Associations between neighbourhood deprivation, ethnicity and maternal health outcomes in England: a nationwide cohort study using routinely collected healthcare data

Background: In the United Kingdom, pregnant women who live in the most deprived areas have two times the risk of dying than those who live in the least deprived areas. There are even greater disparities between women from different ethnic groups. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of area-based deprivation and ethnicity in the increased risk of severe maternal morbidity (SMM), in primiparous women in England. Methods: A retrospective nationwide population study was conducted using English National Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care database. All primiparous women were included if they gave birth in an National Healthcare Service (NHS) hospital in England between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2021. Logistic regression was used to examine the relative odds of SMM by Index of Multiple Deprivation and ethnicity, adjusting for age and health behaviours, medical and psychological factors. Results: The study population comprised 1 178 756 primiparous women. Neighbourhood deprivation increased the risk of SMM at the time of childbirth. In the fully adjusted model, there was a linear trend (p=0.001) between deprivation quintile and the odds of SMM. Being from a minoritised ethnic group also independently increased the risk of SMM, with black or black British African women having the highest risk, adjusted OR 1.84 (95% CI 1.70 to 2.00) compared with white women. There was no interaction between deprivation and ethnicity (p=0.49). Conclusion: This study has highlighted that neighbourhood deprivation and ethnicity are important, independently associated risk factors for SMM

An explainable Transformer-based deep learning model for the prediction of incident heart failure

Predicting the incidence of complex chronic conditions such as heart failure is challenging. Deep learning models applied to rich electronic health records may improve prediction but remain unexplainable hampering their wider use in medical practice. We developed a novel Transformer deep-learning model for more accurate and yet explainable prediction of incident heart failure involving 100,071 patients from longitudinal linked electronic health records across the UK. On internal 5-fold cross validation and held-out external validation, our model achieved 0.93 and 0.93 area under the receiver operator curve and 0.69 and 0.70 area under the precision-recall curve, respectively and outperformed existing deep learning models. Predictor groups included all community and hospital diagnoses and medications contextualised within the age and calendar year for each patient's clinical encounter. The importance of contextualised medical information was revealed in a number of sensitivity analyses, and our perturbation method provided a way of identifying factors contributing to risk. Many of the identified risk factors were consistent with existing knowledge from clinical and epidemiological research but several new associations were revealed which had not been considered in expert-driven risk prediction models

Placenta accreta spectrum - variations in clinical practice and maternal morbidity between UK and France : a population-based comparative study

SM’s DPhil was funded by the Medical Research Council. PACCRETA was funded by PACCRETA was funded by the French Health Ministry under its Clinical Research Hospital Program (grant number: AOR12156) and by the Angers University Hospital.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Perinatal outcomes after admission with COVID-19 in pregnancy:a UK national cohort study

There are few population-based studies of sufficient size and follow-up duration to have reliably assessed perinatal outcomes for pregnant women hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) covers all 194 consultant-led UK maternity units and included all pregnant women admitted to hospital with an ongoing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we show that in this large national cohort comprising two years’ active surveillance over four SARS-CoV-2 variant periods and with near complete follow-up of pregnancy outcomes for 16,627 included women, severe perinatal outcomes were more common in women with moderate to severe COVID-19, during the delta dominant period and among unvaccinated women. We provide strong evidence to recommend continuous surveillance of pregnancy outcomes in future pandemics and to continue to recommend SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy to protect both mothers and babies

Perinatal outcomes after admission with COVID-19 in pregnancy: a UK national cohort study

There are few population-based studies of sufficient size and follow-up duration to have reliably assessed perinatal outcomes for pregnant women hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) covers all 194 consultant-led UK maternity units and included all pregnant women admitted to hospital with an ongoing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we show that in this large national cohort comprising two years’ active surveillance over four SARS-CoV-2 variant periods and with near complete follow-up of pregnancy outcomes for 16,627 included women, severe perinatal outcomes were more common in women with moderate to severe COVID-19, during the delta dominant period and among unvaccinated women. We provide strong evidence to recommend continuous surveillance of pregnancy outcomes in future pandemics and to continue to recommend SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy to protect both mothers and babies

An evaluation of the mental health impact of SARS-CoV-2 on patients, general public and healthcare professionals:A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The global impact of COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the lives of billions of people with recurrent waves. Healthcare systems are struggling to manage pre-existing patient care and recurring covid-19 demands. As a result, we evaluated the mental health impact using systematic review and meta-analysis.METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken from April 2020 to 22nd January 2021 using multiple electronic databases. A systematic review protocol was developed and published on PROSPERO registration; CRD42020181481. A random-effects model was used to compute pooled estimates of anxiety, depression, PTSD, insomnia and suicidal thoughts.FINDINGS: Our search yielded 11,295 studies and of those 287 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of 206 studies revealed minimal differences in prevalence of anxiety, depression, and PTSD among HCPs compared with the public during the pandemic but higher prevalence of suicidal thoughts/ideation or self-harm (11% vs 5.8%) and lower prevalence of wellbeing (28.2% vs 52.6%) among the public compared to HCPs.INTERPRETATION: The pandemic has led to a high mental health burden especially amongst HCPs and higher suicidal ideation and lower wellbeing in general public which warrants further investigation and management globally. These findings highlight an emerging critical public health issue that requires urgent solutions.</p

Variations across Europe in hospitalization and management of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 during the initial phase of the pandemic : Multi-national population-based cohort study using the International Network of Obstetric Survey Systems (INOSS)

Funding Information: The national studies reported the following funding sources: The BOSS project was funded by the Belgian Federal Public Service of Health. The NOSS collaboration was supported by the Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (grant no. 6505, 2020). NOSS‐Denmark was supported by grants from The Region of Southern Denmark and Region Zealand's shared fund for joint health research projects (Reg. no. A767), and EasyTrial provided the data collection software. NOSS‐Finland received grants from the Finnish Medical Society, and from Helsinki University. UKOSS received funding from the National Institute for Health Research HS&DR Programme (11/46/12). The national studies in Italy and the Netherlands did not have specific funding. The multi‐national study received partial funding support from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) under the Framework service contract nr EMA/2018/28/PE. The content of this paper expresses the opinions of the authors and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the EMA or any of its committees or working parties. The research leading to these results was conducted as part of the activities of the EU PE&PV (Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance) Research Network, which is a public academic partnership coordinated by Utrecht University, the Netherlands. The CONSIGN project was scientifically coordinated by the University Medical Center, Utrecht. Funding Information: OB declares support from the European Medicines agency (EMA). HE declares grants from the Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG) and Norwegian Research Council (grant no 320181). AA declares a grant from the Region of Southern Denmark and Region Zealand's shared fund for joint health research projects. OA declares grants from the Finnish Medical Association and NFOG. MK declares grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Medical Research Council, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership and Wellbeing of Women during the course of the study. MS leads a department that conducts studies on COVID‐19 vaccines for the European Medicines Agency, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Janssen. All support was according to the ENCePP code of conduct. None of the other authors (NV, RR, SD, EJ, EO, MAS, TS, RV, AV, KB) has anything to disclose. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).Introduction: The majority of data on COVID-19 in pregnancy are not from sound population-based active surveillance systems. Material and methods: We conducted a multi-national study of population-based national or regional prospective cohorts using standardized definitions within the International Network of Obstetric Survey systems (INOSS). From a source population of women giving birth between March 1 and August 31, 2020, we included pregnant women admitted to hospital with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test ≤7 days prior to or during admission and up to 2 days after birth. The admissions were further categorized as COVID-19-related or non-COVID-19-related. The primary outcome of interest was incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included severe maternal disease (ICU admission and mechanical ventilation) and COVID-19-directed medical treatment. Results: In a source population of 816 628 maternities, a total of 2338 pregnant women were admitted with SARS-CoV-2; among them 940 (40%) were COVID-19-related admissions. The pooled incidence estimate for COVID-19-related admission was 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.27–1.02) per 1000 maternities, with notable heterogeneity across countries (I2 = 97.3%, P = 0.00). In the COVID-19 admission group, between 8% and 17% of the women were admitted to intensive care, and 5%–13% needed mechanical ventilation. Thromboprophylaxis was the most frequent treatment given during COVID-19-related admission (range 14%–55%). Among 908 infants born to women in the COVID-19-related admission group, 5 (0.6%) stillbirths were reported. Conclusions: During the initial months of the pandemic, we found substantial variations in incidence of COVID-19-related admissions in nine European countries. Few pregnant women received COVID-19-directed medical treatment. Several barriers to rapid surveillance were identified. Investment in robust surveillance should be prioritized to prepare for future pandemics.Peer reviewe

Frenotomy with breastfeeding support versus breastfeeding support alone for infants with tongue-tie and breastfeeding difficulties: the FROSTTIE RCT

BackgroundTongue-tie can be diagnosed in 3–11% of babies, with some studies reporting almost universal breastfeeding difficulties, and others reporting very few feeding difficulties that relate to the tongue-tie itself, instead noting that incorrect positioning and attachment are the primary reasons behind the observed breastfeeding difficulties and not the tongue-tie itself. The only existing trials of frenotomy are small and underpowered and/or include only very short-term or subjective outcomes.ObjectiveTo investigate whether frenotomy is clinically and cost-effective to promote continuation of breastfeeding at 3 months in infants with breastfeeding difficulties diagnosed with tongue-tie.DesignA multicentre, unblinded, randomised, parallel group controlled trial.SettingTwelve infant feeding services in the UK.ParticipantsInfants aged up to 10 weeks referred to an infant feeding service (by a parent, midwife or other breastfeeding support service) with breastfeeding difficulties and judged to have tongue-tie.InterventionsInfants were randomly allocated to frenotomy with standard breastfeeding support or standard breastfeeding support without frenotomy.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was any breastmilk feeding at 3 months according to maternal self-report. Secondary outcomes included mother’s pain, exclusive breastmilk feeding, exclusive direct breastfeeding, frenotomy, adverse events, maternal anxiety and depression, maternal and infant NHS health-care resource use, cost-effectiveness, and any breastmilk feeding at 6 months of age.ResultsBetween March 2019 and November 2020, 169 infants were randomised, 80 to the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm and 89 to the breastfeeding support arm from a planned sample size of 870 infants. The trial was stopped in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic due to withdrawal of breastfeeding support services, slow recruitment and crossover between arms. In the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm 74/80 infants (93%) received their allocated intervention, compared to 23/89 (26%) in the breastfeeding support arm. Primary outcome data were available for 163/169 infants (96%). There was no evidence of a difference between the arms in the rate of breastmilk feeding at 3 months, which was high in both groups (67/76, 88% vs. 75/87, 86%; adjusted risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.16). Adverse events were reported for three infants after surgery [bleeding (n = 1), salivary duct damage (n = 1), accidental cut to the tongue and salivary duct damage (n = 1)]. Cost-effectiveness could not be determined with the information available.LimitationsThe statistical power of the analysis was extremely limited due to not achieving the target sample size and the high proportion of infants in the breastfeeding support arm who underwent frenotomy.ConclusionsThis trial does not provide sufficient information to assess whether frenotomy in addition to breastfeeding support improves breastfeeding rates in infants diagnosed with tongue-tie.Future workThere is a clear lack of equipoise in the UK concerning the use of frenotomy, however, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the procedure still need to be established. Other study designs will need to be considered to address this objective.Trial registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN 10268851

Optimising Exome Prenatal Sequencing Services (EXPRESS): a study protocol to evaluate rapid prenatal exome sequencing in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Background: Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) for the diagnosis of fetal anomalies was implemented nationally in England in October 2020 by the NHS Genomic Medicine Service (GMS). The GMS is based around seven regional Genomic Laboratory Hubs (GLHs). Prenatal ES has the potential to significantly improve NHS prenatal diagnostic services by increasing genetic diagnoses and informing prenatal decision-making. Prenatal ES has not previously been offered routinely in a national healthcare system and there are gaps in knowledge and guidance. Methods: Our mixed-methods evaluation commenced in October 2020, aligning with the start date of the NHS prenatal ES service. Study design draws on a framework developed in previous studies of major system innovation. There are five interrelated workstreams. Workstream-1 will use interviews and surveys with professionals, non-participant observations and documentary analysis to produce in-depth case studies across all GLHs. Data collection at multiple time points will track changes over time. In Workstream-2 qualitative interviews with parents offered prenatal ES will explore experiences and establish information and support needs. Workstream-3 will analyse data from all prenatal ES tests for nine-months to establish service outcomes (e.g. diagnostic yield, referral rates, referral sources). Comparisons between GLHs will identify factors (individual or service-related) associated with any variation in outcomes. Workstream-4 will identify and analyse practical ethical problems. Requirements for an effective ethics framework for an optimal and equitable service will be determined. Workstream-5 will assess costs and cost-effectiveness of prenatal ES versus standard tests and evaluate costs of implementing an optimal prenatal ES care pathway. Integration of findings will determine key features of an optimal care pathway from a service delivery, parent and professional perspective. Discussion: The proposed formative and summative evaluation will inform the evolving prenatal ES service to ensure equity of access, high standards of care and benefits for parents across England