BACKGROUNDThe prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in high-risk women is unclear, as several different diagnostic approaches have been applied to different groups of patients. This review aims to evaluate the prevalence of such anomalies in unselected populations and in women with infertility, including those undergoing IVF treatment, women with a history of miscarriage, women with infertility and recurrent miscarriage combined, and women with a history of preterm delivery.METHODSSearches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane register were performed. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Studies were grouped into those that used ‘optimal’ and ‘suboptimal’ tests for uterine anomalies. Meta-analyses were performed to establish the prevalence of uterine anomalies and their subtypes within the various populations.RESULTSWe identified 94 observational studies comprising 89 861 women. The prevalence of uterine anomalies diagnosed by optimal tests was 5.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.5–8.5] in the unselected population, 8.0% (95% CI, 5.3–12) in infertile women, 13.3% (95% CI, 8.9–20.0) in those with a history of miscarriage and 24.5% (95% CI, 18.3–32.8) in those with miscarriage and infertility. Arcuate uterus is most common in the unselected population (3.9%; 95% CI, 2.1–7.1), and its prevalence is not increased in high-risk groups. In contrast, septate uterus is the most common anomaly in high-risk populations.CONCLUSIONSWomen with a history of miscarriage or miscarriage and infertility have higher prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies compared with the unselected population.

SummaryBackgroundPost-partum haemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. Early administration of tranexamic acid reduces deaths due to bleeding in trauma patients. We aimed to assess the effects of early administration of tranexamic acid on death, hysterectomy, and other relevant outcomes in women with post-partum haemorrhage.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women aged 16 years and older with a clinical diagnosis of post-partum haemorrhage after a vaginal birth or caesarean section from 193 hospitals in 21 countries. We randomly assigned women to receive either 1 g intravenous tranexamic acid or matching placebo in addition to usual care. If bleeding continued after 30 min, or stopped and restarted within 24 h of the first dose, a second dose of 1 g of tranexamic acid or placebo could be given. Patients were assigned by selection of a numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight numbered packs that were identical apart from the pack number. Participants, care givers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. We originally planned to enrol 15 000 women with a composite primary endpoint of death from all-causes or hysterectomy within 42 days of giving birth. However, during the trial it became apparent that the decision to conduct a hysterectomy was often made at the same time as randomisation. Although tranexamic acid could influence the risk of death in these cases, it could not affect the risk of hysterectomy. We therefore increased the sample size from 15 000 to 20 000 women in order to estimate the effect of tranexamic acid on the risk of death from post-partum haemorrhage. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN76912190 (Dec 8, 2008); ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00872469; and PACTR201007000192283.FindingsBetween March, 2010, and April, 2016, 20 060 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (n=10 051) or placebo (n=10 009), of whom 10 036 and 9985, respectively, were included in the analysis. Death due to bleeding was significantly reduced in women given tranexamic acid (155 [1·5%] of 10 036 patients vs 191 [1·9%] of 9985 in the placebo group, risk ratio [RR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·65–1·00; p=0·045), especially in women given treatment within 3 h of giving birth (89 [1·2%] in the tranexamic acid group vs 127 [1·7%] in the placebo group, RR 0·69, 95% CI 0·52–0·91; p=0·008). All other causes of death did not differ significantly by group. Hysterectomy was not reduced with tranexamic acid (358 [3·6%] patients in the tranexamic acid group vs 351 [3·5%] in the placebo group, RR 1·02, 95% CI 0·88–1·07; p=0·84). The composite primary endpoint of death from all causes or hysterectomy was not reduced with tranexamic acid (534 [5·3%] deaths or hysterectomies in the tranexamic acid group vs 546 [5·5%] in the placebo group, RR 0·97, 95% CI 0·87-1·09; p=0·65). Adverse events (including thromboembolic events) did not differ significantly in the tranexamic acid versus ...

(RR, 2.39; 95% CI, P = 0.003) and fetal malpresentation at delivery (RR, 2.53; 95% CI,; P < 0.001). Canalization defects were associated with reduced clinical pregnancy rates (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, P = 0.009) and increased rates of first-trimester miscarriage (RR, 2.89; 95% CI; P < 0.001), preterm birth (RR, 2.14; 95% CI,; P < 0.001) and fetal malpresentation (RR, 6.24; 95% CI,; P < 0.001). Unification defects were associated with increased rates of preterm birth (RR, 2.97; 95% CI, P < 0.001) and fetal malpresentation (RR, 3.87; 95% CI, P < 0.001

SummaryBackgroundProgesterone administration has been shown to reduce the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women at high risk, but there is uncertainty about longer term effects on the child.MethodsWe did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of vaginal progesterone, 200 mg daily taken from 22–24 to 34 weeks of gestation, on pregnancy and infant outcomes in women at risk of preterm birth (because of previous spontaneous birth at ≤34 weeks and 0 days of gestation, or a cervical length ≤25 mm, or because of a positive fetal fibronectin test combined with other clinical risk factors for preterm birth [any one of a history in a previous pregnancy of preterm birth, second trimester loss, preterm premature fetal membrane rupture, or a history of a cervical procedure to treat abnormal smears]). The objective of the study was to determine whether vaginal progesterone prophylaxis given to reduce the risk of preterm birth affects neonatal and childhood outcomes. We defined three primary outcomes: fetal death or birth before 34 weeks and 0 days gestation (obstetric), a composite of death, brain injury, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (neonatal), and a standardised cognitive score at 2 years of age (childhood), imputing values for deaths. Randomisation was done through a web portal, with participants, investigators, and others involved in giving the intervention, assessing outcomes, or analysing data masked to treatment allocation until the end of the study. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14568373.FindingsBetween Feb 2, 2009, and April 12, 2013, we randomly assigned 1228 women to the placebo group (n=610) and the progesterone group (n=618). In the placebo group, data from 597, 587, and 439 women or babies were available for analysis of obstetric, neonatal, and childhood outcomes, respectively; in the progesterone group the corresponding numbers were 600, 589, and 430. After correction for multiple outcomes, progesterone had no significant effect on the primary obstetric outcome (odds ratio adjusted for multiple comparisons [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·61–1·22) or neonatal outcome (OR 0·62, 0·38–1·03), nor on the childhood outcome (cognitive score, progesterone group vs placebo group, 97·3 [SD 17·9] vs 97·7 [17·5]; difference in means −0·48, 95% CI −2·77 to 1·81). Maternal or child serious adverse events were reported in 70 (11%) of 610 patients in the placebo group and 59 (10%) of 616 patients in the progesterone group (p=0·27).InterpretationVaginal progesterone was not associated with reduced risk of preterm birth or composite neonatal adverse outcomes, and had no long-term benefit or harm on outcomes in children at 2 years of age.FundingEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and National Institute for Social Care and Research in Wa...

Background Early reports of COVID‐19 in pregnancy described management by caesarean, strict isolation of the neonate and formula feeding. Is this practice justified? Objective To estimate the risk of the neonate becoming infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 by mode of delivery, type of infant feeding and mother‐infant interaction. Search strategy Two biomedical databases were searched between September 2019 and June 2020. Selection criteria Case reports or case series of pregnant women with confirmed COVID‐19, where neonatal outcomes were reported. Data collection and analysis Data were extracted on mode of delivery, infant infection status, infant feeding and mother–infant interaction. For reported infant infection, a critical analysis was performed to evaluate the likelihood of vertical transmission. Main results Forty nine studies included information on mode of delivery and infant infection status for 655 women and 666 neonates. In all, 28/666 (4%) tested positive postnatally. Of babies born vaginally, 8/292 (2.7%) tested positivecompared with 20/374 (5.3%) born by Caesarean. Information on feeding and baby separation were often missing, but of reported breastfed babies 7/148 (4.7%) tested positive compared with 3/56 (5.3%) for reported formula fed ones. Of babies reported as nursed with their mother 4/107 (3.7%) tested positive, compared with 6/46 (13%) for those who were reported as isolated. Conclusions Neonatal COVID‐19 infection is uncommon, rarely symptomatic, and the rate of infection is no greater when the baby is born vaginally, breastfed or remains with the mother. Tweetable abstract Risk of neonatal infection with COVID‐19 by delivery route, infant feeding and mother‐baby interaction.

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. BACKGROUNDThe effects of less-tight versus tight control of hypertension on pregnancy complications are unclear. METHODSWe performed an open, international, multicenter trial involving women at 14 weeks 0 days to 33 weeks 6 days of gestation who had nonproteinuric preexisting or gestational hypertension, office diastolic blood pressure of 90 to 105 mm Hg (or 85 to 105 mm Hg if the woman was taking antihypertensive medications), and a live fetus. Women were randomly assigned to less-tight control (target diastolic blood pressure, 100 mm Hg) or tight control (target diastolic blood pressure, 85 mm Hg). The composite primary outcome was pregnancy loss or high-level neonatal care for more than 48 hours during the first 28 postnatal days. The secondary outcome was serious maternal complications occurring up to 6 weeks post partum or until hospital discharge, whichever was later. RESULTSIncluded in the analysis were 987 women; 74.6% had preexisting hypertension. The primary-outcome rates were similar among 493 women assigned to less-tight control and 488 women assigned to tight control (31.4% and 30.7%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.35), as were the rates of serious maternal complications (3.7% and 2.0%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.84), despite a mean diastolic blood pressure that was higher in the less-tight-control group by 4.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4). Severe hypertension (≥160/110 mm Hg) developed in 40.6% of the women in the less-tight-control group and 27.5% of the women in the tight-control group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONSWe found no significant between-group differences in the risk of pregnancy loss, high-level neonatal care, or overall maternal complications, although less-tight control was associated with a significantly higher frequency of severe maternal hypertension. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CHIPS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN71416914; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01192412.) a bs tr ac t

Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorate.

Decision analysis consultations enable women to make more informed prenatal diagnosis decisions. Professionals will need training to use this technique effectively.