Association of adverse perinatal outcomes of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with biochemical markers: results of aggregate and individual patient data meta-analyses

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, but the association with the concentration of specific biochemical markers is unclear. We aimed to quantify the adverse perinatal effects of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in women with increased serum bile acid concentrations and determine whether elevated bile acid concentrations were associated with the risk of stillbirth and preterm birth. We did a systematic review by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for studies published from database inception to June 1, 2018, reporting perinatal outcomes for women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy when serum bile acid concentrations were available. Inclusion criteria were studies defining intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy based upon pruritus and elevated serum bile acid concentrations, with or without raised liver aminotransferase concentrations. Eligible studies were case-control, cohort, and population-based studies, and randomised controlled trials, with at least 30 participants, and that reported bile acid concentrations and perinatal outcomes. Studies at potential higher risk of reporter bias were excluded, including case reports, studies not comprising cohorts, or successive cases seen in a unit; we also excluded studies with high risk of bias from groups selected (eg, a subgroup of babies with poor outcomes were explicitly excluded), conference abstracts, and Letters to the Editor without clear peer review. We also included unpublished data from two UK hospitals. We did a random effects meta-analysis to determine risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. Aggregate data for maternal and perinatal outcomes were extracted from case-control studies, and individual patient data (IPD) were requested from study authors for all types of study (as no control group was required for the IPD analysis) to assess associations between biochemical markers and adverse outcomes using logistic and stepwise logistic regression. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017069134. We assessed 109 full-text articles, of which 23 studies were eligible for the aggregate data meta-analysis (5557 intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy cases and 165 136 controls), and 27 provided IPD (5269 intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy cases). Stillbirth occurred in 45 (0·83%) of 4936 intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy cases and 519 (0·32%) of 163 947 control pregnancies (odds ratio [OR] 1·46 [95% CI 0·73-2·89]; I2=59·8%). In singleton pregnancies, stillbirth was associated with maximum total bile acid concentration (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [ROC AUC]) 0·83 [95% CI 0·74-0·92]), but not alanine aminotransferase (ROC AUC 0·46 [0·35-0·57]). For singleton pregnancies, the prevalence of stillbirth was three (0·13%; 95% CI 0·02-0·38) of 2310 intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy cases in women with serum total bile acids of less than 40 μmol/L versus four (0·28%; 0·08-0·72) of 1412 cases with total bile acids of 40-99 μmol/L (hazard ratio [HR] 2·35 [95% CI 0·52-10·50]; p=0·26), and versus 18 (3·44%; 2·05-5·37) of 524 cases for bile acids of 100 μmol/L or more (HR 30·50 [8·83-105·30]; p<0·0001). The risk of stillbirth is increased in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and singleton pregnancies when serum bile acids concentrations are of 100 μmol/L or more. Because most women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy have bile acids below this concentration, they can probably be reassured that the risk of stillbirth is similar to that of pregnant women in the general population, provided repeat bile acid testing is done until delivery. Tommy's, ICP Support, UK National Institute of Health Research, Wellcome Trust, and Genesis Research Trust

Real-time ultrasound to assist during a vaginal breech delivery

: We report a novel application of intrapartum sonography, herein used to assist the internal podalic version and the vaginal delivery of a transverse-lying second twin. Following the vaginal delivery of the first cephalic twin, the internal podalic version was performed under continuous ultrasound vision, leading to the uncomplicated breech delivery of a healthy neonate

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A single-center, real-life experience

Background: An improvement in survival without increasing perioperative morbidity in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer treated with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) after interval debulking surgery (IDS) has been recently demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial. This study was aimed at assessing the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of the use of HIPEC after IDS at a referral cancer center. Methods: Over the study period, 149 IDSs were performed. Patients who had at least International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III disease, with &lt;2.5 mm of residual disease (RD) at the end of surgery and were not participating in clinical trials received HIPEC. Moreover, specific exclusion criteria were considered. These patients were compared with 51 patients with similar clinical characteristics at the same institution and within the same timeframe who did not receive HIPEC. Results: No differences in patient or disease characteristics with the exception of the type of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P = .002) were found between the 2 groups. As for surgical characteristics, significant differences were found in RD after IDS (P = .007) and in the duration of surgery (P &lt; .001), whereas the bowel resection and diversion rates (P = .583 and P = .213, respectively) and the postoperative intensive care unit and hospital stays (P = .567 and P = .727, respectively) were comparable. The times to start adjuvant chemotherapy were also similar (P = .998). Equally, the rates of any grade of both intraoperative complications (P = .189) and early postoperative complications (P = .238) were superimposable. Conclusions: In the authors' experience, the addition of HIPEC to IDS is feasible in 35% for the population. This value might increase with changes in the inclusion/exclusion criteria. HIPEC does not increase perioperative complications and does not affect a patient's recovery or time to start adjuvant chemotherapy. HIPEC should be offered to select patients listed for IDS

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Introduction Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies.Methods We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection—as compared with uninfected pregnant women—were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias.Conclusions This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Introduction: Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies. Methods: We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women. Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection—as compared with uninfected pregnant women—were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12). Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias. Conclusions: This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field