MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4304693848 · doi:10.1111/apa.16570

Medical and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 10 months of age in infants born at 34 weeks plus to mothers with <scp>COVID</scp>‐19

2022· letter· en· W4304693848 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Antoine Martenot, Imad Labbassi, Amélie Delfils‐Stern, Philippe Deruelle, Pierre Kuhn

Notice bibliographique

RevueActa Paediatrica · 2022
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePediatricsPregnancyGestational ageObservational studyGestationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Informed consentPandemicObstetricsDiseaseInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

COVID-19 has affected pregnant women and their foetuses since the spring 2020. We previously studied 26 infants who were born at 34 plus weeks of gestation and not separated at birth from mothers with symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in the last 2 weeks of pregnancy. The infants were born during the first pandemic wave in Alsace, France, and had favourable outcomes at 1 month of age.1 Short-term favourable outcomes in such patients have also been confirmed by a large Swedish register-based study.2 Little is known about the mid-term or long-term outcomes of such infants, but prenatal exposure to SARS-CoV-2 may affect infants' neurodevelopmental trajectories. One study found that three of eight infants born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 had abnormal magnetic resonance imaging findings at 44 weeks of corrected age, including delayed myelinisation and unusual white matter signals, but no clinical repercussions.3 This observational study followed up the medical outcomes of our cohort1 when they reached 10 months of age and was carried out from 15 March to 24 April 2020 in the maternity wards of 2 level III public hospitals in Strasbourg and Mulhouse, France. It was approved by the local ethics committee of Strasbourg Medical Faculty (CE-2020-86), and the parents provided written informed consent. The main investigator phoned the parents when the infants were 10 months old, told them about the study and requested consent to interview the infants' usual paediatricians about their medical history. The parents were then sent written study information, a consent form and the questionnaires. If they did not reply after 2 weeks, the questionnaires were completed over the phone and they returned the consent form. The paediatricians were mainly contacted by e-mail. Neurodevelopmental status was measured by the validated French-Canadian version of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ), Second Edition, for 10-month-old infants. The questionnaires were completed by at least one French native-speaking parent and contained five main domains covering 30 questions. Abnormal neurodevelopmental was defined as a score of less than 25 in at least one domain. Parental questionnaires were used to collect the infants' medical histories and cross-checked with the data from their paediatricians. These included asthma, bronchiolitis, bacterial pneumonia, otitis, laryngitis, fever without obvious cause or weight gain difficulties. The study comprised 24 of the original 26 mother–infant dyads and their main perinatal characteristics have previously been reported.1 The infants' mean gestational age was 39.0 ± 2.1 weeks, their mean birth weight was 3144 ± 599 grams, and 50% were male. Only one mother was not symptomatic before delivery. Three infants were born preterm, and two had respiratory distress syndrome that required a few hours of ventilation in the neonatal intensive care unit. One had self-limiting hyperthermia in the maternity ward. Only one asymptomatic neonate tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on Day 3.1 Table 1 summarises the main outcomes. One male showed abnormal neurological development at 10 months, with a ASQ gross motor subdomain score of 15. However, his other subdomain scores were normal and monthly examinations by his paediatrician showed no neurological concerns. He tested negative on Days 0 and 3 and was asymptomatic during the first month of life. A 7-month-old man was hospitalised with pyelonephritis, and his parents described a short febrile seizure. His electroencephalography findings and the paediatric neurologist team's findings were both normal, with no indication for a lumbar puncture or cerebral imaging. He did not relapse or need anti-convulsant medication. This suggests that the seizures did not result from brain tissue damage due to a perinatal infection. No adverse neurological and medical outcomes were detected in our cohort at 10 months of age. Few studies have reported long-term follow-ups in such infants. Ayed et al.4 followed 298 infants with in utero exposure to SARS-CoV-2 until 10–12 months and assessed their neurodevelopmental status with the ASQ, Third Edition. This showed that 10% had neurodevelopmental delay, defined as less than 2 standard deviations in at least 1 subdomain. Edlow et al.5 reported an increased proportion of developmental disease in 1-year-old infants born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy. The small sample size and absence of a non-SARS-CoV-2 control group were limitations as they prevented definitive conclusions about neurodevelopmental trajectories. Another limitation was the lack of data on breastfeeding-induced immunisation. Finally, we only reported the neurological outcomes of infants exposed in the last 2 weeks of intrauterine life. Data on earlier exposure to the inflammatory stress associated with maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection would have been interesting. Ayed et al.4 reported increased abnormal ASQ scores in infants exposed during the first or second trimester. This 10-month follow-up reassuringly suggested that these infants had not experienced major neurodevelopmental delays after in utero exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Our zero-separation strategy could have contributed to these favourable outcomes. However, long-term follow-up studies of larger population-based cohorts are required to see whether minor difficulties appear later. None.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,505
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,277
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueActa PaediatricaMême sujetCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionTravaux en français237 207