Search

Household air pollution (HAP) from cooking with solid fuels used during pregnancy has been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. The Household Air Pollution Intervention Network (HAPIN) trial was a randomized controlled trial that assessed the impact of a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stove and fuel intervention on health in Guatemala, India, Peru, and Rwanda. Here we investigated the effects of the LPG stove and fuel intervention on stillbirth, congenital anomalies and neonatal mortality and characterized exposure-response relationships between personal exposures to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), black carbon (BC) and carbon monoxide (CO) and these outcomes. Pregnant women (18 to

Household air pollution from solid cooking fuel use during gestation has been associated with adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. The Household Air Pollution Intervention Network (HAPIN) trial was a randomized controlled trial of free liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves and fuel in Guatemala, Peru, India, and Rwanda. A primary outcome of the main trial was to report the effects of the intervention on infant birth weight. Here we evaluate the effects of a LPG stove and fuel intervention during pregnancy on spontaneous abortion, postpartum hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and maternal mortality compared to women who continued to use solid cooking fuels. Pregnant women (18-34 years of age; gestation confirmed by ultrasound at 9-19 weeks) were randomly assigned to an intervention (n = 1593) or control (n = 1607) arm. Intention-to-treat analyses compared outcomes between the two arms using log-binomial models. Among the 3195 pregnant women in the study, there were 10 spontaneous abortions (7 intervention, 3 control), 93 hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (47 intervention, 46 control), 11 post postpartum hemorrhage (5 intervention, 6 control) and 4 maternal deaths (3 intervention, 1 control). Compared to the control arm, the relative risk of spontaneous abortion among women randomized to the intervention was 2.32 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60, 8.96), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 1.02 (95% CI: 0.68, 1.52), postpartum hemorrhage 0.83 (95% CI: 0.25, 2.71) and 2.98 (95% CI: 0.31, 28.66) for maternal mortality. In this study, we found that adverse maternal outcomes did not differ based on randomized stove type across four country research sites.

BackgroundIn 2021, we showed an increased risk associated with COVID-19 in pregnancy. Since then, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has undergone genetic mutations. We aimed to examine the effects on maternal and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 during pregnancy, and evaluate vaccine effectiveness, when omicron (B.1.1.529) was the variant of concern.MethodsINTERCOVID-2022 is a large, prospective, observational study, involving 41 hospitals across 18 countries. Each woman with real-time PCR or rapid test, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in pregnancy was compared with two unmatched women without a COVID-19 diagnosis who were recruited concomitantly and consecutively in pregnancy or at delivery. Mother and neonate dyads were followed until hospital discharge. Primary outcomes were maternal morbidity and mortality index (MMMI), severe neonatal morbidity index (SNMI), and severe perinatal morbidity and mortality index (SPMMI). Vaccine effectiveness was estimated, adjusted by maternal risk profile.FindingsWe enrolled 4618 pregnant women from Nov 27, 2021 (the day after WHO declared omicron a variant of concern), to June 30, 2022: 1545 (33%) women had a COVID-19 diagnosis (median gestation 36·7 weeks [IQR 29·0-38·9]) and 3073 (67%) women, with similar demographic characteristics, did not have a COVID-19 diagnosis. Overall, women with a diagnosis had an increased risk for MMMI (relative risk [RR] 1·16 [95% CI 1·03-1·31]) and SPMMI (RR 1·21 [95% CI 1·00-1·46]). Women with a diagnosis, compared with those without a diagnosis, also had increased risks of SNMI (RR 1·23 [95% CI 0·88-1·71]), although the lower bounds of the 95% CI crossed unity. Unvaccinated women with a COVID-19 diagnosis had a greater risk of MMMI (RR 1·36 [95% CI 1·12-1·65]). Severe COVID-19 symptoms in the total sample increased the risk of severe maternal complications (RR 2·51 [95% CI 1·84-3·43]), perinatal complications (RR 1·84 [95% CI 1·02-3·34]), and referral, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or death (RR 11·83 [95% CI 6·67-20·97]). Severe COVID-19 symptoms in unvaccinated women increased the risk of MMMI (RR 2·88 [95% CI 2·02-4·12]) and referral, ICU admission, or death (RR 20·82 [95% CI 10·44-41·54]). 2886 (63%) of 4618 total participants had at least a single dose of any vaccine, and 2476 (54%) of 4618 had either complete or booster doses. Vaccine effectiveness (all vaccines combined) for severe complications of COVID-19 for all women with a complete regimen was 48% (95% CI 22-65) and 76% (47-89) after a booster dose. For women with a COVID-19 diagnosis, vaccine effectiveness of all vaccines combined for women with a complete regimen was 74% (95% CI 48-87) and 91% (65-98) after a booster dose.InterpretationCOVID-19 in pregnancy, during the first 6 months of omicron as the variant of concern, was associated with increased risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, especially among symptomatic and unvaccinated women. Women with complete or boosted vaccine doses had reduced risk for severe symptoms, complications, and death. Vaccination coverage among pregnant women remains a priority.FundingNone.

BackgroundThe effect of COVID-19 in pregnancy on maternal outcomes and its association with preeclampsia and gestational diabetes mellitus have been reported; however, a detailed understanding of the effects of maternal positivity, delivery mode, and perinatal practices on fetal and neonatal outcomes is urgently needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on fetal and neonatal outcomes and the role of mode of delivery, breastfeeding, and early neonatal care practices on the risk of mother-to-child transmission.Study designIn this cohort study that took place from March 2020 to March 2021, involving 43 institutions in 18 countries, 2 unmatched, consecutive, unexposed women were concomitantly enrolled immediately after each infected woman was identified, at any stage of pregnancy or delivery, and at the same level of care to minimize bias. Women and neonates were followed up until hospital discharge. COVID-19 in pregnancy was determined by laboratory confirmation and/or radiological pulmonary findings or ≥2 predefined COVID-19 symptoms. The outcome measures were indices of neonatal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, neonatal positivity and its correlation with mode of delivery, breastfeeding, and hospital neonatal care practices.ResultsA total of 586 neonates born to women with COVID-19 diagnosis and 1535 neonates born to women without COVID-19 diagnosis were enrolled. Women with COVID-19 diagnosis had a higher rate of cesarean delivery (52.8% vs 38.5% for those without COVID-19 diagnosis, P14 days). Among neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 diagnosis, birth via cesarean delivery was a risk factor for testing positive for COVID-19 (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.7), even when severity of maternal conditions was considered and after multivariable logistic analysis. In the subgroup of neonates born to women with COVID-19 diagnosis, the outcomes worsened when the neonate also tested positive, with higher rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission, fever, gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms, and death, even after adjusting for prematurity. Breastfeeding by mothers with COVID-19 diagnosis and hospital neonatal care practices, including immediate skin-to-skin contact and rooming-in, were not associated with an increased risk of newborn positivity.ConclusionIn this multinational cohort study, COVID-19 in pregnancy was associated with increased maternal and neonatal complications. Cesarean delivery was significantly associated with newborn COVID-19 diagnosis. Vaginal delivery should be considered the safest mode of delivery if obstetrical and health conditions allow it. Mother-to-child skin-to-skin contact, rooming-in, and direct breastfeeding were not risk factors for newborn COVID-19 diagnosis, thus well-established best practices can be continued among women with COVID-19 diagnosis.

BackgroundAmong nonpregnant individuals, diabetes mellitus and high body mass index increase the risk of COVID-19 and its severity.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine whether diabetes mellitus and high body mass index are risk factors for COVID-19 in pregnancy and whether gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with COVID-19 diagnosis.Study designINTERCOVID was a multinational study conducted between March 2020 and February 2021 in 43 institutions from 18 countries, enrolling 2184 pregnant women aged ≥18 years; a total of 2071 women were included in the analyses. For each woman diagnosed with COVID-19, 2 nondiagnosed women delivering or initiating antenatal care at the same institution were also enrolled. The main exposures were preexisting diabetes mellitus, high body mass index (overweight or obesity was defined as a body mass index ≥25 kg/m2), and gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnancy. The main outcome was a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 based on a real-time polymerase chain reaction test, antigen test, antibody test, radiological pulmonary findings, or ≥2 predefined COVID-19 symptoms at any time during pregnancy or delivery. Relationships of exposures and COVID-19 diagnosis were assessed using generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link function, with robust standard errors to account for model misspecification. Furthermore, we conducted sensitivity analyses: (1) restricted to those with a real-time polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen test in the last week of pregnancy, (2) restricted to those with a real-time polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen test during the entire pregnancy, (3) generating values for missing data using multiple imputation, and (4) analyses controlling for month of enrollment. In addition, among women who were diagnosed with COVID-19, we examined whether having gestational diabetes mellitus, diabetes mellitus, or high body mass index increased the risk of having symptomatic vs asymptomatic COVID-19.ResultsCOVID-19 was associated with preexisting diabetes mellitus (risk ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-2.42), overweight or obesity (risk ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.37), and gestational diabetes mellitus (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.46). The gestational diabetes mellitus association was specifically among women requiring insulin, whether they were of normal weight (risk ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.01) or overweight or obese (risk ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.45). A somewhat stronger association with COVID-19 diagnosis was observed among women with preexisting diabetes mellitus, whether they were of normal weight (risk ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.17) or overweight or obese (risk ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.97). When the sample was restricted to those with a real-time polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen test in the week before delivery or during the entire pregnancy, including missing variables using imputation or controlling for month of enrollment, the observed associations were comparable.ConclusionDiabetes mellitus and overweight or obesity were risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis in pregnancy, and insulin-dependent gestational diabetes mellitus was associated with the disease. Therefore, it is essential that women with these comorbidities are vaccinated.

BackgroundIt is unclear whether the suggested link between COVID-19 during pregnancy and preeclampsia is an independent association or if these are caused by common risk factors.ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify any independent association between COVID-19 during pregnancy and preeclampsia and to determine the effect of these variables on maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.Study designThis was a large, longitudinal, prospective, unmatched diagnosed and not-diagnosed observational study assessing the effect of COVID-19 during pregnancy on mothers and neonates. Two consecutive not-diagnosed women were concomitantly enrolled immediately after each diagnosed woman was identified, at any stage during pregnancy or delivery, and at the same level of care to minimize bias. Women and neonates were followed until hospital discharge using the standardized INTERGROWTH-21st protocols and electronic data management system. A total of 43 institutions in 18 countries contributed to the study sample. The independent association between the 2 entities was quantified with the risk factors known to be associated with preeclampsia analyzed in each group. The outcomes were compared among women with COVID-19 alone, preeclampsia alone, both conditions, and those without either of the 2 conditions.ResultsWe enrolled 2184 pregnant women; of these, 725 (33.2%) were enrolled in the COVID-19 diagnosed and 1459 (66.8%) in the COVID-19 not-diagnosed groups. Of these women, 123 had preeclampsia of which 59 of 725 (8.1%) were in the COVID-19 diagnosed group and 64 of 1459 (4.4%) were in the not-diagnosed group (risk ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.61). After adjustment for sociodemographic factors and conditions associated with both COVID-19 and preeclampsia, the risk ratio for preeclampsia remained significant among all women (risk ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.52) and nulliparous women specifically (risk ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-3.05). There was a trend but no statistical significance among parous women (risk ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.73). The risk ratio for preterm birth for all women diagnosed with COVID-19 and preeclampsia was 4.05 (95% confidence interval, 2.99-5.49) and 6.26 (95% confidence interval, 4.35-9.00) for nulliparous women. Compared with women with neither condition diagnosed, the composite adverse perinatal outcome showed a stepwise increase in the risk ratio for COVID-19 without preeclampsia, preeclampsia without COVID-19, and COVID-19 with preeclampsia (risk ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-2.86; risk ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-4.45; and risk ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-4.82, respectively). Similar findings were found for the composite adverse maternal outcome with risk ratios of 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.35), 2.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-3.57), and 2.77 (95% confidence interval, 1.66-4.63). The association between COVID-19 and gestational hypertension and the direction of the effects on preterm birth and adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes, were similar to preeclampsia, but confined to nulliparous women with lower risk ratios.ConclusionCOVID-19 during pregnancy is strongly associated with preeclampsia, especially among nulliparous women. This association is independent of any risk factors and preexisting conditions. COVID-19 severity does not seem to be a factor in this association. Both conditions are associated independently of and in an additive fashion with preterm birth, severe perinatal morbidity and mortality, and adverse maternal outcomes. Women with preeclampsia should be considered a particularly vulnerable group with regard to the risks posed by COVID-19.

Many observational studies and some randomized trials demonstrate how fetal growth can be influenced by environmental insults (for example, maternal infections)1 and preventive interventions (for example, multiple-micronutrient supplementation)2 that can have a long-lasting effect on health, growth, neurodevelopment and even educational attainment and income in adulthood3. In a cohort of pregnant women (n = 3,598), followed-up between 2012 and 2019 at six sites worldwide4, we studied the associations between ultrasound-derived fetal cranial growth trajectories, measured longitudinally from

Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of two‐dimensional ultrasound at 11–14 weeks' gestation as a screening test for individual fetal anomalies and to identify factors impacting on screening performance. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta‐analysis that was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018111781). MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of screening for 16 predefined, non‐cardiac, congenital anomalies considered to be of interest to the early anomaly scan. We included prospective and retrospective studies from any healthcare setting conducted in low‐risk, mixed‐risk and unselected populations. The reference standard was the detection of an anomaly on postnatal or postmortem examination. Data were extracted to populate 2 × 2 tables and a random‐effects model was used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of screening for the predefined anomalies (individually and as a composite). Secondary analyses were performed to determine the impact on detection rates of imaging protocol, type of ultrasound modality, publication year and index of sonographer suspicion at the time of scanning. Post‐hoc secondary analysis was conducted to assess performance among studies published during or after 2010. Risk of bias assessment and quality assessment were undertaken for included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2 tool. Results: From 5684 citations, 202 papers underwent full‐text review, resulting in the inclusion of 52 studies comprising 527 837 fetuses, of which 2399 were affected by one or more of the 16 predefined anomalies. Individual anomalies were not equally amenable to detection on first‐trimester ultrasound: a high (> 80%) detection rate was reported for severe conditions, including acrania (98%), gastroschisis (96%), exomphalos (95%) and holoprosencephaly (88%); the detection rate was lower for open spina bifida (69%), lower urinary tract obstruction (66%), lethal skeletal dysplasias (57%) and limb‐reduction defects (50%); and the detection rate was below 50% for facial clefts (43%), polydactyly (40%) and congenital diaphragmatic hernia (38%). Conditions with a low (< 30%) detection rate included bilateral renal agenesis (25%), closed spina bifida (21%), isolated cleft lip (14%) and talipes (11%). Specificity was > 99% for all anomalies. Secondary analysis showed that detection improved with advancing publication year, and that the use of imaging protocols had a statistically significant impact on screening performance (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The accurate detection of congenital anomalies using first‐trimester ultrasound is feasible, although detection rates and false‐positive rates depend on the type of anomaly. The use of a standardized protocol allows for diagnostic performance to be maximized, particularly for the detection of spina bifida, facial clefts and limb‐reduction defects. Highlighting the types of anomalies amenable to diagnosis and determining factors enhancing screening performance can support the development of first‐trimester anomaly screening programs. © 2024 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]