Family planning decisions for parents of children with a rare genetic condition: a scoping review

Expansion of newborn screening programmes increases the complexity around reproductive choices, both in terms of the increased number of parents faced with making reproductive decisions from the earliest days of their affected child's life, and the number of conditions for which such decisions have to be made. We conducted a scoping review to explore: (i) reproductive decision-making among parents of children with recessive genetic conditions; and, (ii) the involvement of healthcare services in facilitating and supporting those decisions. Systematic search processes involved seven bibliographic databases, citation, and grey literature searches. From an initial total of 311 identified articles, seven met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The extracted data were organised around three themes: factors influencing reproductive decisions taken by parents, how those factors changed over time, and the involvement of healthcare services in supporting and facilitating reproductive decisions. Most studies focused on attitudes towards, and uptake of, pre-natal diagnosis (PND) and termination. None of the studies considered the wider range of reproductive choices facing all parents, including those of children with conditions for whom PND and termination is not available or where good health outcomes make these options less justifiable. The literature provided little insight into the role of healthcare staff in providing family planning support for these parents. There is a need to better understand the support parents need in their decision-making, and who is best placed to provide that support

Prevalence and determinants of unintended pregnancies amongst women attending antenatal clinics in Pakistan

Background: Unintended pregnancies are a global public health concern and contribute significantly to adverse maternal and neonatal health, social and economic outcomes and increase the risks of maternal deaths and neonatal mortality. In countries like Pakistan where data for the unintended pregnancies is scarce, studies are required to estimate its accurate prevalence and predictors using more specific tools such as the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancies (LMUP). Methods: We conducted a hospital based cross sectional survey in two tertiary care hospitals in Pakistan. We used a pre tested structured questionnaire to collect the data on socio-demographic characteristics, reproductive history, awareness and past experience with contraceptives and unintended pregnancies using six item the LMUP. We used Univariate and multivariate analysis to explore the association between unintended pregnancies and predictor variables and presented the association as adjusted odds ratios. We also evaluated the psychometric properties of the Urdu version of the LMUP. Results: Amongst 3010 pregnant women, 1150 (38.2%) pregnancies were reported as unintended. In the multivariate analysis age \u3c 20 years (AOR 3.5 1.1-6.5), being illiterate (AOR 1.9 1.1-3.4), living in a rural setting (1.7 1.2-2.3), having a pregnancy interval of = \u3c 12 months (AOR 1.7 1.4-2.2), having a parity of \u3e2 (AOR 1.4 1.2-1.8), having no knowledge about contraceptive methods (AOR 3.0 1.7-5.4) and never use of contraceptive methods (AOR 2.3 1.4-5.1) remained significantly associated with unintended pregnancy. The Urdu version of the LMUP scale was found to be acceptable, valid and reliable with the Cronbach\u27s alpha of 0.85. Conclusions: This study explores a high prevalence of unintended pregnancies and important factors especially those related to family planning. Integrated national family program that provides contraceptive services especially the modern methods to women during pre-conception and post-partum would be beneficial in averting unintended pregnancies and their related adverse outcomes in Pakistan

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

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. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

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

Unplanned pregnancy and contraceptive use in Hull and East Yorkshire

Objective: This study has two aims. The first is to assess the proportion of unplanned pregnancies among women attending antenatal clinics (ANCs) and those undergoing induced abortion (IA). The second is to assess both their previous contraceptive use and contraceptive intention, with particular focus on the use or consideration of any long-acting reversible contraceptives in Hull and East Riding in order to inform service redesign. Study design: Consecutive women attending their first ANC appointment and women attending a gynecology clinic undergoing IA were asked to complete a two-page questionnaire that contained a validated pregnancy intendedness questionnaire [the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP)] and questions to establish contraceptive use and access prior to this index pregnancy. Results: The overall response rate was 69%. We received 648 evaluable questionnaires for women undergoing IA. Of these pregnancies, 75.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 72.3%-79.0%] were unplanned (LMUP, score 0-3). We received 1001 evaluable questionnaires from women booking at ANCs. Of these pregnancies, 5.5% (95% CI, 4.2%-7.0%) were unplanned. Among those with unplanned pregnancies who were not using contraception, 31% reported that they were unable to obtain the method they wanted. Among those using a method immediately prior to the index unplanned pregnancy, 33% stated that it was not the method they wanted; of these, 75% would have preferred sterilization, the implant, injectable or intrauterine contraceptive. Conclusion: Unplanned pregnancies in this population are common among women undergoing IA but are uncommon among women attending an ANC. About a third of women not using contraception reported that they were unable to obtain the method they wanted, and about a third of women using contraception stated that they were not using the method they would have preferred

Unplanned pregnancy and contraceptive use in Hull and East Yorkshire

OBJECTIVE: This study has two aims. The first is to assess the proportion of unplanned pregnancies among women attending antenatal clinics and those undergoing induced abortion (IA). The second is to assess both their previous contraceptive use and contraceptive intention, with particular focus on the use or consideration of any long acting reversible contraceptives in Hull and East Riding in order to inform service redesign. STUDY DESIGN: Consecutive women attending their first antenatal clinic (ANC) appointment and women attending a gynaecology clinic undergoing induced abortion (IA) were asked to complete a 2-page questionnaire that contained a validated pregnancy intendedness questionnaire (the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP)) and questions to establish contraceptive use and access prior to this index pregnancy. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 69%. We received 648 evaluable questionnaires for women undergoing IA. Of these pregnancies, 75.8% (95% CI 72.3%-79.0%) were unplanned (LMUP score 0-3). We received 1001 evaluable questionnaires from women booking at antenatal clinics. Of these pregnancies, 5.5% (95% CI 4.2%-7.0%) were unplanned. Among those with unplanned pregnancies who were not using contraception 31% reported that they were unable to obtain the method they wanted. Among those using a method immediately prior to the index unplanned pregnancy, 33% stated it was not the method they wanted; of these 75% would have preferred sterilization, the implant, injectable, or intrauterine contraceptive. CONCLUSION: Unplanned pregnancies in this population are common among women undergoing IA but are uncommon among women attending an ANC. About a third of women not using contraception reported that they were unable to obtain the method they wanted, and about a third of women using contraception stated that they were not using the method they would have preferred. IMPLICATIONS: Opportunities to prevent unplanned pregnancies are missed when staff in primary and secondary care looking after women do not knowledgeably inform, discuss and offer contraception in a timely manner, particularly the most effective long acting reversible contraceptive methods. Services should be deliverable where women are: this includes within pregnancy care services. Seeking patient experience is an essential component of service re-design