Global variations in the burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its outcomes in pregnant women by geographical region and country's income status: a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of COVID-19 and its impact varied between countries and regions. Pregnant women are at high risk of COVID-19 complications compared with non-pregnant women. The magnitude of variations, if any, in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and its health outcomes among pregnant women by geographical regions and country's income level is not known. METHODS: We performed a random-effects meta-analysis as part of the ongoing PregCOV-19 living systematic review (December 2019 to April 2021). We included cohort studies on pregnant women with COVID-19 reporting maternal (mortality, intensive care admission and preterm birth) and offspring (mortality, stillbirth, neonatal intensive care admission) outcomes and grouped them by World Bank geographical region and income level. We reported results as proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 311 studies (2 003 724 pregnant women, 57 countries). The rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women varied significantly by region (p<0.001) and income level (p<0.001), with the highest rates observed in Latin America and the Caribbean (19%, 95% CI 12% to 27%; 13 studies, 38 748 women) and lower-middle-income countries (13%, 95% CI 6% to 23%; 25 studies, 100 080 women). We found significant differences in maternal and offspring outcomes by region and income level. Lower-middle-income countries reported significantly higher rates of maternal mortality (0.68%, 95% CI 0.24% to 1.27%; 3 studies, 31 136 women), intensive care admission (4.53%, 95% CI 2.57% to 6.91%; 54 studies, 23 420 women) and stillbirths (1.09%, 95% CI 0.48% to 1.88%; 41 studies, 4724 women) than high-income countries. COVID-19 complications disproportionately affected South Asia, which had the highest maternal mortality rate (0.88%, 95% CI 0.16% to 1.95%; 17 studies, 2023 women); Latin America and the Caribbean had the highest stillbirth rates (1.97%, 95% CI 0.9% to 3.33%; 10 studies, 1750 women). CONCLUSION: The rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women vary globally, and its health outcomes mirror the COVID-19 burden and global maternal and offspring inequalities. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178076.

Targeting metabolic health promotion to optimise maternal and offspring health

There is an increase in maternal metabolic burden due to the rise in pregnancies complicated by obesity, gestational diabetes, type 2 diabetes and polycystic ovary syndrome. Metabolic dysfunction during pregnancy is associated with increased risks of long-term morbidity and mortality for women and their offspring. Lifestyle interventions in pregnancy in women at risk of metabolic dysfunction have demonstrated short-term improvements such as reduced gestational weight gain and lowered risk of gestational diabetes. It is not known whether these interventions lead to sustained improvements in the metabolic health of the mother and baby. Pharmacological interventions have also shown benefits for the mother and baby in pregnancy, including improvements in glycaemic control, reduction in gestational weight gain and reduction in large for gestational age infants;however, there remains uncertainty over long-term outcomes for mother and child. Existing studies on interventions targeting metabolic health are limited to selected populations in the preconception and postpartum periods and lack follow-up beyond delivery of the intervention. The COVID-19 pandemic has refocused our attention on the effects of maternal metabolic ill-health that play a role in contributing to premature morbidity and mortality. There is an urgent need for strategies to accurately identify the growing number of women and offspring at risk of long-term adverse metabolic health. Strategies which focus on early identification and risk stratification using individualised risk scores in the pre and inter-conception periods must take priority if we are to target and improve the metabolic health of women and their offspring who are at highest risk. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of European Journal of Endocrinology is the property of Bioscientifica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Association of Antenatal Diet and Physical Activity-Based Interventions With Gestational Weight Gain and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) is common and associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Antenatal lifestyle interventions limit GWG; yet benefits of different intervention types and specific maternal and neonatal outcomes are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of different types of diet and physical activity-based antenatal lifestyle interventions with GWG and maternal and neonatal outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A 2-stage systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database was conducted from February 1, 2017, to May 31, 2020. Search results from the present study were integrated with those from a previous systematic review from 1990 to February 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials reporting GWG and maternal and neonatal outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted for random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the summary effect estimates and 95% CIs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes were clinically prioritized, with mean GWG as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, cesarean section, preterm delivery, large or small for gestational age neonates, neonatal intensive care unit admission, or fetal death. RESULTS: A total of 117 randomized clinical trials of antenatal lifestyle interventions (involving 34 546 women) were included. Overall lifestyle intervention was associated with reduced GWG (-1.15 kg; 95% CI, -1.40 to -0.91), risk of gestational diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89), and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94) vs routine care. Compared with routine care, diet was associated with less GWG (-2.63 kg; 95% CI, -3.87 to -1.40) than physical activity (-1.04 kg; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.74) or mixed interventions (eg, unstructured lifestyle support, written information with weight monitoring, or behavioral support alone) (-0.74 kg; 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.43). Diet was associated with reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.82), preterm delivery (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.84), large for gestational age neonate (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.47), neonatal intensive care admission (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95), and total adverse maternal (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92) and neonatal outcomes (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72). Physical activity was associated with reduced GWG and reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), hypertensive disorders (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.90), cesarean section (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95), and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86). Diet with physical activity was associated with reduced GWG (-1.35 kg; 95% CI, -1.95 to -0.75) and reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96) and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95). Mixed interventions were associated with reduced GWG only. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis found level 1 evidence that antenatal structured diet and physical activity-based lifestyle interventions were associated with reduced GWG and lower risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The findings support the implementation of such interventions in routine antenatal care and policy around the world.

ENDOCRINOLOGY IN PREGNANCY: Targeting metabolic health promotion to optimise maternal and offspring health.

There is an increase in maternal metabolic burden due to the rise in pregnancies complicated by obesity, gestational diabetes, type 2 diabetes and polycystic ovary syndrome. Metabolic dysfunction during pregnancy is associated with increased risks of long-term morbidity and mortality for women and their offspring. Lifestyle interventions in pregnancy in women at risk of metabolic dysfunction have demonstrated short-term improvements such as reduced gestational weight gain and lowered risk of gestational diabetes. It is not known whether these interventions lead to sustained improvements in the metabolic health of the mother and baby. Pharmacological interventions have also shown benefits for the mother and baby in pregnancy, including improvements in glycaemic control, reduction in gestational weight gain and reduction in large for gestational age infants; however, there remains uncertainty over long-term outcomes for mother and child. Existing studies on interventions targeting metabolic health are limited to selected populations in the preconception and postpartum periods and lack follow-up beyond delivery of the intervention. The COVID-19 pandemic has refocused our attention on the effects of maternal metabolic ill-health that play a role in contributing to premature morbidity and mortality. There is an urgent need for strategies to accurately identify the growing number of women and offspring at risk of long-term adverse metabolic health. Strategies which focus on early identification and risk stratification using individualised risk scores in the pre and inter-conception periods must take priority if we are to target and improve the metabolic health of women and their offspring who are at highest risk.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

Safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy is a particular concern affecting vaccination uptake by this vulnerable group. Here we evaluated evidence from 23 studies including 117,552 COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant people, almost exclusively with mRNA vaccines. We show that the effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection 7 days after second dose was 89·5% (95% CI 69·0-96·4%, 18,828 vaccinated pregnant people, I2 = 73·9%). The risk of stillbirth was significantly lower in the vaccinated cohort by 15% (pooled OR 0·85; 95% CI 0·73-0·99, 66,067 vaccinated vs. 424,624 unvaccinated, I2 = 93·9%). There was no evidence of a higher risk of adverse outcomes including miscarriage, earlier gestation at birth, placental abruption, pulmonary embolism, postpartum haemorrhage, maternal death, intensive care unit admission, lower birthweight Z-score, or neonatal intensive care unit admission (p > 0.05 for all). COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in pregnancy appears to be safe and is associated with a reduction in stillbirth.

SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring and timing of mother-to-child transmission: living systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the rates of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the timing of mother-to-child transmission and perinatal outcomes, and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 status in offspring. DESIGN: Living systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Major databases between 1 December 2019 and 3 August 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies of pregnant and recently pregnant women (including after abortion or miscarriage) who sought hospital care for any reason and had a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and also provided data on offspring SARS-CoV-2 status and risk factors for positivity. Case series and case reports were also included to assess the timing and likelihood of mother-to-child transmission in SARS-CoV-2 positive babies. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. A random effects model was used to synthesise data for rates, with associations reported using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Narrative syntheses were performed when meta-analysis was inappropriate. The World Health Organization classification was used to categorise the timing of mother-to-child transmission (in utero, intrapartum, early postnatal). RESULTS: 472 studies (206 cohort studies, 266 case series and case reports; 28 952 mothers, 18 237 babies) were included. Overall, 1.8% (95% confidence interval 1.2% to 2.5%; 140 studies) of the 14 271 babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection tested positive for the virus with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Of the 592 SARS-CoV-2 positive babies with data on the timing of exposure and type and timing of tests, 14 had confirmed mother-to-child transmission: seven in utero (448 assessed), two intrapartum (18 assessed), and five during the early postnatal period (70 assessed). Of the 800 SARS-CoV-2 positive babies with outcome data, 20 were stillbirths, 23 were neonatal deaths, and eight were early pregnancy losses; 749 babies were alive at the end of follow-up. Severe maternal covid-19 (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 4.4), maternal death (14.1, 4.1 to 48.0), maternal admission to an intensive care unit (3.5, 1.7 to 6.9), and maternal postnatal infection (5.0, 1.2 to 20.1) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring. Positivity rates using RT-PCR varied between regions, ranging from 0.1% (95% confidence interval 0.0% to 0.3%) in studies from North America to 5.7% (3.2% to 8.7%) in studies from Latin America and the Caribbean. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates were found to be low in babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence suggests confirmed vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2, although this is likely to be rare. Severity of maternal covid-19 appears to be associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178076. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Treatment of COVID-19 in pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of COVID-19, either excluded pregnant women or included very few women. Unlike the numerous systematic reviews on prevalence, symptoms and adverse outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy, there are very few on the effects of treatment on maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy. We undertook a systematic review of all published and unpublished studies on the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 on maternal and neonatal pregnancy outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic literature search of the following databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, WHO (World Health Organization) COVID-19 database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019 to 1 December 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were only included if they involved pregnant or postnatal women who were exposed to pregnancy specific interventions like the mode of delivery and type of anaesthesia, pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We first screened the titles and abstracts of studies and then assessed the full text of the selected studies in detail for eligibility. Data on study design, population, type of screening for COVID-19, country, hospital, country status (high or low and middle income), treatment given (mode of delivery, type of anaesthesia, type of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment was extracted. The pre-defined maternal outcomes we collected were mode of delivery (vaginal or by caesarean section), severe or critical COVID-19 (as defined by the authors), symptomatic COVID-19, maternal death, maternal hospital admission, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, ECMO and maternal pneumonia. The pre-defined neonatal outcomes we extracted were preterm birth (<37 weeks), stillbirth, neonatal death, NICU admission, neonatal COVID-19 positive, neonatal acidosis (pH < 7.0) and Apgar scores (<8 after 5 min). Study quality assessment was performed. RESULTS: From a total of 342 potential eligible studies, we included 27 studies in our systematic review, including 4943 pregnant women (appendix 3). Sixteen studies had a retrospective cohort design and 11 a prospective cohort design. There were no randomised controlled trials. There was a significant association between caesarean section and admission to ICU (OR 4.99, 95% CI 1.24 to 20.12; 4 studies, 153 women, I2 = 0%), and diagnosis of maternal COVID-19 pneumonia as defined by study authors (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.52 to 6.28; 2 studies, 228 women, I2 = 0%). Women who had a preterm birth were more likely to have the baby via caesarean section (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.71 to 5.36, 12 studies; 314 women, I2 = 0%). For pharmacological and non-pharmacological we provided estimates of the expected rates of outcomes in women exposed to various treatment of COVID-19. Comparative data for pregnant women, in particular for treatments proven to be effective in the general population, however, is lacking to provide clinically meaningful interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: We found associations for pregnancy specific interventions, like mode of delivery and outcomes of the disease, but there were too few data on pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in pregnant women with COVID-19. We report the rates of complications found in the literature. We encourage researchers to include pregnant women in their trials and report the data on pregnant women separately.

Mother-to-child transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2: review of classification systems and systematic reviews.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the various classification systems for mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of SARS-CoV-2 and collate existing evidence on systematic reviews of MTCT of SARS-CoV-2. RECENT FINDINGS: To-date, there are three classification systems for MTCT of SARS-CoV-2, including the WHO classification developed by expert consensus, based on in-utero, intrapartum and postnatal exposure of the babies to the virus. The systems variously classify babies tested for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection as confirmed, probable, possible, indeterminate and unlikely for MTCT. To-date, 68 systematic reviews have been published between December 2019 and March 2021 on SARS-CoV-2 MTCT. Most of the reviews included cases series and case reports in their pooling of data, and often used SARS-CoV-2 infection and test positivity interchangeably. SUMMARY: Several classification systems are available to assist in determining the timing of SARS-CoV-2 infection in new-borns. Existing reviews of MTCT are of poor quality and report variable rates of SARS-CoV-2 positivity. A high-quality systematic review is needed on the extent of confirmed vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2, risk factors for MTCT of SARS-CoV-2, the prevalence and persistence of viral particles or immunological response in reported biological samples. Primary studies should categorize MTCT using classifications, such as WHO classification system that considers the strength of the timing of classification and persistence of positivity, taking into account the sterility of the collected samples.

Global changes in maternity care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on healthcare systems globally, with a worrying increase in adverse maternal and foetal outcomes. We aimed to assess the changes in maternity healthcare provision and healthcare-seeking by pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of the effects of the pandemic on provision of, access to and attendance at maternity services (CRD42020211753). We searched MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines from January 1st, 2020 to April 17th 2021 for controlled observational studies and research letters reporting primary data comparing maternity healthcare-seeking and healthcare delivery during compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic. Case reports and series, systematic literature reviews, and pre-print studies were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed on comparable outcomes that were reported in two or more studies. Data were combined using random-effects meta-analysis, using risk ratios (RR) or incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). FINDINGS: Of 4743 citations identified, 56 were included in the systematic review, and 21 in the meta-analysis. We identified a significant decrease in the number of antenatal clinic visits (IRR 0614, 95% CI 0486-0776, P<00001, I2=54.6%) and unscheduled care visits (IRR 0741, 95% CI 0602-0911, P = 00046, I2=00%) per week, and an increase in virtual or remote antenatal care (IRR 4656 95% CI 7762-2794, P<00001, I2=90.6%) and hospitalisation of unscheduled attendees (RR 1214, 95% CI 1118-1319, P<00001, I2=00%). There was a decrease in the use of GA for category 1 Caesarean sections (CS) (RR 0529, 95% CI 0407-0690, P<00001, I2=00%). There was no significant change in intrapartum epidural use (P = 00896) or the use of GA for elective CS (P = 079). INTERPRETATION: Reduced maternity healthcare-seeking and healthcare provision during the COVID-19 pandemic has been global, and must be considered as potentially contributing to worsening of pregnancy outcomes observed during the pandemic.

Maternal medicine in the COVID era.

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has directly and indirectly impacted pregnant women with co-morbidities or antenatal medical complications, through vulnerability to the severe effects of COVID-19 and service reconfiguration. Women with diabetes or hypertension in pregnancy are at higher risk of admission to intensive care, need for invasive ventilation and death from COVID-19. Suggested service modifications specific to maternal medicine services include home measurement of blood glucose or blood pressure, the use of risk calculators, adaptations to screening criteria for gestational diabetes and monitoring of obstetric cholestasis. Neither the added risk of COVID-19 on pregnant women with medical comorbidities nor the impact of maternal medicine service modifications has yet been established.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on health-care systems and potentially on pregnancy outcomes, but no systematic synthesis of evidence of this effect has been undertaken. We aimed to assess the collective evidence on the effects on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes of the pandemic. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the effects of the pandemic on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, from Jan 1, 2020, to Jan 8, 2021, for case-control studies, cohort studies, and brief reports comparing maternal and perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity, pregnancy complications, and intrapartum and neonatal outcomes before and during the pandemic. We also planned to record any additional maternal and offspring outcomes identified. Studies of solely SARS-CoV-2-infected pregnant individuals, as well as case reports, studies without comparison groups, narrative or systematic literature reviews, preprints, and studies reporting on overlapping populations were excluded. Quantitative meta-analysis was done for an outcome when more than one study presented relevant data. Random-effects estimate of the pooled odds ratio (OR) of each outcome were generated with use of the Mantel-Haenszel method. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020211753). FINDINGS: The search identified 3592 citations, of which 40 studies were included. We identified significant increases in stillbirth (pooled OR 1·28 [95% CI 1·07-1·54]; I2=63%; 12 studies, 168 295 pregnancies during and 198 993 before the pandemic) and maternal death (1·37 [1·22-1·53; I2=0%, two studies [both from low-income and middle-income countries], 1 237 018 and 2 224 859 pregnancies) during versus before the pandemic. Preterm births before 37 weeks' gestation were not significantly changed overall (0·94 [0·87-1·02]; I2=75%; 15 studies, 170 640 and 656 423 pregnancies) but were decreased in high-income countries (0·91 [0·84-0·99]; I2=63%; 12 studies, 159 987 and 635 118 pregnancies), where spontaneous preterm birth was also decreased (0·81 [0·67-0·97]; two studies, 4204 and 6818 pregnancies). Mean Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale scores were higher, indicating poorer mental health, during versus before the pandemic (pooled mean difference 0·42 [95% CI 0·02-0·81; three studies, 2330 and 6517 pregnancies). Surgically managed ectopic pregnancies were increased during the pandemic (OR 5·81 [2·16-15·6]; I2=26%; three studies, 37 and 272 pregnancies). No overall significant effects were identified for other outcomes included in the quantitative analysis: maternal gestational diabetes; hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; preterm birth before 34 weeks', 32 weeks', or 28 weeks' gestation; iatrogenic preterm birth; labour induction; modes of delivery (spontaneous vaginal delivery, caesarean section, or instrumental delivery); post-partum haemorrhage; neonatal death; low birthweight (<2500 g); neonatal intensive care unit admission; or Apgar score less than 7 at 5 min. INTERPRETATION: Global maternal and fetal outcomes have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in maternal deaths, stillbirth, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and maternal depression. Some outcomes show considerable disparity between high-resource and low-resource settings. There is an urgent need to prioritise safe, accessible, and equitable maternity care within the strategic response to this pandemic and in future health crises. FUNDING: None.

Clinical manifestations, prevalence, risk factors, outcomes, transmission, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 in pregnancy and postpartum: a living systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid, robust and continually updated evidence synthesis is required to inform management of COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women and to keep pace with the emerging evidence during the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to undertake a living systematic review to assess the prevalence, clinical manifestations, risk factors, rates of maternal and perinatal complications, potential for mother-to-child transmission, accuracy of diagnostic tests and effectiveness of treatment for COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women (including after miscarriage or abortion). We will search Medline, Embase, WHO COVID-19 database, preprint servers, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure system and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019. We will supplement our search with studies mapped by Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology group, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), COVID-19 study repositories, reference lists and social media blogs. The search will be updated every week and not be restricted by language. We will include observational cohort (≥10 participants) and randomised studies reporting on prevalence of COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women, the rates of clinical manifestations and outcomes, risk factors in pregnant and postpartum women alone or in comparison with non-pregnant women with COVID-19 or pregnant women without COVID-19 and studies on tests and treatments for COVID-19. We will additionally include case reports and series with evidence on mother-to-child transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in utero, intrapartum or postpartum. We will appraise the quality of the included studies using appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias. At least two independent reviewers will undertake study selection, quality assessment and data extraction every 2 weeks. We will synthesise the findings using quantitative random effects meta-analysis and report OR or proportions with 95% CIs and prediction intervals. Case reports and series will be reported as qualitative narrative synthesis. Heterogeneity will be reported as I2 and τ2 statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this is a synthesis of primary data. Regular updates of the results will be published on a dedicated website (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/who-collaborating-centre/pregcov/index.aspx) and disseminated through publications, social media and webinars. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178076.

The accuracy of haemoglobin A1c as a screening and diagnostic test for gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy studies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy complications. Accurate screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes are critical to treatment, and in a pandemic scenario like coronavirus disease 2019 needing a simple test that minimises prolonged hospital stay. We undertook a meta-analysis on the screening and diagnostic accuracy of the haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test in women with and without risk factors for gestational diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: Unlike the oral glucose tolerance test, the HbA1c test is simple, quick and more acceptable. There is a growing body of evidence on the accuracy of HbA1c as a screening and diagnostic test for GDM. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library and selected relevant studies. Accuracy data for different thresholds within the final 23 included studies (16 921 women) were pooled using a multiple thresholds model. Summary accuracy indices were estimated by selecting an optimal threshold that optimises either sensitivity or specificity according to different scenarios. SUMMARY: HbA1c is more useful as a specific test at a cut-off of 5.7% (39 mmol/mol) with a false positive rate of 10%, but should be supplemented by a more sensitive test to detect women with GDM.

Clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, WHO COVID-19 database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019 to 6 October 2020, along with preprint servers, social media, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies reporting the rates, clinical manifestations (symptoms, laboratory and radiological findings), risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed covid-19. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. Random effects meta-analysis was performed, with estimates pooled as odds ratios and proportions with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses will be updated regularly. RESULTS: 192 studies were included. Overall, 10% (95% confidence interval 7% to 12%; 73 studies, 67 271 women) of pregnant and recently pregnant women attending or admitted to hospital for any reason were diagnosed as having suspected or confirmed covid-19. The most common clinical manifestations of covid-19 in pregnancy were fever (40%) and cough (41%). Compared with non-pregnant women of reproductive age, pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 were less likely to have symptoms (odds ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.62; I2=42.9%) or report symptoms of fever (0.49, 0.38 to 0.63; I2=40.8%), dyspnoea (0.76, 0.67 to 0.85; I2=4.4%) and myalgia (0.53, 0.36 to 0.78; I2=59.4%). The odds of admission to an intensive care unit (odds ratio 2.13, 1.53 to 2.95; I2=71.2%), invasive ventilation (2.59, 2.28 to 2.94; I2=0%) and need for extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (2.02, 1.22 to 3.34; I2=0%) were higher in pregnant and recently pregnant than non-pregnant reproductive aged women. Overall, 339 pregnant women (0.02%, 59 studies, 41 664 women) with confirmed covid-19 died from any cause. Increased maternal age (odds ratio 1.83, 1.27 to 2.63; I2=43.4%), high body mass index (2.37, 1.83 to 3.07; I2=0%), any pre-existing maternal comorbidity (1.81, 1.49 to 2.20; I2=0%), chronic hypertension (2.0, 1.14 to 3.48; I2=0%), pre-existing diabetes (2.12, 1.62 to 2.78; I2=0%), and pre-eclampsia (4.21, 1.27 to 14.0; I2=0%) were associated with severe covid-19 in pregnancy. In pregnant women with covid-19, increased maternal age, high body mass index, non-white ethnicity, any pre-existing maternal comorbidity including chronic hypertension and diabetes, and pre-eclampsia were associated with serious complications such as admission to an intensive care unit, invasive ventilation and maternal death. Compared to pregnant women without covid-19, those with the disease had increased odds of maternal death (odds ratio 2.85, 1.08 to 7.52; I2=0%), of needing admission to the intensive care unit (18.58, 7.53 to 45.82; I2=0%), and of preterm birth (1.47, 1.14 to 1.91; I2=18.6%). The odds of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (4.89, 1.87 to 12.81, I2=96.2%) were higher in babies born to mothers with covid-19 versus those without covid-19. CONCLUSION: Pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 attending or admitted to the hospitals for any reason are less likely to manifest symptoms such as fever, dyspnoea, and myalgia, and are more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit or needing invasive ventilation than non-pregnant women of reproductive age. Pre-existing comorbidities, non-white ethnicity, chronic hypertension, pre-existing diabetes, high maternal age, and high body mass index are risk factors for severe covid-19 in pregnancy. Pregnant women with covid-19 versus without covid-19 are more likely to deliver preterm and could have an increased risk of maternal death and of being admitted to the intensive care unit. Their babies are more likely to be admitted to the neonatal unit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178076. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 1 of the original article published on 1 September 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m3320), and previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3320/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

ENDOCRINOLOGY IN THE TIME OF COVID-19: Diagnosis and management of gestational diabetes mellitus.

The COVID-19 pandemic has required rapid transformation and adaptation of healthcare services. Women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are one of the largest high-risk groups accessing antenatal care. In reformulating the care offered to those with GDM, there is a need to balance the sometimes competing requirement of lowering the risk of direct viral transmission against the potential adverse impact of service changes. We suggest pragmatic options for screening of GDM in a pandemic setting based on blood tests, and risk calculators applied to underlying risk factors. Alternative models for antenatal care provision for women with GDM, including targeting high-risk groups, early lifestyle interventions and remote monitoring are provided. Testing options and their timing for postpartum screening in women who had GDM are also considered. Our suggestions are only applicable in a pandemic scenario, and usual guidelines and care pathways should be re-implemented as soon as possible and appropriate.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical features and pregnancy outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and pregnancy. METHODS: Databases (Medline, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library) were searched electronically on 6th April and updated regularly until 8th June 2020. Reports of pregnant women with reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 were included. Meta-analytical proportion summaries and meta-regression analyses for key clinical outcomes are provided. FINDINGS: 86 studies were included, 17 studies (2567 pregnancies) in the quantitative synthesis; other small case series and case reports were used to extract rarely-reported events and outcome. Most women (73.9%) were in the third trimester; 52.4% have delivered, half by caesarean section (48.3%). The proportion of Black, Asian or minority ethnic group membership (50.8%); obesity (38.2%), and chronic co-morbidities (32.5%) were high. The most commonly reported clinical symptoms were fever (63.3%), cough (71.4%) and dyspnoea (34.4%). The commonest laboratory abnormalities were raised CRP or procalcitonin (54.0%), lymphopenia (34.2%) and elevated transaminases (16.0%). Preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation was common (21.8%), usually medically-indicated (18.4%). Maternal intensive care unit admission was required in 7.0%, with intubation in 3.4%. Maternal mortality was uncommon (~1%). Maternal intensive care admission was higher in cohorts with higher rates of co-morbidities (beta=0.007, p<0.05) and maternal age over 35 years (beta=0.007, p<0.01). Maternal mortality was higher in cohorts with higher rates of antiviral drug use (beta=0.03, p<0.001), likely due to residual confounding. Neonatal nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR was positive in 1.4%. INTERPRETATION: The risk of iatrogenic preterm birth and caesarean delivery was increased. The available evidence is reassuring, suggesting that maternal morbidity is similar to that of women of reproductive age. Vertical transmission of the virus probably occurs, albeit in a small proportion of cases. FUNDING: N/A.