IntroductionDespite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies.MethodsWe screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsWe screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection—as compared with uninfected pregnant women—were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias.ConclusionsThis analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol.

No abstract

Women of reproductive age (WRA) need adequate nutrient intakes to sustain a healthy pregnancy, support fetal growth, and breastfeed after childbirth. However, data on women's dietary intake in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) are limited, and assessment of differences between dietary intakes of pregnant or lactating women compared with that of nonpregnant, nonlactating (NPNL) women is untested. Using single, multiple-pass 24-h dietary recall data from a sample of WRA residing in rural Bangladesh, we examined women's dietary intakes for energy, protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, and dietary diversity for three groups: NPNL (n = 2,903), pregnant (n = 197), and lactating women (n = 944). We used equivalence testing to examine similarity in adjusted intakes for pregnant versus NPNL women and lactating versus NPNL women with a predetermined equivalence threshold based on recommendations specific for each reproductive stage. On average, both pregnant and lactating women had insufficient intakes for all dietary measures. Although statistically significant differences were observed between pregnant and NPNL women for energy intake and dietary diversity and between lactating and NPNL women for energy and protein intake, the magnitudes of these differences were too small to reject equivalence. Statistical similarity was also evident in all micronutrients and dietary diversity for both two-group comparisons. Understanding statistical differences and similarities between dietary measures of women in distinct reproductive stages has important implications for the relevance, appropriateness, and evaluation of maternal dietenhancing interventions in LMICs, especially during pregnancy and lactation, when demand for macronutrients and micronutrients is elevated.

We urgently need answers to basic epidemiological questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant and postpartum women and its effect on their newborns. While many national registries, health facilities, and research groups are collecting relevant data, we need a collaborative and methodologically rigorous approach to better combine these data and address knowledge gaps, especially those related to rare outcomes. We propose that using a sequential, prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is the best approach to generate data for policy- and practice-oriented guidelines. As the pandemic evolves, additional studies identified retrospectively by the steering committee or through living systematic reviews will be invited to participate in this PMA. Investigators can contribute to the PMA by either submitting individual patient data or running standardized code to generate aggregate data estimates. For the primary analysis, we will pool data using two-stage meta-analysis methods. The meta-analyses will be updated as additional data accrue in each contributing study and as additional studies meet study-specific time or data accrual thresholds for sharing. At the time of publication, investigators of 25 studies, including more than 76,000 pregnancies, in 41 countries had agreed to share data for this analysis. Among the included studies, 12 have a contemporaneous comparison group of pregnancies without COVID-19, and four studies include a comparison group of non-pregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19. Protocols and updates will be maintained publicly. Results will be shared with key stakeholders, including the World Health Organization (WHO) Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Research Working Group. Data contributors will share results with local stakeholders. Scientific publications will be published in open-access journals on an ongoing basis.