Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Pregnant women are at higher risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since the release of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech), there has been accumulated data about the three vaccine doses. However, information regarding obstetric and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women vaccinated with the third (booster) vaccine is limited and primarily retrospective.

Objectives: To evaluate the obstetric and early neonatal outcomes of pregnant women vaccinated during pregnancy with the COVID-19 booster vaccine compared to pregnant women vaccinated only by the first two doses.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of pregnant women who received the BNT162b2 vaccine during pregnancy. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared between pregnant women who received only the first two doses of the vaccine to those who also received the booster dose.

Results: Overall, 139 pregnant women were vaccinated during pregnancy with the first two doses of the vaccine and 84 with the third dose. The third dose group received the vaccine earlier during their pregnancy compared to the two doses group (21² vs. 31⁵ weeks, respectively, P < 0.001). No differences in obstetric and early neonatal outcomes between the groups were found except for lower rates of urgent cesarean delivery in the third dose group (adjusted odds ratio 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.048–0.926, P = 0.039).

Conclusions: Compared to the first two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine given in pregnancy, the booster vaccination is safe and not associated with an increased rate of adverse obstetric and early neonatal outcomes.

Background: Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, is a tertiary hospital located in the center of Israel. It is the largest hospital in Israel and was the first to face coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients in the country at the beginning of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic.

Objectives: To describe our experience with the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on our triage method in the emergency department (ED). Our goal was to keep the main hospitalization buildings clean of infection by separating COVID-19 positive patients from COVID-19 negative patients.

Methods: We divided our ED into two separate sections: a regular non-COVID-19 ED and an advanced biological ED. We created clear protocols of triage for suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients. We reviewed the data of patients admitted to our ED during the month of March and analyzed the results of our triage method in separating COVID-19 positive from negative patients.

Results: During the month of March 2020, 7957 patients were referred to our ED. Among them 2004 were referred to the biological ED and 5953 were referred to the regular ED. Of the 2004 patients referred to the biological ED, 1641 (81.8%) were sampled for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction of whom 143 (8.7%) were positive. Only two COVID-19 positive patients unintentionally entered the main clean hospital, making our triage almost full proof.

Conclusions: Our triage method was successful in separating COVID-19 positive from negative patients and maintained the regular hospital clean of COVID-19 allowing treatment continuation of regular non-COVID-19 patients.

Background: Isolation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in healthy individuals is not common in Israel. In our hospital, about 30% of MRSA isolates were SCCmec types IV and V.

Objectives: To identify the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients carrying MRSA SCCmec type IV or V, and to compare them with each other and with those of patients with SCCmec types I-III.

Methods: We conducted a case-control study that included 501 patients from whom MRSA was isolated: 254 with SCCmec type I, II, or III, and 243 isolates from SCCmec types IV or V. 

Results: MRSA was isolated from surveillance cultures in 75% of patients and from a clinical site in 25%. The majority of our study population was elderly, from nursing homes, and with extensive exposure to health care. First, we compared characteristics of patients identified through screening. Statistically significant predictors of SCCmec V vs. IV were Arab ethnicity (OR 7.44, 95%CI 1.5–37.9) and hospitalization in the year prior to study inclusion (OR 5.7, 95%CI 1.9–16.9). No differences were found between patients with SCCmec types I-III and patients with SCCmec type IV or V. Analysis of the subset of patients who had clinical cultures yielded similar results. 

Conclusions: SCCmec types IV and V were common in the hospital setting although rare in the community. It seems that in Israel, SCCmec IV and V are predominantly health care-associated MRSA.