitudinal surveillance study (Woodworth KR 2020), and one multi-centre retrospective chart review (Marin Gabriel MA 2020. Across these primary studies we extracted the data reporting the number of neonates testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR within 24h of birth (typically from a nasopharyngeal swab), who were born to mothers who either had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 (RT-PCR or serologic testing) or who were diagnosed as having COVID-19 based on clinical assessment including imaging or chest X-ray. Twenty studies reported no positive neonatal cases for neonates tested within 24h of birth (Table 3. Main findings of included cohort and case series studies, Figure 2). Two studies reporting the higher percentage of SARS-CoV-2 cases amongst neonates (22% and 11%) were cohort studies that had specifically selected only neonates with a positive test within 28 days (Gale C 2020) or within 35 days (Schwartz DA 2020) of birth as the included population, where some but not all had been born to mothers with known SARS-CoV-2 infection. These therefore constituted a selected population. The study reporting 15% positivity for neonates was a small study (n=20) including neonates with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (antibody or RT-PCR) within 14 days after birth or mothers with a positive COVID-19 test in the third trimester (Tang F 2020). These latter studies therefore also constitute a more selected population. The remaining studies reported percentages of positive neonates between 0.8% and 10.8%. Overall there were a total of 2391 neonates included in the analysis of which 65 (2.7%) had a positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 within 24h of birth.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 3.

Main findings of included cohort and case series studies.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Percentage neonates positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 24h.

The studies included symptomatic and asymptomatic women; however there did not seem to be a specific correlation between symptom status of the mothers and the likelihood of a positive test in the babies, with some studies reporting on women who had symptoms of COVID-19 either immediately prior to or during hospitalisation, some with severe symptoms, where none of the babies tested positive within 24h of birth (e.g. Liu W 2020, Luo Q 2020, Masmejan S 2020, Moreno SC 2020, Ogamba I 2020, Popofsky S 2020) (See Table 1a). Similarly, the mode of delivery (vaginal birth, caesarean section, emergency caesarean section) did not seem to be correlated to positivity rate amongst neonates; across the included cohort and case series studies, for the 6188 cases where mode of delivery was reported, 3939 were by vaginal delivery, 2122 by caesarean section, and 127 reported as emergency caesarean (Table 1b). The overall rate of caesarean section across the included studies thus appears higher than rates generally reported, for example in the UK a recent study reported the rate of caesarean section delivery to range from 13.6% to 31.9% across 146 English NHS trusts¹¹, although rates may be context dependent. This may relate to a cautious approach being taken, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic where there was a lack of evidence to inform practice. As noted by others it is reasonable to question whether caesarean delivery for pregnant patients with COVID-19 as the indication, is warranted (Della Gatta AN 2020).

We considered mothers’ test results up to 5 days pre delivery and 8 days post delivery, and mothers’ symptomatology in that same time period (as the relevant time period of likely infectiousness). We also looked at studies’ reports of SARS-CoV-2 testing in the neonates up to or at 24 hours of life, as the most relevant indicator of possible vertical transmission. Testing in mothers was not reported in 4 studies; timing for the mothers’ testing was not reported in 23/79 studies, and the timing was unclear in 1 study. Timing of mothers’ symptomatology was not reported or unclear in 28/83 studies. 75/83 studies reported testing of neonates within 24 hours of life for SARS-CoV-2: among these 75 studies, 144 neonates/1,545 total neonates tested positive within 24h of life. Among those neonates with a positive testing mother within 5 days pre delivery and 8 days post delivery, the number of neonates testing positive was 19/199. For neonates of women with a positive test and symptoms within that time window, 13/32 neonates tested positive within 24h of life. The number of neonates with a positive test within 24hours, born to women with a negative test within 5 days pre and 8 days post delivery, was 4 of 5 neonates.

The focus of this review was to assess the evidence for vertical transmission and did not specifically address the question of maternal and fetal outcomes. Other reviews addressing this question have concluded that SARS-CoV-2 infection was not specifically shown to increase the risk of maternal, fetal, and neonatal complications (Salem D 2020), although some reviews have reported the potential for higher risk of complications, depending on the maternal disease course (Amaral W 2020). The cohort and case series studies in this review reported some cases of neonatal admission to intensive care, but this was not always related to symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 and several studies reported no symptoms in neonates who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Table 3. Main findings of included cohort and case series studies).

Discussion

We identified 40 reviews and 66 primary studies assessing vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from pregnant women to their neonates. Overall, the results of these studies indicate that vertical transmission is possible, but is not frequent, and factors affecting whether vertical transmission occurs are unknown. The analysis of the included primary studies that were not case reports found that overall of the 2391 included neonates, 65 (2.7%) had a positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 within 24h of birth; this may not be a representative population of pregnant women and neonates. Other systematic reviews included in this study have reported similar results, for example Amaral W 2020 reported a positivity rate for newborns within 24h of less than 1%, Cavalcante de Melo 2020 reported 2% positivity rate and Dhir SK 2020 reported 5% positivity rate. When considering other viruses or microbial pathogens known to be transmitted from mothers to infants, a systematic review of mother-to child transmission of HIV including 18 studies and 6253 participants reported an estimated pooled prevalence of mother-to-child transmission of HIV of 11.4% (95% CI = 9.1-13.7)¹²; a systematic review of vertical transmission of chikungunya virus including 42 studies and 266 infected neonates reported a vertical transmission rate of 50%¹³; and a retrospective analysis of mid-trimester amniocentesis performed in pregnancies with diagnosed maternal infection by cytomegalovirus (CMV), rubella or Toxoplasma gondii reported a transmission rate of 17.3% in cases with infection from CMV, 9.5% from Toxoplasma gondii and 7.8% from rubella¹⁴.

All of the included studies in this review used RT-PCR (alone or in combination with clinical and/or immunologic tests) to determine the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mothers and neonates, but most studies did not report details of the PCR methods used nor did they report Ct values. Notably none of the studies reported results of viral culture to detect SARS-CoV-2 and only one case report conducted whole genome sequencing of viral samples from the mother and neonate, reporting the presence of a single variant of the virus, indicating vertical transmission (Zaigham M 2020). In addition, in most studies no definition was provided as to what constituted “vertical transmission” and the maternal disease course was not always described in relation to testing, therefore it is possible that some cases identified as vertical transmission in the included studies could have been attributable to an alternative source of infection.

The majority of studies utilised PCR testing to assess vertical transmission. Whilst these studies suggest that vertical transmission is possible and may occur in a minority of pregnancies, these data in themselves can not discern whether infection takes place in utero, during the birth process, or via contact with the mother or health care workers at or shortly after birth.

This review did not specifically assess maternal and fetal outcomes. Some early reviews that have assessed this question found that SARS-CoV-2 infection was not specifically shown to increase the risk of maternal, fetal, and neonatal complications (Salem D 2020), while others have reported the potential for higher risk of complications for both mothers and their neonates, depending on the maternal disease course (Amaral W 2020). One recent large multinational cohort study assessing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, comparing pregnant women with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis, found higher rates of adverse outcomes, including maternal mortality, preeclampsia, and preterm birth, in women with COVID-19 (Villar et al 2021) and this warrants further investigation.

The presence of positive tests in both mother and neonate does not unequivocally demonstrate direct transfer of virus from mother to neonate, nor can it demonstrate the biological process by which virus may be transferred. For neonates testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus may have been transmitted directly from mother to neonate across the placenta, but other infection routes may also occur. For example, one study examining fecal samples of mother-neonate dyads found that although the majority of the bacterial microbiome mirrored that of the mother, only a small proportion of the virus population found in a neonate’s fecal samples matched that of the mother. This would be expected given that the gut flora in neonates will be very different from the mother, but this also suggests virus transfer via other routes such as skin contact, breastmilk, or local contamination (Maqsood et al 2019).

Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in placental samples does not demonstrate placental infection by the virus, nor that transmission via the placental barrier has occurred or can potentially occur (Wastnedge et al 2020). In these studies, positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in placentas did not necessarily correlate with positive PCR tests of the neonate. Some studies however showed intervillositis in the placenta and positive immunostaining for SARS-CoV-2 (Pulinx B 2020, Shende P 2020, Vivanti AJ 2020, Zaigham M 2020), which suggests the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the placenta, and recent work has reported cultivatable SARS-CoV-2 from placental tissue with positive histopathology and whole genome sequencing supporting true vertical transmission (Vayalumkal et al 2021). Overall, viral invasion of the placenta appears to be likely, given the reports in some studies of intervillositis in the placenta and positive immunostaining for SARS-CoV-2; however more high quality information is needed for a clearer understanding of placental infection, the possibility of the virus being transmitted via the placental barrier, and the risk of transmission at the different stages of pregnancy. Nonetheless the demonstration in multiple studies of intervillositis in the placenta and positive immunostaining for SARS-CoV-2 would be strong enough evidence to suggest policy development against placentophagy in the setting of a mother who delivers and has active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Implications for further research

Evidence of replicable virus as indicated by serial culture with confirmed virus identification, along with concordance in the results of whole genome sequencing for samples from mother and neonate, would substantially reduce uncertainty about the mode of transmission¹⁵.

Whilst this currently available evidence suggests that vertical transmission is possible and appears to take place infrequently, there is very little information to explain what affects transmission, and therefore how risk can best be mitigated. The risk of vertical transmission is also uncertain when the SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs in the first or second trimester (especially if the mother is asymptomatic). Prospective studies are needed to recruit pregnant women and follow the perinatal and neonatal time course, collecting clinical and exposure information at multiple stages and utilising standardised methods to identify viral infection.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this review found evidence that vertical transmission can occur, but does not happen frequently. Among neonates born to women with a SARS-CoV-2 positive test or a recorded COVID-19 diagnosis, the great majority do not test positive for SARS-CoV-2 within the first 24 hours of life, indicating a low rate of vertical transmission. From the data we examined, it is not possible to establish what factors may affect vertical transmission.

Competing Interests

TJ was in receipt of a Cochrane Methods Innovations Fund grant to develop guidance on the use of regulatory data in Cochrane reviews (2015-018). In 2014–2016, he was a member of three advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim. TJ was a member of an independent data monitoring committee for a Sanofi Pasteur clinical trial on an influenza vaccine. TJ is occasionally interviewed by market research companies about phase I or II pharmaceutical products for which he receives fees (current). TJ was a member of three advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim (2014-16). TJ was a member of an independent data monitoring committee for a Sanofi Pasteur clinical trial on an influenza vaccine (2015-2017). TJ is a relator in a False Claims Act lawsuit on behalf of the United States that involves sales of Tamiflu for pandemic stockpiling. If resolved in the United States favor, he would be entitled to a percentage of the recovery. TJ is coholder of a Laura and John Arnold Foundation grant for development of a RIAT support centre (2017-2020) and Jean Monnet Network Grant, 2017-2020 for The Jean Monnet Health Law and Policy Network. TJ is an unpaid collaborator to the project Beyond Transparency in Pharmaceutical Research and Regulation led by Dalhousie University and funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2018-2022). TJ consulted for Illumina LLC on next generation gene sequencing (2019-2020). TJ was the consultant scientific coordinator for the HTA Medical Technology programme of the Agenzia per i Servizi Sanitari Nazionali (AGENAS) of the Italian MoH (2007-2019). TJ is Director Medical Affairs for BC Solutions, a market access company for medical devices in Europe. TJ was funded by NIHR UK and the World Health Organization (WHO) to update Cochrane review A122, Physical Interventions to interrupt the spread of respiratory viruses. TJ is funded by Oxford University to carry out a living review on the transmission epidemiology of COVID-19. Since 2020, TJ receives fees for articles published by The Spectator and other media outlets. TJ is part of a review group carrying out Living rapid literature review on the modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (WHO Registration 2020/1077093-0). He is a member of the WHO COVID-19 Infection Prevention and Control Research Working Group for which he receives no funds. TJ is funded to co-author rapid reviews on the impact of Covid restrictions by the Collateral Global Organisation. He is also an editor of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group. TJ’s competing interests are also online https://restoringtrials.org/competing-interests-tom-jefferson

CH holds grant funding from the NIHR, the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR BRC Oxford and the World Health Organization for a series of Living rapid review on the modes of transmission of SARs-CoV-2 reference WHO registration No2020/1077093. He has received financial remuneration from an asbestos case and given legal advice on mesh and hormone pregnancy tests cases. He has received expenses and fees for his media work including occasional payments from BBC Radio 4 Inside Health and The Spectator. He receives expenses for teaching EBM and is also paid for his GP work in NHS out of hours (contract Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust). He has also received income from the publication of a series of toolkit books and for appraising treatment recommendations in non-NHS settings. He is Director of CEBM, an NIHR Senior Investigator and an advisor to Collateral Global. He is also an editor of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group

DHE holds grant funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and Li Ka Shing Institute of Virology relating to the development of Covid-19 vaccines as well as the Canadian Natural Science and Engineering Research Council concerning Covid-19 aerosol transmission. He is a recipient of World Health Organization and Province of Alberta funding which supports the provision of BSL3-based SARS-CoV-2 culture services to regional investigators. He also holds public and private sector contract funding relating to the development of poxvirus-based Covid-19 vaccines, SARS-CoV-2-inactivation technologies, and serum neutralization testing.

JMC holds grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research on acute and primary care preparedness for COVID 19 in Alberta, Canada and was the primary local Investigator for a Staphylococcus aureus vaccine study funded by Pfizer for which all funding was provided only to the University of Calgary. He is a co investigator on a WHO funded study using integrated human factors and ethnography approaches to identify and scale innovative IPC guidance implementation supports in primary care with a focus on low resource settings and using drone aerial systems to deliver medical supplies and PPE to remote First Nations communities during the COVID 19 pandemic. He also received support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to attend an Infection Control Think Tank Meeting. He is a member of the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Research and Development Expert Group for COVID 19 and the WHO Health Emergencies Programme (WHE) Ad hoc COVID 19 IPC Guidance Development Group, both of which provide multidisciplinary advice to the WHO, for which no funding is received and from which no funding recommendations are made for any WHO contracts or grants. He is also a member of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group.

JB is a major shareholder in the Trip Database search engine (www.tripdatabase.com) as well as being an employee. In relation to this work Trip has worked with a large number of organisations over the years, none have any links with this work. The main current projects are with AXA and Collateral Global.

ECR was a member of the European Federation of Neurological Societies(EFNS) / European Academy of Neurology (EAN) Scientist Panel – Subcommittee of Infectious Diseases (2013-2017). Since 2021, she is a member of the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society (MDS) Multiple System Atrophy Study Group and the Mild Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson Disease Study Group. She was an External Expert and sometimes Rapporteur for COST proposals (2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) for Neurology projects.

AP is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and reports grant funding from NIHR School of Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR ESWG project 390 and project 461), during the conduct of the study; and occasionally receives expenses for teaching Evidence-Based Medicine. IJO, EAS have no interests to disclose.

Grant information

The review was funded by the World Health Organization: Living rapid review on the modes of transmission of SARs-CoV-2 reference WHO registration N°2020/1077093. CH, AP and ES also receive funding support from the NIHR SPCR Evidence Synthesis Working Group project 390.

Data Availability

All data included in the review are provided in the tables or in the supplemental files.