Causes and circumstances of maternal death: A secondary analysis of the community-level Interventions for pre-eclampsia (CLIP) trials cohort

Background: Incomplete vital registration systems mean that causes of death during pregnancy and childbirth are poorly understood in low-income and middle-income countries. To inform global efforts to reduce maternal mortality, we compared physician review and computerised analysis of verbal autopsies (interpreting verbal autopsies [InterVA] software), to understand their agreement on maternal cause of death and circumstances of mortality categories (COMCATs) in the Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) cluster randomised trials.Methods: The CLIP trials took place in India, Pakistan, and Mozambique, enrolling pregnant women aged 12-49 years between Nov 1, 2014, and Feb 28, 2017. 69 330 pregnant women were enrolled in 44 clusters (36 008 in the 22 intervention clusters and 33 322 in the 22 control clusters). In this secondary analysis of maternal deaths in CLIP, we included women who died in any of the 22 intervention clusters or 22 control clusters. Trained staff administered the WHO 2012 verbal autopsy after maternal deaths. Two physicians (and a third for consensus, if needed) reviewed trial surveillance data and verbal autopsies, and, in intervention clusters, community health worker-led visit data. They determined cause of death according to the WHO International Classification of Diseases-Maternal Mortality (ICD-MM). Verbal autopsies were also analysed by InterVA computer models (versions 4 and 5) to generate cause of death. COMCAT analysis was provided by InterVA-5 and, in India, by physician review of Maternal Newborn Health Registry data. Causes of death and COMCATs assigned by physician review, Inter-VA-4, and InterVA-5 were compared, with agreement assessed with Cohen\u27s κ coefficient.Findings: Of 61 988 pregnancies with successful follow-up in the CLIP trials, 143 maternal deaths were reported (16 deaths in India, 105 in Pakistan, and 22 in Mozambique). The maternal death rate was 231 (95% CI 193-268) per 100 000 identified pregnancies. Most deaths were attributed to direct maternal causes (rather than indirect or undetermined causes as per ICD-MM classification), with fair to good agreement between physician review and InterVA-4 (κ=0·56 [95% CI 0·43-0·66]) or InterVA-5 (κ=0·44 [0·30-0·57]), and InterVA-4 and InterVA-5 (κ=0·72 [0·60-0·84]). The top three causes of death were the same by physician review, InterVA-4, and InterVA-5 (ICD-MM categories obstetric haemorrhage, non-obstetric complications, and hypertensive disorders); however, attribution of individual patient deaths to obstetric haemorrhage varied more between methods (physician review, 38 [27%] deaths; InterVA-4, 69 [48%] deaths; and InterVA-5, 82 [57%] deaths), than did attribution to non-obstetric causes (physician review, 39 [27%] deaths; InterVA-4, 37 [26%] deaths; and InterVA-5, 28 [20%] deaths) or hypertensive disorders (physician review, 23 [16%] deaths; InterVA-4, 25 [17%] deaths; and InterVA-5, 24 [17%] deaths). Agreement for all nine ICD-MM categories was fair for physician review versus InterVA-4 (κ=0·48 [0·38-0·58]), poor for physician review versus InterVA-5 (κ=0·36 [0·27-0·46]), and good for InterVA-4 versus InterVA-5 (κ=0·69 [0·59-0·79]). The most commonly assigned COMCATs by InterVA-5 were emergencies (68 [48%] of 143 deaths) and health systems (62 [43%] deaths), and by physician review (India only) were health systems (seven [44%] of 16 deaths) and inevitability (five [31%] deaths); agreement between InterVA-5 and physician review (India data only) was poor (κ=0·04 [0·00-0·15]).Interpretation: Our findings indicate that InterVA-5 is less accurate than InterVA-4 at ascertaining causes and circumstances of maternal death, when compared with physician review. Our results suggest a need to improve the next iteration of InterVA, and for researchers and clinicians to preferentially use InterVA-4 when recording maternal deaths.Funding: University of British Columbia (grantee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)

Breastfeeding Education Support Tool for Baby (BEST4Baby): Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Impact of an mHealth Supported Breastfeeding Peer Counselor Intervention in rural India

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of an mHealth-supported breastfeeding peer counselor intervention implemented in rural India and the preliminary impact of the intervention on maternal breastfeeding behaviors, including exclusive breastfeeding (EBF). Methods: In this quasi-experimental pilot study, participants received either the intervention plus usual care (n = 110) or usual care alone (n = 112). The intervention group received nine in-home visits during and after pregnancy from peer counselors who provided education about and support for EBF and other optimal infant feeding practices and were aided with an mHealth tool. The control group received routine prenatal and postnatal health education. Progress notes and surveys were used to assess feasibility. Logistic regression models were used for between-group comparisons of optimal infant feeding outcomes, including EBF for 6 months. Results: The intervention was delivered as intended, maintained over the study period, and had high acceptability ratings. There were statistically significant differences in all outcomes between groups. The intervention group had a significantly higher likelihood of EBF at 6 months compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio 3.57, 95% confidence interval 1.80–7.07). Conclusion: Integration of mHealth with community-based peer counselors to educate women about EBF is feasible and acceptable in rural India and impacts maternal breastfeeding behaviors

A pre-post study of a multi-country scale up of resuscitation training of facility birth attendants: does Helping Babies Breathe training save lives?

Background: Whether facility-based implementation of Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) reduces neonatal mortality at a population level in low and middle income countries (LMIC) has not been studied. Therefore, we evaluated HBB implementation in this context where our study team has ongoing prospective outcome data on all pregnancies regardless of place of delivery. Methods: We compared outcomes of birth cohorts in three sites in India and Kenya pre-post implementation of a facility-based intervention, using a prospective, population-based registry in 52 geographic clusters. Our hypothesis was that HBB implementation would result in a 20 % decrease in the perinatal mortality rate (PMR) among births ≥1500 g. Results: We enrolled 70,704 births during two 12-month study periods. Births within each site did not differ prepost intervention, except for an increased proportion ofbirths; however, a post-hoc analysis stratified by birthweight documented improvement insurvival. Conclusions: Rapid scale up of HBB training of facility birth attendants in three diverse sites in India and Kenya was not associated with consistent improvements in mortality among all neonates ≥1500 g; however, differential improvements inpopulation, data collection, and ongoing quality monitoring activities. Trial registration: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0168101

Causes and circumstances of maternal death:a secondary analysis of the Community-Level Interventions for (CLIP) trials cohort

BACKGROUND: Incomplete vital registration systems mean that causes of death during pregnancy and childbirth are poorly understood in low-income and middle-income countries. To inform global efforts to reduce maternal mortality, we compared physician review and computerised analysis of verbal autopsies (interpreting verbal autopsies [InterVA] software), to understand their agreement on maternal cause of death and circumstances of mortality categories (COMCATs) in the Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) cluster randomised trials. METHODS: The CLIP trials took place in India, Pakistan, and Mozambique, enrolling pregnant women aged 12–49 years between Nov 1, 2014, and Feb 28, 2017. 69 330 pregnant women were enrolled in 44 clusters (36 008 in the 22 intervention clusters and 33 322 in the 22 control clusters). In this secondary analysis of maternal deaths in CLIP, we included women who died in any of the 22 intervention clusters or 22 control clusters. Trained staff administered the WHO 2012 verbal autopsy after maternal deaths. Two physicians (and a third for consensus, if needed) reviewed trial surveillance data and verbal autopsies, and, in intervention clusters, community health worker-led visit data. They determined cause of death according to the WHO International Classification of Diseases-Maternal Mortality (ICD-MM). Verbal autopsies were also analysed by InterVA computer models (versions 4 and 5) to generate cause of death. COMCAT analysis was provided by InterVA-5 and, in India, by physician review of Maternal Newborn Health Registry data. Causes of death and COMCATs assigned by physician review, Inter-VA-4, and InterVA-5 were compared, with agreement assessed with Cohen's κ coefficient. FINDINGS: Of 61 988 pregnancies with successful follow-up in the CLIP trials, 143 maternal deaths were reported (16 deaths in India, 105 in Pakistan, and 22 in Mozambique). The maternal death rate was 231 (95% CI 193–268) per 100 000 identified pregnancies. Most deaths were attributed to direct maternal causes (rather than indirect or undetermined causes as per ICD-MM classification), with fair to good agreement between physician review and InterVA-4 (κ=0·56 [95% CI 0·43–0·66]) or InterVA-5 (κ=0·44 [0·30–0·57]), and InterVA-4 and InterVA-5 (κ=0·72 [0·60–0·84]). The top three causes of death were the same by physician review, InterVA-4, and InterVA-5 (ICD-MM categories obstetric haemorrhage, non-obstetric complications, and hypertensive disorders); however, attribution of individual patient deaths to obstetric haemorrhage varied more between methods (physician review, 38 [27%] deaths; InterVA-4, 69 [48%] deaths; and InterVA-5, 82 [57%] deaths), than did attribution to non-obstetric causes (physician review, 39 [27%] deaths; InterVA-4, 37 [26%] deaths; and InterVA-5, 28 [20%] deaths) or hypertensive disorders (physician review, 23 [16%] deaths; InterVA-4, 25 [17%] deaths; and InterVA-5, 24 [17%] deaths). Agreement for all nine ICD-MM categories was fair for physician review versus InterVA-4 (κ=0·48 [0·38–0·58]), poor for physician review versus InterVA-5 (κ=0·36 [0·27–0·46]), and good for InterVA-4 versus InterVA-5 (κ=0·69 [0·59–0·79]). The most commonly assigned COMCATs by InterVA-5 were emergencies (68 [48%] of 143 deaths) and health systems (62 [43%] deaths), and by physician review (India only) were health systems (seven [44%] of 16 deaths) and inevitability (five [31%] deaths); agreement between InterVA-5 and physician review (India data only) was poor (κ=0·04 [0·00–0·15]). INTERPRETATION: Our findings indicate that InterVA-5 is less accurate than InterVA-4 at ascertaining causes and circumstances of maternal death, when compared with physician review. Our results suggest a need to improve the next iteration of InterVA, and for researchers and clinicians to preferentially use InterVA-4 when recording maternal deaths. FUNDING: University of British Columbia (grantee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)

A Color-Coded Tape for Uterine Height Measurement: A Tool to Identify Preterm Pregnancies in Low Resource Settings

Introduction Neonatal mortality associated with preterm birth can be reduced with antenatal corticosteroids (ACS), yet <10% of eligible pregnant women in low-middle income countries. The inability to accurately determine gestational age (GA) leads to under-identification of high-risk women who could receive ACS or other interventions. To facilitate better identification in low-resource settings, we developed a color-coded tape for uterine height (UH) measurement and estimated its accuracy identifying preterm pregnancies. Methods We designed a series of colored-coded tapes with segments corresponding to UH measurements for 20–23.6 weeks, 24.0–35.6 weeks, and >36.0 weeks GA. In phase 1, UH measurements were collected prospectively in the Democratic Republic of Congo, India and Pakistan, using distinct tapes to address variation across regions and ethnicities. In phase 2, we tested accuracy in 250 pregnant women with known GA from early ultrasound enrolled at prenatal clinics in Argentina, India, Pakistan and Zambia. Providers masked to the ultrasound GA measured UH. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was conducted. Results 1,029 pregnant women were enrolled. In all countries the tapes were most effective identifying pregnancies between 20.0–35.6 weeks, compared to the other GAs. The ROC areas under the curves and 95% confidence intervals were: Argentina 0.69 (0.63, 0.74); Zambia 0.72 (0.66, 0.78), India 0.84 (0.80, 0.89), and Pakistan 0.83 (0.78, 0.87). The sensitivity and specificity (and 95% confidence intervals) for identifying pregnancies between 20.0–35.6 weeks, respectively, were: Argentina 87% (82%–92%) and 51% (42%–61%); Zambia 91% (86%–95%) and 50% (40%–60%); India 78% (71%–85%) and 89% (83%–94%); Pakistan 63% (55%–70%) and 94% (89%–99%). Conclusions We observed moderate-good accuracy identifying pregnancies ≤35.6 weeks gestation, with potential usefulness at the community level in low-middle income countries to facilitate the preterm identification and interventions to reduce preterm neonatal mortality. Further research is needed to validate these findings on a population basis

Design, Development, and Testing of BEST4Baby, an mHealth Technology to Support Exclusive Breastfeeding in India: Pilot Study.

Background: Exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) at 6 months of age in most low- and middle-income countries, including India, is surprisingly low. There is a relative lack of mobile health apps that specifically focus on leveraging the use of peer counselors (PCs) to support mothers as a means of increasing EBF practices in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: This study aimed to design, develop, and test the usability of Breastfeeding Education Support Tool for Baby (BEST4Baby), a mobile health app specifically designed to support PCs in providing in-home breastfeeding counseling support to mothers in rural India on optimal breastfeeding practices. Methods: A user-centered design process with an agile development methodology was used. The approach involved stakeholders and mothers who were trained to serve as PCs to guide BEST4Baby\u27s design and development, including the app\u27s content and features. PCs were engaged through focus groups with interactive wireframes. During the 24-month pilot study period, we conducted a feasibility test of the BEST4Baby app with 22 PCs who supported home visits with mothers residing in rural India. The intervention protocol required PCs to provide education and follow mothers using the BEST4Baby app, with 9 scheduled home visits from the late prenatal stage to 6 months post partum. BEST4Baby\u27s usability from the PCs\u27 perspective was assessed using the translated System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: The findings of this study align with best practices in user-centered design (ie, understanding user experience, including context with iterative design with stakeholders) to address EBF barriers. This led to the cultural tailoring and contextual alignment of an evidence-based World Health Organization breastfeeding program with an iterative design and agile development of the BEST4Baby app. A total of 22 PCs tested and rated the BEST4Baby app as highly usable, with a mean SUS score of 85.3 (SD 9.1), placing it over the 95th percentile for SUS scores. The approach translated into a highly usable BEST4Baby app for use by PCs in breastfeeding counseling, which also statistically increased EBF practices. Conclusions: The findings suggest that BEST4Baby was highly usable and accepted by mothers serving as PCs to support other mothers in their EBF practices and led to positive outcomes in the intervention group\u27s EBF rates. The pilot study demonstrated that using the specially designed BEST4Baby app was an important support tool for mothers to serve as PCs during the 9 home visits. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03533725; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03533725

Planned early delivery for late preterm pre-eclampsia in a low- and middle-income setting: a feasibility study

Background: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity globally. Planned delivery between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks may reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes but is yet to be evaluated in a low and middle-income setting. Prior to designing a randomised controlled trial to evaluate this in India and Zambia, we carried out a 6-month feasibility study in order to better understand the proposed trial environment and guide development of our intervention. Methods: We used mixed methods to understand the disease burden and current management of pre-eclampsia at our proposed trial sites and explore the acceptability of the intervention. We undertook a case notes review of women with pre-eclampsia who delivered at the proposed trial sites over a 3-month period, alongside facilitating focus group discussions with women and partners and conducting semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse audit data. A thematic framework analysis was used for qualitative data. Results: Case notes data (n = 326) showed that in our settings, 19.5% (n = 44) of women with pre-eclampsia delivering beyond 34 weeks experienced an adverse outcome. In women delivering between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks, there were similar numbers of antenatal stillbirths [n = 3 (3.3%)] and neonatal deaths [n = 3 (3.4%)]; median infant birthweight was 2.2 kg and 1.9 kg in Zambia and India respectively. Lived experience of women and healthcare providers was an important facilitator to the proposed intervention, highlighting the serious consequences of pre-eclampsia. A preference for spontaneous labour and limited neonatal resources were identified as potential barriers. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a clear need to evaluate the intervention and highlighted several challenges relating to trial context that enabled us to adapt our protocol and design an acceptable intervention. Our study demonstrates the importance of assessing feasibility when developing complex interventions, particularly in a low-resource setting. Additionally, it provides a unique insight into the management of pre-eclampsia at our trial settings and an understanding of the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs underpinning the acceptability of planned early delivery

Planned delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia in low-income and middle-income countries (CRADLE-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality. Evidence regarding interventions in a low-income or middle-income setting is scarce. We aimed to evaluate whether planned delivery between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks’ gestation can reduce maternal mortality and morbidity without increasing perinatal complications in India and Zambia. / Methods: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management in women with pre-eclampsia from 34+ 0 to 36+ 6 weeks’ gestation. Participants were recruited from nine hospitals and referral facilities in India and Zambia and randomly assigned to planned delivery or expectant management in a 1:1 ratio by a secure web-based randomisation facility hosted by MedSciNet. Randomisation was stratified by centre and minimised by parity, single-fetus pregnancy or multi-fetal pregnancy, and gestational age. The primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal mortality or morbidity with a superiority hypothesis. The primary perinatal outcome was a composite of one or more of: stillbirth, neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission of more than 48 h with a non-inferiority hypothesis (margin of 10% difference). Analyses were by intention to treat, with an additional per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, 10672137. The trial is closed to recruitment and all follow-up has been completed. / Findings: Between Dec 19, 2019, and March 31, 2022, 565 women were enrolled. 284 women (282 women and 301 babies analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 281 women (280 women and 300 babies analysed) were allocated to expectant management. The incidence of the primary maternal outcome was not significantly different in the planned delivery group (154 [55%]) compared with the expectant management group (168 [60%]; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·79 to 1·05). The incidence of the primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was non-inferior in the planned delivery group (58 [19%]) compared with the expectant management group (67 [22%]; adjusted risk difference –3·39%, 90% CI –8·67 to 1·90; non-inferiority p<0·0001). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There was a significant reduction in severe maternal hypertension (adjusted RR 0·83, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·99) and stillbirth (0·25, 0·07 to 0·87) associated with planned delivery. There were 12 serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 21 in the expectant management group. / Interpretation: Clinicians can safely offer planned delivery to women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, in a low-income or middle-income country. Planned delivery reduces stillbirth, with no increase in neonatal unit admissions or neonatal morbidity and reduces the risk of severe maternal hypertension. Planned delivery from 34 weeks’ gestation should therefore be considered as an intervention to reduce pre-eclampsia associated mortality and morbidity in these settings. / Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Indian Department of Biotechnology