Association between miscarriage and cardiovascular disease in a Scottish cohort

Funding This work was supported by a grant from the ‘Merel Foundation’, the Netherlands. The AMND receives support from the University of Aberdeen.Peer reviewedPostprin

Severe COVID-19 in pregnancy is almost exclusively limited to unvaccinated women - time for policies to change Comment

Non peer reviewe

Public attitudes towards pricing policies to change health-related behaviours: a UK focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports the use of pricing interventions in achieving healthier behaviour at population level. The public acceptability of this strategy continues to be debated throughout Europe, Australasia and USA. We examined public attitudes towards, and beliefs about the acceptability of pricing policies to change health-related behaviours in the UK. The study explores what underlies ideas of acceptability, and in particular those values and beliefs that potentially compete with the evidence presented by policy-makers. METHODS: Twelve focus group discussions were held in the London area using a common protocol with visual and textual stimuli. Over 300,000 words of verbatim transcript were inductively coded and analyzed, and themes extracted using a constant comparative method. RESULTS: Attitudes towards pricing policies to change three behaviours (smoking, and excessive consumption of alcohol and food) to improve health outcomes, were unfavourable and acceptability was low. Three sets of beliefs appeared to underpin these attitudes: (i) pricing makes no difference to behaviour; (ii) government raises prices to generate income, not to achieve healthier behaviour and (iii) government is not trustworthy. These beliefs were evident in discussions of all types of health-related behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The low acceptability of pricing interventions to achieve healthier behaviours in populations was linked among these responders to a set of beliefs indicating low trust in government. Acceptability might be increased if evidence regarding effectiveness came from trusted sources seen as independent of government and was supported by public involvement and hypothecated taxation.The study was funded by the UK Department of Health Policy Research Programme (Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health [PR-UN-0409-10109]). The Department of Health had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation. The research was conducted independently of the funders, and the views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health in England.This is the final version of the article. It was first available from Oxford University Press at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv07

Pregnancy in Advanced Kidney Disease:Clinical Practice Considerations on a Challenging Combination

Background:Thanks to the advances in care, pregnancy is now attainable for the majority of young female CKD patients, although it is still a high-risk endeavor. Clinical decision-making in these cases is impacted by a myriad of factors, making (pre)pregnancy counseling a complex process. The complexities, further impacted by limited data and unknown risks regarding outcome, can cause discussions when deciding on the best care for a specific patient. Objectives:In this article, we provide an overview of the considerations and dilemmas we encounter in preconception counseling and offer our perspective on how to deal with them in daily clinical practice. Methods:The main topics we discuss in our counseling are (1) the high risk of pregnancy complications, (2) the risk of permanent CKD deterioration due to pregnancy and subsequent decreased life expectancy, (3) appropriate changes in renal medication, and (4) assisted reproduction, genetic testing, and prenatal or preimplantation genetic diagnostics. Results and Conclusions:In our clinic, we openly address moral dilemmas arising in clinical practice in pregnancy and CKD, both within the physician team and with the patient. We do this by ensuring an interpretive physician-patient interaction and shared decision-making, deliberating in a multidisciplinary setting and, if needed, with input from an expert committee

Regional differences in severe postpartum hemorrhage: A nationwide comparative study of 1.6 million deliveries

Background: The incidence of severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is increasing. Regional variation may be attributed to variation in provision of care, and as such contribute to this increasing incidence. We assessed reasons for regional variation in severe PPH in the Netherlands. Methods: We used the Netherlands Perinatal Registry and the Dutch Maternal Mortality Committee to study severe PPH incidences (defined as blood loss ≥ 1000 mL) across both regions and neighborhoods of cities among all deliveries between 2000 and 2008. We first calculated crude incidences. We then used logistic multilevel regression analyses, with hospital or midwife practice as second level to explore further reasons for the regional variation. Results: We analyzed 1599867 deliveries in which the incidence of severe PPH was 4.5%. Crude incidences of severe PPH varied with factor three between regions while between neighborhoods variation was even larger. We could not explain regional variation by maternal characteristics (age, parity, ethnicity, socioeconomic status), pregnancy characteristics (singleton, gestational age, birth weight, pre-eclampsia, perinatal death), medical interventions (induction of labor, mode of delivery, perineal laceration, placental removal) and health care setting. Conclusions: In a nationwide study in The Netherlands, we observed wide practice variation in PPH. This variation could not be explained by maternal characteristics, pregnancy characteristics, medical interventions or health care setting. Regional variation is either unavoidable or subsequent to regional variation of a yet unregistered variable

Evolution of National Guidelines on Medicines Used to Treat COVID-19 in Pregnancy in 2020-2022: A Scoping Review.

The lack of inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of medicines to treat COVID-19 has made it difficult to establish evidence-based treatment guidelines for pregnant women. Our aim was to provide a review of the evolution and updates of the national guidelines on medicines used in pregnant women with COVID-19 published by the obstetrician and gynecologists' societies in thirteen countries in 2020-2022. Based on the results of the RECOVERY (Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial, the national societies successively recommended against prescribing hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin. Guidelines for remdesivir differed completely between countries, from compassionate or conditional use to recommendation against. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was authorized in Australia and the UK only in research settings and was no longer recommended in the UK at the end of 2022. After initial reluctance to use corticosteroids, the results of the RECOVERY trial have enabled the recommendation of dexamethasone in case of severe COVID-19 since mid-2020. Some societies recommended prescribing tocilizumab to pregnant patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation from June 2021. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies were authorized at the end of 2021 with conditional use in some countries, and then no longer recommended in Belgium and the USA at the end of 2022. The gradual convergence of the recommendations, although delayed compared to the general population, highlights the importance of the inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials and of international collaboration to improve the pharmacological treatment of pregnant women with COVID-19

Pregnant women's willingness to participate in a randomized trial comparing induction of labor at 39 weeks versus expectant management: A survey in the Netherlands

IntroductionA randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the United States, the ARRIVE trial, has indicated that induction of labor (IOL) in low-risk nulliparous women with a gestational age (GA) of 39 weeks compared to expectant management (EM) resulted in a significant lower rate of cesarean deliveries. The Dutch maternity care system is different compared to the United States with, among other factors, an overall significantly lower percentage of caesarean sections (CS). To investigate whether IOL has a favorable outcome in the Dutch maternity care system, a new trial is advised. In this questionnaire-based study we aim to evaluate whether Dutch low-risk pregnant women would be willing to participate in an RCT comparing IOL at 39 weeks to EM. Materials and methodsWe conducted an online survey in 2020 in the Netherlands. Respondent recruitment took place both in outpatient clinics at hospitals and midwife practices and via social media. Inclusion criteria were pregnant women with singleton gestation, GA ≤ 39 weeks, age 18 years or older and residency in the Netherlands. Exclusion criteria were multiple gestation, a history of a CS, planned IOL or CS in current pregnancy and GA > 39 weeks. A subgroup was formed of low risk (receiving primary care) nulliparous women with a gestational age between 34 and 39 weeks, comparable with the ARRIVE trial. ResultsThree hundred eighty respondents participated. Of all respondents (nulli- and multiparous), 47 (12.4%) would be willing to participate in the hypothetical RCT and 70 (18.4%) might be willing to participate. Amongst the 70 women in the subgroup 11 women (15.7%) would be willing to participate and 17 (24.3%) might be willing to participate. Discussion and conclusionCalculating sample size in a country with a low CS rate, in relation to 69.2% of women are not willing to participate in an RCT comparing IOL at 39 weeks with EM, would require >18.000 women to be counselled for participation. We believe such a study is a challenge in the Netherlands

COVID-19-related medicine utilization study in pregnancy: The COVI-PREG cohort

AIM The objective of this study was to describe the use of COVID-19-related medicines during pregnancy and their evolution between the early/late periods of the pandemic. METHODS Pregnant women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from March 2020 to July 2021 were included using the COVI-PREG registry. Exposure to the following COVID-19-related medicines was recorded: antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, anti-interleukin-6 and immunoglobulins. We described the prevalence of medicines used, by trimester of pregnancy, maternal COVID-19 severity level and early/late period of the pandemic (before and after 1 July 2020). FINDINGS We included 1964 pregnant patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Overall, 10.4% (205/1964) received at least one COVID-19-related medicine including antibiotics (8.6%; 169/1694), corticosteroids (3.2%; 62/1964), antivirals (2.0%; 39/1964), hydroxychloroquine (1.4%; 27/1964) and anti-interleukin-6 (0.3%; 5/1964). The use of at least one COVID-19-related medicine was 3.1% (12/381) in asymptomatic individuals, 4.2% (52/1233) in outpatients, 19.7% (46/233) in inpatients without oxygen, 72.1% (44/61) in those requiring standard oxygen, 95.7% (22/23) in those requiring high flow oxygen, 96.2% (25/26) in patients who required intubation and 57.1% (4/7) among patients who died. The proportion who received medicines to treat COVID-19 was higher before than after July 2020 (16.7% vs. 7.7%). Antibiotics, antivirals and hydroxychloroquine had lower rates of use during the late period. CONCLUSION Medicine use in pregnancy increased with disease severity. The trend towards increased use of corticosteroids seems to be aligned with changing guidelines. Evidence is still needed regarding the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19-related medicines in pregnancy

An economic analysis of patient controlled remifentanil and epidural analgesia as pain relief in labour (RAVEL trial) : A randomised controlled trial.

Data Availability: The original full data set included possible identifying information (birthdates and patient initials). A edited dataset without these variables is uploaded with this submission. For access to the full and original data set including birthdates and initials Liv Freeman or Johanna Middeldorp can be contacted. Access to the original case report form can also be requested. Funding: Financial support for this trial was provided by ZonMW (Dutch Organization for Health Care Research and Development), the Hague, the Netherlands, project number 80-82310-97-11039. www.zonmw.nl. The grant applicant was JM, the funding was transfered to the Leiden University Medical Center. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewe

Confidential enquiry into maternal deaths in the Netherlands, 2006-2018

Introduction To calculate the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) for 2006-2018 in the Netherlands and compare this with 1993-2005, and to describe women's characteristics, causes of death and improvable factors. Material and Methods We performed a nationwide, cohort study of all maternal deaths between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2018 reported to the Audit Committee Maternal Mortality and Morbidity. Main outcome measures were the national MMR and causes of death. Results Overall MMR was 6.2 per 100 000 live births, a decrease from 12.1 in 1993-2005 (risk ratio [RR] 0.5). Women with a non-western ethnic background had an increased MMR compared with Dutch women (MMR 6.5 vs. 5.0, RR 1.3). The MMR was increased among women with a background from Surinam/Dutch Antilles (MMR 14.7, RR 2.9). Half of all women had an uncomplicated medical history (79/161, 49.1%). Of 171 pregnancy-related deaths within 1 year postpartum, 102 (60%) had a direct and 69 (40%) an indirect cause of death. Leading causes within 42 days postpartum were cardiac disease (n = 21, 14.9%), hypertensive disorders (n = 20, 14.2%) and thrombosis (n = 19, 13.5%). Up to 1 year postpartum, the most common cause of death was cardiac disease (n = 32, 18.7%). Improvable care factors were identified in 76 (47.5%) of all deaths. Conclusions Maternal mortality halved in 2006-2018 compared with 1993-2005. Cardiac disease became the main cause. In almost half of all deaths, improvable factors were identified and women with a background from Surinam/Dutch Antilles had a threefold increased risk of death compared with Dutch women without a background of migration