Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Introduction: Despite 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. Methods: We 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. Results: We 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. Conclusions: This 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

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Introduction Despite 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. Methods We 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. Results We 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. Conclusions This 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

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION Despite 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. METHODS We 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. RESULTS We 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. CONCLUSIONS This 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

Duration of Exclusive Breastfeeding for Preterm or Low Birth Weight Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cessation of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) with early introduction of complementary food provides additional calories for catch-up growth but may also increase the risk of adverse outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess effects of exclusive breastfeeding for less than 6 months compared with 6 months in preterm and low birth weight infants. METHODS: Data sources include Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Index Medicus through June 30, 2021. Study selection includes randomized trials and observational studies. Primary outcomes were mortality, morbidity, growth, and neurodevelopment. Data were extracted and pooled using random-effects models. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 2 studies of 307 preterm or low birth weight infants were included. None of the study results could be pooled. Both studies compared EBF for 4 months to 6 months. Growth was similar between the 4-month and 6-month EBF groups for the following outcomes: weight-for-age z-score at corrected age 12 months (mean [standard deviation], 4-month group: -1.7 [1.1], 6-month group: -1.8 [1.2], 1 study, 188 participants, low certainty evidence), absolute weight gain (gram) from 16 to 26 weeks of age (4-month group: 1004 [366], 6-month group: 1017 [350], 1 study, 119 participants, very low certainty evidence), and linear growth gain (cm) from 16 to 26 weeks of age (4-month group: 4.3 [0.9], 6-month group: 4.5 [1.2], 1 study, 119 participants, very low certainty evidence). There were no apparent differences in reported morbidity symptoms. No difference in the timing to achieve motor development milestones between the 2 groups was found (1 study; 119 participants, very low certainty evidence). A limited number of studies prevented data pooling. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of exclusive breastfeeding for less than 6 months for preterm and low birth weight infants. Further studies are warranted to better answer this question

Fast Feed Advancement for Preterm and Low Birth Weight Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Fast feed advancement may reduce hospital stay and infection but may increase adverse outcomes in preterm and low birth weight infants. The objective of this study was to assess effects of fast feed advancement (≥30 ml/kg per day) compared with slow feed advancement (\u3c30 ml/kg per day) in preterm and low birth weight infants. METHODS: Data sources include Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Index Medicus through June 30, 2021. Randomized trials were selected. Primary outcomes were mortality, morbidity, growth, and neurodevelopment. Data were extracted and pooled using random-effects models. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was used. RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs with 4291 participants were included. At discharge, there was moderate certainty evidence that fast advancement likely slightly reduces the risk of: mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.73 to 1.18, I2 = 18%, 11 trials, 4132 participants); necrotizing enterocolitis (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.15, I2 = 0%, 12 trials, 4291 participants); sepsis (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.03, I2 = 0%, 9 trials, 3648 participants); and feed intolerance (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10, I2 = 0%, 8 trials, 1114 participants). Fast feed advancement may also reduce the risk of apnea (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.12, I2 = 0%, low certainty, 2 trials, 153 participants). Fast feed advancement decreases time to regain birth weight (mean difference [MD] -3.69 days, 95% CI -4.44 to -2.95, I2 = 70%, high certainty, 6 trials, 993 participants,) and likely reduces the duration of hospitalization (MD -3.08 days, 95% CI -4.34 to -1.81, I2 = 77%, moderate certainty, 7 trials, 3864 participants). Limitations include heterogeneity between studies and small sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Fast feed advancement reduces time to regain birth weight and likely reduces the length of hospital stay; it also likely reduces the risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality slightly. However, it may increase the risk of neurodevelopmental disability slightly. More studies are needed to understand the long-term effects of fast feed advancement

Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children\u27s Sugary Drink Consumption: A Qualitative Study

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused striking alterations to daily life, with important impacts on children\u27s health. Spending more time at home and out of school due to COVID-19 related closures may exacerbate obesogenic behaviors among children, including consumption of sugary drinks (SDs). This qualitative study aimed to investigate effects of the pandemic on children\u27s SD consumption and related dietary behaviors. Children 8-14 years old and their parent ( = 19 dyads) participated in an in-depth qualitative interview. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and independently coded by two coders, after which, emergent themes and subthemes were identified and representative quotations selected. Although increases in children\u27s SD and snack intake were almost unanimously reported by both children and their parents, increased frequency of cooking at home and preparation of healthier meals were also described. Key reasons for children\u27s higher SD and snack intake were having unlimited access to SDs and snacks and experiencing boredom while at home. Parents also explained that the pandemic impacted their oversight of the child\u27s SD intake, as many parents described loosening prior restrictions on their child\u27s SD intake and/or allowing their child more autonomy to make their own dietary choices during the pandemic. These results call attention to concerning increases in children\u27s SD and snack intake during the COVID-19 pandemic. Intervention strategies to improve the home food environment, including reducing the availability of SDs and energy-dense snacks and providing education on non-food related coping strategies are needed

Protocol for a sequential, prospective meta-analysis to describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the pregnancy and postpartum periods

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

Responsive Feeding for Preterm or Low Birth Weight Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Responsive feeding may improve health outcomes in preterm and low birth weight (LBW) infants. Our objective was to assess effects of responsive compared with scheduled feeding in preterm and LBW infants. METHODS: Data sources include PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS, and MEDICUS. Randomized trials were screened. Primary outcomes were mortality, morbidity, growth, neurodevelopment. Secondary outcomes were feed intolerance and duration of hospitalization. Data were extracted and pooled with random-effects models. RESULTS: Eleven eligible studies were identified, and data from 8 randomized control trials with 455 participants were pooled in the meta-analyses. At discharge, the mean difference in body weight between the intervention (responsive feeding) and comparison (scheduled feeding) was -2.80 g per day (95% CI -3.39 to -2.22, I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence, 4 trials, 213 participants); -0.99 g/kg per day (95% CI -2.45 to 0.46, I2 = 74%, very low certainty evidence, 5 trials, 372 participants); -22.21 g (95% CI -130.63 to 86.21, I2 = 41%, low certainty evidence, 3 trials, 183 participants). The mean difference in duration of hospitalization was -1.42 days (95% CI -5.43 to 2.59, I2 = 88%, very low certainty evidence, 5 trials, 342 participants). There were no trials assessing other growth outcomes (eg, length and head circumference) mortality, morbidity or neurodevelopment. Limitations include a high risk of bias, heterogeneity, and small sample size in included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, responsive feeding may decrease in-hospital weight gain. Although the evidence is very uncertain, responsive feeding may slightly decrease the duration of hospitalization. Evidence was insufficient to understand the effects of responsive compared with scheduled feeding on mortality, morbidity, linear growth, and neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm and LBW infants

Early Enteral Feeding for Preterm or Low Birth Weight Infants: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT: Early enteral feeding has been associated with adverse outcomes such as necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm and low birth weight infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of early enteral feeding initiation within the first days after birth compared to delayed initiation. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL from inception to June 30, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials (RCTs) were included. Primary outcomes were mortality, morbidity, growth, neurodevelopment, feed intolerance, and duration of hospitalization. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted and pooled with random-effects models. RESULTS: We included 14 randomized controlled trials with 1505 participants in our primary analysis comparing early (\u3c72 hours) to delayed (≥72 hours) enteral feeding initiation. Early initiation likely decreased mortality at discharge and 28 days (1292 participants, 12 trials, relative risk 0.69, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.48-0.99, moderate certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (1100 participants, 10 trials, mean difference -3.20 days, 95%CI -5.74 to -0.66, moderate certainty evidence). The intervention may also decrease sepsis and weight at discharge. Based on low certainty evidence, early feeding may have little to no effect on necrotizing enterocolitis, feed intolerance, and days to regain birth weight. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of initiation time on intraventricular hemorrhage, length, and head circumference at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral feeding within 72 hours after birth likely reduces the risk of mortality and length of hospital stay, may reduce the risk of sepsis, and may reduce weight at discharge

Behavioral Patterns of Sugary Drink Consumption among African American Adolescents: A Pilot and Feasibility Study Using Ecological Momentary Assessment

Background: Sugary drinks (SDs) are the predominant contributors to added sugar intake among adolescents, with the highest intakes reported among African American adolescents. The objective of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility of using mobile phone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to investigate, in real time, behavioral patterns of SD consumption among African American adolescents from low-income households. Methods: Adolescents (n = 39, ages 12–17) attended a virtual meeting with a trained research assistant, which involved completion of surveys and training on responding to EMA prompts using a mobile phone application. On the seven subsequent days, adolescents were instructed to respond to researcher-initiated prompts three times daily, which queried their SD intake, location, social context, activities, stress, and mood. They were also asked to complete an analogous self-initiated survey each time they consumed SDs. Results: SD consumption was reported on 219 of 582 (38%) researcher-initiated surveys and on 135 self-initiated SD consumption surveys, for a total of 354 instances of SD intake over the 7-day assessment period. The majority (69%) of the surveys were completed while at home. SD consumption was reported on 37%, 35%, and 41% of researcher-initiated surveys completed at their home, at the home of a friend or family member, or while in transit, respectively. Conclusions: These preliminary data indicate that mobile phone-based EMA is feasible for investigating SD intake behaviors among African American youth from low-income households and support the promise of EMA for investigating SD consumption in this population in larger samples of youth