SARS-CoV-2 and pregnancy outcomes under universal and non-universal testing in Sweden: register-based nationwide cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess associations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and pregnancy outcomes considering testing policy and test-positivity-to-delivery interval. DESIGN: Nationwide cohort study. SETTING: Sweden. POPULATION: From the Pregnancy-Register we identified 88 593 singleton births, 11 March 2020-31 January 2021, linked to data on SARS-CoV-2-positivity from the Public Health Agency, and information on neonatal care admission from the Neonatal Quality Register. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were estimated stratified by testing-policy and test-positivity-to-delivery interval. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five-minute Apgar score, neonatal care admission, stillbirth and preterm birth. RESULTS: During pregnancy, SARS-CoV-2 test-positivity was 5.4% (794/14 665) under universal testing and 1.9% (1402/73 928) under non-universal testing. There were generally lower risks associated with SARS-CoV-2 under universal than non-universal testing. In women testing positive >10 days from delivery, generally no significant differences in risk were observed under either testing policy. Neonatal care admission was more common (15.3% versus 8.0%; aOR 2.24, 95% CI 1.62-3.11) in women testing positive ≤10 days before delivery under universal testing. There was no significant association with 5-minute Apgar score below 7 (1.0% versus 1.7%; aOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.24-1.72) or stillbirth (0.3% versus 0.4%; aOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.10-5.20). Compared with term births (2.1%), test-positivity was higher in medically indicated preterm birth (5.7%; aOR 2.70, 95% CI 1.60-4.58) but not significantly increased in spontaneous preterm birth (2.3%; aOR 1.12, 95% CI 0.62-2.02). CONCLUSIONS: Testing policy and timing of test-positivity impact associations between SARS-CoV-2-positivity and pregnancy outcomes. Under non-universal testing, women with complications near delivery are more likely to be tested than women without complications, thereby inflating any association with adverse pregnancy outcomes compared with findings under universal testing. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Testing policy and time from SARS-CoV-2 infection to delivery influence the association with pregnancy outcomes.

Ultrasound characteristics, serum biochemistry and outcome of ectopic pregnancies presenting during COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the characteristics of ectopic pregnancies (EPs) in the year prior to vs during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of women diagnosed with an EP on transvaginal sonography conducted at a center in London, UK, providing early-pregnancy assessment, between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020. Women were identified via the Astraia ultrasound reporting system using coded and non-coded outcomes of EP or pregnancy outside the uterine cavity. Data related to predefined outcomes were collected using Astraia and Cerner electronic reporting systems. Main outcome measures included clinical, ultrasound and biochemical features of EP, in addition to reported complications and management. RESULTS: There were 22 683 consultations over the 2-year period. Following consultation, a similar number and proportion of EPs were diagnosed in 2019 (141/12 657 (1%)) and 2020 (134/10 026 (1%)). Both cohorts were comparable in age, ethnicity, weight and method of conception. Gestational age at the first transvaginal sonography scan and at diagnosis were similar, and no difference in location, size or morphology of EP was found between the two cohorts. Serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels at the time of EP diagnosis were higher in 2020 than in 2019 (1005 IU/L vs 665 IU/L; P = 0.03). The proportions of women according to type of final EP management were similar, but the rate of failed first-line management was higher during vs before the pandemic (16% vs 6%; P = 0.01). The rates of blood detected in the pelvis (hemoperitoneum) on ultrasound (23% vs 26%; P = 0.58) and of ruptured EP confirmed surgically (9% vs 3%; P = 0.07) were similar in 2019 vs 2020. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was observed in the location, size, morphology or gestational age at the first ultrasound examination or at diagnosis of EP between women diagnosed before vs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Complication rates and final management strategy were also unchanged. However, hCG levels and the failure rate of first-line conservative management measures were higher during the pandemic. Our findings suggest that women continued to access appropriate care for EP during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no evidence of diagnostic delay or an increase in adverse outcome in our population. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

From the trenches: inpatient management of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has become a pandemic. It has quickly swept across the globe, leaving many clinicians to care for infected patients with limited information about the disease and best practices for care. Our goal is to share our experiences of caring for pregnant and postpartum women with novel coronavirus disease 2019 in New York, which is the coronavirus disease 2019 epicenter in the United States, and review current guidelines. We offer a guide, focusing on inpatient management, including testing policies, admission criteria, medical management, care for the decompensating patient, and practical tips for inpatient antepartum service management.

Patient attitudes toward prenatal diagnostic testing during antenatal care in an urban population.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate factors that influence the decision to accept or decline diagnostic testing for pregnant women referred for genetic counseling. METHODS: Cross sectional anonymous survey of pregnant women undergoing genetic counseling at a tertiary care referral center. Subjects' perceived risk of procedure related loss and fetal chromosomal problem were obtained via survey where patients rated risk from 0 (no risk) to 10 (highest risk). RESULTS: There were no differences in sociodemographic factors between women undergoing a diagnostic procedure compared to those not undergoing a procedure. As the perceived risk for having a baby with genetic problem increased by one point, the estimated odds of having the diagnostic procedure increased by 43% controlling for the perceived risk of procedure related loss (p < .0001). Similarly, as the perceived risk of miscarriage increased by one point, the odds of having the diagnostic procedure decreased by 40%, controlling for the perceived risk of having a baby with a genetic problem (p < .0001). The main reason women cited for not undergoing a procedure was fear of procedure related loss. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women that decline diagnostic testing have a higher perceived risk of procedure related loss and lower perceived risk of fetal chromosomal abnormality than those who accept.

Intimate partner violence among prenatal care attendees amidst the COVID-19 crisis: The incidence in Ethiopia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence and predictors of intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the prenatal care clinic of St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College (SPHMMC), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, among pregnant women from 31 August to 2 November 2020. Participants were interviewed using Open Data Kit. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors. RESULTS: Among the 464 pregnant women, 33 (7.1%) reported IPV during pregnancy, and among these 24 (72.7%) reported emotional violence, 16 (48.5%) reported sexual violence, and 10 (30.3%) reported physical violence. Among the study participants, only 8 (1.7%) were screened for IPV. IPV was reported 3.27 times more often by women who reported that their partner chewed Khat compared with those women whose partner did not (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-7.38), and 1.52 times more often women who reported that their partner drank alcohol compared with those women whose partner did not (aOR 1.52; 95% CI 1.01-2.28). CONCLUSION: Very few women were screened for IPV. Partners drinking alcohol and chewing Khat are significantly positively associated with IPV during pregnancy. IPV screening should be included in the national management protocol of obstetric cases of Ethiopia.

The evolution of prenatal care delivery guidelines in the United States.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to some of the most drastic changes in clinical care delivery ever seen in the United States. Almost overnight, providers of prenatal care adopted virtual visits and reduced visit schedules. These changes stood in stark contrast to the 12 to 14 in-person prenatal visit schedule that had been previously recommended for almost a century. As maternity care providers consider what prenatal care delivery changes we should maintain following the acute pandemic, we may gain insight from understanding the evolution of prenatal care delivery guidelines. In this paper, we start by sketching out the relatively unstructured beginnings of prenatal care in the 19th century. Most medical care fell within the domain of laypeople, and childbirth was a central feature of female domestic culture. We explore how early discoveries about "toxemia" created the groundwork for future prenatal care interventions, including screening of urine and blood pressure-which in turn created a need for routine prenatal care visits. We then discuss the organization of the medical profession, including the field of obstetrics and gynecology. In the early 20th century, new data increasingly revealed high rates of both infant and maternal mortalities, leading to a greater emphasis on prenatal care. These discoveries culminated in the first codification of a prenatal visit schedule in 1930 by the Children's Bureau. Surprisingly, this schedule remained essentially unchanged for almost a century. Through the founding of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, significant technological advancements in laboratory testing and ultrasonography, and calls of the National Institutes of Health Task Force for changes in prenatal care delivery in 1989, prenatal care recommendations continued to be the same as they had been in 1930-monthly visits until 28 weeks' gestation, bimonthly visits until 36 weeks' gestation, and weekly visits until delivery. However, coronavirus disease 2019 forced us to change, to reconsider both the need for in-person visits and frequency of visits. Currently, as we transition from the acute pandemic, we should consider how to use what we have learned in this unprecedented time to shape future prenatal care. Lessons from a century of prenatal care provide valuable insights to inform the next generation of prenatal care delivery.

Usefulness of COVID-19 screen-and-test approach in pregnant women: an experience from a country with low COVID-19 burden.

OBJECTIVES: Information on the usefulness of screen-and-test strategies of pregnant women for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is lacking. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the Ljubljana Maternity Hospital database and searched for pregnant women, who were admitted to the hospital between March 15 and May 16, 2020, for a planned procedure or hospitalization. Their medical records were examined and SARS-CoV-2 test results were retrieved. RESULTS: During the two-month period analyzed, there were a total of 265 scheduled admissions of pregnant women to our hospital. Two hundred two (76.2%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 1 day prior to admission. All tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, regardless of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-compatible signs or symptoms (n=28) or not (n=174). CONCLUSIONS: In a population with a low SARS-CoV-2 burden, usefulness of universal testing of pregnant women before admission to the hospital is limited. We recommend that obstetric units in regions with low SARS-CoV-2 burden enforce rational use of personal protective equipment and diligent screening protocols using targeted questionnaires, whereas SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing should be performed only in screen-positives: those with high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and/or suspected epidemiological history.

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.

Making the most of the first prenatal visit: The challenge of expanding prenatal genetic testing options and limited clinical encounter time.

OBJECTIVE: Advances in prenatal genetics place additional challenges as patients must receive information about a growing array of screening and testing options. This raises concerns about how to achieve a shared decision-making process that prepares patients to make an informed decision about their choices about prenatal genetic screening and testing options, calling for a reconsideration of how healthcare providers approach the first prenatal visit. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 40 pregnant women to identify components of decision-making regarding prenatal genetic screens and tests at this visit. Analysis was approached using grounded theory. RESULTS: Participants brought distinct notions of risk to the visit, including skewed perceptions of baseline risk for a fetal genetic condition and the implications of screening and testing. Participants were very concerned about financial considerations associated with these options, ranking out-of-pocket costs on par with medical considerations. Participants noted diverging priorities at the first visit from those of their healthcare provider, leading to barriers to shared decision-making regarding screening and testing during this visit. CONCLUSION: Research is needed to determine how to restructure the initiation of prenatal care in a way that best positions patients to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic screens and tests.

COVID-19 infection during pregnancy: fetus as a patient deserves more attention.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is causing concern also for the management and outcome of COVID-19-positive pregnant women and their offspring, as reported cases are rare. Current evidence suggests the association of COVID-19 infection in pregnancy with both severe maternal morbidity requiring intensive care and perinatal complications (preterm birth with consequent neonatal morbidity and even perinatal death). Most of the reported cases focused specifically on the maternal outcomes and possible vertical transmission, but less attention has been paid to fetus as a patient in such pregnancies. The use of antenatal steroids and fetal neuroprotection with magnesium sulfate is clearly underreported. Several recently issued guidelines suggest lowering the upper gestational age for antenatal steroid administration and also advocate extreme caution or even restraining from the use of magnesium sulfate. Also, the rate of cesarean deliveries among COVID-19 women is unacceptably high. Here we provide arguments for NOT changing the existing guidelines and caution against cesarean delivery that was the prevalent delivery mode in the reported cases and case series.