Background: Recent data suggest that complications and death from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may be related to high viral loads.

Methods: In this ongoing, double-blind, phase 1-3 trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19, we investigated two fully human, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein, used in a combined cocktail (REGN-COV2) to reduce the risk of the emergence of treatment-resistant mutant virus. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive placebo, 2.4 g of REGN-COV2, or 8.0 g of REGN-COV2 and were prospectively characterized at baseline for endogenous immune response against SARS-CoV-2 (serum antibody-positive or serum antibody-negative). Key end points included the time-weighted average change from baseline in viral load from day 1 through day 7 and the percentage of patients with at least one Covid-19-related medically attended visit through day 29. Safety was assessed in all patients.

Results: Data from 275 patients are reported. The least-squares mean difference (combined REGN-COV2 dose groups vs. placebo group) in the time-weighted average change in viral load from day 1 through day 7 was -0.56 log10 copies per milliliter (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.02 to -0.11) among patients who were serum antibody-negative at baseline and -0.41 log10 copies per milliliter (95% CI, -0.71 to -0.10) in the overall trial population. In the overall trial population, 6% of the patients in the placebo group and 3% of the patients in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups reported at least one medically attended visit; among patients who were serum antibody-negative at baseline, the corresponding percentages were 15% and 6% (difference, -9 percentage points; 95% CI, -29 to 11). The percentages of patients with hypersensitivity reactions, infusion-related reactions, and other adverse events were similar in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups and the placebo group.

Conclusions: In this interim analysis, the REGN-COV2 antibody cocktail reduced viral load, with a greater effect in patients whose immune response had not yet been initiated or who had a high viral load at baseline. Safety outcomes were similar in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups and the placebo group.

Background: In the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there has been worldwide debate on the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19. In the recent RECOVERY trial, evaluating the effect of dexamethasone, a reduced 28-day mortality in patients requiring oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation was shown. Their results have led to considering amendments in guidelines or actually already recommending corticosteroids in COVID-19. However, the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids still remain uncertain, and reliable data to further shed light on the benefit and harm are needed.

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids in COVID-19.

Methods: A systematic literature search of RCTS and observational studies on adult patients was performed across Medline/PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, until October 1, 2020, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were short-term mortality and viral clearance (based on RT-PCR in respiratory specimens). Secondary outcomes were: need for mechanical ventilation, need for other oxygen therapy, length of hospital stay and secondary infections.

Results: Forty-four studies were included, covering 20.197 patients. In twenty-two studies, the effect of corticosteroid use on mortality was quantified. The overall pooled estimate (observational studies and RCTs) showed a significant reduced mortality in the corticosteroid group (OR 0.72 (95%CI 0.57-0.87). Furthermore, viral clearance time ranged from 10 to 29 days in the corticosteroid group and from 8 to 24 days in the standard of care group. Fourteen studies reported a positive effect of corticosteroids on need for and duration of mechanical ventilation. A trend toward more infections and antibiotic use was present.

Conclusions: Our findings from both observational studies and RCTs confirm a beneficial effect of corticosteroids on short-term mortality and a reduction in need for mechanical ventilation. And although data in the studies were too sparse to draw any firm conclusions, there might be a signal of delayed viral clearance and an increase in secondary infections.

Objectives: Our objective was to evaluate patient-reported oxygen saturation (SpO2 ) using pulse oximetry as a home monitoring tool for patients with initially nonsevere COVID-19 to identify need for hospitalization.

Methods: Patients were enrolled at the emergency department (ED) and outpatient testing centers. Each patient was given a home pulse oximeter and instructed to record their SpO2 every 8 hours. Patients were instructed to return to the ED for sustained home SpO2 < 92% or if they felt they needed emergent medical attention. Relative risk was used to assess the relation between hospitalization and home SpO2 < 92% in COVID-19-positive patients.

Results: We enrolled 209 patients with suspected COVID-19, of whom 77 patients tested positive for COVID-19 and were included. Subsequent hospitalization occurred in 22 of 77 (29%) patients. Resting home SpO2 < 92% was associated with an increased likelihood of hospitalization compared to SpO2 ≥ 92% (relative risk = 7.0, 95% confidence interval = 3.4 to 14.5, p < 0.0001). Home SpO2 < 92% was also associated with increased risk of intensive care unit admission, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and septic shock. In our cohort, 50% of patients who ended up hospitalized only returned to the ED for incidental finding of low home SpO2 without worsening of symptoms. One-third (33%) of nonhospitalized patients stated that they would have returned to the ED if they did not have a pulse oximeter to reassure them at home.

Conclusions: This study found that home pulse oximetry monitoring identifies need for hospitalization in initially nonsevere COVID-19 patients when a cutoff of SpO2 92% is used. Half of patients who ended up hospitalized had SpO2 < 92% without worsening symptoms. Home SpO2 monitoring also reduces unnecessary ED revisits.

Background: It is currently unclear whether SARS-CoV-2 reinfection will remain a rare event, only occurring in individuals who fail to mount an effective immune response, or whether it will occur more frequently when humoral immunity wanes following primary infection.

Methods: A case of reinfection was observed in a Belgian nosocomial outbreak involving 3 patients and 2 health care workers. To distinguish reinfection from persistent infection and detect potential transmission clusters, whole genome sequencing was performed on nasopharyngeal swabs of all individuals including the reinfection case’s first episode. IgA, IgM, and IgG and neutralizing antibody responses were quantified in serum of all individuals, and viral infectiousness was measured in the swabs of the reinfection case.

Results: Reinfection was confirmed in a young, immunocompetent health care worker as viral genomes derived from the first and second episode belonged to different SARS-CoV-2 clades. The symptomatic reinfection occurred after an interval of 185 days, despite the development of an effective humoral immune response following symptomatic primary infection. The second episode, however, was milder and characterized by a fast rise in serum IgG and neutralizing antibodies. Although contact tracing and virus culture remained inconclusive, the health care worker formed a transmission cluster with 3 patients and showed evidence of virus replication but not of neutralizing antibodies in her nasopharyngeal swabs.

Conclusion: If this case is representative of most Covid-19 patients, long-lived protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 after primary infection might not be likely.

This study describes reasons for readmission, use of ICU interventions during readmission, and proportions of death after initial hospital discharge of COVID-19 patients from US Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals March-June 2020.

We evaluated the potential antiviral effects of azithromycin on the nasopharyngeal virome of Nigerien children who had received multiple rounds of mass drug administration. We found that the respiratory burden of non-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses was decreased with azithromycin distributions.

Background: Susceptibility to Covid-19 has been found to be associated with ABO blood group, with O type individuals being at a lower risk. However, the underlying mechanism has not been elucidated. Here, we aimed to test the hypothesis that Covid-19 patients might have lower levels of ABO antibodies than non-infected individuals as they could offer some degree of protection.

Methods: After showing that the viral spike protein harbors the ABO glycan epitopes when produced by cells expressing the relevant glycosyltransferases, like upper respiratory tract epithelial cells, we enrolled 290 patients with Covid-19 and 276 asymptomatic controls to compare their levels of natural ABO blood group antibodies.

Results: We found significantly lower IgM anti-A+ anti-B agglutination scores in blood group O patients (76.93 vs 88.29, P-value = 0.034) and lower levels of anti-B (24.93 vs 30.40, P-value = 0.028) and anti-A antibodies (28.56 vs 36.50, P-value = 0.048) in blood group A and blood group B patients, respectively, compared to controls.

Conclusion: In this study, we showed that ABO antibodies levels are significantly lower in Covid-19 patients compared to controls. These findings could indicate that patients with low levels of ABO antibodies are at higher risk of being infected.

The coronavirus disease COVID-19 pandemic led to some of the most drastic changes in clinical care delivery ever seen in the United States. Almost overnight, providers of prenatal care adopted virtual visits and reduced visit schedules. These changes stood in stark contrast to the 12 to 14 in-person prenatal visit schedule than had been previously recommended for almost a century. As maternity care providers consider what prenatal care delivery changes we should maintain following the acute pandemic, we may gain insight from understanding the evolution of prenatal care delivery guidelines. In this paper, we start by sketching out the relatively unstructured beginnings of prenatal care in the 19th century. Most medical care fell within the domain of laypeople, and childbirth was a central feature of female domestic culture. We explore how early discoveries about “toxemia” created the groundwork for future prenatal care interventions, including screening of urine and blood pressure-which in turn created a need for routine prenatal care visits. We then discuss the organization of the medical profession, including the field of obstetrics and gynecology. In the early 20th century, new data increasingly revealed high rates of both infant and maternal mortality, leading to a greater emphasis on prenatal care. These discoveries culminated in the first codification of a prenatal visit schedule in 1930 by the Children’s Bureau. Surprisingly, this schedule remained essentially unchanged for almost a century. Through the founding of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, significant technological advancements in laboratory testing and ultrasonography, and even an NIH Task Force call for changes in prenatal care delivery in 1989, prenatal care recommendations continued to be the same as they had been in 1930-monthly visits until 28 weeks, bimonthly visits until 36 weeks, and weekly visits until delivery. But COVID-19 forced us to change, to reconsider both the need for in-person visits and the frequency of visits. Now, as we transition from the acute pandemic, we should consider how to use what we have learned in this unprecedented time to shape future prenatal care. Lessons from over a century of prenatal care provide valuable insights to inform the next generation of prenatal care delivery.

Background: The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused serious concerns about its potential adverse effects on pregnancy. There are limited data on maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods: We conducted a case-control study to compare clinical characteristics and maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with and without COVID-19 pneumonia.

Results: During the period 24 January-29 February 2020, there were 16 pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia and 18 suspected cases who were admitted to labor in the third trimester. Two had vaginal delivery and the rest were cesarean delivery. Few patients presented respiratory symptoms (fever and cough) on admission, but most had typical chest computed tomographic images of COVID-19 pneumonia. Compared to the controls, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had lower counts of white blood cells (WBCs), neutrophils, C-reactive protein (CRP), and alanine aminotransferase on admission. Increased levels of WBCs, neutrophils, eosinophils, and CRP were found in postpartum blood tests of pneumonia patients. Three (18.8%) of the mothers with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia and 3 (16.7%) with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia had preterm delivery due to maternal complications, which were significantly higher than in the control group. None experienced respiratory failure during their hospital stay. COVID-19 infection was not found in the newborns, and none developed severe neonatal complications.

Conclusions: Severe maternal and neonatal complications were not observed in pregnant women with COVID-19 pneumonia who had vaginal or cesarean delivery. Mild respiratory symptoms of pregnant women with COVID-19 pneumonia highlight the need of effective screening on admission.

Objective: To evaluate the maternal serum afamin and vitamin E levels in pregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to investigate their association with composite adverse perinatal outcomes.

Methods: This prospective, case-control study consisted of 60 pregnant women with COVID-19 infection and 36 age-matched pregnant women without any defined risk factors. Demographic features, laboratory test results, afamin and vitamin E levels were compared between the groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to assess the relationship of afamin and vitamin E levels in predicting composite adverse perinatal outcomes. A correlation analysis was performed between afamin and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in pregnant women with COVID-19.

Results: Obstetric complication rate was higher in the COVID-19 group (13.3% vs 2.8%) (p=0.01). Afamin levels were higher and vitamin E levels were lower in the COVID-19 group (p=0.02, p<0.001, respectively). Vitamin E levels were lower in the COVID-19 group for the all trimesters (p<0.001, p<0.001, p=0.004, respectively). Afamin levels were higher in the COVID-19 group for the all trimesters without reaching statistical significance (p>0.05). The values in ROC curves with the best balance of sensitivity/specificity for afamin and vitamin E were 0.424 mg/l (70.6% sensitivity, 44.3% specificity) and 3.150 µg/ml (76.5% sensitivity, 58.2% specificity), respectively. A positive moderate statistically significant correlation was found between afamin and CRP levels (r= 0.264, p=0.009).

Conclusion: Higher afamin and lower vitamin E levels may support the elevated oxidative stress in the etiopathogenesis of COVID-19 and the relationship with composite adverse perinatal outcomes.

Importance: Biological data are lacking with respect to risk of vertical transmission and mechanisms of fetoplacental protection in maternal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

Objective: To quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral load in maternal and neonatal biofluids, transplacental passage of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody, and incidence of fetoplacental infection.

Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study was conducted among pregnant women presenting for care at 3 tertiary care centers in Boston, Massachusetts. Women with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results positive for SARS-CoV-2 were recruited from April 2 to June 13, 2020, and follow-up occurred through July 10, 2020. Contemporaneous participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled as a convenience sample from pregnant women with RT-PCR results negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy, defined by nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR.

Main outcomes and measures: The main outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 viral load in maternal plasma or respiratory fluids and umbilical cord plasma, quantification of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in maternal and cord plasma, and presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the placenta.

Results: Among 127 pregnant women enrolled, 64 with RT-PCR results positive for SARS-CoV-2 (mean [SD] age, 31.6 [5.6] years) and 63 with RT-PCR results negative for SARS-CoV-2 (mean [SD] age, 33.9 [5.4] years) provided samples for analysis. Of women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 23 (36%) were asymptomatic, 22 (34%) had mild disease, 7 (11%) had moderate disease, 10 (16%) had severe disease, and 2 (3%) had critical disease. In viral load analyses among 107 women, there was no detectable viremia in maternal or cord blood and no evidence of vertical transmission. Among 77 neonates tested in whom SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were quantified in cord blood, 1 had detectable immunoglobuilin M to nucleocapsid. Among 88 placentas tested, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was not detected in any. In antibody analyses among 37 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, anti-receptor binding domain immunoglobin G was detected in 24 women (65%) and anti-nucleocapsid was detected in 26 women (70%). Mother-to-neonate transfer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was significantly lower than transfer of anti-influenza hemagglutinin A antibodies (mean [SD] cord-to-maternal ratio: anti-receptor binding domain immunoglobin G, 0.72 [0.57]; anti-nucleocapsid, 0.74 [0.44]; anti-influenza, 1.44 [0.80]; P < .001). Nonoverlapping placental expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptors angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and transmembrane serine protease 2 was noted.

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, there was no evidence of placental infection or definitive vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Transplacental transfer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was inefficient. Lack of viremia and reduced coexpression and colocalization of placental angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and transmembrane serine protease 2 may serve as protective mechanisms against vertical transmission.

The role of children in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 remains highly controversial. To address this issue, we performed a meta-analysis of the published literature on household SARS-CoV-2 transmission clusters (n=213 from 12 countries). Only 8 (3.8%) transmission clusters were identified as having a paediatric index case. Asymptomatic index cases were associated with a lower secondary attack in contacts than symptomatic index cases (estimate risk ratio [RR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.29). To determine the susceptibility of children to household infections the secondary attack rate (SAR) in paediatric household contacts was assessed. The secondary attack rate in paediatric household contacts was lower than in adult household contacts (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91). These data have important implications for the ongoing management of the COVID-19 pandemic, including potential vaccine prioritization strategies.

Background: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials.

Methods: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 – relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674.

Findings: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation.

Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials.

Background: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor blockade in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) who are not receiving mechanical ventilation is unclear.

Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, hyperinflammatory states, and at least two of the following signs: fever (body temperature >38°C), pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen in order to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive standard care plus a single dose of either tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo. The primary outcome was intubation or death, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The secondary efficacy outcomes were clinical worsening and discontinuation of supplemental oxygen among patients who had been receiving it at baseline, both assessed in time-to-event analyses.

Results: We enrolled 243 patients; 141 (58%) were men, and 102 (42%) were women. The median age was 59.8 years (range, 21.7 to 85.4), and 45% of the patients were Hispanic or Latino. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 1.81; P = 0.64), and the hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 to 2.10; P = 0.73). At 14 days, 18.0% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 14.9% of the patients in the placebo group had had worsening of disease. The median time to discontinuation of supplemental oxygen was 5.0 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.6) in the tocilizumab group and 4.9 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.8) in the placebo group (P = 0.69). At 14 days, 24.6% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 21.2% of the patients in the placebo group were still receiving supplemental oxygen. Patients who received tocilizumab had fewer serious infections than patients who received placebo.

Conclusions: Tocilizumab was not effective for preventing intubation or death in moderately ill hospitalized patients with Covid-19. Some benefit or harm cannot be ruled out, however, because the confidence intervals for efficacy comparisons were wide.

Background: Effective prevention against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is currently limited to nonpharmaceutical strategies. Laboratory and observational data suggested that hydroxychloroquine had biological activity against SARS-CoV-2, potentially permitting its use for prevention.

Objective: To test hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design: Household-randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine postexposure prophylaxis. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04328961).

Setting: National U.S. multicenter study.

Participants: Close contacts recently exposed (<96 hours) to persons with diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Intervention: Hydroxychloroquine (400 mg/d for 3 days followed by 200 mg/d for 11 days) or ascorbic acid (500 mg/d followed by 250 mg/d) as a placebo-equivalent control.

Measurements: Participants self-collected mid-turbinate swabs daily (days 1 to 14) for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The primary outcome was PCR-confirmed incident SARS-CoV-2 infection among persons who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at enrollment.

Results: Between March and August 2020, 671 households were randomly assigned: 337 (407 participants) to the hydroxychloroquine group and 334 (422 participants) to the control group. Retention at day 14 was 91%, and 10 724 of 11 606 (92%) expected swabs were tested. Among the 689 (89%) participants who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at baseline, there was no difference between the hydroxychloroquine and control groups in SARS-CoV-2 acquisition by day 14 (53 versus 45 events; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.66]; P > 0.20). The frequency of participants experiencing adverse events was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group than the control group (66 [16.2%] versus 46 [10.9%], respectively; P = 0.026).

Limitation: The delay between exposure, and then baseline testing and the first dose of hydroxychloroquine or ascorbic acid, was a median of 2 days.

Conclusion: This rigorous randomized controlled trial among persons with recent exposure excluded a clinically meaningful effect of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Objective: To study the effectiveness of CCP therapy for moderate and severe COVID-19 disease patients in Kuwait.

Methods: This non-randomized prospective cohort study was conducted from May 21, 2020, to June 30, 2020, at four major tertiary hospitals in Kuwait. CCP was administered to 135 patients. The control group comprised 233 patients who received standard treatment. All patients (N = 368, median age 54 [range 15-82] years) had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and either moderate or severe COVID-19 disease.

Results: CCP treatment was significantly associated with a higher rate of clinical improvement in patients with moderate or severe disease. Among those with moderate COVID-19 disease, time to clinical improvement was 7 days in the CCP group versus 8 days in the control group (p = 0·006). For severe COVID-19 disease, time to clinical improvement was 7 days in the CCP group versus 15.5 days in the control group (p = 0·003). In the adjusted analysis, the CCP-treated patients with moderate disease had significantly lower 30-day mortality. Compared to the control group, oxygen saturation improved within 3 days of CCP transfusion, and lymphocyte counts improved from day 7 in patients with moderate disease and day 11 in patients with severe disease. Furthermore, C-reactive protein declined throughout the first 14 days after CCP transfusion. None of the CCP patients developed a serious transfusion reaction.

Conclusions: The data show that administration of CCP is a safe treatment option for patients with COVID-19 disease, with a favorable outcome in the rate and time to clinical improvement.

We identified severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA in an oropharyngeal swab specimen collected from a child with suspected measles in early December 2019, ≈3 months before the first identified coronavirus disease case in Italy. This finding expands our knowledge on timing and mapping of novel coronavirus transmission pathways.

Background: Lately, one of the major clinical and public health issues has been represented by Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) during pregnancy and the risk of transmission of the infection from mother to child. Debate on perinatal management and postnatal care is still ongoing, principally questioning the option of the joint management of mother and child after birth and the safety of breastfeeding. According to the available reports, neonatal COVID-19 appears to have a horizontal transmission and seems to be paucisymptomatic or asymptomatic, compared to older age groups. The aim of this work is to describe a cluster of neonatal COVID-19 and discuss our experience, with reference to current evidence on postnatal care and perinatal management.

Methods: This is a retrospective observational case series of five mother-child dyads, who attended the Labor and Delivery Unit of a first-level hospital in Italy, in March 2020. Descriptive statistics for continuous variables consisted of number of observations, mean and the range of the minimum and maximum values.

Results: Five women and four neonates tested positive for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In one case, the mother-child dyad was separated and the neonate remained negative on two consecutive tests. Two positive neonates developed symptoms, with a predominant involvement of the gastrointestinal tract. Blood tests were unremarkable, except for a single patient who developed mild neutropenia. No complications occurred.

Conclusions: We agree that the decision on whether or not to separate a positive/suspected mother from her child should be made on an individual basis, taking into account the parent’s will, clinical condition, hospital logistics and the local epidemiological situation. In conformity with literature, in our study, affected neonates were asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic. Despite these reassuring findings, a few cases of severe presentation in the neonatal population have been reported. Therefore, we agree on encouraging clinicians to monitor the neonates with a suspected or confirmed infection.

Objective: The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with excess mortality and morbidity in adults and teenagers over 14 years of age, but there is still limited evidence on the direct and indirect impact of the pandemic on pregnancy. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on obstetrical emergency attendance in a low-risk population and the corresponding perinatal outcomes.

Study design: This is a single center retrospective cohort study of all singleton births between February 21 and April 30. Prenatal emergency labor ward admission numbers and obstetric outcomes during the peak of the first COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 in Israel were compared with the combined corresponding periods for the years 2017 to 2019.

Results: During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the mean number of prenatal emergency labor ward admissions was lower, both by daily count and per woman, in comparison to the combined matching periods in 2017, 2018, and 2019 (48.6 ± 12.2 vs. 57.8 ± 14.4, p < 0.0001 and 1.74 ± 1.1 vs. 1.92 ± 1.2, p < 0.0001, respectively). A significantly (p = 0.0370) higher rate of stillbirth was noted in the study group (0.4%) compared with the control group (0.1%). All study group patients were negative for COVID-19. Gestational age at delivery, rates of premature delivery at <28, 34, and 37 weeks, pregnancy complications, postdate delivery at >40 and 41 weeks, mode of delivery, and numbers of emergency cesarean deliveries were similar in both groups. There was no difference in the intrapartum fetal death rate between the groups.

Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic stay-at-home policy combined with patient fear of contracting the disease in hospital could explain the associated higher rate of stillbirth. This collateral perinatal damage follows a decreased in prenatal emergency labor ward admissions during the first wave of COVID-19 in Israel.

There is an urgent need for inexpensive, population-wide surveillance testing for COVID-19. We tested newborn dried blood spot (DBS) anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies for all infants born at Yale from March to May 2020, and found that newborn DBS serologies reflect maternal and population-wide infection rates during the study period. This suggests a role for DBS in COVID-19 surveillance in areas where viral testing is limited.

Coronavirus disease, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is mainly transmitted through droplets, but other ways of transmission have been hypothesized. We report a case of vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a preterm born to an infected mother, confirmed by the presence of the virus in the neonatal blood, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs collected in the first half an hour of life. The neonate presented with acute respiratory distress, similar to the findings in severely affected adults. This case highlights the importance of pregnancy, labor and neonatal period surveillance of affected mothers and their newborns.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, resulting from infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused severe and widespread illness in adults, including pregnant women, while rarely infecting neonates. An incomplete understanding of disease pathogenesis and viral spread has resulted in evolving guidelines to reduce transmission from infected mothers to neonates. Fortunately, the risk of neonatal infection via perinatal/postnatal transmission is low when recommended precautions are followed. However, the psychosocial implications of these practices and racial/ethnic disparities highlighted by this pandemic must also be addressed when caring for mothers and their newborns. This review provides a comprehensive overview of neonatal-perinatal perspectives of COVID-19, ranging from the basic science of infection and recommendations for care of pregnant women and neonates to important psychosocial, ethical, and racial/ethnic topics emerging as a result of both the pandemic and the response of the healthcare community to the care of infected individuals.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is highly contagious and can cause serious respiratory illness and other clinical manifestations. The aim of this review is to summarize the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnant women and neonates, who may be especially vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19, and to discuss what is known about potential maternal-fetal and maternal-neonatal transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 8.1 million US residents and killed more than 221 000. There is a dearth of research on epidemiology and clinical outcomes in US patients with COVID-19.

Objectives: To characterize patients with COVID-19 treated in US hospitals and to examine risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality.

Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study was conducted using Premier Healthcare Database, a large geographically diverse all-payer hospital administrative database including 592 acute care hospitals in the United States. Inpatient and hospital-based outpatient visits with a principal or secondary discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code, U07.1) between April 1 and May 31, 2020, were included.

Exposures: Characteristics of patients were reported by inpatient/outpatient and survival status. Risk factors associated with death examined included patient characteristics, acute complications, comorbidities, and medications.

Main outcomes and measures: In-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, total hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, acute complications, and treatment patterns.

Results: Overall, 64 781 patients with COVID-19 (29 479 [45.5%] outpatients; 35 302 [54.5%] inpatients) were analyzed. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 46 (33-59) years for outpatients and 65 (52-77) years for inpatients; 31 968 (49.3%) were men, 25 841 (39.9%) were White US residents, and 14 340 (22.1%) were Black US residents. In-hospital mortality was 20.3% among inpatients (7164 patients). A total of 5625 inpatients (15.9%) received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 6849 (19.4%) were admitted to the ICU. Median (IQR) inpatient LOS was 6 (3-10) days. Median (IQR) ICU LOS was 5 (2-10) days. Common acute complications among inpatients included acute respiratory failure (19 706 [55.8%]), acute kidney failure (11 971 [33.9%]), and sepsis (11 910 [33.7%]). Older age was the risk factor most strongly associated with death (eg, age ≥80 years vs 18-34 years: odds ratio [OR], 16.20; 95% CI, 11.58-22.67; P < .001). Receipt of statins (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.65; P < .001), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.60; P < .001), and calcium channel blockers (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.79; P < .001) was associated with decreased odds of death. Compared with patients with no hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin, patients with both azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine had increased odds of death (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of patients with COVID-19 infection in US acute care hospitals, COVID-19 was associated with high ICU admission and in-hospital mortality rates. Use of statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers were associated with decreased odds of death. Understanding the potential benefits of unproven treatments will require future randomized trials.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently.

Methods: In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety.

Results: A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.

Conclusions: A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines.

Objectives: To estimate the effect of early application of social distancing interventions on Covid-19 cumulative mortality during the first pandemic wave.

Methods: Ecological longitudinal study using multivariable negative binomial regression for panel data. Daily numbers of Covid-19 cases and deaths, and data on social distancing interventions, for the 37 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) were analysed.

Results: Covid-19 cumulative mortality over the first pandemic wave varied widely across countries (range, 4.16 to 855 deaths per million population). On average, one-day delay in application of mass gatherings ban was associated with an adjusted increase in Covid-19 cumulative mortality by 6.97% (95% CI, 3.45 to 10.5), whilst a one-day delay in school closures was associated with an increase of 4.37% (95% CI, 1.58 to 7.17) over the study period. We estimated that if each country had enacted both interventions one week earlier, Covid-19 cumulative mortality could have been reduced by an average of 44.1% (95% CI, 20.2 to 67.9).

Conclusions: Early application of mass gatherings ban and school closures in outbreak epicentres was associated with an important reduction in Covid-19 cumulative mortality during the first pandemic wave. These findings may support policy decision making

Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known.

Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15.

Results: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003).

Conclusions: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

Importance: Understanding patterns of e-cigarette use and access during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is important because e-cigarettes may put users at risk for more severe respiratory effects and other health problems.

Objective: To examine whether underage youth and young adults who ever used e-cigarettes self-reported changes in access and use of e-cigarettes since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Design, setting, and participants: A national, cross-sectional online survey study was conducted from May 6 to May 14, 2020. This sample of 4351 participants aged 13 to 24 years across the US included 2167 e-cigarette ever-users. Quota sampling was used to balance for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and 50% having ever used e-cigarettes.

Main outcomes and measures: Change in e-cigarette use (increase, decrease, quit, no change, and switch to another product) and access to e-cigarettes (easier or harder, and change in point-of-purchase) before and after the COVID-19 pandemic began, reasons for change, number of times e-cigarettes were used, nicotine dependence, and sociodemographic data.

Results: This study focused on 2167 e-cigarette ever-users among 4351 participants who completed the survey. Among 2167 e-cigarette users, a total of 1442 were younger than 21 years and 725 were aged 21 years or older; 1397 were female (64.5%) and 438 identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (20.2%). The survey completion rate was 40%. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, 1198 of 2125 e-cigarette users (56.4%) changed their use: 388 individuals (32.4%) quit, 422 individuals (35.3%) reduced the amount of nicotine, 211 individuals (17.6%) increased nicotine use, 94 individuals (7.8%) increased cannabis use, and 82 individuals (6.9%) switched to other products. Participants reported that not being able to go to vape shops and product unavailability were the reasons accessing e-cigarettes was difficult after the pandemic began. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, individuals reported purchasing from alternative retail stores (disposables, 150 of 632 [23.7%]; pod-based, 144 of 797 [18.1%]; and other e-cigarette, 125 of 560 [22.3%], ie, between 18.1% and 23.7%), purchasing online instead of retail (disposables, 115 of 632 [18.2%]; pod-based, 156 of 797 [19.6%]; and other e-cigarette, 111 of 560 [19.8%], ie, between 18.2% to 19.8%), and shifted to retail instead of online (disposables, 11 of 632 [1.7%]; pod-based, 17 of 797 [2.0%]; and other e-cigarette, 13 of 560 [2.3%], ie, between 1.7%-2.3%). Other individuals reported no change: from retail stores (disposables 262 of 632 [41.5%]; pod-based 344 of 797 [43.2%]; and other e-cigarette, 223 of 560 [39.8%], ie, between 39.8% and 43.2%) and online (disposables 94 of 632 [14.9%]; pod-based 136 of 797 [17.1%]; and other e-cigarette, 88 of 560 [15.8%], ie, between 14.9% and 17.1%). Underage youth reported e-cigarette deliveries from vape shops and/or dealers or friends who received such deliveries, and 63 of 229 (27.5%) self-reported accessing e-cigarettes without age verification. e-Cigarette users were 52% less likely to quit or reduce their use if they previously used e-cigarettes between 11 and 99 times (adjusted odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78), 68% less likely to quit if they previously used e-cigarettes more than 100 times (adjusted odds ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.51), and 51% were less likely to quit if they were nicotine dependent (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.70).

Conclusions and relevance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, youth e-cigarette users reported changes in e-cigarette use, point-of-purchase, and ability to purchase e-cigarettes without age verification. The US Food and Drug Administration and local policy makers may find these data useful to inform policies to prevent e-cigarette sales to underage youth.

Importance: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the general public has been advised to wear masks or improvised face coverings to limit transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there has been considerable confusion and disagreement regarding the degree to which masks protect the wearer from airborne particles.

Objectives: To evaluate the fitted filtration efficiency (FFE) of various consumer-grade and improvised face masks, as well as several popular modifications of medical procedure masks that are intended to improve mask fit or comfort.

Design, setting, and participants: For this study conducted in a research laboratory between June and August 2020, 7 consumer-grade masks and 5 medical procedure mask modifications were fitted on an adult male volunteer, and FFE measurements were collected during a series of repeated movements of the torso, head, and facial muscles as outlined by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration Quantitative Fit Testing Protocol. The consumer-grade masks tested included (1) a 2-layer woven nylon mask with ear loops that was tested with an optional aluminum nose bridge and nonwoven filter insert in place, (2) a cotton bandana folded diagonally once (ie, “bandit” style) or in a (3) multilayer rectangle according to the instructions presented by the US Surgeon General, (4) a single-layer woven polyester/nylon mask with ties, (5) a nonwoven polypropylene mask with fixed ear loops, (6) a single-layer woven polyester gaiter/neck cover balaclava bandana, and (7) a 3-layer woven cotton mask with ear loops. Medical procedure mask modifications included (1) tying the mask’s ear loops and tucking in the side pleats, (2) fastening ear loops behind the head with 3-dimensional-printed ear guards, (3) fastening ear loops behind the head with a claw-type hair clip, (4) enhancing the mask/face seal with rubber bands over the mask, and (5) enhancing the mask/face seal with a band of nylon hosiery over the fitted mask.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary study outcome was the measured FFE of common consumer-grade and improvised face masks, as well as several popular modifications of medical procedure masks.

Results: The mean (SD) FFE of consumer grade masks tested on 1 adult male with no beard ranged from 79.0% (4.3%) to 26.5% (10.5%), with the 2-layer woven nylon mask having the highest FFE. Unmodified medical procedure masks with ear loops had a mean (SD) FFE of 38.5% (11.2%). All modifications evaluated in this study increased procedure mask FFE (range [SD], 60.3% [11.1%] to 80.2% [3.1%]), with a nylon hosiery sleeve placed over the procedure mask producing the greatest improvement.

Conclusions and relevance: While modifications to improve medical procedure mask fit can enhance the filtering capability and reduce inhalation of airborne particles, this study demonstrates that the FFEs of consumer-grade masks available to the public are, in many cases, nearly equivalent to or better than their non-N95 respirator medical mask counterparts.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on pregnant women. We searched for qualified studies in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The clinical characteristics of pregnant women with COVID-19 and their infants were reported as means and proportions with 95% confidence interval. Eleven studies involving with 9032 pregnant women with COVID-19 and 338 infants were included in the meta-analysis. Pregnant women with COVID-19 have relatively mild symptoms. However, abnormal proportions of laboratory parameters were similar or even increased, compared to general population. Around 30% of pregnant women with COVID-19 experienced preterm delivery, whereas the mean birth weight was 2855.9 g. Fetal death and detection of SARS-CoV-2 were observed in about 2%, whereas neonatal death was found to be 0.4%. In conclusion, the current review will serve as an ideal basis for future considerations in the treatment and management of COVID-19 in pregnant women.

To explore the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on premature birth rates in Denmark, a nationwide register-based prevalence proportion study was conducted on all 31 180 live singleton infants born in Denmark between 12 March and 14 April during 2015-2020.The distribution of gestational ages (GAs) was significantly different (p=0.004) during the lockdown period compared with the previous 5 years and was driven by a significantly lower rate of extremely premature children during the lockdown compared with the corresponding mean rate for the same dates in the previous years (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.40, p<0.001). No significant difference between the lockdown and previous years was found for other GA categories.The reasons for this decrease are unclear. However, the lockdown has provided a unique opportunity to examine possible factors related to prematurity. Identification of possible causal mechanisms might stimulate changes in clinical practice.

Current evidence suggests that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is predominantly transmitted from human-to-human. However, evidence on vertical transmission and natural passive immunity among the newborns exposed to COVID-19 is scanty and varies. This poses a challenge on preventive interventions for the newborns. We conducted a systematic review to first, determine the likelihood of vertical transmission among COVID-19 exposed infants and second, determine whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were generated among COVID-19 vertically exposed but negative infants. This review registered in PROSPERO searched evidence from PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar, among others. About 517 studies were pooled, where 33 articles (5.8%) met the inclusion criteria such as infection prevention and control measures at birth. A total of 205 infants born to COVID-19 positive mothers were studied. Overall, 6.3% (13/205; 95% CI: 3.0%-9.7%) of the infants tested positive for COVID-19 virus at birth. Of 33 eligible studies, six studies (18.8%) reported about immunoglobulin G/M (IgG/IgM) against SARS-CoV-2. IgG/IgM were detected in 90% infants (10/11; 95% CI: 73.9%-107.9%) who tested negative for COVID-19 virus. The median antibody levels detected were 75.49 AU/ml (range, 7.25-140.32 AU/ml) and 3.79 AU/ml (range, 0.16-45.83 AU/ml), p = .0041 for IgG and IgM, respectively. In conclusion, the current evidence revealed a low possibility of vertical transmission of COVID-19 and antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected among vertically exposed but negative infants. Further studies on transplacental transmission and the magnitude of natural passive immunity in infants born to mothers with COVID-19 are warranted.

Background There are characteristic findings of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on chest imaging. An artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm to detect COVID-19 on chest radiographs might be useful for triage or infection control within a hospital setting, but prior reports have been limited by small datasets and/or poor data quality. Purpose To present DeepCOVID-XR, a deep learning AI algorithm for detecting COVID-19 on chest radiographs, trained and tested on a large clinical dataset. Materials and Methods DeepCOVID-XR is an ensemble of convolutional neural networks to detect COVID-19 on frontal chest radiographs using real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as a reference standard. The algorithm was trained and validated on 14,788 images (4,253 COVID-19 positive) from sites across the Northwestern Memorial Healthcare System from February 2020 to April 2020, then tested on 2,214 images (1,192 COVID-19 positive) from a single hold-out institution. Performance of the algorithm was compared with interpretations from 5 experienced thoracic radiologists on 300 random test images using the McNemar test for sensitivity/specificity and DeLong’s test for the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results A total of 5,853 patients (58±19 years, 3,101 women) were evaluated across datasets. On the entire test set, DeepCOVID-XR’s accuracy was 83% with an AUC of 0.90. On 300 random test images (134 COVID-19 positive), DeepCOVID-XR’s accuracy was 82% compared to individual radiologists (76%-81%) and the consensus of all 5 radiologists (81%). DeepCOVID-XR had a significantly higher sensitivity (71%) than 1 radiologist (60%, p<0.001) and higher specificity (92%) than 2 radiologists (75%, p<0.001; 84% p=0.009). DeepCOVID-XR’s AUC was 0.88 compared to the consensus AUC of 0.85 (p=0.13 for comparison). Using the consensus interpretation as the reference standard, DeepCOVID-XR’s AUC was 0.95 (0.92-0.98 95%CI). Conclusion DeepCOVID-XR, an AI algorithm, detected COVID-19 on chest radiographs with performance similar to a consensus of experienced thoracic radiologists

Objective: There is limited information on the severity of COVID-19 infection in children with comorbidities. We investigated the effects of pediatric comorbidities on COVID-19 severity by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Medline databases were searched for publications on pediatric COVID-19 infections published January 1st to October 5th, 2020. Articles describing at least one child with and without comorbidities, COVID-19 infection, and reported outcomes, were included.

Results: 42 studies containing 275,661 children without comorbidities and 9,353 children with comorbidities were included. Severe COVID-19 was present in 5.1% of children with comorbidities, and in 0.2% without comorbidities. Random-effects analysis revealed a higher risk of severe COVID-19 among children with comorbidities than for healthy children; relative risk ratio 1.79 (95% CI 1.27 – 2.51;I2 = 94%). Children with underlying conditions also had a higher risk of COVID-19-associated mortality; relative risk ratio 2.81 (95% CI 1.31 – 6.02; I2 = 82%). Children with obesity had a relative risk ratio of 2.87 (95% CI 1.16 – 7.07 I2 = 36%).

Conclusions: Children with comorbidities have a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and associated mortality than children without underlying disease. Additional studies are required to further evaluate this relationship.

Background: The ABO and rhesus (Rh) blood groups may influence risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

Objective: To determine whether ABO and Rh blood groups are associated with risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness.

Design: Population-based cohort study.

Setting: Ontario, Canada.

Patients: All adults and children who had ABO blood group assessed between January 2007 and December 2019 and who subsequently had SARS-CoV-2 testing between 15 January and 30 June 2020.

Measurements: The main study outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection, determined by viral RNA polymerase chain reaction testing. A second outcome was severe COVID-19 illness or death. Adjusted relative risks (aRRs) and absolute risk differences (ARDs) were adjusted for demographic characteristics and comorbidities.

Results: A total of 225 556 persons were included, with a mean age of 54 years. The aRR of SARS-CoV-2 infection for O blood group versus A, AB, and B blood groups together was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.92; ARD, -3.9 per 1000 [CI, -5.4 to -2.5]). Rhesus-negative (Rh-) blood type was protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection (aRR, 0.79 [CI, 0.73 to 0.85]; ARD, -6.8 per 1000 [CI, -8.9 to -4.7]), especially for those who were O-negative (O-) (aRR, 0.74 [CI, 0.66 to 0.83]; ARD, -8.2 per 1000 [CI, -10.8 to -5.3]). There was also a lower risk for severe COVID-19 illness or death associated with type O blood group versus all others (aRR, 0.87 [CI, 0.78 to 0.97]; ARD, -0.8 per 1000 [CI, -1.4 to -0.2]) and with Rh- versus Rh-positive (aRR, 0.82 [CI, 0.68 to 0.96]; ARD, -1.1 per 1000 [CI, -2.0 to -0.2]).

Limitation: Persons who rapidly died of severe COVID-19 illness may not have had SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Conclusion: The O and Rh- blood groups may be associated with a slightly lower risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 illness.

Background: Older adults (aged ≥70 years) are at increased risk of severe disease and death if they develop COVID-19 and are therefore a priority for immunisation should an efficacious vaccine be developed. Immunogenicity of vaccines is often worse in older adults as a result of immunosenescence. We have reported the immunogenicity of a novel chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in young adults, and now describe the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in a wider range of participants, including adults aged 70 years and older.

Methods: In this report of the phase 2 component of a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial (COV002), healthy adults aged 18 years and older were enrolled at two UK clinical research facilities, in an age-escalation manner, into 18-55 years, 56-69 years, and 70 years and older immunogenicity subgroups. Participants were eligible if they did not have severe or uncontrolled medical comorbidities or a high frailty score (if aged ≥65 years). First, participants were recruited to a low-dose cohort, and within each age group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2·2 × 1010 virus particles) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and study site, using the following ratios: in the 18-55 years group, 1:1 to either two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY; in the 56-69 years group, 3:1:3:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY; and in the 70 years and older, 5:1:5:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY. Prime-booster regimens were given 28 days apart. Participants were then recruited to the standard-dose cohort (3·5-6·5 × 1010 virus particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18-55 years group was assigned in a 5:1 ratio to two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY. Participants and investigators, but not staff administering the vaccine, were masked to vaccine allocation. The specific objectives of this report were to assess the safety and humoral and cellular immunogenicity of a single-dose and two-dose schedule in adults older than 55 years. Humoral responses at baseline and after each vaccination until 1 year after the booster were assessed using an in-house standardised ELISA, a multiplex immunoassay, and a live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) microneutralisation assay (MNA80). Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The coprimary outcomes of the trial were efficacy, as measured by the number of cases of symptomatic, virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137.

Findings: Between May 30 and Aug 8, 2020, 560 participants were enrolled: 160 aged 18-55 years (100 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 60 assigned to MenACWY), 160 aged 56-69 years (120 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY), and 240 aged 70 years and older (200 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY). Seven participants did not receive the boost dose of their assigned two-dose regimen, one participant received the incorrect vaccine, and three were excluded from immunogenicity analyses due to incorrectly labelled samples. 280 (50%) of 552 analysable participants were female. Local and systemic reactions were more common in participants given ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those given the control vaccine, and similar in nature to those previously reported (injection-site pain, feeling feverish, muscle ache, headache), but were less common in older adults (aged ≥56 years) than younger adults. In those receiving two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 participants in the 18-55 years group, 22 (73%) of 30 in the 56-69 years group, and 30 (61%) of 49 in the 70 years and older group, and systemic reactions in 42 (86%) participants in the 18-55 years group, 23 (77%) in the 56-69 years group, and 32 (65%) in the 70 years and older group. As of Oct 26, 2020, 13 serious adverse events occurred during the study period, none of which were considered to be related to either study vaccine. In participants who received two doses of vaccine, median anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses 28 days after the boost dose were similar across the three age cohorts (standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 20 713 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [IQR 13 898-33 550], n=39; 56-69 years, 16 170 AU/mL [10 233-40 353], n=26; and ≥70 years 17 561 AU/mL [9705-37 796], n=47; p=0·68). Neutralising antibody titres after a boost dose were similar across all age groups (median MNA80 at day 42 in the standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 193 [IQR 113-238], n=39; 56-69 years, 144 [119-347], n=20; and ≥70 years, 161 [73-323], n=47; p=0·40). By 14 days after the boost dose, 208 (>99%) of 209 boosted participants had neutralising antibody responses. T-cell responses peaked at day 14 after a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (18-55 years: median 1187 spot-forming cells [SFCs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [IQR 841-2428], n=24; 56-69 years: 797 SFCs [383-1817], n=29; and ≥70 years: 977 SFCs [458-1914], n=48).

Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection carries a substantial risk of severe and prolonged illness; treatment options are currently limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 pilot trial at nine UK sites. Adults aged 18 years or older and admitted to hospital with COVID-19 symptoms, with a positive RT-PCR or point-of-care test, or both, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive SNG001 (6 MIU) or placebo by inhalation via a mouthpiece daily for 14 days. The primary outcome was the change in clinical condition on the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI) during the dosing period in the intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients who received at least one dose of the study drug). The OSCI is a 9-point scale, where 0 corresponds to no infection and 8 corresponds to death. Multiple analyses were done to identify the most suitable statistical method for future clinical trials. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events for 28 days. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrialsregister.eu (2020-001023-14) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04385095); the pilot trial of inpatients with COVID-19 is now completed.

Findings: Between March 30 and May 30, 2020, 101 patients were randomly assigned to SNG001 (n=50) or placebo (n=51). 48 received SNG001 and 50 received placebo and were included in the intention-to-treat population. 66 (67%) patients required oxygen supplementation at baseline: 29 in the placebo group and 37 in the SNG001 group. Patients receiving SNG001 had greater odds of improvement on the OSCI scale (odds ratio 2·32 [95% CI 1·07-5·04]; p=0·033) on day 15 or 16 and were more likely than those receiving placebo to recover to an OSCI score of 1 (no limitation of activities) during treatment (hazard ratio 2·19 [95% CI 1·03-4·69]; p=0·043). SNG001 was well tolerated. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event was headache (seven [15%] patients in the SNG001 group and five [10%] in the placebo group). There were three deaths in the placebo group and none in the SNG001 group.

Interpretation: Patients who received SNG001 had greater odds of improvement and recovered more rapidly from SARS-CoV-2 infection than patients who received placebo, providing a strong rationale for further trials.

Background: We aim to assess the anxiety and depressive symptoms related to the COVID-19 pandemic in children with chronic lung disease and their parents and also to evaluate parents’ coping strategies.

Methods: Parents of children aged 4-18 years, with chronic lung disease (study group n = 113) and healthy control (n = 108) were enrolled in the study. General Health Questionnaire-12, specific COVID-19 related anxiety questions, The Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced inventory, coronavirus-related psychiatric symptom scale in children-parental form were used to analyze the psychiatric effects of COVID-19. Parents were also asked about how online education affected their family life and children. All data were compared between children/parents in the study and control groups. Risk factors related with anxiety scores of children were also analyzed.

Results: Talking about the pandemic, concern about coronavirus transmission, taking precaution to prevent coronavirus transmission, making pressure to protect from COVID-19 were significantly higher in parents within the study group (p < .05). Parents in the study group used more problem-focused coping than parents in the control group (p = .003). Anxiety symptoms score was higher in children of the study group (p = .007). Parents in the study group found online education more useful than parents in the control group.

Conclusion: Children with chronic lung diseases and their parents have more anxiety due to COVID-19 pandemic and these parents use more mature coping strategies to manage the stress of the pandemic. Longitudinal and larger studies should be done in all aspects of online education in children with chronic lung diseases.

Background: In March 2020, as community spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) became increasingly prevalent, pregnant women appeared to be equally susceptible to developing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). While the disease course usually appears mild, severe and critical COVID-19 appears to lead to significant morbidity including ICU admission with prolonged hospital stay, intubation, mechanical ventilation and even death. Although there are recent reports regarding the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy, information regarding the severity of COVID-19 in pregnant versus non-pregnant women remains unknown.

Objective: We aim to describe the outcomes of severe and critical COVID-19 infection in pregnant versus non-pregnant reproductive aged women.

Study design: This is a multi-center retrospective case-control study of women with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 in four academic medical centers in NYC and one in Philadelphia between March 12 and May 5, 2020. The cases consist of pregnant women admitted specifically for severe or critical COVID-19 and not for obstetric indication. The controls consist of reproductive aged, non-pregnant women admitted for severe or critical COVID-19. The primary outcome is a composite morbidity including: death, need for intubation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), non-invasive positive pressure ventilation or need for high flow nasal cannula oxygen supplementation. Secondary outcomes include ICU admission, length of stay, need for discharge to long term acute care facility and discharge with home oxygen requirement.

Results: Thirty-eight pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed infection were admitted to five institutions specifically for COVID-19, 29 (76.3%) meeting criteria for severe disease and 9 (23.7%) meeting criteria for critical disease. The mean age and BMI were significantly higher in the non-pregnant control group. The non-pregnant cohort was also noted to have increased frequency of pre-existing medical comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension and coronary artery disease. Pregnant women were more likely to experience the primary outcome when compared to the non-pregnant control group (34.2% vs. 14.9%, p=0.03, adjusted OR 4.6 [95% CI 1.2-18.2]). Pregnant patients experienced higher rates of ICU admission (39.5% vs. 17.0%, p<0.01, adjusted OR 5.2 [95% CI 1.5-17.5]). Among pregnant women that underwent delivery, 72.7% occurred via cesarean delivery and mean gestational age at delivery was 33.8 ±5.5 weeks in patients with severe disease and 35 ±3.5 weeks in patients with critical COVID-19.

Conclusions: Pregnant women with severe and/or critical COVID-19 are at increased risk for certain morbidities when compared to non-pregnant controls. Despite the higher comorbidities of diabetes and hypertension in the non-pregnant controls, the pregnant cases were at increased risk for composite morbidity, intubation, mechanical ventilation and ICU admission. These findings suggest that pregnancy may be associated with a worse outcome in women with severe and critical COVID-19. Our study suggests that similar to other viral infections such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, pregnant women may be at risk for greater morbidity and disease severity.

Background: Bubble CPAP may be used in infants with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Electrostatic filters may reduce cross infection. This study aims to determine if including a filter in the bubble CPAP circuit impacts stability of pressure delivery.

Methods: A new electrostatic filter was placed before (pre) or after (post) the bubble CPAP generator, or with no filter (control) in an in vitro study. Pressure was recorded at the nasal interface for 18 h (6 L/min; 7 cm H2O) on 3 occasions for each configuration. Filter failure was defined as pressure >9 cm H2O for 60 continuous minutes. The filter was weighed before and after each experiment.

Results: Mean (SD) time to reach the fail point was 257 (116) min and 525 (566) min for filter placement pre- and post-CPAP generator, respectively. Mean pressure was higher throughout in the pre-generator position compared to control. The filter weight was heavier at end study in the pre- compared to the post-generator position.

Conclusions: Placement of the filter at the pre-generator position in a bubble CPAP circuit should be avoided due to unstable mean pressure. Filters are likely to become saturated with water over time. The post-generator position may accommodate a filter, but regular pressure monitoring and early replacement are required

Background: With the unprecedented morbidity and mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, a vaccine against COVID-19 is urgently needed. We investigated CoronaVac (Sinovac Life Sciences, Beijing, China), an inactivated vaccine candidate against COVID-19, containing inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), for its safety, tolerability and immunogenicity.

Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 clinical trial, healthy adults aged 18-59 years were recruited from the community in Suining County of Jiangsu province, China. Adults with SARS-CoV-2 exposure or infection history, with axillary temperature above 37·0°C, or an allergic reaction to any vaccine component were excluded. The experimental vaccine for the phase 1 trial was manufactured using a cell factory process (CellSTACK Cell Culture Chamber 10, Corning, Wujiang, China), whereas those for the phase 2 trial were produced through a bioreactor process (ReadyToProcess WAVE 25, GE, Umea, Sweden). The phase 1 trial was done in a dose-escalating manner. At screening, participants were initially separated (1:1), with no specific randomisation, into two vaccination schedule cohorts, the days 0 and 14 vaccination cohort and the days 0 and 28 vaccination cohort, and within each cohort the first 36 participants were assigned to block 1 (low dose CoronaVac [3 μg per 0·5 mL of aluminium hydroxide diluent per dose) then another 36 were assigned to block 2 (high-dose Coronavc [6 μg per 0·5 mL of aluminium hydroxide diluent per dse]). Within each block, participants were randomly assigned (2:1), using block randomisation with a block size of six, to either two doses of CoronaVac or two doses of placebo. In the phase 2 trial, at screening, participants were initially separated (1:1), with no specific randomisation, into the days 0 and 14 vaccination cohort and the days 0 and 28 vaccination cohort, and participants were randomly assigned (2:2:1), using block randomisation with a block size of five, to receive two doses of either low-dose CoronaVac, high-dose CoronaVac, or placebo. Participants, investigators, and laboratory staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary safety endpoint was adverse reactions within 28 days after injection in all participants who were given at least one dose of study drug (safety population). The primary immunogenic outcome was seroconversion rates of neutralising antibodies to live SARS-CoV-2 at day 14 after the last dose in the days 0 and 14 cohort, and at day 28 after the last dose in the days 0 and 28 cohort in participants who completed their allocated two-dose vaccination schedule (per-protocol population).

Findings: Between April 16 and April 25, 2020, 144 participants were enrolled in the phase 1 trial, and between May 3 and May 5, 2020, 600 participants were enrolled in the phase 2 trial. 743 participants received at least one dose of investigational product (n=143 for phase 1 and n=600 for phase 2; safety population). In the phase 1 trial, the incidence of adverse reactions for the days 0 and 14 cohort was seven (29%) of 24 participants in the 3 ug group, nine (38%) of 24 in the 6 μg group, and two (8%) of 24 in the placebo group, and for the days 0 and 28 cohort was three (13%) of 24 in the 3 μg group, four (17%) of 24 in the 6 μg group, and three (13%) of 23 in the placebo group. The seroconversion of neutralising antibodies on day 14 after the days 0 and 14 vaccination schedule was seen in 11 (46%) of 24 participants in the 3 μg group, 12 (50%) of 24 in the 6 μg group, and none (0%) of 24 in the placebo group; whereas at day 28 after the days 0 and 28 vaccination schedule, seroconversion was seen in 20 (83%) of 24 in the 3 μg group, 19 (79%) of 24 in the 6 μg group, and one (4%) of 24 in the placebo group. In the phase 2 trial, the incidence of adverse reactions for the days 0 and 14 cohort was 40 (33%) of 120 participants in the 3 μg group, 42 (35%) of 120 in the 6 μg group, and 13 (22%) of 60 in the placebo group, and for the days 0 and 28 cohort was 23 (19%) of 120 in the 3 μg group, 23 (19%) of 120 in the 6 μg group, and 11 (18%) of 60 for the placebo group. Seroconversion of neutralising antibodies was seen for 109 (92%) of 118 participants in the 3 μg group, 117 (98%) of 119 in the 6 μg group, and two (3%) of 60 in the placebo group at day 14 after the days 0 and 14 schedule; whereas at day 28 after the days 0 and 28 schedule, seroconversion was seen in 114 (97%) of 117 in the 3 μg group, 118 (100%) of 118 in the 6 μg group, and none (0%) of 59 in the placebo group.

Interpretation: Taking safety, immunogenicity, and production capacity into account, the 3 μg dose of CoronaVac is the suggested dose for efficacy assessment in future phase 3 trials.

Background: Convalescent plasma is frequently administered to patients with Covid-19 and has been reported, largely on the basis of observational data, to improve clinical outcomes. Minimal data are available from adequately powered randomized, controlled trials.

Methods: We randomly assigned hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in a 2:1 ratio to receive convalescent plasma or placebo. The primary outcome was the patient’s clinical status 30 days after the intervention, as measured on a six-point ordinal scale ranging from total recovery to death.

Results: A total of 228 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma and 105 to receive placebo. The median time from the onset of symptoms to enrollment in the trial was 8 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10), and hypoxemia was the most frequent severity criterion for enrollment. The infused convalescent plasma had a median titer of 1:3200 of total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (interquartile range, 1:800 to 1:3200]. No patients were lost to follow-up. At day 30 day, no significant difference was noted between the convalescent plasma group and the placebo group in the distribution of clinical outcomes according to the ordinal scale (odds ratio, 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 1.35; P = 0.46). Overall mortality was 10.96% in the convalescent plasma group and 11.43% in the placebo group, for a risk difference of -0.46 percentage points (95% CI, -7.8 to 6.8). Total SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers tended to be higher in the convalescent plasma group at day 2 after the intervention. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups.

Conclusions: No significant differences were observed in clinical status or overall mortality between patients treated with convalescent plasma and those who received placebo.

Background: Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both.

Objective: To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers’ risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.

Design: Randomized controlled trial (DANMASK-19 [Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection]).

Setting: Denmark, April and May 2020.

Participants: Adults spending more than 3 hours per day outside the home without occupational mask use.

Intervention: Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use.

Measurements: The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis. The secondary outcome was PCR positivity for other respiratory viruses.

Results: A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was -0.3 percentage point (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

Limitation: Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

Conclusion: The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

Importance: There is limited information on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and infection among pediatric patients across the United States.

Objective: To describe testing for SARS-CoV-2 and the epidemiology of infected patients.

Design, setting, and participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic health record data from 135 794 patients younger than 25 years who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 from January 1 through September 8, 2020. Data were from PEDSnet, a network of 7 US pediatric health systems, comprising 6.5 million patients primarily from 11 states. Data analysis was performed from September 8 to 24, 2020.

Exposure: Testing for SARS-CoV-2.

Main outcomes and measures: SARS-CoV-2 infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness.

Results: A total of 135 794 pediatric patients (53% male; mean [SD] age, 8.8 [6.7] years; 3% Asian patients, 15% Black patients, 11% Hispanic patients, and 59% White patients; 290 per 10 000 population [range, 155-395 per 10 000 population across health systems]) were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 5374 (4%) were infected with the virus (12 per 10 000 population [range, 7-16 per 10 000 population]). Compared with White patients, those of Black, Hispanic, and Asian race/ethnicity had lower rates of testing (Black: odds ratio [OR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.68-0.72]; Hispanic: OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.63-0.67]; Asian: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.57-0.63]); however, they were significantly more likely to have positive test results (Black: OR, 2.66 [95% CI, 2.43-2.90]; Hispanic: OR, 3.75 [95% CI, 3.39-4.15]; Asian: OR, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.69-2.48]). Older age (5-11 years: OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.13-1.38]; 12-17 years: OR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.73-2.12]; 18-24 years: OR, 3.51 [95% CI, 3.11-3.97]), public payer (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.31-1.57]), outpatient testing (OR, 2.13 [1.86-2.44]), and emergency department testing (OR, 3.16 [95% CI, 2.72-3.67]) were also associated with increased risk of infection. In univariate analyses, nonmalignant chronic disease was associated with lower likelihood of testing, and preexisting respiratory conditions were associated with lower risk of positive test results (standardized ratio [SR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.73-0.84]). However, several other diagnosis groups were associated with a higher risk of positive test results: malignant disorders (SR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.19-1.93]), cardiac disorders (SR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.05-1.32]), endocrinologic disorders (SR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.31-1.75]), gastrointestinal disorders (SR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.04-1.38]), genetic disorders (SR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.00-1.40]), hematologic disorders (SR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.06-1.47]), musculoskeletal disorders (SR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.07-1.30]), mental health disorders (SR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.30]), and metabolic disorders (SR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.24-1.61]). Among the 5374 patients with positive test results, 359 (7%) were hospitalized for respiratory, hypotensive, or COVID-19-specific illness. Of these, 99 (28%) required intensive care unit services, and 33 (9%) required mechanical ventilation. The case fatality rate was 0.2% (8 of 5374). The number of patients with a diagnosis of Kawasaki disease in early 2020 was 40% lower (259 vs 433 and 430) than in 2018 or 2019.

Conclusions and relevance: In this large cohort study of US pediatric patients, SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were low, and clinical manifestations were typically mild. Black, Hispanic, and Asian race/ethnicity; adolescence and young adulthood; and nonrespiratory chronic medical conditions were associated with identified infection. Kawasaki disease diagnosis is not an effective proxy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood.

We documented fetal death associated with intrauterine transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We found chronic histiocytic intervillositis, maternal and fetal vascular malperfusion, microglial hyperplasia, and lymphocytic infiltrate in muscle in the placenta and fetal tissue. Placenta and umbilical cord blood tested positive for the virus by PCR, confirming transplacental transmission.

The clinical spectrum of the perinatal COVID-19 and prospective data on neonatal outcomes remains largely unexplored. Most of the existing literature is in the form of case series or single-centre experience. In this review, we aim to summarize available literature on the clinical spectrum of COVID-19 in neonates and mothers and suggest a practical approach towards management of clinical scenarios. This review explores the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in neonates born to mothers who were detected with the virus during the pregnancy. We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Database of Systematic Review between November 2019 and June 2020 and screened articles related to perinatal COVID-19. This review included 786 mothers, among which 64% (504) were delivered by caesarian section. There were 3 still births and 107 (14%) were delivered preterm. Out of 793 neonates born, 629 neonates (79%) were tested after birth. The commonest symptom in neonates was respiratory distress. Respiratory support was needed in 60 neonates (7.6%), with 14 babies needing mechanical ventilation (1.8%), 25 needing non-invasive ventilation and 21 needing nasal oxygen. Only 35 of the 629 tested neonates (5.5%) were positive for COVID-19. Of the 35 positive neonates, 14 (40%) were symptomatic. The COVID-19 seems to have favourable neonatal outcomes. Majority of neonates are asymptomatic. Respiratory distress is the most common manifestation. What is known: •COVID-19 affects all ages. •Neonatal disease is usually mild. What is new: •Vertical transmission is a possible route of infection in neonates. •Breast milk and skin-to-skin contact are safe in COVID-19-infected mothers if performed with appropriate use of precautions such as hand and breast hygiene and masking.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in the neonatal period poses previously unmet challenges to obstetricians and neonatologists, but several key questions are yet to be answered. Few cases of presumed in utero vertical transmission of the virus from infected mothers to fetuses have been reported, but stronger evidence is needed, from larger datasets with multiple biospecimens rigorously analyzed. Whether acquired before or after birth, SARS-CoV-2 infection in neonates can be symptomatic, but our comprehension of neonatal immune response and the subsequent clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in early life are incomplete. Finally, the pandemic challenged several dogmas regarding the management of mother-infant dyads, and again more robust data are needed to support the formulation of evidence-based guidelines. Here, we briefly summarize existing evidence and key unresolved questions about SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 in the neonatal period.

Breastfeeding has health benefits for both infants and mothers and is recommended by numerous health and medical organizations*^,† (1). The birth hospitalization is a critical period for establishing breastfeeding; however, some hospital practices, particularly related to mother-newborn contact, have given rise to concern about the potential for mother-to-newborn transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2). CDC conducted a COVID-19 survey (July 15-August 20, 2020) among 1,344 hospitals that completed the 2018 Maternity Practices in Infant Nutrition and Care (mPINC) survey to assess current practices and breastfeeding support while in the hospital. Among mothers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, 14.0% of hospitals discouraged and 6.5% prohibited skin-to-skin care; 37.8% discouraged and 5.3% prohibited rooming-in; 20.1% discouraged direct breastfeeding but allowed it if the mother chose; and 12.7% did not support direct breastfeeding, but encouraged feeding of expressed breast milk. In response to the pandemic, 17.9% of hospitals reported reduced in-person lactation support, and 72.9% reported discharging mothers and their newborns <48 hours after birth. Some of the infection prevention and control (IPC) practices that hospitals were implementing conflicted with evidence-based care to support breastfeeding. Mothers who are separated from their newborn or not feeding directly at the breast might need additional postdischarge breastfeeding support. In addition, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that newborns discharged before 48 hours receive prompt follow-up with a pediatric health care provide

From the beginning of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, special attention has been paid to pregnant women and to monitoring comorbidities, such as gestational diabetes and hypertension, which could increase their risk of disease and death. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the available knowledge on the course of COVID-19 in pregnant women as well as the risk of maternal-fetal transmission. The study indicated that the course of COVID-19 is worse in pregnant women who are more often admitted to intensive care units or who require mechanical ventilation than nonpregnant women with COVID-19. Some symptoms, such as dyspnea and cough, were similar to those observed in nonpregnant women, but fever, headache, muscle aches, chills, and diarrhea were less frequent. A study revealed that premature delivery and cesarean section were more common in pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19. In addition, recent studies confirm the possibility of intrauterine maternal-fetal transmission by positive genetic tests and the presence of IgM in newborns just after delivery; at the moment, the probability of transmission through mother’s milk is inconclusive. Considering all the above, a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is an important factor that threatens the health and life of both the mother and the fetus, but further studies are still needed.