Prevalence of maternal obesity at delivery and association with maternal and neonatal outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Maternal obesity has been linked to adverse outcomes for mothers and their offspring, including, but not limited to gestational hypertension (gHTN), gestational diabetes (GDM), pre-eclampsia, fetal macrosomia, and emergency cesarean section. Recent investigations have also shown that obesity, as defined by a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30, especially severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40), is a risk factor for both hospitalization and death from COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence and association of maternal obesity at delivery with adverse antenatal, intrapartum, and neonatal outcomes in a cohort of consecutive delivering patients at a tertiary care center in Iowa from May to September 2020. A secondary objective is to determine if maternal obesity has any relationship to past or current COVID-19 infection status at the time of delivery. This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study to analyze obstetric outcomes among COVID-19 infected and uninfected patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study using demographic and clinical data obtained from the electronic medical record. Excess plasma was collected from routine blood samples obtained at delivery admission to determine the seroprevalence of COVID-19 antibody using the DiaSorin and Roche antibody assays. Frequency variables were each calculated separately, and a comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes was conducted using the generalized linear mixed modeling (GLMM) framework to account for varying distributions (normal and binary). RESULTS: 1001 women delivered during the study period and 89.7% met criteria for being overweight or obese; 17.9% met criteria for severe obesity. Women with obesity had 49.8% lower odds of possessing private insurance, and women with severe obesity were less than half as likely to plan to breastfeed at the time of discharge. Women with obesity of any kind had a significantly increased odds of GDM and gHTN, and an increased risk of an infant with macrosomia, hypoglycemia, and NICU admission. No significant association was found between BMI and COVID-19 infection or disease severity. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into obstetric complications facing women with obesity, especially those with severe obesity. This report serves to highlight potential challenges, such as insurance status and labor complications, that impact women of high BMI to a greater degree when compared to their normal-weight counterparts.

Teaching Pathology in an Integrated Preclinical Medical School Curriculum and Adaptations to COVID-19 Restrictions.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a major impact on education at all age levels, including professional schools and health professions programs. We describe the experience of adapting preclinical medical school courses within an integrated curriculum to virtual instruction. A major feature of two of the courses were pathology small groups adapted from pathology courses in the previous medical school curriculum. These small groups were designed to use facilitated groups of 8 to 10 students. With a sudden change to virtual learning, these small groups were shifted to large group virtual sessions. In general, the conversion went well, with ongoing optimization of the format of the large group sessions mainly occurring over the first several sessions. End-of-course student evaluations were generally positive, but with a preference toward returning to live sessions in the future. Scores on 5 multiple choice examinations in the spring 2020 course were essentially identical in mean, standard deviation, and distribution to examinations in the previous 2 years of the course that had similar layout and topic organization. We discuss the challenges and successes of the switch to virtual instruction and of teaching pathology content within an integrated medical school curriculum.

Experience With Pretravel Testing for SARS-CoV-2 at an Academic Medical Center.

International travel has been a significant factor in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Many countries and airlines have implemented travel restrictions to limit the spread of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2. A common requirement has been a negative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction performed by a clinical laboratory within 48 to 72 hours of departure. A more recent travel mandate for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 immunoglobulin M serology testing was instituted by the Chinese government on October 29, 2020. Pretravel testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 raises complications in terms of cost, turnaround time, and follow-up of positive results. In this report, we describe the experience of a multidisciplinary collaboration to develop a workflow for pretravel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and immunoglobulin M serology testing at an academic medical center. The workflow primarily involved self-payment by patients and preferred retrieval of results by the patient through the electronic health record patient portal (Epic MyChart). A total of 556 unique patients underwent pretravel reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing, with 13 (2.4%) having one or more positive results, a rate similar to that for reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing performed for other protocol-driven asymptomatic screening (eg, inpatient admissions, preprocedural) at our medical center. For 5 of 13 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction positive samples, the traveler had clinical history, prior reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction positive, and high cycle thresholds values on pretravel testing consistent with remote infection and minimal transmission risk. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 immunoglobulin M was performed on only 24 patients but resulted in 2 likely false positives. Overall, our experience at an academic medical center shows the challenge with pretravel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 testing.

Practical Considerations for Implementation of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Testing in the Clinical Laboratory: Experience at an Academic Medical Center.

Molecular techniques, especially reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), have been the gold standard for the diagnosis of acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been widely used for serosurveys, epidemiology, and identification of potential convalescent plasma donors. However, the clinical role of serologic testing is still limited and evolving. In this report, we describe the experience of selecting, validating, and implementing SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing for clinical purposes at an academic medical center in a rural state. Successful implementation involved close collaboration between pathology, infectious diseases, and outpatient clinics. The most common clinician concerns were appropriateness/utility of testing, patient charges/insurance coverage, and assay specificity. In analyzing test utilization, serologic testing in the first month after go-live was almost entirely outpatient and appeared to be strongly driven by patient interest (including health care workers and others in high-risk occupations for exposure to SARS-CoV-2), with little evidence that the results impacted clinical decision-making. Test volumes for serology declined steadily through October 31, 2020, with inpatient ordering assuming a steadily higher percentage of the total. In a 5-month period, SARS-CoV-2 serology test volumes amounted to only 1.3% of that of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Unlike reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, supply chain challenges and reagent availability were not major issues for serology testing. We also discuss the most recent challenge of requirements for SARS-CoV-2 testing in international travel protocols. Overall, our experience at an academic medical center shows that SARS-CoV-2 serology testing assumed a limited clinical role.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection during Pregnancy in a Rural Midwest All-delivery Cohort and Associated Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) among pregnant patients at the time of delivery in a rural Midwest tertiary care hospital and to examine demographics, clinical factors, and maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective cohort study included all delivering patients between May 1 and September 22, 2020 at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. Plasma SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing was performed. SARS-CoV-2 viral reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results and maternal and neonatal outcomes were collected from the electronic medical record. Data were analyzed using univariate statistical methods with clustering for multiple births. RESULTS: In total, 1,000 patients delivered between May 1 and September 22, 2020. Fifty-eight (5.8%) were SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive. Twenty-three also tested viral positive during pregnancy. Three of 1,000 (0.3%) were viral positive on admission but antibody negative. The median age was 30 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 26-33 years) and body mass index was 31.75 kg/m2 (IQR 27.7-37.5 kg/m2). The cesarean delivery rate was 34.0%. The study population was primarily white (71.6%); however, 41.0% of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients identified as Black, 18.0% as Hispanic/Latino, 3.3% as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and only 27.9% as White (p < 0.0001). SARS-CoV-2 infection was more likely in patients without private insurance (p = 0.0243). Adverse maternal and/or neonatal outcomes were not more likely in patients with evidence of infection during pregnancy. Two SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. There were no maternal deaths during the study period. CONCLUSION: In this largely rural Midwest population, 6.1% of delivering patients had evidence of past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rates of SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy were higher among racial and ethnic minorities and patients without private insurance. The SARS-CoV-2 infected patients and their neonates were not found to be at increased risk for adverse outcomes. KEY POINTS: · SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rate in pregnant population in Iowa is 5.8%.. · Infections are higher among minorities, non-English speakers, and patients without private insurance.. · No increased adverse maternal/neonatal outcomes observed for SARS-CoV-2 infected mothers..

Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays.

BACKGROUND: While molecular techniques remain the gold standard for diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, serological tests have the unique potential to ascertain how much of the population has been exposed to the COVID-19 pathogen. There have been limited published studies to date documenting the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. METHODS: We compared the DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG and Roche Diagnostics Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays using 228 samples spanning patients with positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2, patients with compatible symptoms but negative PCR, pre-COVID specimens, and potential cross-reactives. RESULTS: Both assays detected antibodies in 18/19 samples collected at least one week after a positive PCR result. Neither method consistently detected antibodies in specimens collected within one week of a positive PCR result (sensitivity < 50%), but antibodies were detected by only Roche in four samples in this time frame. Using 139 pre-COVID and 35 PCR-negative samples, the Roche and DiaSorin assays demonstrated specificities of 100.0% and 98.9%, respectively. Neither assay demonstrated cross-reactivity from other coronaviruses (229E, HKU1, NL63, OC43), respiratory pathogens (adenovirus, metapneumovirus, rhinovirus/enterovirus), or antibodies to other viruses (HIV, EBV, CMV, HBV, HCV, HAV). DISCUSSION: Overall, the qualitative interpretations afforded by the Roche and DiaSorin assays agreed for 97% of samples evaluated. Minor discrepancies in sensitivity and specificity were observed between methods, with the differences in specificity more clinically significant for our low-prevalence population. For the DiaSorin assay, all disagreements with the Roche assay occurred in samples with quantitative signals near the cut-off determining positivity.