Monitoring the prenatal care process among users of the Unified Health Care System in a city of the Brazilian Southeast

OBJETIVOS: avaliar a evolução da adequação do processo de atendimento às gestantes usuárias do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) e consolidar metodologia para monitoramento da assistência pré-natal. MÉTODOS: estudo de séries temporais múltiplas, com auditoria em cartões de gestantes que realizaram pré-natal em município do Sudeste brasileiro (Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais) nos semestres iniciais de 2002 e 2004 (370 e 1.200 cartões, respectivamente) e utilizaram o SUS no atendimento ao parto a termo (p < 0,05). Obedeceu-se a uma sequência em três níveis complementares: utilização do pré-natal (início e número de atendimentos) no nível 1; utilização do pré-natal e procedimentos clínico-obstétricos obrigatórios em uma consulta pré-natal [aferições de pressão arterial (PA), peso, altura uterina (AU), idade gestacional (IG), batimentos cardiofetais (BCFs) e apresentação fetal] no nível 2; e utilização, procedimentos clínico-obstétricos obrigatórios e exames laboratoriais básicos, segundo o Programa de Humanização no Pré-natal e Nascimento/PHPN [tipagem ABO/Rh, hemoglobina/hematócrito (Hb/Htc), VDRL, glicemia e exame comum de urina] no nível 3. RESULTADOS: confirmou-se a alta cobertura pré-natal (99%), aumento da média de consultas/gestante (6,4 versus 7,2%) e decréscimo da idade gestacional na primeira consulta (17,4 versus 15,7 semanas). Aumentaram significativamente os registros adequados dos procedimentos e exames (exceções: apresentação fetal e tipagem sanguínea): PA (77,8 versus 83,9%); peso (75,4 versus 83,5%); AU (72,7 versus 81,3%); IG (58,1 versus 71,5%); BCFs (79,5 versus 86,7%); Hb/Htc (14,9 versus 29%), VDRL (11,1 versus 20,7%), glicemia (16,5 versus 29,0%) e urinálise (13,8 versus 29,8%). Consequentemente, ocorreu melhoria significativa (p < 0,001) da adequação entre 2002 e 2004: 27,6 versus 44,8% (nível 1); 7,8 versus 15,4% (nível 2); 1,1 versus 4,5% (nível 3). O atendimento na maioria dos serviços/equipes municipais apresentou evolução semelhante. CONCLUSÕES: a persistência da baixa adequação, apesar da boa cobertura e da implantação do PHPN, confirmou a necessidade de incrementar a adesão dos gestores, profissionais de saúde e usuárias às normas/rotinas do atendimento, incluindo a institucionalização de um programa de monitoramento da assistência pré-natal.PURPOSE: to evaluate the evolution of adequacy of the care process among pregnant users of the Brazilian Single Health System (SUS, acronym in Portuguese) and to consolidate a methodology for monitoring the prenatal care. METHODS: this is a multiple time series study with auditing of prenatal cards of pregnant women who were attended for prenatal care in a city of the Brazilian Southeast (Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais) in the initial semesters of 2002 and 2004 (370 and 1,200 cards, respectively) and gave birth using SUS services in term pregnancies (p < 0.05). A three complementary level sequence was respected: utilization of prenatal care (beginning and number of visits) at level 1; utilization of prenatal care and obligatory clinical-obstetric procedures during prenatal visits (assessment of blood pressure (BP), weight, uterine fundal height (FH), gestational age (GA), fetal heart rate (FHR) and fetal presentation) at level 2; and utilization of prenatal care, obligatory clinical-obstetric procedures and basic laboratory tests, according to the Humanization Program of Prenatal Care and Birth (PHPN, acronym in Portuguese) (ABO/Rh, hemoglobin/hematocrit (Hb/Htc), VDRL, glycemia and urinalisys) at level 3. RESULTS: it was confirmed the high prenatal care coverage (99%), the increased mean number of visits per pregnant woman (6.4 versus 7.2%) and the decreased gestational age at the time of the first visit (17.4 versus 15.7 weeks). The proper registration of procedures and exams (exceptions: fetal presentation and blood typing) has significantly increased: BP (77.8 versus 83.9%); weight (75.4 versus 83.5%); FH (72.7 versus 81.3%); GA (58.1 versus 71.5%); FHR (79.5 versus 86.7%); Hb/Htc (14.9 versus 29%), VDRL (11.1 versus 20.7%), glycemia (16.5 versus 29%) and urinalisys (13.8 versus 29.8%). As a result, there was significant (p < 0.001) improvement of the adequacy between 2002 and 2004: 27.6 versus 44.8% (level 1); 7.8 versus 15.4% (level 2); 1.1 versus 4.5% (level 3). This trend was also noted in care provided by the majority of the municipal services/teams. CONCLUSIONS: the persistence of low adequacy, despite good coverage and PHPN implementation, confirmed the need to increase health managers, professionals and users' compliance with the rules and routines of care, including the institutionalization of a monitoring program of prenatal care

Stillbirth at term: Does size really matter?

Placental dysfunction has a deleterious influence on fetal size and is associated with higher rates of perinatal morbidity and mortality. This association underpins the strategy of fetal size evaluation as a mechanism to identify placental dysfunction and prevent stillbirth. The optimal method of routine detection of small for gestational age (SGA) remains to be clarified with choices between estimation of symphyseal-fundal height versus routine third-trimester ultrasound, various formulae for fetal weight estimation by ultrasound, and the variable use of national, customized, or international fetal growth references. In addition to these controversies, the strategy for detecting SGA is further undermined by data demonstrating that the relationship between fetal size and adverse outcome weakens significantly with advancing gestation such that near term, the majority of stillbirths and adverse perinatal outcomes occur in normally sized fetuses. The use of maternal serum biochemical and Doppler parameters near term appears to be superior to fetal size in the identification of fetuses compromised by placental dysfunction and at increased risk of damage or demise. Multiparameter models and predictive algorithms using maternal risk factors, and biochemical and Doppler parameters have been developed, but need to be prospectively validated to demonstrate their effectiveness

Diagnóstico pré-natal de displasia camptomélica: relato de caso Prenatal diagnosis of camptomelic dysplasia: a case report

A displasia camptomélica pertence a um grupo heterogêneo e raro de displasias esqueléticas letais, que se caracterizam pelo desenvolvimento anormal dos ossos e das cartilagens. É causada por uma mutação no gene Sox9 (SRY-like HMG [high-mobility group] BOX 9) do cromossomo 17 e transmitida pela via autossômica dominante. Apresenta como principais características o encurtamento e o encurvamento dos ossos longos, principalmente nos membros inferiores. Também está associada a outras graves malformações esqueléticas e extra-esqueléticas. O estudo do cariótipo pode revelar incompatibilidade entre o genótipo e o fenótipo genital. A maioria dos portadores morre nos períodos fetal e neonatal precoce. A ultra-sonografia é essencial para a elucidação diagnóstica pré-natal.<br>Camptomelic dysplasia belongs to a heterogeneous and rare group of lethal skeletal dysplasias, characterized by abnormal development of bones and cartilages. It is caused by a mutation in gene Sox9 (SRY-like HMG [high-mobility group] BOX 9) of chromosome 17 and it is transmitted as an autosomal dominant trait. Its main characteristics are the shortening and bowing of the long bones, principally the lower limbs. It is also associated with other severe skeletal and extraskeletal malformations. Karyotype study may reveal sex reversal. The majority of carriers die during the fetal and early neonatal periods. Ultrasound is essential to elucidate a prenatal diagnosis

Diagnosis of the RhD status using conventional polymerase chain reaction

A aplicação dos métodos de biologia molecular tem acrescentado benefícios aos métodos convencionais de diagnóstico do grupo sangüíneo Rhesus (Rh). Alguns estudos evidenciaram a superioridade prática da genotipagem RhD por reação em cadeia da polimerase (PCR) em relação às técnicas de identificação do fenótipo dos antígenos do grupo Rh obtidas pela hemaglutinação. Esta análise molecular tem sido realizada utilizando-se várias seqüências cromossômicas e diferentes tipos de técnicas. O grupo Rh contém dois genes homólogos, um codificando o antígeno D e o outro os antígenos C/c e E/e. Os objetivos deste projeto foram: (1) Detectar a presença de seqüência RhD específica dos indivíduos Rh positivo; (2) Comparar a presença/ausência destas seqüências com o grupo sanguíneo detectado pela hemaglutinação e calcular a sensibilidade e a especificidade da PCR. Para cumprir estes objetivos, foram analisadas amostras de DNA extraídas de sangue periférico de 23 indivíduos (4 homens e 19 mulheres) Rh positivo (11) e negativo (12) para amplificação de seqüências dos genes RhD e RhCE utilizando a técnica de PCR convencional. Nestas amostras, a comparação dos resultados da PCR com os da hemaglutinação demonstrou total concordância entre os testes. A sensibilidade do método foi avaliada pela realização da PCR em amostras de sangue Rh positivo diluídas em água e em sangue Rh negativo, amplificando o DNA na concentração de até 4 pg/l. Estes resultados indicaram que a técnica de PCR mostrou-se efetiva no diagnóstico da genotipagem do fator Rh, vislumbrando-se a possibilidade de sua utilização em outros tecidos de origem êmbrio-fetal para orientação de diagnóstico fetal invasivo e do uso profilático da imunoglobulina anti-D apenas nos casos de incompatibilidade Rh materno-fetal. Adicionalmente, indicaram que havendo melhora da sensibilidade desta técnica será possível detectar quantidades objetivamente menores de DNA fetal na circulação materna, fundamentando um importante passo rumo ao diagnóstico do fator Rh fetal por técnica não invasiva.Molecular biology techniques have added some advantages to conventional diagnosis of the Rhesus (Rh) blood group. Many researches have demonstrated the practical superiority of RhD genotyping using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) over phenotypic identification tests obtained by hemagglutination. The use of different kinds of molecular analysis techniques and genetic sequences has been described. The Rh blood group contains two homologous genes, one encoding the D antigen and the other one coding C/c and E/e antigens. This study objectives were: (1) Detect the RhD sequence specific for the Rh positive individuals; (2) Compare the presence/absence of these sequences with the blood group identified by hemagglutination to calculate PCRs sensitivity and specificity rates. To accomplish these objectives, DNA extracted from venous blood of 23 individuals (4 men and 19 women), Rh positive (11) and negative (12), were analyzed using conventional PCR to amplify RhD and RhCE gene sequences. The comparison of PCR with hemagglutination results has shown total agreement. The sensitivity of this PCR method was evaluated using progressive dilutions of Rh positive samples on water and also on Rh negative samples, which demonstrated successful amplification of until 4 pg/l DNA concentration. These results have indicated that PCR was effective for the RhD genotyping, foreseeing the possibility of its utilization with other embryofetal tissues for invasive diagnosis orientation and anti-D immunoglobulin use only in cases of maternal-fetal incompatibility. Also, with an increase of this techniques sensitivity, fewer DNA amounts could be detected, which will certainly be an important step towards noninvasive fetal RhD diagnosis

Preventing Stillbirth: A Review of Screening and Prevention Strategies

Abstract. Stillbirth is a devastating pregnancy complication that still affects many women, particularly from low and middle-income countries. It is often labeled as “unexplained” and therefore unpreventable, despite the knowledge that placental dysfunction has been identified as a leading cause of antepartum stillbirth. Currently, screening for pregnancies at high-risk for placental dysfunction relies on checklists of maternal risk factors and serial measurement of symphyseal-fundal height to identify small for gestational age fetuses. More recently, the first-trimester combined screening algorithm developed by the Fetal Medicine Foundation has emerged as a better tool to predict and prevent early-onset placental dysfunction and its main outcomes of preterm preeclampsia, fetal growth restriction and stillbirth by the appropriate use of Aspirin therapy, serial growth scans and induction of labour from 40 weeks for women identified at high-risk by such screening. There is currently no equivalent to predict and prevent late-onset placental dysfunction, although algorithms combining an ultrasound-based estimation of fetal weight, assessment of maternal and fetal Doppler indices, and maternal serum biomarkers show promise as emerging new screening tools to optimize pregnancy monitoring and timing of delivery to prevent stillbirth. In this review we discuss the strategies to predict and prevent stillbirths based on first-trimester screening as well as fetal growth and wellbeing assessment in the second and third trimesters

Hypertension, preeclampsia and eclampsia among HIV-infected pregnant women from Latin America and Caribbean countries

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the US National Institutes of Health or the Department of Health and Human Services.Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-08T14:09:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 1914 bytes, checksum: 7d48279ffeed55da8dfe2f8e81f3b81f (MD5) josehenrique_pilotto_IOC_2014.pdf: 431330 bytes, checksum: a8336627d368ba0512d9a5f379c494dc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Instituto de Puericultura e Pediatria Martagão Gesteira. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Westat. Rockville, MD, USA.Westat. Rockville, MD, USA.Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto. Hospital das Clínicas. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Porto Alegre. Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Faculdade de Medicina. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de AIDS e Imunologia Molecular. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Dr. Cecilia Grierson Hospital. Infectious Diseases Unit. Buenos Aires, AR.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Instituto de Puericultura e Pediatria Martagão Gesteira. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.National Institute of Health. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Maternal and Pediatric Infectious Disease Branch. Bethesda, MD, USA.National Institute of Health. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Maternal and Pediatric Infectious Disease Branch. Bethesda, MD, USA.Objectives: To evaluate the incidence of and risk factors for hypertensive disorders in a cohort of HIV-infected pregnant women. Methods: Hypertensive disorders (HD) including preeclampsia/eclampsia (PE/E) and pregnancy induced hypertension, and risk factors were evaluated in a cohort of HIV-infected pregnan

Effects of Initiating Raltegravir-Based Versus Efavirenz-Based Antiretroviral Regimens During Pregnancy on Weight Changes and Perinatal Outcomes: NICHD P1081

BackgroundIntegrase inhibitors have been associated with excess gestational weight gain that may lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). This post hoc analysis of NICHD P1081 compared antepartum changes in weight and body mass index (BMI) in pregnant women initiating raltegravir- or efavirenz-based combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) and examined associations between rates of weight gain and APOs.SettingNICHD P1081 enrolled antiretroviral-naive pregnant women living with HIV in the second and third trimester in Brazil, Tanzania, South Africa, Thailand, Argentina, and the United States.MethodsTwo hundred eighty-one women enrolled between 20 and 31 gestational weeks were randomized to raltegravir- or efavirenz-based cART and followed for ≥4 weeks. A low rate of weight gain was defined as &lt;0.18 kg/wk and high as &gt;0.59 kg/wk. We compared weight gain and BMI increase between treatment arms using Kruskal-Wallis tests. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between weight gain and APOs.ResultsRaltegravir-based cART was associated with significantly higher antepartum weight gain (median 0.36 kg/wk versus 0.29 kg/wk, P = 0.01) and BMI increase (median 0.14 kg/m 2 /wk versus 0.11 kg/m 2 /wk, P = 0.01) compared with efavirenz-based treatment. Women on raltegravir had less low weight gain (18% versus 36%) and more high weight gain (21% versus 12%) ( P = 0.001). Women with low weight gain were more likely than those with normal weight gain to have small for gestational age infants or a composite of APOs.ConclusionsA raltegravir-based antiretroviral regimen was associated with significantly higher antepartum rate of weight gain and BMI increase compared with efavirenz-based treatment in antiretroviral-naive pregnant women

Risk of adverse outcomes in offspring with RT-PCR confirmed prenatal Zika virus exposure: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 13 cohorts in the Zika Brazilian Cohorts

The Zika Brazilian Cohorts Consortium was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq) (grant number 404861/2018-0). The individual studies participating in the ZBC-Consortium were funded by: Wellcome Trust and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (grant numbers: 205377/Z/16/Z; 201870/Z/16/Z). European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under ZikaPLAN (grant number 734584). Wellcome Trust - Research Enrichment in Epidemic Situation (grant number 107779/Z/15/Z; with ER1505 & ER1601). Medical Research Council on behalf of the Newton Fund and Wellcome Trust (grant number MC_PC_15088). National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grant number RO1/ AI140718). Fondation Christophe et Rodolphe Mérieux. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq) (grant numbers 443875/2018-9; 440573/2016-5; 441098/2016-9; 305090/2016-0; 307282/2017-1; 304476/2018-8; 465549/2014-4; 440763/2016-9; 309722/2017-9; 306708/2014-0; 440577/2016-0). Coordination for the improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Capes) (grant numbers 88881.130813/2016-01; 88887.116627/2016-01; 88887.136366/2017-00). Ministry of Health of Brazil - Emergency Response in Public Health - Zika virus and Microcephaly (Ministério da Saúde de Brasil - Resposta à Emergência em Saúde Pública – Zika vírus e Microcefalia) (grant number 837058/2016). Department of Science and Technology (Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia - DECIT) (grant numbers 25000.072811/2016-19; 440839/2016-5). Foundation of Research Support of the State of São Paulo (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – FAPESP) (grant numbers 2016/08578-0; 2017/21688-1; 2013/21719-3; 2016/ 15021-1; 2015/12295-0; 2016/05115-9). Foundation of Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – FAPERJ) (grant numbers E-26/201.351/2016; E-18/ 2015TXB; E-26/202.862/2018; E 26/010.002477/2016). Foundation of Support for Research and Scientific and Technological Development of Maranhão (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico do Maranhão – FAPEMA) (grant number 008/2016). Brazilian Ministry of Health (Ministério da Saúde – MS) (grant number 929698560001160-02). Evandro Chagas Institute/Brazilian Ministry of Health (Instituto Evandro Chagas/Ministério da Saúde). Foundation of Research Support of the State of Goiás (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás – FAPEG) (number grant 2017/10267000531). Foundation of Research Support of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul – FAPERGS) (grant number 17/2551-0000521-0). Foundation to Support Teaching, Research and Assistance at Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto (Fundação de Apoio ao Ensino, Pesquisa e Assistência do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto) and São Paulo State Department of Health (Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de São Paulo). Support Foundation of Pernambuco Science and Technology (Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia de Pernambuco – FACEPE) (grant numbers APQ-0172-4.01/16; APQ-0192-4.01/17; APQ0793-4.01/17).Federal University of Pernambuco. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Recife, PE, Brazil / University of Pernambuco. Post-Graduation in Health Sciences. Recife, PE, Brazil.University of Pernambuco. Post-Graduation in Health Sciences. Recife, PE, Brazil.London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology. London, UK.Federal University of Pernambuco. Postgraduate Program in Collective Health. Recife, PE, Brazil.University of Pernambuco. Post-Graduation in Health Sciences. Recife, PE, Brazil.University of Amazonas State. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil / Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado Tropical Medicine Foundation. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Ribeirão Preto Medical School. Department of Pediatrics. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Ribeirão Preto Medical School. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Ribeirão Preto Medical School. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Ribeirão Preto Medical School. Department of Pediatrics. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.University of Amazonas State. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil / Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado Tropical Medicine Foundation. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil.University of Amazonas State. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil / Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado Tropical Medicine Foundation. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Clinical Research Unit. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Clinical Research Unit. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Obstretics. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.University of California. David Geffen School of Medicine. Department of Pediatrics. Los Angeles, CA, Estados Unidos.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Research Center Aggeu Magalhães. Recife, PE, Brazil.London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology. London, UK.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Research Center Aggeu Magalhães. Recife, PE, Brazil.Altino Ventura Foundation. Department of Ophthalmology. Recife, PE, Brazil / Pernambuco Eyes Hospital. Recife, PE, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde e Ambiente. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde e Ambiente. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde e Ambiente. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde e Ambiente. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Medicine School of São José do Rio Preto. Department of Infectious Disease. São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil.Medicine School of São José do Rio Preto. Department of Infectious Disease. São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil.Medicine School of São José do Rio Preto. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics. São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil.Medicine School of Jundiaí. Infectious Pediatric Laboratory. Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.Federal University of São Paulo. Department of Fetal Medicine. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Father Anchieta University Center. Nursing School. Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.Federal University of São Paulo. Paulista School of Medicine. Departament of Obstetrics. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Federal University of Goiás. Institute of Tropical Pathology and Public Health. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Health Secretariat of Goiás State. Maternal and Child Hospital. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Federal University of São Paulo. Paulista School of Medicine. Departament of Obstetrics. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Health Secretariat of Goiás State. Maternal and Child Hospital. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Hospital das Clinicas de Porto Alegre. Departamento de Genética. Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.City Hall of Tangará da Serra, Municipal Health Department, Tangará da Serra, MT, Brazil.Federal University of Campina Grande. Medical Academic Unit. Campina Grande, PB, Brazil.Federal University of Campina Grande. Medical Academic Unit. Campina Grande, PB, Brazil.Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Department of Pediatrics. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.D’Or Institute for Research & Education. Department of Pediatrics. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Departmentiversity of Rio de Janeiro Maternity School. Department of Obstectrics. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Departmentiversity of Rio de Janeiro Maternity School. Department of Obstectrics. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Reference Maternity Prof. José Maria de Magalhães Netto. Bahia Health Department, Salvador, BA, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Gonçalo Moniz Institute. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Gonçalo Moniz Institute. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Department of Infecitous Diseases. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Department of Infecitous Diseases. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Gonçalo Moniz Institute. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Leonidas and Maria Deane Institute. Manaus, AM, Brazil.University of Amazonas State. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil / Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado Tropical Medicine Foundation. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil / Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Leonidas and Maria Deane Institute. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Background: Knowledge regarding the risks associated with Zika virus (ZIKV) infections in pregnancy has relied on individual studies with relatively small sample sizes and variable risk estimates of adverse outcomes, or on surveillance or routinely collected data. Using data from the Zika Brazilian Cohorts Consortium, this study aims, to estimate the risk of adverse outcomes among offspring of women with RT-PCR-confirmed ZIKV infection during pregnancy and to explore heterogeneity between studies. Methods: We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis of the offspring of 1548 pregnant women from 13 studies, using one and two-stage meta-analyses to estimate the absolute risks. Findings: Of the 1548 ZIKV-exposed pregnancies, the risk of miscarriage was 0.9%, while the risk of stillbirth was 0.3%. Among the pregnancies with liveborn children, the risk of prematurity was 10,5%, the risk of low birth weight was 7.7, and the risk of small for gestational age (SGA) was 16.2%. For other abnormalities, the absolute risks were: 2.6% for microcephaly at birth or first evaluation, 4.0% for microcephaly at any time during follow-up, 7.9% for neuroimaging abnormalities, 18.7% for functional neurological abnormalities, 4.0% for ophthalmic abnormalities, 6.4% for auditory abnormalities, 0.6% for arthrogryposis, and 1.5% for dysphagia. This risk was similar in all sites studied and in different socioeconomic conditions, indicating that there are not likely to be other factors modifying this association. Interpretation: This study based on prospectively collected data generates the most robust evidence to date on the risks of congenital ZIKV infections over the early life course. Overall, approximately one-third of liveborn children with prenatal ZIKV exposure presented with at least one abnormality compatible with congenital infection, while the risk to present with at least two abnormalities in combination was less than 1.0%