Preeclampsia and COVID-19: results from the INTERCOVID prospective longitudinal study

Background: It 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. Objective: This 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 Design: This 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. Results: We 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. Conclusion: COVID-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

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

Maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality among pregnant women with and without COVID-19 infection: the INTERCOVID multinational cohort study

Importance Detailed information about the association of COVID-19 with outcomes in pregnant individuals compared with not-infected pregnant individuals is much needed. Objective To evaluate the risks associated with COVID-19 in pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes compared with not-infected, concomitant pregnant individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study that took place from March to October 2020, involving 43 institutions in 18 countries, 2 unmatched, consecutive, not-infected 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. Exposures COVID-19 in pregnancy determined by laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 and/or radiological pulmonary findings or 2 or more predefined COVID-19 symptoms. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measures were indices of (maternal and severe neonatal/perinatal) morbidity and mortality; the individual components of these indices were secondary outcomes. Models for these outcomes were adjusted for country, month entering study, maternal age, and history of morbidity. Results A total of 706 pregnant women with COVID-19 diagnosis and 1424 pregnant women without COVID-19 diagnosis were enrolled, all with broadly similar demographic characteristics (mean [SD] age, 30.2 [6.1] years). Overweight early in pregnancy occurred in 323 women (48.6%) with COVID-19 diagnosis and 554 women (40.2%) without. Women with COVID-19 diagnosis were at higher risk for preeclampsia/eclampsia (relative risk [RR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.27-2.43), severe infections (RR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.63-7.01), intensive care unit admission (RR, 5.04; 95% CI, 3.13-8.10), maternal mortality (RR, 22.3; 95% CI, 2.88-172), preterm birth (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.30-1.94), medically indicated preterm birth (RR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.56-2.51), severe neonatal morbidity index (RR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.69-4.18), and severe perinatal morbidity and mortality index (RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.66-2.75). Fever and shortness of breath for any duration was associated with increased risk of severe maternal complications (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.92-3.40) and neonatal complications (RR, 4.97; 95% CI, 2.11-11.69). Asymptomatic women with COVID-19 diagnosis remained at higher risk only for maternal morbidity (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00-1.54) and preeclampsia (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.01-2.63). Among women who tested positive (98.1% by real-time polymerase chain reaction), 54 (13%) of their neonates tested positive. Cesarean delivery (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.18-3.91) but not breastfeeding (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.66-1.85) was associated with increased risk for neonatal test positivity. Conclusions and Relevance In this multinational cohort study, COVID-19 in pregnancy was associated with consistent and substantial increases in severe maternal morbidity and mortality and neonatal complications when pregnant women with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were compared. The findings should alert pregnant individuals and clinicians to implement strictly all the recommended COVID-19 preventive measures

Diabetes mellitus, maternal adiposity, and insulin-dependent gestational diabetes are associated with COVID-19 in pregnancy: the INTERCOVID study

Background Among nonpregnant individuals, diabetes mellitus and high body mass index increase the risk of COVID-19 and its severity. Objective This 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 Design INTERCOVID 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. Results COVID-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. Conclusion Diabetes 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

Preeclampsia and COVID-19: results from the INTERCOVID prospective longitudinal study.

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

Diabetes mellitus, maternal adiposity, and insulin-dependent gestational diabetes are associated with COVID-19 in pregnancy: the INTERCOVID study.

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

Diabetes mellitus, maternal adiposity, and insulin-dependent gestational diabetes are associated with COVID-19 in pregnancy: the INTERCOVID study

Background Among nonpregnant individuals, diabetes mellitus and high body mass index increase the risk of COVID-19 and its severity. Objective This 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 Design INTERCOVID 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. Results COVID-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. Conclusion Diabetes 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

Effects of prenatal exposure to maternal COVID-19 and perinatal care on neonatal outcome: results from the INTERCOVID Multinational Cohort Study

Background: The 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. Objective: To 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 Design: In 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. Results: A 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. Conclusion: In 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.</p

Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure

BACKGROUND The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016 -002299-28.)