Effects of race and ethnicity on perinatal outcomes in high-income and upper-middle-income countries:an individual participant data meta-analysis of 2 198 655 pregnancies

Background: Existing evidence on the effects of race and ethnicity on pregnancy outcomes is restricted to individual studies done within specific countries and health systems. We aimed to assess the impact of race and ethnicity on perinatal outcomes in high-income and upper-middle-income countries, and to ascertain whether the magnitude of disparities, if any, varied across geographical regions. Methods: For this individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis we used data from the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) Network of studies on pregnancy complications; the full dataset comprised 94 studies, 53 countries, and 4 539 640 pregnancies. We included studies that reported perinatal outcomes (neonatal death, stillbirth, preterm birth, and small-for-gestational-age babies) in at least two racial or ethnic groups (White, Black, south Asian, Hispanic, or other). For our two-step random-effects IPD meta-analysis, we did multiple imputations for confounder variables (maternal age, BMI, parity, and level of maternal education) selected with a directed acyclic graph. The primary outcomes were neonatal mortality and stillbirth. Secondary outcomes were preterm birth and a small-for-gestational-age baby. We estimated the association of race and ethnicity with perinatal outcomes using a multivariate logistic regression model and reported this association with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. We also did a subgroup analysis of studies by geographical region. Findings: 51 studies from 20 high-income and upper-middle-income countries, comprising 2 198 655 pregnancies, were eligible for inclusion in this IPD meta-analysis. Neonatal death was twice as likely in babies born to Black women than in babies born to White women (OR 2·00, 95% CI 1·44–2·78), as was stillbirth (2·16, 1·46–3·19), and babies born to Black women were at increased risk of preterm birth (1·65, 1·46–1·88) and being small for gestational age (1·39, 1·13–1·72). Babies of women categorised as Hispanic had a three-times increased risk of neonatal death (OR 3·34, 95% CI 2·77–4·02) than did those born to White women, and those born to south Asian women were at increased risk of preterm birth (OR 1·26, 95% CI 1·07–1·48) and being small for gestational age (1·61, 1·32–1·95). The effects of race and ethnicity on preterm birth and small-for-gestational-age babies did not vary across regions. Interpretation: Globally, among underserved groups, babies born to Black women had consistently poorer perinatal outcomes than White women after adjusting for maternal characteristics, although the risks varied for other groups. The effects of race and ethnicity on adverse perinatal outcomes did not vary by region. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research, Wellbeing of Women.</p

Differential effects of diet and physical activity interventions in pregnancy to prevent gestational diabetes mellitus and reduce gestational weight gain by level of maternal adiposity: a protocol for an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Women and their infants are at increased risk of complications if gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) or excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) occurs in pregnancy. Weight management interventions in pregnancy, consisting of diet and physical activity components are targeted based on maternal body mass index (BMI). However, the relative effectiveness of interventions targeted based on alternative measures of adiposity to BMI is unclear. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis aims to explore whether interventions are more effective at preventing GDM and reducing GWG in women according to their level of adiposity. METHODS: The International Weight Management in Pregnancy Collaborative Network has a living database of IPD from randomised trials of diet and/or physical activity interventions in pregnancy. This IPD meta-analysis will use IPD from trials identified from systematic literature searches up until March 2021, where maternal adiposity measures (eg, waist circumference) were collected prior to 20 weeks' gestation. A two-stage random effects IPD meta-analysis approach will be taken for each outcome (GDM and GWG) to understand the effect of early pregnancy adiposity measures on the effect of weight management interventions for GDM prevention and GWG reduction. Summary intervention effects with 95% CIs) will be derived along with treatment covariate interactions. Between-study heterogeneity will be summarised by I2 and tau2 statistics. Potential sources of bias will be evaluated, and the nature of any missing data will be explored and appropriate imputation methods adopted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The study is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021282036). Results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021282036

Barriers and facilitators to healthcare practitioners providing care for pregnant women with epilepsy : A systematic review and narrative synthesis

We acknowledge the contribution of Helen Ryba, subject specialist librarian who contributed to our search strategy and Joy Orpin, research fellow, who contributed to the extraction of survey data. Registration of the review Prospero CRD42023450252Peer reviewe

Barriers and facilitators to healthcare practitioners providing care for pregnant women with epilepsy:A systematic review and narrative synthesis

Purpose: Despite published guidelines for managing pregnant women with epilepsy, their care is sub-optimal. We undertook a review to establish the barriers and facilitators to healthcare practitioners providing optimal care. Methods: A systematic search of ASSIA, CINAHL complete, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews between 2013 and 2023 and narrative synthesis. Results: From 580 potential papers, we included 16 studies. There were a total of 2045 participants across all studies, who consisted mostly of obstetricians/gynaecologists (n=447) and neurologists (n=765) but also included midwives/nurses (n=70), general practitioners (n=107) and pharmacists (n=156) with the others being mixed groups of physicians, advanced practitioners or unspecified. Thirteen studies were questionnaire surveys and three used qualitative methods. Nine tested or asked about practitioners’ knowledge. Although knowledge was generally adequate, practitioners found it difficult to apply in challenging or complex cases. Other barriers included challenges to joint working (between primary and secondary care and between different specialist groups), communication with women and environmental factors such as lack of time and guideline availability. Practitioners expressed the importance of providing good care for pregnant women with epilepsy. Conclusion: More qualitative studies are needed to understand the challenges and needs of practitioners caring for pregnant women with epilepsy. To address this, based on studies available we suggest joint (neurology and obstetrics) clinics, the availability and dissemination of guidelines, a risk evaluation tool and guidelines in the content and nature of communication with women

Development, validation and clinical utility of a risk prediction model for adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes:The PeRSonal GDM model

BACKGROUND: The ability to calculate the absolute risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes for an individual woman with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) would allow preventative and therapeutic interventions to be delivered to women at high-risk, sparing women at low-risk from unnecessary care. We aimed to develop, validate and evaluate the clinical utility of a prediction model for adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with GDM. METHODS: A prediction model development and validation study was conducted on data from a observational cohort. Participants included all women with GDM from three metropolitan tertiary teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. The development cohort comprised those who delivered between 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 and the validation cohort those who delivered between 1 July 2018 to 31 December 2018. The main outcome was a composite of critically important maternal and perinatal complications (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age neonate, neonatal hypoglycaemia requiring intravenous therapy, shoulder dystocia, perinatal death, neonatal bone fracture and nerve palsy). Model performance was measured in terms of discrimination and calibration and clinical utility evaluated using decision curve analysis. FINDINGS: The final PeRSonal (Prediction for Risk Stratified care for women with GDM) model included body mass index, maternal age, fasting and 1-hour glucose values (75-g oral glucose tolerance test), gestational age at GDM diagnosis, Southern and Central Asian ethnicity, East Asian ethnicity, nulliparity, past delivery of an large-for-gestational age neonate, past pre-eclampsia, GWG until GDM diagnosis, and family history of diabetes. The composite adverse pregnancy outcome occurred in 27% (476/1747) of women in the development (1747 women) and in 26% (244/955) in the validation (955 women) cohorts. The model showed excellent calibration with slope of 0.99 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.23) and acceptable discrimination (c-statistic 0.68; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.72) when temporally validated. Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the model was useful across a range of predicted probability thresholds between 0.15 and 0.85 for adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to the alternatives of managing all women with GDM as if they will or will not have an adverse pregnancy outcome. INTERPRETATION: The PeRSonal GDM model comprising of routinely available clinical data shows compelling performance, is transportable across time, and has clinical utility across a range of predicted probabilities. Further external validation of the model to a more disparate population is now needed to assess the generalisability to different centres, community based care and low resource settings, other healthcare systems and to different GDM diagnostic criteria. FUNDING: This work is supported by the Mothers and Gestational Diabetes in Australia 2 NHMRC funded project #1170847

Systematic review of patient-specific pre-operative predictors of pain improvement to endometriosis surgery

BACKGROUND: Up to 28% of endometriosis patients do not get pain relief from therapeutic laparoscopy but this subgroup is not defined. OBJECTIVES: To identify any prognostic patient-specific factors (such as but not limited to patients’ type or location of endometriosis, sociodemographics and lifestyle) associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in post-surgical pain response to operative laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched from inception to 19 May 2020 without language restrictions. Backward and forward citation tracking was used. SELECTION CRITERIA, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Cohort studies reporting prognostic factors, along with scores for domains of pain associated with endometriosis before and after surgery, were included. Studies that compared surgeries, or laboratory tests, or outcomes without stratification were excluded. Results were synthesised but variation in study designs and inconsistency of outcome reporting precluded us from doing a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies were included. Quality assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale graded three studies as high, one as moderate and one as having a low risk of bias. Four of five included studies separately reported that a relationship exists between more severe endometriosis and stronger pain relief from laparoscopic surgery. CONCLUSION: Currently, there are few studies of appropriate quality to answer the research question. We recommend future studies report core outcome sets to enable meta-analysis. LAY SUMMARY: Endometriosis is a painful condition caused by displaced cells from the lining of the womb, causing inflammation and scarring inside the body. It affects 6–10% of women and there is no permanent cure. Medical and laparoscopic surgical treatments are available, but about 28% of patients do not get the hoped-for pain relief after surgery. Currently, there is no way of predicting who gets better and who does not. We systematically searched the world literature to establish who may get better, in order to improve counselling when women choose treatment options. We identified five studies of variable quality showing: More complex disease (in specialist hands) responds better to surgery than less, but more studies needed

Study of How Adiposity in Pregnancy has an Effect on outcomeS (SHAPES):protocol for a prospective cohort study

Introduction Maternal obesity increases the risk of multiple maternal and infant pregnancy complications, such as gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. Current UK guidelines use body mass index (BMI) to identify which women require additional care due to increased risk of complications. However, BMI may not accurately predict which women will develop complications during pregnancy as it does not determine amount and distribution of adipose tissue. Some adiposity measures (eg, waist circumference, ultrasound measures of abdominal visceral fat) can better identify where body fat is stored, which may be useful in predicting those women who need additional care.Methods and analysis This prospective cohort study (SHAPES, Study of How Adiposity in Pregnancy has an Effect on outcomeS) aims to evaluate the prognostic performance of adiposity measures (either alone or in combination with other adiposity, sociodemographic or clinical measures) to estimate risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Pregnant women (n=1400) will be recruited at their first trimester ultrasound scan (11+2–14+1 weeks’) at Newcastle upon Tyne National Health Service Foundation Trust, UK. Early pregnancy adiposity measures and clinical and sociodemographic data will be collected. Routine data on maternal and infant pregnancy outcomes will be collected from routine hospital records. Regression methods will be used to compare the different adiposity measures with BMI in terms of their ability to predict pregnancy complications. If no individual measure performs better than BMI, multivariable models will be developed and evaluated to identify the most parsimonious model. The apparent performance of the developed model will be summarised using calibration, discrimination and internal validation analyses.Ethics and dissemination Ethical favourable opinion has been obtained from the North East: Newcastle &amp; North Tyneside 1 Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 22/NE/0035). All participants provide informed consent to take part in SHAPES. Planned dissemination includes peer-reviewed publications and additional dissemination appropriate to target audiences, including policy briefs for policymakers, media/social-media coverage for public and conferences for researchTrial registration number ISRCTN82185177

Vulnerabilities and reparative strategies during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period:moving from rhetoric to action

Maternal outcomes throughout pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period are influenced by interlinked and interdependent vulnerabilities. A comprehensive understanding of how various threats and barriers affect maternal and perinatal health is critical to plan, evaluate and improve maternal health programmes. This paper builds on the introductory paper of the Series on the determinants of maternal health by assessing vulnerabilities during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period. We synthesise and present the concept of vulnerability in pregnancy and childbirth, and map vulnerability attributes and their dynamic influence on maternal outcomes in early and late pregnancy and during childbirth and the postnatal period, with a particular focus on low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We summarise existing literature and present the evidence on the effects of various reparative strategies to improve pregnancy and childbirth outcomes. Lastly, we discuss the implications of the identified vulnerability attributes and reparative strategies for the efforts of policymakers, healthcare professionals, and researchers working towards improving outcomes for women and birthing people in LMICs