Background Pregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at increased risk for severe illness compared with nonpregnant women. Data to assess risk factors for illness severity among pregnant women with COVID-19 are limited. This study aimed to determine risk factors associated with COVID-19 illness severity among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular testing were reported during March 29, 2020–March 5, 2021 through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). Criteria for illness severity (asymptomatic, mild, moderate-to-severe, or critical) were adapted from National Institutes of Health and World Health Organization criteria. Crude and adjusted risk ratios for moderate-to-severe or critical COVID-19 illness were calculated for selected demographic and clinical characteristics. Results Among 7,950 pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, moderate-to-severe or critical COVID-19 illness was associated with age 25 years and older, healthcare occupation, pre-pregnancy obesity, chronic lung disease, chronic hypertension, and pregestational diabetes mellitus. Risk of moderate-to-severe or critical illness increased with the number of underlying medical or pregnancy-related conditions. Conclusions Older age and having underlying medical conditions were associated with increased risk of moderate-to-severe or critical COVID-19 illness among pregnant women. This information might help pregnant women understand their risk for moderate-to-severe or critical COVID-19 illness and inform targeted public health messaging.

kidney involvement in SLE, even in ethnic/racial minorities, is uncommon during pregnancy. Past kidney disease and low C4 at baseline independently associate with higher risk of developing active nephritis. Antibodies to dsDNA alone should not raise concern, even in patients with past kidney disease, if in remission.

Office workers spend most of their working day sitting, and prolonged sitting has been associated with increased risk of poor health. Standing in meetings has been proposed as a strategy by which to reduce workplace sitting but little is known about the standing experience. This study documented workers’ experiences of standing in normally seated meetings. Twenty-five participants (18+ years), recruited from three UK universities, volunteered to stand in 3 separate, seated meetings that they were already scheduled to attend. They were instructed to stand when and for however long they deemed appropriate, and gave semi-structured interviews after each meeting. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis. Four themes, central to the experience of standing in meetings, were extracted: physical challenges to standing; implications of standing for meeting engagement; standing as norm violation; and standing as appropriation of power. Participants typically experienced some physical discomfort from prolonged standing, apparently due to choosing to stand for as long as possible, and noted practical difficulties of fully engaging in meetings while standing. Many participants experienced marked psychological discomfort due to concern at being seen to be violating a strong perceived sitting norm. While standing when leading the meeting was felt to confer a sense of power and control, when not leading the meeting participants felt uncomfortable at being misperceived to be challenging the authority of other attendees. These findings reveal important barriers to standing in normally-seated meetings, and suggest strategies for acclimatising to standing during meetings. Physical discomfort might be offset by building standing time slowly and incorporating more sit-stand transitions. Psychological discomfort may be lessened by notifying other attendees about intentions to stand. Organisational buy-in to promotional strategies for standing may be required to dispel perceptions of sitting norms, and to progress a wider workplace health and wellbeing agenda.

A significant proportion of children (up to 7% in the UK) present with pronounced language difficulties that cannot be explained by obvious causes like other neurological and medical conditions. A substantial genetic component is predicted to underlie such language problems. Copy number variants (CNVs) have been implicated in neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, such as autism and schizophrenia, but it is not fully established to what extent they might contribute to language disorders. We conducted a CNV screen in a longitudinal cohort of young children with language-related difficulties (n = 85), focusing on single events at candidate loci. We detected a de novo deletion on chromosome 15q13.1–13.3. The adjacent 15q11-13.1 locus is disrupted in Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes, while disruptions across the breakpoints (BP1-BP6) have previously been implicated in different neurodevelopmental phenotypes including autism, intellectual disability (ID), seizures and developmental delay (DD). This is the first report of a deletion at BP3-BP5 being linked to a deficit confined to language impairment, in the absence of ID, expanding the range of phenotypes that implicate the chromosome 15q13 locus.

Objectives We describe clinical characteristics, pregnancy, and infant outcomes in pregnant people with laboratory‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection by trimester of infection. Study Design We analyzed data from the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network and included people with infection in 2020, with known timing of infection and pregnancy outcome. Outcomes are described by trimester of infection. Pregnancy outcomes included live birth and pregnancy loss (<20 weeks and ≥20 weeks gestation). Infant outcomes included preterm birth (<37 weeks gestation), small for gestational age, birth defects, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) were calculated for pregnancy and selected infant outcomes by trimester of infection, controlling for demographics. Results Of 35,200 people included in this analysis, 50.8% of pregnant people had infection in the third trimester, 30.8% in the second, and 18.3% in the first. Third trimester infection was associated with a higher frequency of preterm birth compared to first or second trimester infection combined (17.8% vs. 11.8%; aPR 1.44 95% CI: 1.35–1.54). Prevalence of birth defects was 553.4/10,000 live births, with no difference by trimester of infection. Conclusions There were no signals for increased birth defects among infants in this population relative to national baseline estimates, regardless of timing of infection. However, the prevalence of preterm birth in people with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in pregnancy in our analysis was higher relative to national baseline data (10.0–10.2%), particularly among people with third trimester infection. Consequences of COVID‐19 during pregnancy support recommended COVID‐19 prevention strategies, including vaccination.