Objective This study aimed to describe the response of labor and delivery (L&D) units in the United States to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and determine how institutional characteristics and regional disease prevalence affect viral testing and personal protective equipment (PPE). Study Design A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically through the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine e-mail database (n = 584 distinct practices) and social media between April 14 and 23, 2020. Participants were recruited through “snowballing.” A single representative was asked to respond on behalf of each L&D unit. Data were analyzed using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Multivariable regression was performed to explore characteristics associated with universal testing and PPE usage. Results A total of 301 surveys (estimated 51.5% response rate) was analyzed representing 48 states and two territories. Obstetrical units included academic (31%), community teaching (45%) and nonteaching hospitals (24%). Sixteen percent of respondents were from states with high prevalence, defined as higher “deaths per million” rates compared with the national average. Universal laboratory testing for admissions was reported for 40% (119/297) of units. After adjusting for covariates, universal testing was more common in academic institutions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23–2.42) and high prevalence states (aOR = 2.68, 95% CI: 1.37–5.28). When delivering asymptomatic patients, full PPE (including N95 mask) was recommended for vaginal deliveries in 33% and for cesarean delivery in 38% of responding institutions. N95 mask use during asymptomatic vaginal deliveries remained more likely in high prevalence states (aOR = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.29–5.09) and less likely in hospitals with universal testing (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24–0.73). Conclusion Universal laboratory testing for COVID-19 is more common at academic institutions and in states with high disease prevalence. Centers with universal testing were less likely to recommend N95 masks for asymptomatic vaginal deliveries, suggesting that viral testing can play a role in guiding efficient PPE use. Key Points

females. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:772-9.) of a single-dose emergency contraceptive demonstrated young women's ability to appropriately select and correctly use the emergency contraceptive. This post hoc analysis examined the safety of the emergency contraceptive in various age subgroups. METHODS:This was a noncomparative case-series study of a single-dose 1.5 mg levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive. Eligible women were 11-17 years of age and presented to study sites requesting emergency contraception. Safety information (side effects and any medical problems) was collected by telephone or return clinic visit at approximately 1, 4, and 8 weeks after the date the emergency contraceptive was dispensed. Safety data were retrospectively assessed in the following age subgroups: 13-14, 15-16, and 17 years.RESULTS: There were 299 women included in the safety analysis (11-12 year olds, n50; 13 year olds, n52; 14 year olds, n530; 15 year olds, n587; 16 year olds, n5123; 17 year olds, n557). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events were 13% (4/32) in 13-14 year olds, 16% (34/210) in 15-16 year olds, and 12% (7/57) in 17 year olds. The emergency contraceptive was well tolerated in all age subgroups. The most commonly reported treatmentemergent adverse event (s) in each age subgroup was as follows: in 13-14 year olds, vaginal bleeding (6% [2/32]); in 15-16 year olds, nausea and headache (each 3% [6/210]); in 17 year olds, nausea and vulvovaginal mycotic infection (each 4% [2/57]).

No abstract

No abstract

The premenstrual disorders, premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) are psychoneuroendocrine disorders characterized by a constellation of affective, somatic, and behavioural symptoms that occur monthly, during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle with relief soon after the onset of menses. PMS affects approximately 15–40% of reproductive aged women depending on criteria for diagnosis. PMDD is a severe form of PMS, with an emphasis on the affective symptoms. It has been estimated that only 5–8% of women meet the strict criteria for PMDD, but up to 20% may be one symptom short of meeting the criteria (1). The premenstrual syndromes adversely impact relationships, activities of daily living, and workplace productivity. The research and treatment of the premenstrual disorders have been hampered by lack of consensus regarding the specific diagnostic criteria, methods of assessment of symptoms and impairment, and absence of animal models or biological markers for the disorders. However, elucidation of various aspects of the pathophysiology, well designed multicentre treatment trials, and patient and clinician education have successfully improved diagnosis and management This chapter will review symptoms, definitions, diagnostic criteria, aetiology, evaluation, and nonpharmacological and pharmacological management of PMS and PMDD.