Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2022 Dec 5;16(12):e0010963. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010963

Pregnancy outcomes after snakebite envenomations: A retrospective cohort in the Brazilian Amazonia

Thaís P Nascimento 1, Alexandre Vilhena Silva-Neto 2,3, Djane Clarys Baia-da-Silva 1,2,3,4, Patrícia Carvalho da Silva Balieiro 2,3, Antônio Alcirley da Silva Baleiro 1, Jacqueline Sachett 2,5, Lisele Brasileiro 2,3, Marco A Sartim 2,3, Flor Ernestina Martinez-Espinosa 1,3, Fan Hui Wen 5, Manuela B Pucca 6, Charles J Gerardo 7, Vanderson S Sampaio 3, Priscila Ferreira de Aquino 1, Wuelton M Monteiro 2,3,*
Editor: Abdulrazaq G Habib8
PMCID: PMC9754599  PMID: 36469516

Abstract

Snakebite envenomations (SBEs) in pregnant women can result in adverse maternal or neonatal effects, such as abortion, placental abruption, preterm labor, fetal malformations, and maternal, fetal or neonatal deaths. Despite the high incidence of SBEs in the Brazilian Amazon, there is no literature on the impact of SBEs on pregnancy outcomes. The objective of this study was to describe clinical epidemiology and outcomes associated with SBEs in women of childbearing age and pregnant women in the state of Amazonas, Western Brazilian Amazon, from 2007 to 2021. Information on the population was obtained from the Reporting Information System (SINAN), Mortality Information System (SIM) and Live Birth Information System (SINASC) for the period from 2007 to 2021. A total of 36,786 SBEs were reported, of which 3,297 (9%) involved women of childbearing age, and 274 (8.3%) involved pregnant women. Severity (7.9% in pregnant versus 8.7% in non-pregnant women) (P = 0.87) and case-fatality (0.4% in pregnant versus 0.3% in non-pregnant women) rates were similar between groups (P = 0.76). Pregnant women who suffered snakebites were at higher risk for fetal death (OR: 2.17, 95%CI: 1.74–2.67) and neonatal death (OR = 2.79, 95%CI: 2.26–3.40). This study had major limitations related to the completeness of the information on the pregnancy outcomes. Although SBE incidence in pregnant women is low in the Brazilian Amazon, SBEs increased the risk of fetal and neonatal deaths.

Author summary

Snakebite envenomations (SBEs) are a health problem in tropical and subtropical countries. In endemic areas, this health problem more frequently involves men engaged in agricultural activities. However, in many areas of the world, women of childbearing age are also very affected by snakebites, as they also actively participate in activities that put them at risk of encountering snakes. In this context, SBEs can occur during pregnancy, with deleterious consequences for both the mother and the fetus or neonate. However, the little that is known about the consequences of SBEs in pregnancy comes from case reports. In this study, we linked the surveillance databases Snakebites Reporting Information System (SINAN), Mortality Information System (SIM) and Live Birth Information System (SINASC) of the state of Amazonas, Western Brazilian Amazon, to gain a more integrative view of the problem in the region. Although severity and case-fatality rates of SBEs were similar between pregnant and non-pregnant women, pregnant women who suffered SBEs were at higher risk for fetal and neonatal deaths.

Introduction

Snakebite envenomation (SBE) is a serious global public health problem that per year affects approximately 2.7 million people and causes more than 100,000 deaths, predominantly in tropical, low and middle-income countries [1]. Over 25,000 snakebites occurred in Brazil in 2021, with, depending on the region, about 70 to 90% of these being caused by lanceheads (Bothrops spp.) [2]. In the Amazon region of Brazil, cases have an incidence that is four times higher than in the rest of the country [3,4]. The burden of SBEs has not received proper attention from public health community, development agencies and governments, but is currently properly categorized as a Category A neglected tropical disease [5]. Most SBE reporting systems are fragile and underestimate the actual numbers and case fatalities [6], thus better epidemiological surveillance is necessary to assess the extent of this important public health problem so as to improve prevention and treatment interventions. Most deaths and sequelae from SBEs are preventable by interventions such as early administration of antivenom [7,8].

Generally, SBEs caused by Bothrops snakes are characterized by local (pain, swelling, blisters, and bleeding from the bite site) and systemic (abnormal clotting, spontaneous bleeding and kidney failure) manifestations [9]. Other complications include bacterial infections, necrosis, compartment syndrome, and amputations [1012]. To prevent severe cases, antivenom must be administered quickly. In the Brazilian Amazon, antivenom is available only in urban health units and time to medical care may take hours or even days. In this scenario of poor access to medical care, the use of traditional practices, such as herbal preparations, incisions at the bite site, application of black stones, and tourniquets, are often used [13,14], which delay the effective care and contribute to severity and a greater number of deaths [4,15].

As observed in other parts of the world, SBEs in Brazil mainly affect working males in rural settings [4,16]. However, women of childbearing age are also exposed to SBEs, especially in the rural areas, and SBEs in pregnant women have been reported [3,15]. When pregnant women suffer SBEs, maternal or neonatal pathological effects may be observed, such as abortion, placental abruption, preterm labor, fetal malformations, maternal death, and fetal or neonatal death [1719]. Although these events are important and maternal death has an impact on the family and community, most of the information in the literature is based on case reports and a few case series [20]. Therefore, the absence of robust evidence may mask the actual burden of SBEs in pregnant women and make clinical management difficult.

The objective of this study was to describe clinical epidemiology and outcomes associated with SBEs in women of childbearing age and pregnant women in the state of Amazonas, Western Brazilian Amazon, in cases from 2007 to 2021.

Material and methods

Ethics statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the guidelines of Good Clinical Practice of the International Harmonization Conference. The study was approved by the Ethics Review Board (ERB) of the Fundação de Medicina Tropical Dr. Heitor Vieira Dourado (CAAE: 52805821.4.0000.5016). The ERB gave a waiver for informed consent. After database linkages, the final dataset was anonymized before statistical analysis.

Study area

The state of Amazonas is located in the Western Brazilian Amazon, and comprises an area of 1,559,167.878 km2 (the biggest state in the country), with 62 municipalities. The estimated population of the state is 4,269,995 inhabitants (2021), with 80% living in urban zones and 20% in rural, riverine, and indigenous areas. Approximately 50% of the population lives in the state capital, Manaus. The state has a reduced coverage in terms of highways and roads, and a primarily fluvial transportation system. The state is densely covered by a rainforest that is comprised of the upland forests (terra firme forest), floodplains (várzeas), and flooded areas (igapós).

In 2021, 1,996 SBEs were reported in the state of Amazonas (~50 cases/100,000 inhabitants), with 90% of cases caused by the lancehead snake (Bothrops atrox) [9]. In the 62 municipalities of this state, 78 registered health units provide antivenom treatment free of charge. SBEs are compulsorily recorded in structured forms available on-line as part of the Brazilian Ministry of Health’s (MoH) Reporting Information System (SINAN).

Study design

This is a concurrent, cohort study, based on surveillance data from SBE patients treated in health units of the state of Amazonas and reported on the SINAN, between January 2007 and December 2021. In this study, exposure was defined as an SBE episode, according to the Brazilian MoH guidelines [21]. The predictor variables age, education (years of schooling), self-reported ethnicity, occurrence zone (rural/urban), association with work activities, time from snakebite to medical assistance (in hours), anatomical site of the bite, type of envenomation, local and systemic manifestations, Lee-White clotting test result, severity classification, and antivenom treatment were also used. The variable of ethnicity in the databases is self-reported, and the investigators recognize that the available choices of ethnicity may not fully or accurately reflect the ethnic identity of the patients. Specifically, the term pardo (mixed-race) is both widely used, but also rejected by some.

Outcomes

The present study was designed to estimate the risk of (i) severe SBE cases, life-threatening SBEs with severe bleeding, hypotension/shock and/or acute renal failure, as reported to SINAN database [21]; (ii) maternal SBE-related case-fatalities, defined as deaths reported as X.29, X.28, R98, and R99 according the ICD10-10th revision, as reported to the Mortality Information System (SIM) [22]; (iii) low birth weight, defined by WHO as weight at birth of < 2,500 grams (5.5 pounds) [23], as reported to Live Birth Information System (SINASC); (iv) preterm birth, defined as babies born alive before 37 weeks of pregnancy are completed, as reported to SINASC. There are sub-categories of preterm birth, based on gestational age: extremely preterm (less than 28 weeks), very preterm (28 to 32 weeks), moderate to late preterm (32 to 37 weeks) [24]; v) fetal deaths, which refer to the intrauterine death of a fetus at any time during pregnancy [25]; (vi) neonatal deaths, death of live newborn before the age of 28 complete days [26]; and (vii) perinatal mortality, defined as a death from 22weeks of gestation until 7 days after birth [26].

Data processing and record linkage strategy

The database variables were standardized by removing special characters such as punctuation, prepositions, and graphic accents. Dates of birth have been changed to “day-month-year” format. In order to only assess information from women of childbearing age (10–49 years) [27], SBEs in males, women outside of childbearing age, dry bites and cases of bites by non-venomous snakes were excluded from the SINAN database. Gestational status was assessed in women of childbearing age using the SINAN, SINASC, and SIM databases. Severity classification was obtained from the SINAN database. Case fatality was assessed via the SIM database. Pregnancy outcomes were also assessed using the information from the SINASC and SIM databases. The crossing of the data from the SINAN, SIM, and SINASC databases was performed using Record probabilist linkage with the “R” language, on the Rstudio 3.11.1 platform, “RecordLinkage” library and phonetic method and “Levenshtein”. Three linkages were made: (i) SINAN X SIM (pairing in identification of deaths of women of childbearing age), with blocking performed from the date of birth, “patient’s name” (SINAN) “deceased’s name” (SIM), and “mother’s name” (SINAN and SIM); (ii) SINAN X SIM (pairing to identify fetal or perinatal deaths) with the blocking performed from the surnames that were compared with the variables "patient’s name" (SINAN), "mother’s name" (SIM) and "city of residence” (SINAN and SIM); (iii) SINAN X SINASC (pairing for identification of complications in live births) with blocking of surnames and comparisons between the variables "patient’s name" (SINAN), "mother’s name" (SINASC) and "city of residence" (SINAN and SINASC). We obtained a final selection of pairs identified as likely to be from the same patients by automatic verification, applying a probability threshold (probability > 0.7) for all linkages. Pairs with score values > 0.3 were manually double-checked to identify other true pairs. A final identification was created for all included participants.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for demographic variables. Continuous variables presented as mean and standard deviation. Maternal and perinatal cases evolving to death were individually described. Student’s t test was used to compare means, and Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test were used to compare proportions, as appropriate. Crude odds ratio (OR) with its respective 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was determined in a univariate analysis. Logistic regression was used for the multivariate analyses and the adjusted OR (AOR) with 95% CI were also estimated. A log binomial multivariate generalized linear regression was performed using an automated forward stepwise estimation. All variables that were associated with dependent variables at a significance level of P < 0.2 in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis. Statistical significance was considered when P<0.05 in the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The statistical analyses were carried out using R software (version 4.1.0).

Results

Participants’ characteristics

There were 36,786 SBEs reported in the state of Amazonas from 2007 to 2021. A total of 3,297 cases occurred in women of childbearing age, of which 274 (8.3%) were pregnant (Fig 1). The frequency of SBEs during pregnancy was 21.7 SBE cases per 100,000 pregnancies. Mostly sociodemographic and clinical aspects are similar in pregnant and non-pregnant women (Table 1). Mean age of pregnant women was significantly lower than that for non-pregnant women [OR = 0.97 (95%CI 0.96–0.99)]. Most pregnant women affected by SBEs reported ethnicity as either pardo (58.9%) or Amerindian (34.1%), had 4–7 years of schooling (62.9%), and lived in rural areas (82.8%). A total of 40% of the SBEs in pregnant women were related to work activities. Regarding time to medical assistance, 51.1% were admitted to health units within 3 hours after the snakebite occurring. Bites were reported mostly in the lower limbs (87.1%). Envenomations caused by the lance head snake (Bothrops) were diagnosed in 73.7% of the cases. Pain, edema, and ecchymosis were the major local manifestations. The most common local complications were secondary bacterial infections (2.7%) and necrosis (2.0%). Unclottable blood was reported in 39.8% of the cases. Acute kidney injury was the major systemic complication (2.4%). A total of 47.3% of the cases presented moderate severity, and 88.0% received antivenom treatment.

Fig 1. Study flowcharts, with absolute numbers and frequencies of snakebite envenomations in women of childbearing age and pregnant women, and maternal and perinatal outcomes.

Fig 1

SINAN: Case Reporting Information System; SINASC: Live Birth Information System; SIM: Mortality Information System.

Table 1. Demographic and clinical aspects between pregnancy and women of childbearing age.

Variables Total, n, %
n = 3,297
Pregnant, n,%
n = 274
Non-pregnant, n,%
n = 3,023
P OR (95%CI)
Mean age (±SD) 28.3 (10.7) 25.7 (9.3) 28.5 (10.8) <0.01 0.97 (0.96–0.99)
Ethnicity (n = 3,262)
White 110 (3.4) 2.6 3.4 1 1
Black 84 (2.6) 3.7 2.5 0.18 1.99 (0.72–5.46)
Asian 13 (0.4) 0.7 0.4 0.25 2.67 (0.49–14.50)
Pardo 2,205 (67.6) 58.9 68.4 0.74 1.14 (0.52–2.50)
Amerindians 850 (26.1) 34.1 25.3 0.15 1.78 (0.80–3.96)
Education (in years) (n = 2,357)
0–4 227 (9.6) 11.9 9.4 1 1
4–7 1,366 (58.0) 62.9 57.5 0.54 0.86 (0.55–1.37)
8–15 488 (20.7) 19.3 20.8 0.25 0.73 (0.43–1.25)
16–18 251 (10.6) 5.4 11.1 0.01 0.39 (0.19–0.81)
>18 25 (1.1) 0.5 1.1 0.32 0.35 (0.05–2.72)
Occurrence zone (n = 3.261)
Urban 479 (14.7) 16.5 14.5 1 1
Rural 2,738 (84.0) 82.8 84.1 0.41 0.87 (0.62–1.22)
Periurban 44 (1.3) 0.7 1.4 0.29 0.46 (0.11–1.96)
Work-related snakebite (n = 3,196) 1,195 (37.0%) 40.0 37.0 0.53 1.08 (0.83–1.41)
Time from bite to medical assistance (in hours) (n = 3,160)
0–3 1,561 (49.4) 51.1 49.2 1 1
3–12 1,078 (34.1) 31.6 34.3 0.40 0.88 (0.66–1.17)
12–24 282 (8.9) 8.6 8.9 0.75 0.93 (0.58–1.47)
>24 239 (7.6) 8.6 7.5 0.64 1.11 (0.70–1.77)
Bite site (3,271)
Head 32 (1.0) 1.5 0.9 1 1
Upper limbs 404 (12.4) 11.0 12.5 0.31 0.56 (0.18–1.71)
Lower limbs 2,827 (86.4) 87.1 86.4 0.41 0.64 (0.22–1.85)
Trunk 8 (0.2) 0.4 0.2 1 1 (0.10–10.41)
Type of envenomings (n = 3,297)
Bothrops 2,465 (74.8) 73.7 74.9 1 1
Crotalus 14 (0.4) 0.0 0.5 1 1
Micrurus 15 (0.5) 0.0 0.5 1 1
Lachesis 459 (13.9) 14.6 13.9 0.71 1.06 (0.75–1.52)
Unknown 344 (10.4) 4.4 3.1 0.27 1.41 (0.76–2.62)
Local manifestations (3,051)
Pain 2,985 (97.8) 98.8 97.7 0.27 1.93 (0.60–6.18)
Edema 2,477 (81.3) 78.7 81.6 0.26 0.83 (0.61–1.14)
Ecchymosis 497 (16.4) 16.3 16.4 0.97 0.99 (0.70–1.41)
Necrosis 64 (2.1) 2.0 2.1 0.23 2.14 (0.66–7.01)
Secondary bacterial infection 178 (5.9) 2.7 6.1 0.03 0.43 (0.20–0.92)
Compartment syndrome 26 (0.9) 0.8 0.9 0.89 0.90 (0.21–3.87)
Systemic manifestations (3,018)
Acute kidney injury 69 (2.3) 3.2 0.88 1.05 (0.45–2.46)
Respiratory failure 11 (0.4) 0.8 0.3 0.24 2.48 (0.53–11.55)
Sepsis 6 (0.2) 0.4 0.2 0.46 2.22 (0.25–19.15)
Shock 6 (0.2) 0.0 0.2 . . . . . .
Unclottable blood (2,090) 863 (41.3) 39.8 41.4 0.67 0.93 (0.67–1.28)
Severity classification (3,178)
Mild 1,500 (47.2) 44.7 47.4 1 1
Moderate 1,401 (44.1) 47.3 43.8 0.30 1.14 (0.88–1.49)
Severe 277 (8.7) 7.9 8.7 0.87 0.96 (0.59–1.55)
Antivenom treatment (n = 3,219) 2,847 (88.4) 88.0 88.5 0.58 1.02 (0.93–1.12)
Deaths from snakebites (3,297) 9 (0.3%) 1 (0.4%) 8 (0.3%) 0.76 1.38 (0.17–11.03)

Maternal outcomes

The frequency of severe cases was similar between pregnant (7.9%) and non-pregnant (8.7%) women with SBEs [OR = 0.96 (95%CI 0.59–1.55)] (Table 1). Case-fatality was 0.4% (1/274) in pregnant women and 0.3% (8/3,023) in non-pregnant women, with no statistical difference [OR = 1.38 (95%CI 0.17–11.03)] (Table 1).

Fatal SBEs in women of childbearing age are described in Table 2. Out of the nine women, one was in the first trimester of pregnancy. This pregnant woman was 39 years old, had Amerindian ethnicity, and was a resident of the municipality of Tabatinga. She was bitten on the foot by a Bothrops snake. On hospital admission, the case was classified as severe and 8 vials of Bothrops antivenom were prescribed. She died one day after admission. Unfortunately, clinical description and cause of death were not available in the databases. Eight non-pregnant women also died during the study period; five were of Amerindian ethnicity, and ages ranged from 26 to 49 years. Major local complications were secondary bacterial infections and necrosis. Acute kidney failure was the most common systemic complication during hospitalization. Acute respiratory failure, sepsis, and acute kidney failure were the main immediate causes of death. Six women received antivenom treatment and two died without medical care (Table 2).

Table 2. Characteristics of the fatal snakebite envenoming cases in women of childbearing age.

Case Age (years) Place of residence Race Schooling Perpetrating snake Time to medical care (in hours) Site of the bite Blood clotting time Clinical manifestations Clinical classification on admission, antivenom treatment Complications Time until death
(in days)
Immediate cause of death§
1# 39 Tabatinga, rural Amerindian Unknown Bothrops Unknown Foot Unknown Unknown Severe, 8 BA vials Unknown 1 Unknown
2 44 Japurá, rural Pardo Incomplete elementary school Lachesis 6 Foot Unclottable Pain, swelling, ecchymosis and vagal syndrome Severe,
10 BA vials
Necrosis and seconda y bacterial infection 1 Sepsis, respiratory distress and cardiac arrest
3 37 Santa Isabel do Rio Negro, rural Amerindian Incomplete elementary school Unknown Unknown Leg Unclottable Pain and swelling . . . Unknown Unassisted death Unknown
4 26 Coari, rural Pardo Incomplete elementary school Bothrops 12 Leg Unknown Pain, swelling and respiratory distress Severe,
5 BA vials
Acute kidney injury 1 Respiratory failure
5 49 Manicoré, rural Amerindian Unknown Bothrops 6 Leg Unclottable Pain, swelling and oliguria Severe,
8 BA vials
Secondary infection and acute kidney failure 5 Acute post-hemorrhagic anemia
6 47 Beruri, rural Amerindian Unknown Bothrops . . . Finger Unclottable Pain, swelling and ecchymosis . . . Unknown Unassisted death Unknow
7 45 Tabatinga, rural Amerindian Incomplete elementary school Bothrops 3 Finger Unknown Pain and swelling Mild,
6 BA vials
Unknown 12 Stroke
8 26 São Gabriel da Cachoeira, rural Amerindian Unknown Bothrops > 24 Leg Unknown Pain, swelling, ecchymosis and oliguria Severe,
6 BA vials
Secondary bacterial infection and acute kidney failure 3 Acute respiratory failure, sepsis, acute kidney failure and muscle ischemic infarction
9 48 Manaus, urban Pardo Incomplete elementary school Bothrops > 24 Foot Unknown Pain and swelling Severe, 16 BA vials Secondary bacterial infection 23 Sepsis, pneumonia, acute kidney injury

#Pregnant women, first trimester of pregnancy, unknown number of antenatal consultations.

∋Lee-White clotting test.

¶Information by interviewing relatives.

§According Mortality Information System (SIM).

Abbreviation–BA: Bothrops antivenom.

Perinatal outcomes

Among the 145 pregnant women affected by SBEs who had information on pregnancy outcomes, 24 (16.5%) had perinatal complications during pregnancy. A total of 129 (47.1%) pregnant women with reports of SBEs during pregnancy had no pregnancy outcome information available in the databases. No statistical difference was found between pregnant women with outcome information or pregnant women with missing data on outcome, in relation to age, ethnicity, literacy, occurrence area (rural or urban), and time to medical assistance after the SBE (P>0.01). No sociodemographic or clinical variables were associated with poor maternal outcomes among pregnant women affected by SBEs (Table 3).

Table 3. Demographic and clinical aspects between pregnancy with complications and no complications.

Characteristics Total, % No complications
n, %
With complications#, n,% P OR (95%CI)
n = 145 n = 121 n = 24
Mean age (±SD) 25 (8.5) 24.9 (7.9) 25.7 (10.9) 0.67 1.01 (0.96–1.06)
Ethnicity (n = 145)
White 4 (2.8%) 3 (2.5%) 1 (4.2%) . . . 1
Black 5 (3.4%) 4 (3.3%) 1 (4.2%) 0.86 0.75 (0.03–17.51)
Asian 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) . . . 1
Pardo 90 (62.1%) 76 (62.8%) 14 (58.3%) 0.62 0.55 (0.05–5.70)
Amerindian 44 (30.3%) 36 (29.8%) 8 (33.3%) 0.74 0.67 (0.06–7.27)
Education (in years) (n = 104)
0–4 12 (11.5%) 9 (10.8%) 3 (14.3%) . . . 1
4–7 58 (55.8%) 44 (53.0%) 14 (66.7%) 0.95 0.95 (0.22–4.02)
8–15 27 (25.9%) 24 (28.9%) 3 (14.3%) 0.27 0.37 (0.06–2.21)
16–18 6 (5.8%) 5 (6.0%) 1 (4.8%) 0.69 0.60 (0.05–7.41)
>18 1 (1.0%) 1 (1.2%) 0 (0.0%) . . . 1
Ocurrence zone (n = 145)
Urban 22 (15.2%) 18 (14.9%) 4 (16.7%) . . . 1
Rural 121 (83.4%) 101 (83.5%) 20 (83.3%) 0.85 0.89 (0.27–2.91)
Periurban 2 (1.4%) 2 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) . . . 1
Time from bite to medical assistance (in hours) (n = 141)
0–3 76 (53.9%) 63 (53.8%) 13 (54.2%) . . . 1
3–12 39 (27.7%) 35 (29.9%) 4 (16.7%) 0.33 0.55 (0.17–1.83)
12–24 11 (7.8%) 7 (6.00%) 4 (16.7%) 0.28 2.77 (0.70–10.85)
>24 15 (10.6%) 12 (10.3%) 3 (12.5%) 0.78 1.21 (0.29–4.90)
Work-related bite (n = 135) 48 (35.6%) 38 (34.2%) 10 (41.7%) 0.49 1.37 (0.56–3.38)
Gestational age at the time of the bite (n = 145)
Trimester 1 11 (7.6%) 10 (8.3%) 1/24 (4.2%) . . . 1
Trimester 2 26 (17.9%) 25 (20.7%) 1/24 (4.2%) 0.51 0.4 (0.02–7.03)
Trimester 3 13 (9.0%) 9 (7.4%) 4/24 (16.7%) 0.21 4.4 (0.41–47.5)
Unknown 95 (65.5%) 77 (63.6%) 18/24 (75.0%) 0.42 2.3 (0.28–19.45)
Bite site (n = 145)
Head 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) . . . 1
Upper limbs 14 (9.7%) 12 (9.9%) 2 (8.3%) 0.84 0.85 (0.17–4.12)
Lower limbs 129 (89.0%) 108 (89.3%) 21 (87.5%) . . . 1
Trunk 1 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (4.2%) . . . 1
Local manifestations (n = 136)
Pain 134 (98.5%) 112 (98.2%) 22 (100.0%) . . . 1
Edema 108 (80.0%) 90 (79.6%) 18 (81.8%) 0.82 1.15 (0.36–3.73)
Ecchymosis 20 (15.0%) 14 (12.6%) 6 (27.3%) 0.09 2.6 (0.87–7.75)
Necrosis 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) . . . 1
Secondary bacterial infections 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) . . . 1
Acute kidney injury 2/21 (9.5%) 2/18 (11.1%) 0 (0.0%) . . . 1
Unclottable blood (n = 88) 37 (42.0%) 28 (38.9%) 9 (56.3%) 0.21 2.02 (0.68–6.04)
Snake genus (n = 145)
Bothrops 109 (75.2%) 92 (76.0%) 17 (70.8%) . . . 1
Lachesis 22 (15.2%) 17 (14.0%) 5 (20.8%) 0.42 1.59 (0.52–4.90)
Unknown 14 (9.6%) 12 (9.9%) 2/24 (8.4%) 0.79 1.35 (0.14–12.86)
Severity classification (n = 140)
Mild 60 (42.9%) 51 (43.6%) 9 (39.1%) . . . 1
Moderate 71 (50.7%) 58 (49.6%) 13 (56.5%) 0.61 1.27 (0.5–3.22)
Severe 9 (6.4%) 8 (6.8%) 1 (4.3%) 0.76 0.71 (0.08–6.37)
Antivenom treatment (n = 141) 123 (87.2%) 102 (87.2%) 21/24 (87.5%) 0.44 0.76 (0.38–1.51)

#Low birth weight, preterm birth, fetal deaths, and neonatal deaths.

¶Lee-White clotting test.

Abbreviation: SD = standard deviation.

Pregnant SBE patients had an incidence of 5.9% low birth weight and 10.0% preterm birth of the live births, and were not associated with an increased risk of low birth weight and preterm birth when compared to non-SBE pregnant patients. Frequency of perinatal death was 5.6%, with 2.8% fetal and 2.8% neonatal deaths (Table 4). Comparing pregnant women affected by SBEs with all the other pregnant women, SBEs during pregnancy was significantly associated with fetal death [P<0.01; AOR = 2.24 (95% CI 1.80–2.76)] and neonatal death [P<0.01; AOR = 2.89 (95% CI 2.34–3.52)], after adjusting by age, schooling, and number of antenatal consultations (Table 4).

Table 4. Perinatal outcomes in pregnant women affected by snakebite envenomation and other pregnant women.

Variables Overall Snakebite envenomation during pregnancy Univariate Multivariate#
No Yes P OR (95%CI) P AOR (95%CI)
Low birth weight 87,276/1,228,463 (7.1%) 87,268/1,228,328 (7.1%) 8/135 (5.9%) 0.48 0.78 (0.35–1.48) 1 . . .
Preterm birth 118,879/1,209,939 (9,8%) 118,865/1,209,801 (9.8%) 14/138 (10.0%) 0.90 1.04 (0.57–1.74) 1 . . .
Perinatal death 26,187/1,263,650 (2.1%) 26,179/1,263,505 (2.1%) 8/145 (5.6%) <0.01 2.76 (1.24–5.27) <0.01 2.58 (2.21–2.99)
Fetal death 13,569/1,263,650 (1.1%) 13,565/1,263,505 (1.1%) 4/145 (2.8%) 0.06 2.61 (0.80–6.19) <0.01 2.24 (1.80–2.76)
Neonatal death 12,618/1,263,650 (1.0%) 12,614/1,263,505 (1.0%) 4/145 (2.8%) 0.04 2.81 (0.86–6.66) <0.01 2.89 (2.34–3.52)

#Adjusted for age and education, and number of antenatal consultations.

Two fetal deaths occurred at 22–27 weeks, one at 32–36 weeks, and one at ≥42 weeks. Three of the cases were attributed to Bothrops, and these three received antivenom. All of these SBEs were reported in the first trimester of pregnancy. The four cases were classified as mild in severity. Causes of fetal death are detailed in Table 5. No maternal deaths were reported in this group. Vaginal delivery was reported in the four cases of fetal death.

Table 5. Characteristics of the perinatal deaths related to snakebite envenomation in pregnant women.

Case Fetal or neonatal information Maternal information
Place of birth Gender Lifetime Weight (grams) Apgar# Pregnancy time (week) Cause of death Age Place of residence Ethnicity Schooling Number of antenatal consultations, type of delivery Perpetrating snake Clinical classification on admission, antivenom treatment Site of the bite Clinical description and blood clotting time Gestational trimester of the snakebite
Fetal deaths
1 Residence M ND ≥42 Labor complications and congenital malformations 46 Maués, rural Pardo Complete elementary school 0, vaginal Bothrops Mild, 5 BLA vials Foot Unknown clinical signs, normal blood clotting 1
2 Hospital F 1,850 32–36 Unspecified cause 18 Urucurituba, urban Pardo Complete elementary school 0, vaginal Bothrops Mild, 10 BA vials Foot Pain and swelling, and unclottable blood 1
3 Hospital F 766 22–27 Placental detachment and hemorrhage, and maternal trauma 15 Parintins, rural Pardo Complete elementary school 0, vaginal Unknown Mild, no Foot Pain and swelling 1
4 Hospital M 830 22–27 Extreme immaturity 40 Jutaí, urban Pardo Complete elementary school 0, vaginal Bothrops Mild, 4 BA vials Leg Pain, swelling, ecchymosis, hypotension, vomiting, and normal blood clotting 1
Neonatal deaths
5 Hospital M 5 h 3,200 ND 37–41 Bacterial sepsis and respiratory failure 42 Borba, rural Amerindian Complete elementary school 0, vaginal Bothrops Mild, 5 BLA vials Foot Pain, swelling, and unclottable blood 1
6 Hospital M 4 h 1,135 4;7 22–27 Low weight 16 Parintins, rural Pardo Complete elementary school 0, vaginal Lachesis Moderate, 8 BLA vials Foot Pain, swelling, ecchymosis, and unclottable blood 1
7 Hospital F 16 h 2,150 10;8 32–36 Heart malformation, congenital renal failure, and bacterial septicemia 39 Pauini, rural Black Illiterate 1, Cesarean Bothrops Moderate, 8 BA vials Leg Pain and swelling 2
8 Hospital M 1 h 315 ND <22 Respiratory failure, neonatal meconium aspiration, and bacterial septicemia 14 São Gabriel da Cachoeira, rural Amerindian Unknown 0,Cesarean Bothrops Severe, 12 BLA vials Forearm Pain, swelling and ecchymosis 1

F: female, M: male; h: hours; ND: not defined

#At 1st and 5th minutes, respectively.

§According to the Mortality Information System (SIM).

∋Lee-White clotting test.

Abbreviation–BA: Bothrops antivenom; BLA: Bothrops-Lachesis antivenom.

Neonatal deaths occurred from 1 to 16 hours after birth. Gestational age ranged from <22 weeks (in an extreme low birth weight, 315 grams, newborn) to 37–41 weeks (birth weight 3,200 grams). Three pregnant women were bitten by Bothrops and one by Lachesis snakes. In terms of clinical severity, one patient was mild, two were moderate, and one was severe. All four women received antivenom treatment. In addition, no maternal deaths were reported in this group. Cesarian delivery was reported in two cases (Table 5).

Discussion

In the state of Amazonas, as well as in other Brazilian states or in other countries, women are less affected by SBEs due to their lower exposure to environments and activities favorable to bites such as fishing, livestock farming, and hunting [3,4]. Although SBEs in women are less frequent, the consequence for perinatal outcomes should not be neglected. As with non-pregnant women, pregnant women who are bitten by snakes may suffer tissue damage, pain, swelling, tissue necrosis, and functional loss of limbs. More severe effects include hypotension, coagulopathies, falling fibrinogen and platelet levels, as well as pregnancy-related adverse outcomes such as miscarriages, placental abruption, preterm labor, and fetal malformations [20]. Although SBEs in pregnant women have important consequences for both the mother and the fetus or neonate, studies related to the subject are scarce and there are no accurate estimates of the number of cases of SBEs in women of childbearing age and pregnant women. In the present study, we estimated the number of women of childbearing age and pregnant women who suffered SBEs in the state of Amazonas over a period of 15 years, using data reported on SINAN. In addition, this study highlighted the clinical-demographic descriptions and risk factors for complications of SBEs during pregnancy.

During the study period, 3,297 SBEs occurred in women of childbearing age and 274 (8.3%) in pregnant women. Case-fatality rates were similar between pregnant and non-pregnant women, and fetal or neonatal losses were low, but present. Two hundred thirteen SBEs in pregnant women were reported in the literature between 1966 and 2009, with an overall case-fatality rate of 4%, and a fetal loss rate of 20% [20]. Unlike the rates reported in the literature, it is important to consider that the real number of SBEs can be underestimated, although notification has been mandatory in Brazil (2). Failure to seek medical assistance due to the absence of symptoms, distance to the health care unit, and the use of traditional medicinal practices may be related to the low notification of cases [13,14].

In pregnant women, delay in proper clinical management can result in poor outcomes, such as death of both the mother and the fetus or neonate, or morphological alterations, such as hydrocephalus and deformations [20,28]. We did not find differences in the time taken to seeking care between pregnant and non-pregnant women. However, it is important to highlight that woman tended to seek medical assistance in the first 3 hours after the accident, a time that is considered short when compared to SBEs in men in the same region [3,4]. For pregnant women, access to care and use of antivenom is time-dependent [20]. There is no restriction for antivenom administration in pregnant women [20]. In this study, however, twenty-five percent of pregnant women did not receive antivenom, which is comparable to non-pregnant women.

In the Amazon, the vast majority of SBEs are caused by Bothrops atrox [9]. Bothrops envenomations induce important physiological imbalances in coagulation, blood pressure, and renal and respiratory functions [15,29]. Respiratory failure, obstetric bleeding with progression to anemia, septicemia, secondary infection, and acute renal failure are the main complications in pregnant women who have suffered SBEs [20,3032]. Although these complications were found in pregnant women, they did not differentiate between pregnant and non-pregnant, potentially due to a balance between factors associated with envenomations and those associated with pregnancy. During pregnancy, the pregnant woman undergoes significant anatomical and physiological changes, which include (i) an increase in plasma volume with a consequent increase in the mass of red blood cells; and a drop in the concentration of hemoglobin, hematocrit and red blood cell counts; (ii) alterations of the coagulation with a physiological state of hypercoagulability; (iii) adaptive changes in the renal vasculature; (iv) increased renal plasma flow and glomerular filtration rate and others [33]. These physiologic changes may have helped counterbalance the pathologic changes due to SBEs, leading to the absence of differential clinical symptoms between pregnant and non-pregnant women.

Although the major function of the placenta is to transfer nutrients and oxygen from the mother to the fetus and to assist in the removal of waste products from the fetus to the mother, it is now known that the placenta is not impenetrable against drugs and toxic substances [34]. In theory, only small molecules (<600 Daltons) can easily transit human placenta [35]. A case series study showed that snake venom crosses the placenta and in amounts that, though insufficient to cause systemic envenoming in the mother, can cause systemic envenoming in the fetus [36], which could be caused by some suggested mechanisms (e.g., simple diffusion, facilitating diffusion, active transport, or pinocytosis) [37]. The greatest risk of adverse toxin-induced effects on the fetus is probably during organogenesis, which takes place in the first trimester. Thus, pregnant women who suffered SBEs were 2.19 and 2.79 times more at risk for fetal death and neonatal death, respectively. On the other hand, not only direct effects of the venom may be responsible for fetus outcomes, fetal hypoxia due to maternal shock, placental bleeding due to coagulopathy, venom-induced uterine contractions, and pyrexia and cytokine release are likely to also involved [38].

Additionally, although heterologous IgGs are known to be transported through FcRn receptors (i.e., could cross the placenta and reach the fetus), it is known that Fab and F(ab’)2 antivenoms cannot cross the placenta [39,40] and, in Brazil, antivenoms are all composed of F(ab’)2 heterologous antibodies [41]. In order to overcome the hypersensitivity reactions caused by the horse-derived antibodies, many antivenom manufacturers (including Butantan Institute) digest the whole IgG using pepsin to produce bivalent F(ab’)2 fragments, which lack the C terminal Fc domains. Indeed, the digestion is reported to reduce complex-mediated or type III hypersensitivity reactions; however, the molecule retains divalency and the ability to bind complement. It is neither possible to predict whether the pregnancy outcomes were related to the direct effect of the venom on the fetus/placenta, nor if it is an indirect effect caused by immune system activation and inflammation, but we assume that both may participate in the process.

The causes attributed to death were septicemia, respiratory failure and/or distress, specified complications of labor, birth defects, fetus and neonates affected by maternal trauma, placental abruption and hemorrhage, renal failure, and meconium aspiration. The fetus of pregnant women who have suffered SBEs are at severe risk of hypoxia, and death [42,43]. Complications from fetal hypoxia/anoxia are among the leading causes of fetal death [44]. Hypoxia, secondary to placental dysfunction, plays an important role in most fetal deaths, but the evidence is indirect and an understanding of the causes of hypoxia and the intermediate steps between fetal hypoxia and fetal death are necessary [45]. The consequence of hypoxia is the failure of the fetus to achieve its genetically determined growth potential. Intrauterine growth restriction is associated with distress and asphyxia and a 6- to 10-fold increase in perinatal death [4647]. Despite the worldwide frequency of stillbirths due to different conditions, such as infectious diseases, the subsequent implications are neglected and underestimated [48]. Fetal or neonatal losses are painful experiences that have biological, psychological, social, and spiritual consequences for parents and family members [49,50]. The indirect and intangible costs of stillbirths are extensive and are usually covered only by families. This issue is particularly onerous for those with little resources [50], such rural populations in the interior of the Amazon.

This study had major limitations related to the completeness of the information of pregnancy outcomes. Nearly half of pregnant women with reports of SBEs during pregnancy had no outcome information available in the databases. The possible reasons for this difference are the limitations of the surveillance of SBE cases due to errors in self-reporting pregnancy during SBE reporting, or due to fetal deaths prior to week 20 of pregnancy, which are not reported in SIM or SINASC. In Brazil, underreporting of live birth records in SINASC has already been verified in the Extra-Amazonian Region of the country, especially in municipalities with less health infrastructure [51]. Although we do not have estimates of underreporting of live birth records for the Brazilian Amazon, we believe that these should be higher than in the rest of the national territory since, among traditional populations, especially among indigenous peoples, which are heavily affected by SBEs, deliveries occurring at home are very common. Attempts to contact the pregnant women failed due to the lack of phone contacts or addresses in the databases. Another way of accessing this information would be from medical records. However, as we highlighted above, most of them must have given birth at home, and do not have hospital records. Moreover, the storage of hospital information in remote towns of the Amazon is very precarious, which is a bottleneck for the collection of medical information. However, the pregnant women with outcome information and those with missing data on outcome were similar in relation to sociodemographic variables, suggesting that missing data may not be so biased.

Conclusion

Although the incidence of SBEs in pregnant women is low, the associated risk of adverse outcomes such as maternal death, fetal demise and neonatal death are increased and cannot be neglected.

Supporting information

S1 File. STROBE Checklist for Observational Studies.

(DOC)

S2 File. Study database.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to the technicians of the Fundação de Vigilância em Saúde do Amazonas Dra. Rosemary Costa Pinto for providing the information used in this study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

J.S., M.B.P., and W.M.M. were funded by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq productivity scholarships). W.M.M. was funded by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas (PRÓ-ESTADO, call 011/2021 - PCGP/FAPEAM, call 010/2021 - CT&I ÁREAS PRIORITÁRIAS, call 003/2022 - PRODOC/FAPEAM, and POSGRAD) and by the Ministry of Health, Brazil (proposal No. 733781/19-035). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Snakebite envenoming [cited 2022 May 30]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/snakebite-envenoming
  • 2.Ministério da Saúde. Doenças e Agravos de Notificação– 2007 em diante (SINAN)–DATASUS [Internet]. [cited 2022 May 30]. Available from: https://datasus.saude.gov.br/acesso-a-informacao/doencas-e-agravos-de-notificacao-de-2007-em-diante-sinan/
  • 3.Roriz KRPS Zaqueo KD, Setubal SS Katsuragawa TH, Silva RR Fernandes CFC, et al. Epidemiological study of snakebite cases in Brazilian western Amazonia. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2018;51(3):338–46. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0489-2017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Feitosa EL, Sampaio VS, Salinas JL, Queiroz AM, da Silva IM, Gomes AA, et al. Older Age and Time to Medical Assistance Are Associated with Severity and Mortality of Snakebites in the Brazilian Amazon: A Case-Control Study. PLoS One. 2015. Jul 13;10(7):e0132237. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chippaux JP, Massougbodji A, Habib AG. The WHO strategy for prevention and control of snakebite envenoming: A sub-Saharan Africa plan. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases. 2019;25(December 2019):4–9. doi: 10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2019-0083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fiszon JT, Bochner R. Subnotificação de acidentes por animais peçonhentos registrados pelo SINAN no Estado do Rio de Janeiro no período de 2001 a 2005. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia. 2008. Mar;11(1):114–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Monteiro WM, de Farias AS, Val F, Neto AVS, Sachett A, Lacerda M, et al. Providing Antivenom Treatment Access to All Brazilian Amazon Indigenous Areas: ‘Every Life has Equal Value.’ Toxins (Basel). 2020;12(12):772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schneider MC, Min KD, Hamrick PN, Montebello LR, Ranieri TM, Mardini L, et al. Overview of snakebite in Brazil: Possible drivers and a tool for risk mapping. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2021;15(1):e0009044. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Monteiro WM, Contreras-Bernal JC, Bisneto PF, Sachett J, Mendonça da Silva I, Lacerda M, et al. Bothrops atrox, the most important snake involved in human envenomings in the amazon: How venomics contributes to the knowledge of snake biology and clinical toxinology. Toxicon X. 2020;6:100037. doi: 10.1016/j.toxcx.2020.100037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Silva FS, Ibiapina HNS, Neves JCF, Coelho KF, Barbosa FBA, Lacerda MVG, et al. Severe tissue complications in patients of Bothrops snakebite at a tertiary health unit in the Brazilian Amazon: Clinical characteristics and associated factors. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2021;54:1–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sachett JAG, da Silva IM, Alves EC, Oliveira SS, Sampaio VS, do Vale FF, et al. Poor efficacy of preemptive amoxicillin clavulanate for preventing secondary infection from Bothrops snakebites in the Brazilian Amazon: A randomized controlled clinical trial. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2017;11(7):1–21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005745 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mendes VKDG Pereira HDS, Elias IC Soares GS, Santos M, Talhari C, Cordeiro-Santos M, Monteiro WM, Sachett JAG. Secondary infection profile after snakebite treated at a tertiary referral center in the Brazilian Amazon. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2022. Feb 25;55:e0244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Salazar GKM, Cristino JS, Vilhena Silva-Neto A, Seabra Farias A, Alcântara JA, Azevedo Machado V, et al. Snakebites in "Invisible Populations": A cross-sectional survey in riverine populations in the remote western Brazilian Amazon. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021. Sep 9;15(9):e0009758. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cristino JS, Salazar GM, Machado VA, Honorato E, Farias AS, Vissoci JRN, Silva Neto AV, Lacerda M, Wen FH, Monteiro WM, Sachett JAG. A painful journey to antivenom: The therapeutic itinerary of snakebite patients in the Brazilian Amazon (The QUALISnake Study). PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021. Mar 4;15(3):e0009245. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Silva Souza A, de Almeida Gonçalves Sachett J, Alcântara JA, Freire M, Alecrim MDGC, Lacerda M, LC de Lima Ferreira, Fan HW, de Souza Sampaio V, Monteiro WM. Snakebites as cause of deaths in the Western Brazilian Amazon: Why and who dies? Deaths from snakebites in the Amazon. Toxicon. 2018. Apr;145:15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2018.02.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Feitosa ES, Sampaio V, Sachett J, de Castro DB, Noronha M das DN, Lozano JLL, et al. Snakebites as a largely neglected problem in the brazilian amazon: Highlights of the epidemiological trends in the state of amazonas. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2015;48(Suppl I):34–41. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0105-2013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Adewole AA, Ugiagbe OA, Onile TG, Joseph GA, Kassim OD, Medupin PF, et al. Snake bite in third trimester of pregnancy with systemic envenomation and delivery of a live baby in a low resource setting: A case report. Case Reports in Women’s Health [Internet]. 2017;16(1):14–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chang CG, Jaynes C, Fernández MC, Hougen ST. Pit viper envenomation in pregnancy: A case report and literature review. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2006;30(2):167–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2005.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lankoandé M, Djiguemde NNW, Mion G, Oubian S, Zoundi MW, Bonkoungou P. Snakebite Envenomation during a Third Trimester of Pregnancy: A Case Report. Maternal-Fetal Medicine. 2020;2(3):189–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Langley RL. Snakebite During Pregnancy: A Literature Review. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine [Internet]. 2010;21(1):54–60. doi: 10.1016/j.wem.2009.12.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ministério da Saúde. Manual de diagnóstico e tratamento de acidentes por animais peçonhentos. Revista Baiana de Saúde Pública. 2001. 76 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ministério da Saúde. Manual de Procedimentos do Sistema de Informações sobre Mortalidade. 2001;Volume 1(1a edição):36. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Low birth weight [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jun 20]. Available from: https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/nlis/info/low-birth-weight
  • 24.Preterm birth [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jun 20]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preterm-birth
  • 25.ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. (Version: 02/2022) [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jun 22]. Available from: https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f505744734
  • 26.World Health Organization. Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality: Country, Regional and Global Estimates. Geneva: WHO; (2006). [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jun 22]. Available from:https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43444 [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ministério da Saúde. Estudo da mortalidade de mulheres de 10 a 49 anos, com ênfase na mortalidade materna. 2006. p. 1–130. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Vikrant S, Parashar A. Case report: Snake bite-induced acute kidney injury: Report of a successful outcome during pregnancy. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2017;96(4):885–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Oliveira SS, Alves EC, Santos AS, Pereira JPT, Sarraff LKS, Nascimento EF, de-Brito-Sousa JD, Sampaio VS, Lacerda MVG, Sachett JAG, Sano-Martins IS, Monteiro WM. Factors Associated with Systemic Bleeding in Bothrops Envenomation in a Tertiary Hospital in the Brazilian Amazon. Toxins (Basel). 2019;11(1):22. doi: 10.3390/toxins11010022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ramirez-Cruz MP, Smolinske SC, Warrick BJ, Rayburn WF, Seifert SA. Envenomations during pregnancy reported to the national poison data system, 2009–2018. Toxicon. 2020;186(August):78–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Moore EC, Porter LM, Ruha AM. Rattlesnake venom-induced recurrent coagulopathy in first trimester pregnant women–Two Cases. Toxicon. 2019; 163:8–11. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2019.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sarkar S, Bhattacharya P, Paswan A. Snakebite in pregnancy: Preliminary study. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2008;101(1):128–9. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Odutayo A, Hladunewich M. Obstetric nephrology: renal hemodynamic and metabolic physiology in normal pregnancy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(12):2073–80. doi: 10.2215/CJN.00470112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Syme MR, Paxton JW, Keelan JA. Drug transfer and metabolism by the human placenta. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2004;43(8):487–514. doi: 10.2165/00003088-200443080-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Baba U, Ashir G, Mava Y, Elechi H, Saidu G, Kaleb A. Transplacental transfer of macromolecules: proving the efficiency of placental transfer of maternal measles antibodies in mother: infant pairs. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2014;4:S298–301. doi: 10.4103/2141-9248.141975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.James RF. Snake bite in pregnancy. Lancet. 1985;28;2(8457):731. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)92974-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Griffiths SK, Campbell JP. Placental structure, function and drug transfer. Cont Educ. Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2014;15:84–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Seneviratne SL, de Silva CE, Fonseka MM, Pathmeswaran A, Gunatilake SB, de Silva HJ. Envenoming due to snake bite during pregnancy. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2002;96(3):272–4. doi: 10.1016/s0035-9203(02)90096-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Palmeira P, Quinello C, Silveira-Lessa AL, Zago CA, Carneiro-Sampaio M. IgG placental transfer in healthy and pathological pregnancies. Clin Dev Immunol. 2012;2012:985646. doi: 10.1155/2012/985646 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Abdiche YN, Yeung YA, Chaparro-Riggers J, Barman I, Strop P, Chin SM, et al. The neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) binds independently to both sites of the IgG homodimer with identical affinity. mAbs. 2015;7:331–343. doi: 10.1080/19420862.2015.1008353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fan HW, Natal Vigilato MA, Augusto Pompei JC, Gutiérrez JM. Situación de los laboratorios públicos productores de antivenenos en América Latina. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2019;43:e92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Aguilera Valderrama AA. Envenomations: Snakes Bites and Scorpion Stings. Obstetric Catastrophes. 2021;299–311. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Chiang LC, Tsai WJ, Liu PY, Ho CH, Su HY, Lai CS, et al. Envenomation by Trimeresurus stejnegeri stejnegeri: clinical manifestations, treatment and associated factors for wound necrosis. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases. 2020;26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ream M, Ray AM, Chandra R, Chikaraishi DM. Early fetal hypoxia leads to growth restriction and myocardial thinning. Am. J. Physiol—Reg Integr Comp Physiol. 2008;295(2):R583. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00771.2007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Pacora P, Romero R, Jaiman S, Erez O, Bhatti G, Panaitescu B, et al. Mechanisms of Death of Structurally Normal Stillbirths. J Perinat Med [Internet]. 2019;47(2):222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lueder FL, Kim SB, Buroker CA, Bangalore SA, Ogata ES. Chronic maternal hypoxia retards fetal growth and increases glucose utilization of select fetal tissues in the rat. Metabolism. 1995;44(4):532–7. doi: 10.1016/0026-0495(95)90063-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hutter D, Kingdom J, Jaeggi E. Causes and Mechanisms of Intrauterine Hypoxia and Its Impact on the Fetal Cardiovascular System: A Review. Int. J. Ped. 2010;2010:1–9. doi: 10.1155/2010/401323 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Heazell AEP, Siassakos D, Blencowe H, Burden C, Bhutta ZA, Cacciatore J, et al. Stillbirths: economic and psychosocial consequences. The Lancet. 2016;387(10018):604–16. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00836-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Fernández-Sola C, Camacho-ávila M, Hernández-Padilla JM, Fernández-Medina IM, Jiménez-López FR, Hernández-Sánchez E, et al. Impact of Perinatal Death on the Social and Family Context of the Parents. Int. J. Environment. Res. Public Health. 2020;17(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Heazell AEP, Siassakos D, Blencowe H, Burden C, Bhutta ZA, Cacciatore J, et al. Stillbirths: economic and psychosocial consequences. The Lancet. 2016;387(10018):604–16. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00836-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Drumond E de F, Machado CJ, França E. Subnotificação de nascidos vivos: procedimentos de mensuração a partir do Sistema de Informação Hospitalar. Rev. Saude Publica. 2008;42:55–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010963.r001

Decision Letter 0

Abdulrazaq G Habib, José María Gutiérrez

7 Oct 2022

Dear Dr Monteiro,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Pregnancy Outcomes After Snakebite Envenomations: A Retrospective Cohort in the Brazilian Amazonia" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Abdulrazaq G. Habib

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

José María Gutiérrez

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Clear objectives, Clear study design.

But info missing on half of the pregnant patients with SBE, see general comments below.

Reviewer #2: Introduction

I am unfamiliar with the meaning of the term ‘anticipation of labor.’ Is this referring to preterm labor? Suggest changing this to more established terminology.

Methods

Change ‘one thousand nine-hundred and ninety-six’ to 1,996.

The definition of perinatal mortality differs from the WHO definition which is cited in reference 26. I believe the established definition of perinatal mortality is death from 22-weeks gestation until 7 days after birth. I would suggest using a different term (such as ‘combined fetal and neonatal mortality’) or changing the analysis to align with the accepted definition of perinatal mortality.

Reviewer #3: The study is on an important aspect of snakebite, on which there is little information. The objectives are clear and the study population clearly defined. The sample size is adequate, and I have no ethical concerns.

However, studies with secondary and retrospective databases have many limitations regarding completeness of information, especially those from remote rural areas in LMIC. This study is no different. Nearly half of the pregnant women with reports of snakebite envenoming during pregnancy had no pregnancy outcome information – this is a major limitation.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: See general comments section

Reviewer #2: My main concern is the large proportion of missing data on pregnancy outcome (around 50%). Pregnancy outcome is the headline finding of the paper and this amount of missing data could have a substantial impact on the result. It seems this was dealt with by listwise deletion and there is no justification as to why this approach was used. Was the data 'missing at random?' If not missing at random, perhaps multiple imputation would have been a better way of dealing with this?

Other minor comments:

Change ‘Three thousand two-hundred and ninety-seven’ to 3,297.

There is no mention of increased risk of skin necrosis amongst pregnant women in the results section, but this is in the abstract. In table 1 there seems to be no increased risk of skin necrosis between pregnant and non-pregnant women.

Can population incidence of snakebite in pregnancy be calculated? This depends on whether denominator would accurately reflect the total number of pregnancies in the study area during the study period. If this wouldn’t be accurate, then ignore this comment.

Table 5 – could the number of days between the snakebite and the perinatal death be added?

Reviewer #3: The analysis is appropriate and the data is clearly presented. The Tables are of sufficient clarity.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: see general comments section

Reviewer #2: It is suggested that placental transfer of venom toxins to the fetus is the most likely explanataion for the higher fetal mortality rate that was observed. The reference (36) for venoms crossing the placenta is a case report of a pregnant woman with snakebite complicated by DIC and placental abruption which resulted in still birth – I cannot see that this demonstrates fetal transfer of toxins (this was fetal death due to abruption). Reference 37 is a general review on drug transfer across the placenta – but not venom toxins. Although evidence is lacking, on balance it would seem unlikely that the large venom toxin proteins would be able to cross the placenta. Damage to the placenta (on the maternal side of the ciculation) seems a more likely mechanism leading to poor fetal outcome.

Reference 41 does not seem to be relevant to the statement on fetal coagulopathy (in the case report cited the infant had multiple abnormalities that could have various underlying causes, including microcephaly, hyperbilirubinaemia, anaemia, and thrombocytopaenia. I believe the newborn did not have a coagulopathy).

Large proportion of missing data on pregnancy outcome should be highlighted in the discussion with a mention of how this may have affected the results. This could have had a substantial impact on the reported rate of fetal/neonatal death.

Reviewer #3: It may be difficult to arrive at firm conclusions with a significant limitation of information regarding pregnancy outcomes in snakebite victims (nearly half). The limitations should be discussed in more detail and not limited to a short paragraph at the end of the discussion.

The Discussion section is otherwise well written and addresses the public health importance of the topic. However, there has been only a feeble attempt to compare, contrast, and discuss work in the area from other parts of the world.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: see general comments

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: There are several minor typographical errors, but overall the paper is well written, and I enjoyed reading it.

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript discusses pregnancy & snakebite envenoming which is highly needed data. There are nevertheless two major challenges I see based on the manuscript. For half of the pregnant women with a snakebite envenoming there were no pregnancy outcomes available. The authors repot one of the reasons of unknown outcomes is fetal deaths before week 20 which are not included in the used databases. That suggests that there may be a selection included in the manuscript not reflecting the overall outcomes. The residence of the victims is known; is it with further ethical approval possible to obtain the hospital data from these missing patients? Even if the outcomes of half of these missings can be obtained, that would be useful.

Authors also describe the antivenom currently used is not crossing the placenta. But the study described a 15 years period; do the authors know what is used earlier? And if not, how do we than know if the pregnancy outcomes are related to the snakebite envenoming instead of the antivenom/allergic reactions?

Further suggestions are below.

Intro:

Line 96: You describe the clinical presentation of Bothrops bites but there is no info how common Bothrops bites are in Brazil. This follows in line 151. Suggest to combine that background. It deserves a place in the introduction and not only in the methods.

Line 99-100: can you check this sentence? It’s a bit hard to read.

Line 133: Can you provide more info on the databases used? How many persons are in the database? And what about privacy? And data management? Who did the blocking? In how many pregnant women were you not able to find a match apart from the pregnancy outcomes?

Line 158-170: variables collected but not clear yet how these relate to pregnancy and SBE, eg why is data on race/ethnicity collected?

The data are from 2007-2021; any changes in that period when thinking about pregnancy outcomes and the Zika time? Apart from zika, how does are the negative outcomes placed in time? Are they more often > 10 years ago or distributed over time evenly?

Line 207: why does gender need to be included here?

Line 246: instead of a p-value, a difference in age with CI would be more informative here.

Line 253: How was the diagnosis Bothrops made? And can you add info in the introduction on the number of dry bites in Bothrops bites?

Line 254-255: how do these percentages relate to percentages in child bearing age/not pregnant? How is unclottable blood defined?

Line 263: remove p value, keep OR and CI, same for OR’s in rest of manuscript. Once we have the OR and CI the pvalue is of no added benefit.

Line 266: since numbers are so low, include absolute values apart from percentages.

Line 287: remind us how many have missing outcomes and include in discussion (see first lines of review)

293: deaths before week 20 would be crucial info to get.

302/303: how many of the patients with poor outcomes did receive antivenom? Include in results in summarized way.

307: talks about 3 deaths, but in line 309 and 312 talks about four cases.

Line 350: provide CI of the 4%.

Tables: why is the third table needed? In the first two tables I suggest to replace all variables presented in categorized way by the data as collected. Age was not collected in categories, so you can calculate a median with IQR. We don’t need the categories. Same for some other variables and it provides more data than the categories. I noticed there was Y where it should be AND.

Reviewer #2: Overall I thought this was an excellent study and provides a rare insight into pregnancy outcome in snakebite. The large samples size and representative population are strengths. The main limitation is the large proportion of missing on pregnancy outcomes. I feel there needs to be more careful consideration of how best to deal with this missing data.

Reviewer #3: The paper discusses a neglected area of snakebite, where there are misconceptions on the management even among physicians (eg. use of antivenom). It is clearly and important topic. The major limitation is use of secondary data which the authors themselves admit may be incomplete and unreliable in the study setting. The results clearly show this, with a significant gap in data on pregnancy outcome - an important objective of the study. The authors should to describe work in this area from other parts of the world, even though they are small studies.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Michael Abouyannis

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010963.r003

Decision Letter 1

Abdulrazaq G Habib, José María Gutiérrez

13 Nov 2022

Dear Dr Monteiro,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Pregnancy Outcomes after Snakebite Envenomations: A Retrospective Cohort in the Brazilian Amazonia" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Abdulrazaq G. Habib

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

José María Gutiérrez

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: As a reviewer I am not convinced by the data though I understand it's been a lot of work to get this data, the authors do not explain why it is not possible to try and get the other 50% of the data on outcomes. They do explain that the characteristics of the pregnancies in SBE victims were similar to the other 50% of the data, but that is not my main worry.

There were 4 neonatal deaths in the current group. Only 4 deaths to base the Odds ratios on. My problem is that such a low number of deaths may be influenced both by chance or selection (not based on characteristics of the mother). Sick mothers may present to the hospital -> included in the numbers, whereas the home births may actually have lower deaths. Or even by chance, the number of deaths in the other half of the population under study may have been between 0 and 6 which would have influenced OR heavily.

Furthermore, pregnancy outcomes < 20 weeks are not available. Whereas almost all women with fetal death or neonatal death were bitten in the first trimester... How can the authors explain that they link the neonatal death with a bacterial sepsis after birth to the snakebite in the first trimester. It is biologically more difficult to explain than having a -by chance finding- or a selection bias here; the number of deaths higher in the counted SBE victims than in the non-counted SBE victims (who did not present to the hospital).

The abstract does not well present the challenges with the data.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: In the revised version of the paper, the authors have expanded the paragraph on limitations of the study. However, given that losing 50% of data is a major problem as commented on by all three reviewers, they must emphasize this limitation more. They should state that this is a MAJOR limitation, and state that it may be difficult to arrive at firm conclusions with lack of information regarding pregnancy outcomes in nearly half the snakebite victims

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors must emphasize the limitation of losing information on nearly half the pregnant women more. They should state that this is a MAJOR limitation. See comment in section on Conclusions.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Prof. H. Janaka de Silva

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010963.r005

Decision Letter 2

Abdulrazaq G Habib, José María Gutiérrez

18 Nov 2022

Dear Dr Monteiro,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Pregnancy Outcomes after Snakebite Envenomations: A Retrospective Cohort in the Brazilian Amazonia' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Abdulrazaq G. Habib

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

José María Gutiérrez

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010963.r006

Acceptance letter

Abdulrazaq G Habib, José María Gutiérrez

29 Nov 2022

Dear Dr. Monteiro,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Pregnancy Outcomes after Snakebite Envenomations: A Retrospective Cohort in the Brazilian Amazonia," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. STROBE Checklist for Observational Studies.

    (DOC)

    S2 File. Study database.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter - Pregnant Women.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter - Pregnant Women 2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES