Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 25
Filter
1.
Hum Reprod ; 37(4): 822-827, 2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1684692

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Birth Rate , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Fertilization in Vitro , Humans , Live Birth/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pregnancy
2.
Am J Perinatol ; 39(3): 329-336, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1514438

ABSTRACT

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..


Subject(s)
Live Birth/epidemiology , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Quarantine , Adult , COVID-19 , Canada/epidemiology , Chorioamnionitis/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced/epidemiology , Infant, Newborn , Infant, Very Low Birth Weight , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Pregnancy, Multiple , Retrospective Studies
3.
Hum Reprod Update ; 27(4): 623-642, 2021 06 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455302

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In Europe, the number of frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles is steadily increasing, now accounting for more than 190 000 cycles per year. It is standard clinical practice to postpone FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or after a freeze-all cycle. The purpose of this practice is to minimise the possible residual negative effect of ovarian stimulation on the resumption of a normal ovulatory cycle and receptivity of the endometrium. Although elective deferral of FET may unnecessarily delay time to pregnancy, immediate FET may be inefficient in a clinical setting, following an increased risk of irregular ovulatory cycles and the presence of functional cysts, increasing the risk of cycle cancellation. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This review explores the impact of timing of FET in the first cycle (immediate FET) versus the second or subsequent cycle (postponed FET) following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle on live birth rate (LBR). Secondary endpoints were implantation, pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) as well as miscarriage rate (MR). SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases for MeSH and Emtree terms, as well as text words related to timing of FET, up to March 2020, in English language. There were no limitations regarding year of publication or duration of follow-up. Inclusion criteria were subfertile women aged 18-46 years with any indication for treatment with IVF/ICSI. Studies on oocyte donation were excluded. All original studies were included, except for case reports, study protocols and abstracts only. Covidence, a Cochrane-tool, was used for sorting and screening of literature. Risk of bias was assessed using the Robins-I tool and the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. OUTCOMES: Out of 4124 search results, 15 studies were included in the review. Studies reporting adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for LBR, CPR and MR were included in meta-analyses. All studies (n = 15) were retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 6,304 immediate FET cycles and 13,851 postponed FET cycles including 8,019 matched controls. Twelve studies of very low to moderate quality reported no difference in LBR with immediate versus postponed FET. Two studies of moderate quality reported a statistically significant increase in LBR with immediate FET and one small study of very low quality reported better LBR with postponed FET. Trends in rates of secondary outcomes followed trends in LBR regarding timing of FET. The meta-analyses showed a significant advantage of immediate FET (n =2,076) compared to postponed FET (n =3,833), with a pooled aOR of 1.20 (95% CI 1.01-1.44) for LBR and a pooled aOR of 1.22 (95% CI 1.07-1.39) for CPR. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The results of this review indicate a slightly higher LBR and CPR in immediate versus postponed FET. Thus, the standard clinical practice of postponing FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle may not be best clinical practice. However, as only retrospective cohort studies were assessed, the presence of selection bias is apparent, and the quality of evidence thus seems low. Randomised controlled trials including data on cancellation rates and reasons for cancellation are highly needed to provide high-grade evidence regarding clinical practice and patient counselling.


Subject(s)
Cryopreservation , Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic , Adolescent , Adult , Embryo Transfer/methods , Female , Fertilization in Vitro , Humans , Live Birth , Middle Aged , Ovulation Induction/methods , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Rate , Retrospective Studies , Young Adult
4.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol ; 259: 125-132, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1454119

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Does psychosocial intervention affect pregnancy outcomes in women and couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment?. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of psychosocial intervention on pregnancy outcomes in women and couples undergoing ART treatment. The primary outcome was Pregnancy Rates. Secondary outcomes were Live Birth Rate (LBR) and Abortion Rate (AR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases searched were Pubmed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library. 1439 records were screened, 15 were eligible and included in the meta-analyses (N = 2434). Data was extracted using the Covidence software. Effect sizes were reported as relative risks with 95% confidence-intervals and p-values. RESULTS: A positive association was found between psychosocial intervention and pregnancy rates (RR = 1.12 CI=(1.01;1.24), p = 0.033). Long-duration interventions and mind-body intervention types were found to be associated with increased pregnancy rates (RR 1.21, CI= (1.04;1.43), p = 0.017) and (RR = 1.25, CI= (1.00;1.55), p = 0.046) respectively. Q and I2tests suggested no to low heterogeneity. Funnel plots, Trim and Fill analyses and Fail-safe numbers were applied to adjust for possible publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a positive association between psychosocial interventions, particularly long-duration interventions, and pregnancy rate in infertile women and couples in ART treatment. The findings are in line with findings from other reviews and meta-analyses exploring the same topic. More good quality RCTs need to be performed to increase the quality of guidance for infertile women and couples. The effect of psychosocial interventions on LBR and AR remain to be examined.


Subject(s)
Infertility, Female , Psychosocial Intervention , Female , Humans , Live Birth , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome , Pregnancy Rate , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 4: CD000479, 2021 04 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453523

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Varicoceles are associated with male subfertility; however, the mechanisms by which varicoceles affect fertility have yet to be satisfactorily explained. Several treatment options exist, including surgical or radiological treatment, however the safest and most efficient treatment remains unclear.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical and radiological treatment of varicoceles on live birth rate, adverse events, pregnancy rate, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life amongst couples where the adult male has a varicocele, and the female partner of childbearing age has no fertility problems. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 4 April 2020: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched the trial registries and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they were relevant to the clinical question posed and compared different forms of surgical ligation, different forms of radiological treatments, surgical treatment compared to radiological treatment, or one of these aforementioned treatment forms compared to non-surgical methods, delayed treatment, or no treatment. We extracted data if the studies reported on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of abstracts and full-text publications, alongside data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, were done dually using the Covidence software. When we had sufficient data, we calculated random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses; otherwise, we reported results narratively. We used the I2 statistic to analyse statistical heterogeneity. We planned to use funnel plots to assess publication bias in meta-analyses with at least 10 included studies. We dually rated the risk of bias of studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1897 citations after de-duplicating the search results. We excluded 1773 during title and abstract screening. From the 113 new full texts assessed in addition to the 10 studies (11 references) included in the previous version of this review, we included 38 new studies, resulting in a total of 48 studies (59 references) in the review providing data for 5384 participants. Two studies (three references) are ongoing studies and two studies are awaiting classification. Treatment versus non-surgical, non-radiological, delayed, or no treatment Two studies comparing surgical or radiological treatment versus no treatment reported on live birth with differing directions of effect. As a result, we are uncertain whether surgical or radiological treatment improves live birth rates when compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 26.93; 2 RCTs, N = 204; I2 = 74%, very low-certainty evidence). Treatment may improve pregnancy rates compared to delayed or no treatment (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.26; 13 RCTs, N = 1193; I2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with no or delayed treatment have a 21% chance of pregnancy, whilst the pregnancy rate after surgical or radiological treatment is between 22% and 48%. We identified no evidence on adverse events, varicocele recurrence, or quality of life for this comparison. Surgical versus radiological treatment We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on live birth and on the following adverse events: hydrocele formation, pain, epididymitis, haematoma, and suture granuloma. We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on pregnancy rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.70; 5 RCTs, N = 456, low-certainty evidence) and varicocele recurrence (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, N = 380, low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on quality of life for this comparison. Surgery versus other surgical treatment We identified 19 studies comparing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment to any other surgical treatment. Microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates slightly compared to other surgical treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.36; 12 RCTs, N = 1473, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment have a 10% to 14% chance of pregnancy after treatment, whilst the pregnancy rate in couples after other surgical treatments is 10%. This procedure also probably reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29, 0.79; 14 RCTs, N = 1565, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that 0.4% to 1.1% of men undergoing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment experience recurrent varicocele, whilst 1.4% of men undergoing other surgical treatments do. Results for the following adverse events were inconclusive: hydrocele formation, haematoma, abdominal distension, testicular atrophy, wound infection, scrotal pain, and oedema. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Nine studies compared open inguinal surgical treatment to retroperitoneal surgical treatment. Due to small sample sizes and methodological limitations, we identified neither treatment type as superior or inferior to the other regarding adverse events, pregnancy rates, or varicocele recurrence. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Radiological versus other radiological treatment One study compared two types of radiological treatment (sclerotherapy versus embolisation) and reported 13% varicocele recurrence in both groups. Due to the broad confidence interval, no valid conclusion could be drawn (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.20; 1 RCT, N = 30, very low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, or quality of life for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence, it remains uncertain whether any treatment (surgical or radiological) compared to no treatment in subfertile men may be of benefit on live birth rates; however, treatment may improve the chances for pregnancy. The evidence was also insufficient to determine whether surgical treatment was superior to radiological treatment. However, microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates and reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence compared to other surgical treatments. High-quality, head-to-head comparative RCTs focusing on live birth rate and also assessing adverse events and quality of life are warranted.


Subject(s)
Embolization, Therapeutic , Infertility, Male/therapy , Sclerotherapy/methods , Varicocele/therapy , Bias , Confidence Intervals , Embolization, Therapeutic/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Infertility, Male/etiology , Infertility, Male/surgery , Live Birth , Male , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Rate , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Recurrence , Sclerotherapy/adverse effects , Sperm Count , Testicular Hydrocele/etiology , Varicocele/complications , Varicocele/surgery
6.
Int J Obstet Anesth ; 48: 103212, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401518

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 in pregnancy increases the risk of caesarean section. We present two cases of late gestation pregnant women with severe COVID-19. Both were successfully treated with mechanical ventilation without termination of pregnancy and, following recovery from COVID-19, had vaginal deliveries at term. These two cases demonstrate the possibility of treating pregnant women with severe COVID-19 with mechanical ventilation in the late second and early third trimesters without them having a pre-term delivery. With a multidisciplinary approach, such management could avoid the maternal risks of surgery during a severe infection and, at the same time, enable term birth with a lower risk of neonatal complications.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Live Birth , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/therapy , Adult , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Neuromuscular Nondepolarizing Agents/therapeutic use , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/physiopathology , Pregnancy Outcome , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
8.
Reprod Sci ; 29(2): 620-626, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1345228

ABSTRACT

The Pre-IVF Treatment with a GnRH Antagonist in Women with Endometriosis (PREGnant) Trial (clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT04173169) was designed to test the hypothesis that 60-day pre-treatment with an oral GnRH antagonist in women with documented endometriosis and planning an IVF cycle will result in a superior live birth rate to placebo. Eight hundred fourteen women are required from 4 national sites. To determine the feasibility of using an electronic medical record (EMR)-based strategy to recruit 204 participants at the Colorado site, we conducted a survey of women within the UCHealth system. Eligible women, identified using relevant ICD-10 codes, were invited to complete a 6-question survey to assess planned utilization of IVF, potential interest in participation, and whether delays in treatment due to COVID-19 would influence their decision to participate. Of 6354 age-eligible women with an endometriosis diagnosis, 421 had a concurrent infertility diagnosis. After eliminating duplicates, 212 were emailed a survey; 76 (36%) responded, 6 of whom reported no endometriosis diagnosis. Of the remaining 70, 29 (41%) were planning fertility treatment; only 19 planned IVF. All 19 expressed interest in participation. COVID-19 delays in treatment were not considered as a factor affecting participation by 8/19; the remaining 11 felt that it would "somewhat" affect their decision. None reported that they would not consider participation because of COVID-19. EMR-based recruitment for an endometriosis clinical trial is feasible although the overall yield of participants is low. Delays in treatment due to COVID-19 did not appear to overly influence potential recruitment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Endometriosis/therapy , Fertility Agents, Female/therapeutic use , Fertilization in Vitro , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Hormone Antagonists/therapeutic use , Infertility, Female/therapy , Patient Selection , Research Subjects/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , Choice Behavior , Double-Blind Method , Electronic Health Records , Endometriosis/diagnosis , Endometriosis/physiopathology , Female , Fertility Agents, Female/adverse effects , Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone/antagonists & inhibitors , Hormone Antagonists/adverse effects , Humans , Infertility, Female/diagnosis , Infertility, Female/physiopathology , Live Birth , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Rate , Treatment Outcome , United States , Young Adult
9.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 21(1): 423, 2021 Jun 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1266478

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Maternal Mortality/trends , Brazil/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Live Birth/epidemiology , Pregnancy , SARS-CoV-2
10.
PLoS One ; 16(5): e0251746, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1234588

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , Drug Repositioning/methods , Pregnancy/drug effects , Adult , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Infant, Low Birth Weight , Infant, Newborn , Infant, Small for Gestational Age , Live Birth/epidemiology , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Premature Birth/chemically induced , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Quebec/epidemiology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects
12.
Reprod Biomed Online ; 42(6): 1087-1096, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1208380

ABSTRACT

RESEARCH QUESTION: The economic and reproductive medicine response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the USA has reduced the affordability and accessibility of fertility care. What is the impact of the 2008 financial recession and the COVID-19 recession on fertility treatments and cumulative live births? DESIGN: The study examined annual US natality, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention IVF cycle activity and live birth data from 1999 to 2018 encompassing 3,286,349 treatment cycles, to estimate the age-stratified reduction in IVF cycles undertaken after the 2008 financial recession, with forward quantitative modelling of IVF cycle activity and cumulative live births for 2020 to 2023. RESULTS: The financial recession of 2008 caused a 4-year plateau in fertility treatments with a predicted 53,026 (95% confidence interval [CI] 49,581 to 56,471) fewer IVF cycles and 16,872 (95% CI 16,713 to 17,031) fewer live births. A similar scale of economic recession would cause 67,386 (95% CI 61,686 to 73,086) fewer IVF cycles between 2020 and 2023, with women younger than 35 years overall undertaking 22,504 (95% CI 14,320 to 30,690) fewer cycles, compared with 4445 (95% CI 3144 to 5749) fewer cycles in women over the age of 40 years. This equates to overall 25,143 (95% CI 22,408 to 27,877) fewer predicted live births from IVF, of which only 490 (95% CI 381 to 601) are anticipated to occur in women over the age of 40 years. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 recession could have a profound impact on US IVF live birth rates in young women, further aggravating pre-existing declines in total fertility rates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , Fertility/physiology , Live Birth , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/economics , Adult , Birth Rate , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Pregnancy
13.
JAMA ; 325(20): 2076-2086, 2021 05 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1206730

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Infant, Newborn, Diseases/etiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Pregnancy Outcome , Adult , Breast Feeding/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Gestational Age , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hyperbilirubinemia/epidemiology , Hyperbilirubinemia/etiology , Infant, Extremely Premature , Infant, Newborn , Infant, Newborn, Diseases/epidemiology , Infant, Newborn, Diseases/mortality , Infant, Premature , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Live Birth/epidemiology , Male , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/diagnosis , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Prenatal Care/statistics & numerical data , Propensity Score , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn/etiology , Resuscitation/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sweden/epidemiology
14.
Hum Reprod ; 36(3): 666-675, 2021 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1096531

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Fertilization in Vitro , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Models, Organizational , Time-to-Treatment/organization & administration , Adult , Birth Rate , Cohort Studies , Datasets as Topic , Female , Humans , Live Birth/epidemiology , Male , Maternal Age , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
15.
BMJ Open ; 11(1): e042395, 2021 01 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1028310

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) has evolved as an intervention of choice to help couples with infertility to conceive. In the last decade, a strategy change in the day of embryo transfer has been developed. Many IVF centres choose nowadays to transfer at later stages of embryo development, for example, transferring embryos at blastocyst stage instead of cleavage stage. However, it still is not known which embryo transfer policy in IVF is more efficient in terms of cumulative live birth rate (cLBR), following a fresh and the subsequent frozen-thawed transfers after one oocyte retrieval. Furthermore, studies reporting on obstetric and neonatal outcomes from both transfer policies are limited. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We have set up a multicentre randomised superiority trial in the Netherlands, named the Three or Fivetrial. We plan to include 1200 women with an indication for IVF with at least four embryos available on day 2 after the oocyte retrieval. Women are randomly allocated to either (1) control group: embryo transfer on day 3 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 3 or 4, or (2) intervention group: embryo transfer on day 5 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 5 or 6. The primary outcome is the cLBR per oocyte retrieval. Secondary outcomes include LBR following fresh transfer, multiple pregnancy rate and time until pregnancy leading a live birth. We will also assess the obstetric and neonatal outcomes, costs and patients' treatment burden. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands in June 2018 (CCMO NL 64060.000.18). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed and in open access journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NL 6857).


Subject(s)
Birth Rate , Embryo Transfer , Blastocyst , Female , Fertilization in Vitro , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Live Birth , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Netherlands , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Rate , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
16.
Ann Acad Med Singap ; 49(11): 857-869, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1001259

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Abortion, Spontaneous/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Cohort Studies , Disease Transmission, Infectious/statistics & numerical data , Female , Fetal Blood/immunology , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical/statistics & numerical data , Live Birth/epidemiology , Maternal Age , Milk, Human/chemistry , Milk, Human/virology , Obesity, Maternal/epidemiology , Placenta/pathology , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/physiopathology , Pregnancy Trimester, First , Pregnancy Trimester, Second , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/analysis , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Singapore/epidemiology , Umbilical Cord/pathology , Young Adult
17.
Hum Reprod ; 36(3): 666-675, 2021 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-939567

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Fertilization in Vitro , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Models, Organizational , Time-to-Treatment/organization & administration , Adult , Birth Rate , Cohort Studies , Datasets as Topic , Female , Humans , Live Birth/epidemiology , Male , Maternal Age , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
18.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(1): 36-46, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-898654

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cesarean Section/statistics & numerical data , Live Birth/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Stillbirth/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/surgery , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant Mortality/trends , Infant, Newborn , Intensive Care Units, Neonatal , Maternal Mortality/trends , Pregnancy , Prevalence
20.
BMJ Case Rep ; 13(8)2020 Aug 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-713318

ABSTRACT

A 33-year-old pregnant woman was hospitalised with fever, cough, myalgia and dyspnoea at 23.5 weeks of gestation (WG). Development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) mandated invasive mechanical ventilation. A nasopharyngeal swab proved positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by reverse transcription-PCR. The patient developed hypertension and biological disorders suggesting pre-eclampsia and HELLP (haemolysis, elevated liver enzyme levels and low platelet levels) syndrome. Pre-eclampsia was subsequently ruled out by a low ratio of serum soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 to placental growth factor. Given the severity of ARDS, delivery by caesarean section was contemplated. Because the ratio was normal and the patient's respiratory condition stabilised, delivery was postponed. She recovered after 10 days of mechanical ventilation. She spontaneously delivered a healthy boy at 33.4 WG. Clinical and laboratory manifestations of COVID-19 infection can mimic HELLP syndrome. Fetal extraction should not be systematic in the absence of fetal distress or intractable maternal disease. Successful evolution was the result of a multidisciplinary teamwork.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Live Birth , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/diagnostic imaging , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/therapy , Radiography, Thoracic , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnostic imaging , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL