Implementation of foetal fibronectin testing: Admissions, maternal interventions and costs at 1 year

Foetal fibronectin testing (fFN) has a high negative predictive value for preterm delivery, but it has a cost implication. This two-stage prospective study evaluated the real patient costs and clinical impact of introducing the fFN test in women presenting acutely with threatened preterm labour in a tertiary UK obstetric hospital. Introduction of the fFN test for women with threatened preterm labour reduced antenatal admissions and in utero transfers, and reduced steroid treatment and tocolysis, even at 1 year after implementation. The total number of bed days for women with threatened preterm labour who did not deliver during admission fell from 132 (mean 8.8 days) to 25 days (mean 3.6 days). The mean cost of admission per woman before introduction of the fFN test was £1032 (95% CI £880 to £1184); after it was £339 (95% CI £261 to £417). In this small single centre study, the introduction of the test produced a cost saving of £693 per woman (95% CI, £464 to £922) which over 12 months potentially saves £74844 (95% CI £50,112 to £99,576). Further studies are needed to formally evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the fFN test and its impact on clinical decision-making in large populations

Attitudes About Extremely Preterm Birth Among Obstetric and Neonatal Health Care Professionals in England: A Qualitative Study

Importance: Variation in attitudes between health care professionals involved in the counseling of parents facing extremely preterm birth (<24 wk gestational age) may lead to parental confusion and professional misalignment. Objective: To explore the attitudes of health care professionals involved in the counseling of parents facing preterm birth on the treatment of extremely preterm infants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used Q methods to explore the attitudes of neonatal nurses, neonatologists, midwives, and obstetricians involved in the care of extremely preterm infants in 4 UK National Health Service perinatal centers between February 10, 2020, and April 30, 2021. Each participating center had a tertiary level neonatal unit and maternity center. Individuals volunteered participation through choosing to complete the study following a presentation by researchers at each center. A link to the online Q study was emailed to all potential participants by local principal investigators. Participants ranked 53 statements about the treatment of extremely preterm infants in an online quasi-normal distribution grid from strongly agree (6) to strongly disagree (-6). Main Outcomes and Measures: Distinguishing factors per professional group (representing different attitudes) identified through by-person factor analysis of Q sort-data were the primary outcome. Areas of shared agreement (consensus) between professional groups were also explored. Q sorts achieving a factor loading of greater than 0.46 (P < .01) on a given factor were included. Results: In total, 155 health care professionals volunteered participation (128 [82.6%] women; mean [SD] age, 41.6 [10.2] years, mean [SD] experience, 14.1 [9.6] years). Four distinguishing factors were identified between neonatal nurses, 3 for midwives, 5 for neonatologists, and 4 for obstetricians. Analysis of factors within and between professional groups highlighted significant variation in attitudes of professionals toward parental engagement in decision-making, the perceived importance of potential disability in decision-making, and the use of medical technology. Areas of consensus highlighted that most professionals disagreed with statements suggesting disability equates to reduced quality of life. The statement suggesting the parents' decision was considered the most important when considering neonatal resuscitation was placed in the neutral (middistribution) position by all professionals. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study suggest that parental counseling at extremely low gestations is a complex scenario further complicated by the differences in attitudes within and between professional disciplines toward treatment approaches. The development of multidisciplinary training encompassing all professional groups may facilitate a more consistent and individualized approach toward parental engagement in decision-making

Computerised interpretation of fetal heart rate during labour (INFANT): a randomised controlled trial

Background. Continuous electronic fetal heart-rate monitoring is widely used during labour, and computerised interpretation could increase its usefulness. We aimed to establish whether the addition of decision-support software to assist in the interpretation of cardiotocographs affected the number of poor neonatal outcomes. Methods. In this unmasked randomised controlled trial, we recruited women in labour aged 16 years or older having continuous electronic fetal monitoring, with a singleton or twin pregnancy, and at 35 weeks’ gestation or more at 24 maternity units in the UK and Ireland. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to decision support with the INFANT system or no decision support via a computer-generated stratified block randomisation schedule. The primary outcomes were poor neonatal outcome (intrapartum stillbirth or early neonatal death excluding lethal congenital anomalies, or neonatal encephalopathy, admission to the neonatal unit within 24 h for ≥48 h with evidence of feeding difficulties, respiratory illness, or encephalopathy with evidence of compromise at birth), and developmental assessment at age 2 years in a subset of surviving children. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is completed and is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number 98680152. Findings. Between Jan 6, 2010, and Aug 31, 2013, 47062 women were randomly assigned (23515 in the decision-support group and 23547 in the no-decision-support group) and 46042 were analysed (22987 in the decision-support group and 23055 in the no-decision-support group). We noted no difference in the incidence of poor neonatal outcome between the groups—172 (0·7%) babies in the decision-support group compared with 171 (0·7%) babies in the no-decision-support group (adjusted risk ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·82–1·25). At 2 years, no significant differences were noted in terms of developmental assessment. Interpretation. Use of computerised interpretation of cardiotocographs in women who have continuous electronic fetal monitoring in labour does not improve clinical outcomes for mothers or babies

Which method is best for the induction of labour?: A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour. Objective: To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups. Methods: We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012–13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 μg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 μg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed ‘best’. Few studies collected information on women’s views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective. Limitations: There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention

HIV in pregnancy: a case of Pneumocystis (carinii) jiroveci pneumonia.

This review highlights the rising prevalence of HIV in pregnancy both in the developed and developing world. It focuses on the challenges of diagnosis and management of Pneumocystis (carinii) jiroveci pneumonia in an HIV-positive pregnant woman. Public health efforts need to continue addressing testing at the earliest opportunity, the psychosocial issues which impact negatively on the care of HIV-positive individuals and ways to reduce stigmatisation associated with this viral illness

Timing of induction of labour in the prevention of prolonged pregnancy: Systematic review with meta‐analysis

Objective To update the systematic review which informed the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline “Inducing Labour” (NG207), including additional data and analyses, and comparison with a recent individual patient data analysis of 41- versus 42-week induction. Search Strategy Multiple database search (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase) from inception to 10th September 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different induction timing in uncomplicated singleton pregnancies. Data Collection and Analysis One reviewer screened, extracted, analysed, and assessed the quality/certainty of the evidence (using ROB1 and GRADE), with second reviewer verification. Main Results Five week-to-week comparisons, and one overall comparison (induction vs. delayed induction, 20 RCTs, n = 15 725 pregnant women) for assessment of predefined subgroups. Most data were for 41 versus 42 weeks and 39 versus 41 weeks: 10 times as many participants as the other week-to-week comparisons. There was evidence of an effect at 41 versus 42 weeks (five RCTs, n = 5819) in favour of 41-week induction: fewer perinatal deaths and neonatal intensive care unit admissions (low-to-moderate certainty of the evidence); there was no evidence of an effect in either direction for the remaining outcomes (very-low to moderate certainty). There was no evidence of an effect for outcomes reported for: 40 versus 42 weeks (three RCTs, n = 668, very-low to low certainty); 39 versus 42 weeks (three RCTs, n = 1103, very-low to moderate certainty); 39 versus 41 weeks (four RCTs, n = 7101, very-low to low certainty); and 41/42 versus 43/44 weeks (four RCTs, n = 954, very-low to low certainty). Conclusion The evidence supports offering induction at 41 + 0 weeks compared to 42 + 0 weeks to reduce adverse perinatal and obstetric outcomes. Practioners points 1. Evidence supports offering induction at 41 + 0 weeks compared to 42 + 0 weeks to reduce adverse perinatal outcomes in uncomplicated singleton pregnancies. 2. Other week-to-week comparisons require more data for all outcomes. 3. More data is needed for all week-to-week comparisons for women at potentially higher risk for adverse outcomes: black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups, higher body mass index (30+), older (35+ years), and women who conceived using artificial reproductive technology