COVID-19 is associated with early emergence of preeclampsia: results from a large regional collaborative.

Objective: To investigate the relationship between preeclampsia and SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of pregnant women between March and October 2020. Pregnant patients admitted to 14 obstetrical centers in Michigan, USA formed the study population. Of the N = 1458 participants, 369 had SARS-CoV-2 infection (cases). Controls were uninfected pregnancies that were delivered in the same obstetric unit within 30 days of the index case. Robust Poisson regression was used to estimate relative risk (RR) of preterm and term preeclampsia and preeclampsia involving placental lesions. The analysis included adjustment for relevant clinical and demographic risk factors.Results: SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy increased the risk of preeclampsia [adjusted aRR = 1.69 (1.26-2.26)], preeclampsia involving placental lesions [aRR = 1.97(1.14-3.4)] and preterm preeclampsia 2.48(1.48-4.17). Although the highest rate of preeclampsia was observed in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were symptomatic (18.4%), there was increased risk even in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (14.2%) relative to non-infected controls (8.7%) (p < 0.05). This association with symptomatology was also noted with preterm preeclampsia for which the rate doubled from 2.7% in controls to 5.2% in asymptomatic cases and reached 11.8% among symptomatic cases (p < 0.05). The rate of preterm preeclampsia among cases of pregnant people self-identified as Black reached 10.1% and was almost double the rate of the reminder of the group of infected pregnancies (5.3%), although the rate among uninfected was almost the same (2.7%) for both Black and non-Black groups (interaction p = 0.05).Conclusions: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 increases the risk of preeclampsia even in the absence of symptoms, although symptomatic persons are at even higher risk. Racial disparities in the development of preterm preeclampsia after SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain discrepancies in prematurity between different populations.

Maternal SARS-COV-2 infection and prematurity: the Southern Michigan COVID-19 collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has been reported to increase the risk of prematurity, however, due to the frequent absence of unaffected controls as well as inadequate accounting for confounders in many studies, the question requires further investigation. We sought to determine the impact of COVID-19 disease on preterm birth (PTB) overall, as well as related subcategories such as early prematurity, spontaneous, medically indicated preterm birth, and preterm labor (PTL). We assessed the impact of confounders such as COVID-19 risk factors, a-priori risk factors for PTB, symptomatology, and disease severity on rates of prematurity. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of pregnant women from March 2020 till October 1st, 2020. The study included patients from 14 obstetric centers in Michigan, USA. Cases were defined as women diagnosed with COVID-19 at any point during their pregnancy. Cases were matched with uninfected women who delivered in the same unit, within 30 d of the delivery of the index case. Outcomes of interest were frequencies of prematurity overall and subcategories of preterm birth (early, spontaneous/medically indicated, preterm labor, and premature preterm rupture of membranes) in cases compared to controls. The impact of modifiers of these outcomes was documented with extensive control for potential confounders. A p value <.05 was used to infer significance. RESULTS: The rate of prematurity was 8.9% in controls, 9.4% in asymptomatic cases, 26.5% in symptomatic COVID-19 cases, and 58.8% among cases admitted to the ICU. Gestational age at delivery was noted to decrease with disease severity. Cases were at an increased risk of prematurity overall [adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 1.62 (1.2-2.18)] and of early prematurity (<34 weeks) [aRR = 1.8 (1.02-3.16)] when compared to controls. Medically indicated prematurity related to preeclampsia [aRR = 2.46 (1.47-4.12)] or other indications [aRR = 2.32 (1.12-4.79)], were the primary drivers of overall prematurity risk. Symptomatic cases were at an increased risk of preterm labor [aRR = 1.74 (1.04-2.8)] and spontaneous preterm birth due to premature preterm rupture of membranes [aRR = 2.2(1.05-4.55)] when compared to controls and asymptomatic cases combined. The gestational age at delivery followed a dose-response relation with disease severity, as more severe cases tended to deliver earlier (Wilcoxon p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 is an independent risk factor for preterm birth. The increased preterm birth rate in COVID-19 was primarily driven by medically indicated delivery, with preeclampsia as the principal risk factor. Symptomatic status and disease severity were significant drivers of preterm birth.

Older Patient Receptivity to the Integration of Patient Portals and Telehealth in Urogynecology: Promoters and Deterrents.

IMPORTANCE: Limited studies focus on the integration of online portals, including telehealth services, in urogynecology while identifying promoters and deterrents of utilization, especially for the older population. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify facilitators, concerns, technical or personal issues encountered, and the desired features of the online patient portals among older urogynecology patients. STUDY DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of older patients (≥65 years). The survey was devised using 2 focus groups with questions addressing older patient practicality and comfort with virtual visits for menopause and urogynecology-specific conditions. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients completed the study. Promoters of use included health care professional encouragement, enrollment on site with concurrent education, and clarification of relevance of the virtual care to one's care. Patients who were uncomfortable with portal use reported anxiety and technical issues as deterrents for using such technology. More than half of the patients were comfortable having online visits for preoperative (51.7%), postoperative (66.3%), and medical management (73.7%). Up to 60.5% of the patients believed that virtual visits were equally stressful as in-person visits, whereas 24.4% believed that the logistics of in-person visits were the cause of stress. CONCLUSIONS: To improve access to care, augment the utilization of online patient portals, and combat ageism, enhancing the older urogynecologic patient's portal experience is vital. Investment in this population's needs includes education of patients, active enrollment, and engagement by health care systems, and addressing technical concerns.

Ageism in healthcare technology: the older patients' aspirations for improved online accessibility.

Objective: To identify concerns, barriers and facilitators impacting the use of patient portals by older patients as well as desired features in future updates. Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional study consisting of 2 focus group discussions culminating in an anonymous survey administered to women who were 65 years and older receiving urogynecologic care in Northwest Ohio. Results: Of the 205 women surveyed (91% response rate), providers and healthcare systems play the primary 2 roles (73% and 69%, respectively) in facilitating patients' use of patient portal systems and telehealth applications. Barriers to use revolved around technical difficulties (50%), privacy concerns (45%), and cost of technology (24%). The most important features desired were the ability to modify the text size within the application (47%) and an intuitive, simple interface (46%). Additional assistance for navigating technical challenges was suggested, specifically set-up of accounts (36%), saving and sharing information with caregivers (35%), and sign-in and navigation of portals (32%). Conclusion: The paucity of age-aligned medical access software and products may lead to worsening of digital exclusion and disparities in healthcare. Portal application developers and healthcare systems must advance efforts that consider the needs of those who may be older when designing patient portals.

The clinical utility of intrapartum screening urinalysis for the prevention of postpartum pyelonephritis.

OBJECTIVES: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common bacterial infection to complicate pregnancy. Medical authorities recommend screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) in pregnancy; albeit there is no consensus on ideal timing and frequency for testing. Due to the persistent physiologic changes of pregnancy postpartum, a recent trend to perform urinalysis upon presentation for delivery has been adopted at our institution and various satellite hospitals to putatively minimize cases of postpartum pyelonephritis. The aim of this study is to examine whether routine testing with urinalysis and screening for ASB following suspicious urinalysis with treatment can decrease the incidence of postpartum pyelonephritis, and to determine whether certain urinalysis parameters are more predictive of a positive urine culture. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review study of all term deliveries was conducted over two years at the American University of Beirut Medical Center, a university teaching hospital. A total of 2359 deliveries of women with no increased susceptibility to UTIs were reviewed. None had urinary symptoms upon presentation. Urinary parameters including time of urinalysis and urine culture collection with respect to time of delivery, corresponding results and mode of urine collection were correlated to intrapartum course, incidence of ASB and of postpartum pyelonephritis. RESULTS: The incidence of ASB among women presenting for delivery was 4.83 %, with Escherichia coli as the most commonly detected pathogen. The presence of nitrite on urinalysis was significantly associated with a positive urine culture (p-value<0.001). Women with history of antenatal ASB or UTI were more likely to have ASB intrapartum with an odds ratio of 3.14 (95 % CI 1.71-5.75, p-value <0.001). Intrapartum urinalysis with subsequent diagnosis and treatment of ASB did not significantly affect the incidence of postpartum pyelonephritis (p-value 0.280). Similarly, intrapartum urinalysis in the setting of positive history of antenatal ASB or UTI did not increase the incidence of postpartum pyelonephritis compared to women with no such history (p-value 0.659). CONCLUSIONS: Urinalysis screening intrapartum does not decrease the incidence of postpartum pyelonephritis. Universal urinalysis screening intrapartum is not warranted and should be reserved for women reporting urinary symptoms and/or women at high risk of UTI.