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.

SummaryBackgroundIntrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, characterised by maternal pruritus and increased serum bile acid concentrations, is associated with increased rates of stillbirth, preterm birth, and neonatal unit admission. Ursodeoxycholic acid is widely used as a treatment without an adequate evidence base. We aimed to evaluate whether ursodeoxycholic acid reduces adverse perinatal outcomes in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.MethodsWe did a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial at 33 hospital maternity units in England and Wales. We recruited women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, who were aged 18 years or older and with a gestational age between 20 weeks and 40 weeks and 6 days, with a singleton or twin pregnancy and no known lethal fetal anomaly. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to ursodeoxycholic acid or placebo, given as two oral tablets a day at an equivalent dose of 500 mg twice a day. The dose could be increased or decreased at the clinician's discretion, to a maximum of four tablets and a minimum of one tablet a day. We recommended that treatment should be continued from enrolment until the infant's birth. The primary outcome was a composite of perinatal death (in-utero fetal death after randomisation or known neonatal death up to 7 days after birth), preterm delivery (<37 weeks' gestation), or neonatal unit admission for at least 4 h (from birth until hospital discharge). Each infant was counted once within this composite. All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, number 91918806.FindingsBetween Dec 23, 2015, and Aug 7, 2018, 605 women were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive ursodeoxycholic acid (n=305) or placebo (n=300). The primary outcome analysis included 304 women and 322 infants in the ursodeoxycholic acid group, and 300 women and 318 infants in the placebo group (consent to use data was withdrawn for 1 woman and 2 infants). The primary composite outcome occurred in 74 (23%) of 322 infants in the ursodeoxycholic acid group and 85 (27%) of 318 infants in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·62–1·15]). Two serious adverse events were reported in the ursodeoxycholic acid group and six serious adverse events were reported in the placebo group; no serious adverse events were regarded as being related to treatment.InterpretationTreatment with ursodeoxycholic acid does not reduce adverse perinatal outcomes in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Therefore, its routine use for this condition should be reconsidered.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme.

No abstract

Aims: To investigate the extent of socioeconomic inequalities in the incidence of very preterm birth over the past decade. Methods: Ecological study of all 549 618 births in the former Trent health region, UK, from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 2003. All singleton births of 22 +0 to 32 +6 weeks gestation (7 185 births) were identified from population surveys of neonatal services and stillbirths. Poisson regression was used to calculate incidence of very preterm birth (22-32 weeks) and extremely preterm birth (22-28 weeks) by year of birth and decile of deprivation (child poverty section of the Index of Multiple Deprivation). Results: Incidence of very preterm singleton birth rose from 11.9 per 1000 births in 1994 to 13.7 per 1000 births in 2003. Those from the most deprived decile were at nearly twice the risk of very preterm birth compared with those from the least deprived decile, with 16.4 per 1000 births in the most deprived decile compared with 8.5 per 1000 births in the least deprived decile (incidence rate ratio 1.94; 95% CI (1.73 to 2.17)). This deprivation gap remained unchanged throughout the 10-year period. The magnitude of socioeconomic inequalities was the same for extremely preterm births (22-28 weeks incidence rate ratio 1.94; 95% CI (1.62 to 2.32)). Conclusions: This large, unique dataset of very preterm births shows wide socio-economic inequalities that persist over time. These findings are likely to have consequences on the burden of long-term morbidity. Our research can assist future healthcare planning, the monitoring of socio-economic inequalities and the targeting of interventions in order to reduce this persistent deprivation gap.

No abstract

ObjectivesFor very preterm births, to compare alternative policies for umbilical cord clamping and immediate neonatal care.DesignParallel group randomised (1:1) trial, using sealed opaque numbered envelopes.SettingEight UK tertiary maternity units.Participants261 women expected to have a live birth before 32 weeks, and their 276 babies.InterventionsCord clamping after at least 2 min and immediate neonatal care with cord intact, or clamping within 20 s and immediate neonatal care after clamping.Main outcome measuresIntraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), death before discharge.Results132 women (137 babies) were allocated clamping ≥2 min and neonatal care cord intact, and 129 (139) clamping ≤20 s and neonatal care after clamping; six mother-infant dyads were excluded (2, 4) as birth was after 35+6 weeks, one withdrew (death data only available) (0, 1). Median gestation was 28.9 weeks for those allocated clamping ≥2 min, and 29.2 for those allocated clamping ≤20 s. Median time to clamping was 120 and 11 s, respectively. 7 of 135 infants (5.2%) allocated clamping ≥2 min died and 15 of 135 (11.1%) allocated clamping ≤20 s; risk difference (RD) −5.9% (95% CI −12.4% to 0.6%). Of live births, 43 of 134 (32%) had IVH vs 47 of 132 (36%), respectively; RD −3.5% (−14.9% to 7.8%). There were no clear differences in other outcomes for infants or mothers.ConclusionsThis is promising evidence that clamping after at least 2 min and immediate neonatal care with cord intact at very preterm birth may improve outcome; a large trial is urgently needed.Trial registrationISRCTN 21456601.

Early introduction of enteral feeds in growth-restricted preterm infants results in earlier achievement of full enteral feeding and does not appear to increase the risk of NEC.

ObjectiveTo describe neonatal outcomes and explore variation in delivery of care for infants born late (34–36  weeks) and moderately (32–33 weeks) preterm (LMPT).Design/settingProspective population-based study comprising births in four major maternity centres, one midwifery-led unit and at home between September 2009 and December 2010. Data were obtained from maternal and neonatal records.ParticipantsAll LMPT infants were eligible. A random sample of term-born infants (≥37 weeks) acted as controls.Outcome measuresNeonatal unit (NNU) admission, respiratory and nutritional support, neonatal morbidities, investigations, length of stay and postnatal ward care were measured. Differences between centres were explored.Results1146 (83%) LMPT and 1258 (79% of eligible) term-born infants were recruited. LMPT infants were significantly more likely to receive resuscitation at birth (17.5% vs 7.4%), respiratory (11.8% vs 0.9%) and nutritional support (3.5% vs 0.3%) and were less likely to be fed breast milk (64.2% vs 72.2%) than term infants. For all interventions and morbidities, a gradient of increasing risk with decreasing gestation was evident. Although 60% of late preterm infants were never admitted to a NNU, 83% required medical input on postnatal wards. Clinical management differed significantly between services.ConclusionsLMPT infants place high demands on specialist neonatal services. A substantial amount of previously unreported specialist input is provided in postnatal wards, beyond normal newborn care. Appropriate expertise and planning of early care are essential if such infants are managed away from specialised neonatal settings. Further research is required to clarify optimal and cost-effective postnatal management for LMPT babies.