Study protocol for a comparative effectiveness trial of two models of perinatal integrated psychosocial assessment: The PIPA project

Background: Studies examining psychosocial and depression assessment programs in maternity settings have not adequately considered the context in which psychosocial assessment occurs or how broader components of integrated care, including clinician decision-making aids, may optimise program delivery and its cost-effectiveness. There is also limited evidence relating to the diagnostic accuracy of symptom-based screening measures used in this context. The Perinatal Integrated Psychosocial Assessment (PIPA) Project was developed to address these knowledge gaps. The primary aims of the PIPA Project are to examine the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of two alternative models of integrated psychosocial care during pregnancy: \u27care as usual\u27 (the SAFE START model) and an alternative model (the PIPA model). The acceptability and perceived benefit of each model of care from the perspective of both pregnant women and their healthcare providers will also be assessed. Our secondary aim is to examine the psychometric properties of a number of symptom-based screening tools for depression and anxiety when used in pregnancy. Methods: This is a comparative-effectiveness study comparing \u27care as usual\u27 to an alternative model sequentially over two 12-month periods. Data will be collected from women at Time 1 (initial antenatal psychosocial assessment), Time 2 (2-weeks after Time 1) and from clinicians at Time 3 for each condition. Primary aims will be evaluated using a between-groups design, and the secondary aim using a within group design. Discussion: The PIPA Project will provide evidence relating to the clinical- and cost- effectiveness of psychosocial assessment integrated with electronic clinician decision making prompts, and referral options that are tailored to the woman\u27s psychosocial risk, in the maternity care setting. It will also address research recommendations from the Australian (2011) and NICE (2015) Clinical Practice Guidelines

Declining global fertility rates and the implications for family planning and family building: an IFFS consensus document based on a narrative review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Family-planning policies have focused on contraceptive approaches to avoid unintended pregnancies, postpone, or terminate pregnancies and mitigate population growth. These policies have contributed to significantly slowing world population growth. Presently, half the countries worldwide exhibit a fertility rate below replacement level. Not including the effects of migration, many countries are predicted to have a population decline of >50% from 2017 to 2100, causing demographic changes with profound societal implications. Policies that optimize chances to have a child when desired increase fertility rates and are gaining interest as a family-building method. Increasingly, countries have implemented child-friendly policies (mainly financial incentives in addition to public funding of fertility treatment in a limited number of countries) to mitigate decreasing national populations. However, the extent of public spending on child benefits varies greatly from country to country. To our knowledge, this International Federation of Fertility Societies (IFFS) consensus document represents the first attempt to describe major disparities in access to fertility care in the context of the global trend of decreasing growth in the world population, based on a narrative review of the existing literature. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The concept of family building, the process by which individuals or couples create or expand their families, has been largely ignored in family-planning paradigms. Family building encompasses various methods and options for individuals or couples who wish to have children. It can involve biological means, such as natural conception, as well as ART, surrogacy, adoption, and foster care. Family-building acknowledges the diverse ways in which individuals or couples can create their desired family and reflects the understanding that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to building a family. Developing education programs for young adults to increase family-building awareness and prevent infertility is urgently needed. Recommendations are provided and important knowledge gaps identified to provide professionals, the public, and policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of the role of child-friendly policies. SEARCH METHODS: A narrative review of the existing literature was performed by invited global leaders who themselves significantly contributed to this research field. Each section of the review was prepared by two to three experts, each of whom searched the published literature (PubMed) for peer reviewed full papers and reviews. Sections were discussed monthly by all authors and quarterly by the review board. The final document was prepared following discussions among all team members during a hybrid invitational meeting where full consensus was reached. OUTCOMES: Major advances in fertility care have dramatically improved family-building opportunities since the 1990s. Although up to 10% of all children are born as a result of fertility care in some wealthy countries, there is great variation in access to care. The high cost to patients of infertility treatment renders it unaffordable for most. Preliminary studies point to the increasing contribution of fertility care to the global population and the associated economic benefits for society. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Fertility care has rarely been discussed in the context of a rapid decrease in world population growth. Soon, most countries will have an average number of children per woman far below the replacement level. While this may have a beneficial impact on the environment, underpopulation is of great concern in many countries. Although governments have implemented child-friendly policies, distinct discrepancies in access to fertility care remain

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research : An international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Perinatal mortality following assisted reproductive technology treatment in Australia and New Zealand, a public health approach for international reporting of perinatal mortality

BACKGROUND There is a need to have uniformed reporting of perinatal mortality for births following assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment to enable international comparison and benchmarking of ART practice. METHODS The Australian and New Zealand Assisted Reproduction Database was used in this study. Births of ≥ 20 weeks gestation and/or ≥ 400 grams of birth weight following embryos transfer cycles in Australia and New Zealand during the period 2004 to 2008 were included. Differences in the mortality rates by different perinatal periods from a gestational age cutoff of ≥ 20, ≥ 22, ≥ 24, or ≥ 28 weeks (wks) to a neonatal period cutoff of either < 7 or < 28 days after birth were assessed. Crude and specific (number of embryos transferred and plurality) rates of perinatal mortality were calculated for selected gestational and neonatal periods. RESULTS When the perinatal period is defined as ≥ 20 wks gestation to < 28 days after birth, the perinatal mortality rate (PMR) was 16.1 per 1000 births (n = 630). A progressive contraction of the gestational age groups resulted in marked reductions in the PMR for deaths at < 28 days (22 wks 11.0; 24 wks 7.7; 28 wks 5.6); and similarly for deaths at < 7 days (20 wks 15.6, 22 wks 10.5; 24 wks 7.3; 28 wks 5.3). In contrast, a contraction of the perinatal period from < 28 to < 7 days after birth only marginally reduced the PMR from 16.2 to 15.6 per 1000 births which was consistent across all gestational ages. The PMR for single embryo transfer (SET) births (≥ 20 weeks gestation to < 7 days post-birth) was significantly lower (12.8 per 1000 SET births) compared to double embryo transfer (DET) births (PMR 18.3 per 1000 DET births; p < 0.001, Fisher’s Exact Test). Similarly, the PMR for SET births (≥ 22 weeks gestation to < 7 days post-birth) was significantly lower (8.8 per 1000 SET births, p < 0.001, Fisher’s Exact Test) when compared to DET births (12.2 per 1000 DET births). The highest PMR (50.5 per 1000 SET births, 95% CI 36.5-64.5) was for twins following SET births (≥ 20 weeks gestation to < 7 days post-birth) compared to twins following DET (23.9 per 1000 DET births, 95% CI 20.8-27.1). CONCLUSION Reporting of perinatal mortality of ART births is an essential component of quality ART practice. This should include measures that monitor the impact on perinatal mortality of multiple embryo transfer. We recommend that reporting of perinatal deaths following ART treatment, should be stratified for three gestation-specific perinatal periods of ≥ 20, ≥ 22 and ≥ 28 completed weeks to < 7 days post-birth; and include plurality specific rates by SET and DET. This would provide a valuable international evidence-base of PMR for use in evaluating ART policy, practice and new research.Elizabeth A Sullivan, Yueping A Wang, Robert J Norman, Georgina M Chambers, Abrar Ahmad Chughtai and Cynthia M Farquha

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Maternal, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes following IVF pregnancies: evidence check

This review examined the evidence for risks associated with assisted reproductive technology (ART). The published research does not currently allow for the estimation of the net effect of ART on pregnancy, maternal and neonatal outcomes. The best available evidence indicates that a pregnancy after ART is often characterised by an increased risk of poorer health outcomes both for the foetus and the mothers. However these findings are confounded by multiple factors

The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: An economic perspective

Despite the growing use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) worldwide, there is only a limited understanding of the economics of ART to inform policy about effective, safe and equitable financing of ART treatment. A review was undertaken of key studies regarding the costs and consequences of ART treatment, specifically examining the direct and indirect costs of treatment, economic drivers of utilization and clinical practice and broader economic consequences of ART-conceived children. The direct costs of ART treatment vary substantially between countries, with the USA standing out as the most expensive. The direct costs generally reflect the costliness of the underlying healthcare system. If unsubsidized, direct costs represent a significant economic burden to patients. The level of affordability of ART treatment is an important driver of utilization, treatment choices, embryo transfer practices and ultimately multiple birth rates. The costs associated with caring for multiple-birth ART infants and their mothers are substantial, reflecting the underlying morbidity associated with such pregnancies. Investment analysis of ART treatment and ART-conceived children indicates that appropriate funding of ART services appears to represent sound fiscal policy. The complex interaction between the cost of ART treatment and how treatments are subsidized in different healthcare settings and for different patient groups has far-reaching consequences for ART utilization, clinical practice and infant outcomes. A greater understanding of the economics of ART is needed to inform policy decisions and to ensure the best possible outcomes from ART treatment