Objective: To evaluate whether a particular group of women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy would benefit from treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid. Design: Secondary analysis of the PITCHES trial (ISRCTN91918806). Setting: United Kingdom. Population or Sample: Women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Methods: Subgroup analyses were performed to determine whether baseline bile acid concentrations or baseline itch scores moderated a woman’s response to treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid. Main Outcome Measures: Bile acid concentration and itch score. Results: In women with baseline bile acid concentrations less than 40 μmol/L, treatment with UDCA resulted in increased post-randomisation bile acid concentrations (geometric mean ratio 1.19, 95% CI 1.99 to 1.41, p = 0.048). A test of interaction showed no significance (p = 0.647). A small, clinically insignificant difference was seen in itch response in women with a high baseline itch score (–6.0 mm, 95% CI –11.80 to –0.21, p = 0.042), with a test of interaction not showing significance (p = 0.640). Further subgroup analyses showed no significance. Across all women there was a weak relationship between bile acid concentrations and itch severity. Conclusions: There was no subgroup of women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in whom a beneficial effect of treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid on bile acid concentration or itch score could be identified. This confirms that its routine use in women with this condition for improvement of bile acid concentration or itch score should be reconsidered. Funding: NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme 12/164/16. Keywords: Cholestasis, Pregnancy, Ursodeoxycholic acid, Perinatal, Stillbirth.

Authors’ reply re: ’Maternal transmission of SARS-COV-2 to the neonate, and possible routes for such transmission: A systematic review and critical analysis (Response to BJOG-20-1416)Kate F Walker1, Keelin O’Donoghue2, Nicky Grace3, Jon Dorling4, Jeannette L Comeau4, Wentao Li5 Jim G Thornton11Division of Child Health, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham2The Irish Centre for Maternal and Child Health, University College Cork, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Cork, Ireland3 School of English, University of Nottingham4Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada5Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, AustraliaThank you for the opportunity to comment on the letter by Dr Xue from Shanghai Jiao Tong University. We agree there are many weaknesses in the data we reviewed. Dr Xue has identified one. Others are the incomplete reporting of infant feeding and mother-child interactions, and the frequent lack of infant testing to confirm or refute the possibility of vertical transmission of COVID-19. Finally, although we simply provided summary totals, it would be statistically preferable to combine series using the Mantel-Haenszel method and calculate a relative risk. We judged that doing this in light of the uncertainties around the data which Dr Xue has identified, might give a spurious precision to our results. As he says, more work is needed. For now we think it remains reasonable to not regard COVID-19 in itself, as an indication for Caesarean, artificial feeding or separation, in the mother and baby’s interest.