Pregnant women may be at higher risk of severe complications associated with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which may lead to obstetrical complications. We performed a case control study comparing pregnant women with severe coronavirus disease 19 (cases) to pregnant women with a milder form (controls) enrolled in the COVI-Preg international registry cohort between March 24 and July 26, 2020. Risk factors for severity, obstetrical and immediate neonatal outcomes were assessed. A total of 926 pregnant women with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 were included, among which 92 (9.9%) presented with severe COVID-19 disease. Risk factors for severe maternal outcomes were pulmonary comorbidities [aOR 4.3, 95% CI 1.9–9.5], hypertensive disorders [aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.0–7.0] and diabetes [aOR2.2, 95% CI 1.1–4.5]. Pregnant women with severe maternal outcomes were at higher risk of caesarean section [70.7% (n = 53/75)], preterm delivery [62.7% (n = 32/51)] and newborns requiring admission to the neonatal intensive care unit [41.3% (n = 31/75)]. In this study, several risk factors for developing severe complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection among pregnant women were identified including pulmonary comorbidities, hypertensive disorders and diabetes. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes appear to be influenced by the severity of maternal disease.

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

This study assessed the ability of a community health worker asthma intervention to change home asthma triggers. A total of 56 children and 47 adults with asthma were enrolled. Home trigger scores for the children averaged 2.8 at the initial home visit and then 2.3, 2.1, and 2.0 at 3, 6, and 12 months. Home trigger scores for the adults showed a similar trend. Every home visit was associated with a 0.32 reduction in home trigger score (p < 0.01) for children and a 0.41 reduction (p < 0.01) for adults. This intervention shows promise as a way to reduce asthma triggers in urban low-income Latino communities.

Evaluation of multiple community-based approaches to improve Latinas’ breast cancer (BC) screening utilization has resulted in inconsistent findings. Factors contributing to this variation include heterogeneity in approaches (e.g., types of conceptual frameworks) and study quality (e.g., lack of measurement of spillover effects). This pilot study sought to clarify which approach may be most effective by evaluating the relative efficacy of two conceptual approaches using an area-level design with 145 Latinas nonadherent to U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) BC screening guidelines. Each study arm included identical intervention format and duration (e.g., three group-based sessions, logistic assistance (LA) via five monthly calls and referral to free/low-cost screening programs). However, study content differed. While educate+LA addressed participants’ BC prevention and screening behavior, empower+LA addressed participants’ and their social networks’ BC screening. After adjusting for age, insurance status, and baseline mammography intention, when compared with educate+LA participants, empower+LA participants were more likely to report obtaining mammograms, engaging more individuals about BC, initiating BC conversations in public settings, and discussing mammography specifically. Our study has important implications regarding the utility of evaluating behavioral interventions overall in terms of behavioral and spillover network effects.