Changes in Prenatal Testing During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted healthcare delivery, including prenatal care. The study objective was to assess if timing of routine prenatal testing changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study using claims data from a regional insurer (Highmark) and electronic health record data from two academic health systems (Penn Medicine and Yale New Haven) to compare prenatal testing timing in the pre-pandemic (03/10/2018-12/31/2018 and 03/10/2019-12/31/2019) and early COVID-19 pandemic (03/10/2020-12/31/2020) periods. Primary outcomes were second trimester fetal anatomy ultrasounds and gestational diabetes (GDM) testing. A secondary analysis examined first trimester ultrasounds. Results: The three datasets included 31,474 pregnant patients. Mean gestational age for second trimester anatomy ultrasounds increased from the pre-pandemic to COVID-19 period (Highmark 19.4 vs. 19.6 weeks; Penn: 20.1 vs. 20.4 weeks; Yale: 18.8 vs. 19.2 weeks, all p \u3c 0.001). There was a detectable decrease in the proportion of patients who completed the anatomy survey \u3c20 weeks\u27 gestation across datasets, which did not persist at \u3c23 weeks\u27 gestation. There were no consistent changes in timing of GDM screening. There were significant reductions in the proportion of patients with first trimester ultrasounds in the academic institutions (Penn: 57.7% vs. 40.6% and Yale: 78.7% vs. 65.5%, both p \u3c 0.001) but not Highmark. Findings were similar with multivariable adjustment. Conclusion: While some prenatal testing happened later in pregnancy during the pandemic, pregnant patients continued to receive appropriately timed testing. Despite disruptions in care delivery, prenatal screening remained a priority for patients and providers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Buprenorphine for the Treatment of the Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.

Background: Current pharmacologic treatment of the neonatal abstinence syndrome with morphine is associated with a lengthy duration of therapy and hospitalization. Buprenorphine may be more effective than morphine for this indication. Methods: In this single-site, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial, we randomly assigned 63 term infants (≥37 weeks of gestation) who had been exposed to opioids in utero and who had signs of the neonatal abstinence syndrome to receive either sublingual buprenorphine or oral morphine. Infants with symptoms that were not controlled with the maximum dose of opioid were treated with adjunctive phenobarbital. The primary end point was the duration of treatment for symptoms of neonatal opioid withdrawal. Secondary clinical end points were the length of hospital stay, the percentage of infants who required supplemental treatment with phenobarbital, and safety. Results: The median duration of treatment was significantly shorter with buprenorphine than with morphine (15 days vs. 28 days), as was the median length of hospital stay (21 days vs. 33 days) (P=0.36). Rates of adverse events were similar in the two groups. Conclusions: Among infants with the neonatal abstinence syndrome, treatment with sublingual buprenorphine resulted in a shorter duration of treatment and shorter length of hospital stay than treatment with oral morphine, with similar rates of adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; BBORN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01452789.) https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-05/tju-bcl050417.ph