Abstract
Objectives Although often presenting as a self-limiting childhood disease, chickenpox can have serious consequences if acquired in pregnancy. The UK recommendations are that varicella immunoglobulin (VZIG) is administered intramuscularly to susceptible pregnant women exposed to chickenpox prior to 20 weeks gestation. Oral aciclovir or VZIG is recommended if exposure occurs at 20+ weeks gestation. Our objective was to compare the effectiveness of oral aciclovir to VZIG in preventing maternal and neonatal chickenpox.
Methods We identified and followed up 186 pregnant women who were exposed to chickenpox and compared their outcomes.
Results 171/186 (91.9%) of these women received either VZIG or oral aciclovir. 53 of the 145 (36.6%) women who received VZIG went on to develop chickenpox compared to 8 of the 26 (30.8%) women who received oral aciclovir (p=0.32). No statistical difference was found between the oral aciclovir and VZIG groups even after controlling for maternal age, gestational stage, type of exposure and IgG titre (adjusted OR:0.83; 95%CI:0.26-2.65; p=0.751).
Conclusions These findings support the use of oral aciclovir as first-line prophylaxis in pregnant women exposed at 20+ weeks, (and possibly second-line <20 weeks) as they suggest its effectiveness at preventing maternal chickenpox is either better or equal to VZIG.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The review for the study was conducted by the Public Health England (PHE) Research Ethics and Governance of Public Health Practice Group (REGG). The review covered the study design, content and feasibility, and all legal, financial, regulatory and ethical considerations. As a result of this review, the study was categorized as a service evaluation. As no ethical issues were identified it was decided that consideration by an ethics committee would not be necessary.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript