National data linkage assessment of live births and deaths in Mexico: Estimating under-five mortality rate ratios for vulnerable newborns and trends from 2008 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Linked datasets that enable longitudinal assessments are scarce in low and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the linkage of administrative databases of live births and under-five child deaths to explore mortality and trends for preterm, small (SGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) in Mexico. METHODS: We linked individual-level datasets collected by National statistics from 2008 to 2019. Linkage was performed based on agreement on birthday, sex, residential address. We used the Centre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health software to identify the best candidate pairs based on similarity. Accuracy was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We evaluated completeness by comparing the number of linked records with reported deaths. We described the percentage of linked records by baseline characteristics to identify potential bias. Using the linked dataset, we calculated mortality rate ratios (RR) in neonatal, infants, and children under-five according to gestational age, birthweight, and size. RESULTS: For the period 2008-2019, a total of 24,955,172 live births and 321,165 under-five deaths were available for linkage. We excluded 1,539,046 records (6.2%) with missing or implausible values. We succesfully linked 231,765 deaths (72.2%: range 57.1% in 2009 and 84.3% in 2011). The rate of neonatal mortality was higher for preterm compared with term (RR 3.83, 95% confidence interval, [CI] 3.78, 3.88) and for SGA compared with appropriate for gestational age (AGA) (RR 1.22 95% CI, 1.19, 1.24). Births at <28 weeks had the highest mortality (RR 35.92, 95% CI, 34.97, 36.88). LGA had no additional risk vs AGA among children under five (RR 0.92, 95% CI, 0.90, 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the utility of linked data to understand neonatal vulnerability and child mortality. We created a linked dataset that would be a valuable resource for future population-based research.

The risk of miscarriage following COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the risk of miscarriage among pregnant women who received any of the COVID-19 vaccines? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are associated with an increased risk of miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the mass roll-out of vaccines helped to boost herd immunity and reduced hospital admissions, morbidity, and mortality. Still, many were concerned about the safety of vaccines for pregnancy, which may have limited their uptake among pregnant women and those planning a pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception until June 2022 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included observational and interventional studies that enrolled pregnant women and evaluated any of the available COVID-19 vaccines compared to placebo or no vaccination. We primarily reported on miscarriage in addition to ongoing pregnancy and/or live birth. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included data from 21 studies (5 randomized trials and 16 observational studies) reporting on 149 685 women. The pooled rate of miscarriage among women who received a COVID-19 vaccine was 9% (n = 14 749/123 185, 95% CI 0.05-0.14). Compared to those who received a placebo or no vaccination, women who received a COVID-19 vaccine did not have a higher risk of miscarriage (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.89-1.28, I2 35.8%) and had comparable rates for ongoing pregnancy or live birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03, I2 10.72%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our analysis was limited to observational evidence with varied reporting, high heterogeneity and risk of bias across included studies, which may limit the generalizability and confidence in our findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: COVID-19 vaccines are not associated with an increase in the risk of miscarriage or reduced rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth among women of reproductive age. The current evidence remains limited and larger population studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No direct funding was provided to support this work. M.P.R. was funded by the Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health Grant No: MR/N022556/1. B.H.A.W. hold a personal development award from the National Institute of Health Research in the UK. All authors declare no conflict of interest. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021289098.

Impact of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on birth rates in Europe: a time series analysis in 24 countries.

STUDY QUESTION: Did the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic have an impact on monthly birth rates in Europe? SUMMARY ANSWER: Using datasets on live births per month in Europe, collected from the Human Fertility Database, we found a -14.1% decline in live births in January 2021 (i.e. 9-10 months after the epidemic peaks and first lockdowns), compared to the average number of live births in January 2018 and 2019. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous pandemics in the 20th and 21st centuries have been associated with a decline in birth rates 9 months after their peak, and a rebound in births over time. Lockdowns were necessary to control the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and may have had an impact on subsequent birth rates. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Monthly time series data on live births from January 2018 to March 2021 were extracted to provide a time-series analysis of birthrates during and after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 24 European countries. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We conducted a random-effect generalized least squares regression to assess the seasonality of births from January 2018 to March 2021, and to identify potential differences in monthly live births after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, considering the seasonality of births. To quantify these potential differences, we estimated the variation rate between the monthly live births observed during 2020 and 2021 and the mean of the 2018-2019 monthly live births in Europe. Factors potentially associated with a variation in monthly birth rates were assessed using univariable and multivariable generalized linear regressions. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: When considering the seasonality of births, January 2021 was the only month with a significant difference in live births. A drop of -14.1% was observed compared to the average number of live births in January 2018 and 2019. At the national level, this drop was observed 9-10 months after the epidemic peaks in 13 countries. The duration of lockdowns was the variable that had the stronger association with this decrease, whereas higher incomes per capita could be a factor limiting this decline. A rebound in births compared to the previous years occurred in March 2021 in 13 countries. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our data are based on national data, limiting the power in the multivariable models used and the identification of other potential factors contributing to a decrease or an increase in birth rates. In addition, we collected only live births up to April 2021, which precludes the identification of a difference in births seasonality in 2021. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: As with previous pandemics, the COVID-19 outbreak was associated with a decline in births 9 months after its first wave. This trend may be associated with the duration of the lockdowns. Although there was a rebound in births in the following months, it does not seem to compensate for this decline. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The authors receive no external funding and have no conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Preterm birth rates were slightly lower in Denmark during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the previous 4 years.

AIM: Our aim was to investigate the rates of preterm births, live births and stillbirths in Denmark during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a national, cross-sectional registry-based study that used the Danish Newborn Quality database, which covers all births in Denmark. The proportions of preterm births were compared between the COVID-19 pandemic period of 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 and the preceding 4-year pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: We studied 60 323 and 244 481 newborn infants from the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, respectively. The proportion of preterm live births and stillbirths declined slightly, from 6.29% during the pre-pandemic period to 6.02% during the pandemic period. This corresponded to a relative risk (RR) of 0.96, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.93-0.99 during the pandemic. The RRs for extremely preterm, very preterm and moderately preterm infants were 0.88 (95% CI 0.76-1.02), 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.02) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.93-1.01), respectively. CONCLUSION: This comparative study showed a small reduction in just over 4%, from 6.29 to 6.02% in the proportion of all preterm births during the pandemic period, compared with the previous four pandemic-free years. There were no differences between subcategories of preterm births.

Excess mortality caused by the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacts birth numbers in European countries.

STUDY QUESTION: How did the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affect live birth numbers in Europe? SUMMARY ANSWER: In 14 European countries with validated datasets on live birth numbers during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, excess mortality was inversely correlated with live birth numbers. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since March 2020, in order to minimize spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and reducing strain on the health care systems, many national authorities have imposed containments and restricted both indoor and outdoor recreational activities. Historical events, such as electricity blackouts, have repeatedly been shown to exert incremental effects on birth numbers. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We evaluated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and the containments on reproduction and birth numbers in 14 European countries with complete and validated datasets, until March 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The national demographic offices of 20 European countries were requested to provide the monthly birth numbers from 2015 to March 2021. Among them, 14 countries provided those data. Taking into account seasonal variations, the live birth numbers were compared with excess mortality at two different time intervals during the pandemic. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: At 9 months after the initiation of containments in many European countries, 11 of 14 European countries (78.5%) experienced a decline in live birth numbers, ranging between -0.5% and -11.4%. The decline in live birth numbers was most pronounced in eight European countries with the highest degree of excess mortality. From January to March 2021, live birth numbers continued to decline in 5 of 8 European countries with high excess mortality, whereas live births started to recover in 8 of 14 countries (57.1%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The live birth numbers of some key European countries were not available. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The demographic changes linked to the COVID-19 pandemic may add to the overall socio-economic consequences, most particularly in those countries with pre-existing reduced reproduction rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study did not receive specific funding. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Impact of Lockdown Measures during COVID-19 Pandemic on Pregnancy and Preterm Birth.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the effect of the lockdown measures during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on pregnancy outcomes of women who were not affected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the perinatal health program and neonatal databases to conduct a cohort analysis of pregnancy outcomes during the COVID-19 lockdown in the Calgary region, Canada. Rates of preterm birth were compared between the lockdown period (March 16 to June 15, 2020) and the corresponding pre-COVID period of 2015 to 2019. We also compared maternal and neonatal characteristics of preterm infants admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Calgary between the two periods. FINDINGS: A total of 4,357 and 24,160 live births occurred in the lockdown and corresponding pre-COVID period, respectively. There were 366 (84.0 per 1,000 live births) and 2,240 (92.7 per 1,000 live births) preterm births in the lockdown and corresponding pre-COVID period, respectively (p = 0.07). Rates of very preterm and very-low-birth-weight births were lower in the lockdown period compared with the corresponding pre-COVID period (11.0 vs. 15.6 and 9.0 vs. 14.4 per 1,000 live births, p = 0.02 and p = 0.005, respectively). There was no difference in spontaneous stillbirth between the two periods (3.7 vs. 4.1 per 1,000 live birth, p = 0.71). During the lockdown period, the likelihood of multiple births was lower (risk ratio [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-0.88), while gestational hypertension and clinical chorioamnionitis increased (RR 1.24, 95%CI: 1.10-1.40; RR 1.33, 95%CI 1.10-1.61, respectively). CONCLUSION: Observed rates of very preterm and very-low-birth-weight births decreased during the COVID-19 lockdown. Pregnant women who delivered during the lockdown period were diagnosed with gestational hypertension and chorioamnionitis more frequently than mothers in the corresponding pre-COVID period. KEY POINTS: · Lockdown measures to reduce COVID-19 transmission were associated with a lower rate of preterm birth.. · Mental and physical wellbeing of pregnant women were significantly affected by the lockdown measures.. · A comprehensive public health plan to relieve psychosocial stress during pregnancy is required..

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on time series of maternal mortality ratio in Bahia, Brazil: analysis of period 2011-2020.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been conducted with adults and non-pregnant women. Thus, its impacts on maternal health are not yet fully established. This study aimed to verify the relationship between the maternal mortality ratio and the incidence of COVID-19 in the State of Bahia, Brazil, 2020. METHODS: This time-series study used publicly available information in Brazil, to obtain data on maternal deaths and live births in Bahia, State, from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020. The time trend of Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) was analysed through polynomial regression, of order 6. Expected MMR, monthly (Jan-Dec) and annual values for 2020, were predicted by the additive Holt-Winters exponential smoothing algorithm, with 95% confidence interval, based on the time series of the MMR from 2011 to 2019, and the accuracy of the forecasts for 2020 was assessed by checking the smoothing coefficients and the mean errors. According to the statistical forecast, the MMR values ​​recorded in the year 2020 were compared to those expected. RESULTS: In 2020, the annual MMR in Bahia, Brazil, was 78.23/100,000 live births, 59.46% higher than the expected ratio (49.06 [95% CI 38.70-59.90]). The increase in maternal mortality ratio relative to expected values was observed throughout the 2020 months; however, only after May, when the COVID-19 epidemic rose sharply, it exceeded the upper limit of the 95% CI of the monthly prediction. Of the 144 registered maternal deaths in 2020, 19 (13.19%) had COVID-19 mentioned as the cause of death. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed the increase in maternal mortality, and its temporal relationship with the incidence of COVID-19, in Bahia, Brazil, in 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic may be directly and indirectly related to this increase, which needs to be investigated. An urgent public health action is needed to prevent and reduce maternal deaths during this pandemic, in Brazil.

Available medications used as potential therapeutics for COVID-19: What are the known safety profiles in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Medications already available to treat other conditions are presently being studied in clinical trials as potential treatments for COVID-19. Given that pregnant women are excluded from these trials, we aimed to investigate their safety when used during pregnancy within a unique population source. METHODS: Using the population-based Quebec Pregnancy Cohort, we identified women who delivered a singleton liveborn (1998-2015). Taking potential confounders into account including indications for use, the risk of prematurity, low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA), and major congenital malformation (MCM) associated with COVID-19 repurposed drug use during pregnancy were quantified using generalized estimation equations. RESULTS: Of the 231,075 eligible pregnancies, 107 were exposed to dexamethasone (0.05%), 31 to interferons (0.01%), 1,398 to heparins (0.60%), 24 to angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) (0.01%), 182 to chloroquine (0.08%), 103 to hydroxychloroquine (0.05%), 6,206 to azithromycin (2.70%), 230 to oseltamivir (0.10%), and 114 to HIV medications (0.05%). Adjusting for potential confounders, we observed an increased risk of prematurity related to dexamethasone (aOR 1.92, 95%CI 1.11-3.33; 15 exposed cases), anti-thrombotics (aOR 1.58, 95%CI 1.31-1.91; 177 exposed cases), and HIV medications (aOR 2.04, 95%CI 1.01-4.11; 20 exposed cases) use. An increased risk for LBW associated with anti-thrombotics (aOR 1.72, 95%CI 1.41-2.11; 152 exposed cases), and HIV medications (aOR 2.48, 95%CI 1.25-4.90; 21 exposed cases) use were also found. Gestational exposure to anti-thrombotics (aOR 1.20, 95%CI 1.00-1.44; 176 exposed cases), and HIV medications (aOR 2.61, 95%CI 1.51-4.51; 30 exposed cases) were associated with SGA. First-trimester dexamethasone (aOR 1.66, 95%CI 1.02-2.69; 20 exposed cases) and azithromycin (aOR 1.10, 95%CI 1.02-1.19; 747 exposed cases) exposures were associated with MCM. CONCLUSIONS: Many available medications considered as treatments for COVID-19 are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Caution is warranted when considering these medications during the gestational period.

Association of Maternal SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Pregnancy With Neonatal Outcomes.

Importance: The outcomes of newborn infants of women testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in pregnancy is unclear. Objective: To evaluate neonatal outcomes in relation to maternal SARS-CoV-2 test positivity in pregnancy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Nationwide, prospective cohort study based on linkage of the Swedish Pregnancy Register, the Neonatal Quality Register, and the Register for Communicable Diseases. Ninety-two percent of all live births in Sweden between March 11, 2020, and January 31, 2021, were investigated for neonatal outcomes by March 8, 2021. Infants with malformations were excluded. Infants of women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were matched, directly and using propensity scores, on maternal characteristics with up to 4 comparator infants. Exposures: Maternal test positivity for SARS-CoV-2 in pregnancy. Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital mortality; neonatal resuscitation; admission for neonatal care; respiratory, circulatory, neurologic, infectious, gastrointestinal, metabolic, and hematologic disorders and their treatments; length of hospital stay; breastfeeding; and infant test positivity for SARS-CoV-2. Results: Of 88 159 infants (49.0% girls), 2323 (1.6%) were delivered by mothers who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The mean gestational age of infants of SARS-CoV-2-positive mothers was 39.2 (SD, 2.2) weeks vs 39.6 (SD, 1.8) weeks for comparator infants, and the proportions of preterm infants (gestational age <37 weeks) were 205/2323 (8.8%) among infants of SARS-CoV-2-positive mothers and 4719/85 836 (5.5%) among comparator infants. After matching on maternal characteristics, maternal SARS-CoV-2 test positivity was significantly associated with admission for neonatal care (11.7% vs 8.4%; odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.26-1.70) and with neonatal morbidities such as respiratory distress syndrome (1.2% vs 0.5%; OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.50-3.84), any neonatal respiratory disorder (2.8% vs 2.0%; OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.07-1.90), and hyperbilirubinemia (3.6% vs 2.5%; OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.13-1.90). Mortality (0.30% vs 0.12%; OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 0.99-6.57), breastfeeding rates at discharge (94.4% vs 95.1%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.05), and length of stay in neonatal care (median, 6 days in both groups; difference, 0 days; 95% CI, -2 to 7 days) did not differ significantly between the groups. Twenty-one infants (0.90%) of SARS-CoV-2-positive mothers tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the neonatal period; 12 did not have neonatal morbidity, 9 had diagnoses with unclear relation to SARS-CoV-2, and none had congenital pneumonia. Conclusions and Relevance: In a nationwide cohort of infants in Sweden, maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy was significantly associated with small increases in some neonatal morbidities. Given the small numbers of events for many of the outcomes and the large number of statistical comparisons, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory.

Prioritizing IVF treatment in the post-COVID 19 era: a predictive modelling study based on UK national data.

STUDY QUESTION: Can we use prediction modelling to estimate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) related delay in starting IVF or ICSI in different groups of women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Yes, using a combination of three different models we can predict the impact of delaying access to treatment by 6 and 12 months on the probability of conception leading to live birth in women of different age groups with different categories of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Increased age and duration of infertility can prejudice the chances of success following IVF, but couples with unexplained infertility have a chance of conceiving naturally without treatment whilst waiting for IVF. The worldwide suspension of IVF could lead to worse outcomes in couples awaiting treatment, but it is unclear to what extent this could affect individual couples based on age and cause of infertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A population-based cohort study based on national data from all licensed clinics in the UK obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Register. Linked data from 9589 women who underwent their first IVF or ICSI treatment in 2017 and consented to the use of their data for research were used to predict livebirth. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Three prediction models were used to estimate the chances of livebirth associated with immediate treatment versus a delay of 6 and 12 months in couples about to embark on IVF or ICSI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We estimated that a 6-month delay would reduce IVF livebirths by 0.4%, 2.4%, 5.6%, 9.5% and 11.8% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, while corresponding values associated with a delay of 12 months were 0.9%, 4.9%, 11.9%, 18.8% and 22.4%, respectively. In women with known causes of infertility, worst case (best case) predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years varied between 31.6% (35.0%), 29.0% (31.6%), 23.1% (25.2%), 17.2% (19.4%) and 10.3% (12.3%) for tubal infertility and 34.3% (39.2%), 31.6% (35.3%) 25.2% (28.5%) 18.3% (21.3%) and 11.3% (14.1%) for male factor infertility. The corresponding values in those treated immediately were 31.7%, 29.8%, 24.5%, 19.0% and 11.7% for tubal factor and 34.4%, 32.4%, 26.7%, 20.2% and 12.8% in male factor infertility. In women with unexplained infertility the predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle were 41.0%, 36.6%, 29.4%, 22.4% and 15.1% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, compared to 34.9%, 32.5%, 26.9%, 20.7% and 13.2% in similar groups of women treated without any delay. The additional waiting period, which provided more time for spontaneous conception, was predicted to increase the relative number of babies born by 17.5%, 12.6%, 9.1%, 8.4% and 13.8%, in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively. A 12-month delay showed a similar pattern in all subgroups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Major sources of uncertainty include the use of prediction models generated in different populations and the need for a number of assumptions. Although the models are validated and the bases for the assumptions are robust, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of imprecision in our predictions. Therefore, our predicted live birth rates need to be validated in prospective studies to confirm their accuracy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A delay in starting IVF reduces success rates in all couples. For the first time, we have shown that while this results in fewer babies in older women and those with a known cause of infertility, it has a less detrimental effect on couples with unexplained infertility, some of whom conceive naturally whilst waiting for treatment. Post-COVID 19, clinics planning a phased return to normal clinical services should prioritize older women and those with a known cause of infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was received for this study. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomics. S.B. is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Pregnancy Outcomes in COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study in Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women are reported to be at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to underlying immunosuppression during pregnancy. However, the clinical course of COVID-19 in pregnancy and risk of vertical and horizontal transmission remain relatively unknown. We aim to describe and evaluate outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19 in Singapore. METHODS: Prospective observational study of 16 pregnant patients admitted for COVID-19 to 4 tertiary hospitals in Singapore. Outcomes included severe disease, pregnancy loss, and vertical and horizontal transmission. RESULTS: Of the 16 patients, 37.5%, 43.8% and 18.7% were infected in the first, second and third trimesters, respectively. Two gravidas aged ≥35 years (12.5%) developed severe pneumonia; one patient (body mass index 32.9kg/m2) required transfer to intensive care. The median duration of acute infection was 19 days; one patient remained reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive >11 weeks from diagnosis. There were no maternal mortalities. Five pregnancies produced term live-births while 2 spontaneous miscarriages occurred at 11 and 23 weeks. RT-PCR of breast milk and maternal and neonatal samples taken at birth were negative; placenta and cord histology showed non-specific inflammation; and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific immunoglobulins were elevated in paired maternal and umbilical cord blood (n=5). CONCLUSION: The majority of COVID-19 infected pregnant women had mild disease and only 2 women with risk factors (obesity, older age) had severe infection; this represents a slightly higher incidence than observed in age-matched non-pregnant women. Among the women who delivered, there was no definitive evidence of mother-to-child transmission via breast milk or placenta.

Impact of COVID-19 on maternal and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) have been associated with unfavourable pregnancy outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the human coronavirus family, and since this infection shows a pandemic trend it will involve many pregnant women. AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) on maternal and neonatal outcomes. SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, MedRxiv, Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 8th May 2020. Articles focusing on pregnancy and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 were eligible. Participants were pregnant women with COVID-19. CONTENT: The meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA and MOOSE reporting guidelines. Bias risk was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) manual. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42042020184752). Twenty-four articles, including 1100 pregnancies, were selected. The pooled prevalence of pneumonia was 89% (95%CI 70-100), while the prevalence of women admitted to the intensive care unit was 8% (95%CI 1-20). Three stillbirths and five maternal deaths were reported. A pooled prevalence of 85% (95%CI 72-94) was observed for caesarean deliveries. There were three neonatal deaths. The prevalence of COVID-19-related admission to the neonatal intensive care unit was 2% (95%CI 0-6). Nineteen out of 444 neonates were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA at birth. Elevated levels of IgM and IgG Serum antibodies were reported in one case, but negative swab. IMPLICATIONS: Although adverse outcomes such as ICU admission or patient death can occur, the clinical course of COVID-19 in most women is not severe, and the infection does not significantly influence the pregnancy. A high caesarean delivery rate is reported, but there is no clinical evidence supporting this mode of delivery. Indeed, in most cases the disease does not threaten the mother, and vertical transmission has not been clearly demonstrated. Therefore, COVID-19 should not be considered as an indication for elective caesarean section.

Cryopreservation and IVF in the time of Covid-19: what is the best good tissue practice (GTP)?

Examine good tissue practices as relates to in vitro fertilization, biopsying, and vitrificationto compare current knowledge of ova, sperm, and embryos as vectors for disease transmission as it relates to our current knowledge regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Unknown risks relating to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and sperm, ova, and embryos necessitate a reexamining of how human IVF is performed. Over the last decade, improvements in cryosurvival and live birth outcomes have been associated with zona pellucida breaching procedures (e.g., blastocyst collapsing and biopsying). In turn, today embryos are generally no longer protected by an intact zona pellucida when vitrified and in cryostorage. Additionally, high security storage containers have proven to be resilient to potential cross-contamination and reliable for routine human sperm freezing and embryo vitrification.Several options to current IVF practices are presented that can effectively mitigate the risks of cross-contamination and infection due to the current Covid-19 pandemic or other viral exposures. The question remains; is heightened security and change warranted where the risks of disease transmission likely remain negligible?

Population implications of cessation of IVF during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Discontinuation of IVF cycles has been part of the radical transformation of healthcare provision to enable reallocation of staff and resources to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to estimate the impact of cessation of treatment on individual prognosis and US population live birth rates. DESIGN: Data from 271,438 ovarian stimulation UK IVF cycles was used to model the effect of age as a continuous, yet non-linear, function on cumulative live birth rate. This model was recalibrated to cumulative live birth rates reported for the 135,673 stimulation cycles undertaken in the USA in 2016, with live birth follow-up to October 2018. The effect of a 1-month, 3-month and 6-month shutdown in IVF treatment was calculated as the effect of the equivalent increase in a woman's age, stratified by age group. RESULTS: The average reduction in cumulative live birth rate would be 0.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.3), 0.8% (95% CI 0.8-0.8) and 1.6% (95% CI 1.6-1.6) for 1-month, 3-month and 6-month shutdowns. This corresponds to a reduction of 369 (95% CI 360-378), 1098 (95% CI 1071-1123) and 2166 (95% CI 2116-2216) live births in the cohort, respectively. Th e greatest contribution to this reduction was from older mothers. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that the discontinuation of fertility treatment for even 1 month in the USA could result in 369 fewer women having a live birth, due to the increase in patients' age during the shutdown. As a result of reductions in cumulative live birth rate, more cycles may be required to overcome infertility at individual and population levels.