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

Changes in human placental 5α-reductase isoenzyme expression with advancing gestation: effects of fetal sex and glucocorticoid exposure

5α-Reduced steroids, including allopregnanolone, suppress neuronal activity and can have neuroprotective effects in the fetus. 5α-Reductases in the placenta may contribute precursors to brain allopregnanolone synthesis. Preterm birth and glucocorticoids, administered for fetal lung maturation or for maternal asthma, may influence reductase expression. The aims of the present study were to evaluate placental 5α-reductase isoform expression during late gestation and to examine fetal sex differences and the effects of glucocorticoid therapies on the expression of these enzymes. Expression of the two 5α-reductase isoenzymes was measured in placental samples, whereas cortisol concentrations were measured in cord blood, from two cohorts. The first cohort consisted of women who delivered preterm and received betamethasone treatment (n = 41); the second cohort consisted of women who delivered at term and were either healthy controls (n = 30) or asthmatics who had used glucocorticoids (n = 24). Placental expression of both isoenzymes increased with advancing gestation and there were marked sex differences in levels of 5α-reductase I (P < 0.05), but not of 5α-reductase II. The expression of both enzymes was positively correlated with cortisol levels (P < 0.05), but there was no effect of recent glucocorticoid exposure. These findings suggest that the preterm neonate may have lower developmental exposure to 5α-reduced steroids and may lack steroid-mediated neuroprotection depending on fetal sex

Subjective experience of early imprisonment

Background: Some say 'prison works', others say that it only harms. Overall, longitudinal studies of prisoners suggest some positive impact on mental state, but post-release recidivism is high. How do men at high risk for repeated imprisonment experience it? Aim: To explore prison (gaol) experience among men awaiting trial in custody. Methods: In a prospective longitudinal study, 170 men were interviewed just after reception about their social context and mental state and again three weeks later, when each was asked to describe his current prison experience; 75% had been in prison before. Data were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: Each man had views on his imprisonment. Data were saturated after 20 interviews. The core concern was its overall emotional impact, in full negative to positive range, with recognition that this could and did change in either direction, both passively and through active processes. Underpinning themes were along the dimensions of missing people to asylum from the outside world; in-prison bullying to positive staff and/or inmate relationships; boredom to relief in routine; and 'doing my head in' to salvation from drug-induced decline. Testing the model in the whole sample confirmed no association between prison impact and pre-prison factors. Negative experience was associated with severe depression within but not before this imprisonment. More positive experience related to good in-prison relationships. Conclusions: During pre-trial custodial detention, there is a greater range of experience than generally previously reported. The simple expedients of prison staff developing good relationships with prisoners, and facilitating these between prisoners, could be life-saving. Highly positive experiences may be more an indictment on community services than an endorsement of imprisonment

Data for: "Estimates of the Burden of Group B Streptococcal Disease Worldwide for Pregnant Women, Stillbirths, and Children"

Data produced by Estimating the Burden of Group B Streptococcal Disease Worldwide for Pregnant Women, Stillbirths, and Children. Data inputs were from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the published literature. Data outputs from the compartmental model include (1) exposure to maternal GBS colonization, (2) cases of infant invasive GBS disease, (3) deaths, and (4) disabilities. Data outputs from single cause data include cases of GBS disease in pregnant women, GBS associated stillbirth, cases of neonatal encephalopathy with invasive GBS disease (as a subset of all infant cases), and, for comparison, cases of invasive infant GBS disease

Science goals and mission architecture of the Europa Lander mission concept

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Hand, K., Phillips, C., Murray, A., Garvin, J., Maize, E., Gibbs, R., Reeves, G., San Martin, A., Tan-Wang, G., Krajewski, J., Hurst, K., Crum, R., Kennedy, B., McElrath, T., Gallon, J., Sabahi, D., Thurman, S., Goldstein, B., Estabrook, P., Lee, S. W., Dooley, J. A., Brinckerhoff, W. B., Edgett, K. S., German, C. R., Hoehler, T. M., Hörst, S. M., Lunine, J. I., Paranicas, C., Nealson, K., Smith, D. E., Templeton, A. S., Russell, M. J., Schmidt, B., Christner, B., Ehlmann, B., Hayes, A., Rhoden, A., Willis, P., Yingst, R. A., Craft, K., Cameron, M. E., Nordheim, T., Pitesky, J., Scully, J., Hofgartner, J., Sell, S. W., Barltrop, K. J., Izraelevitz, J., Brandon, E. J., Seong, J., Jones, J.-P., Pasalic, J., Billings, K. J., Ruiz, J. P., Bugga, R. V., Graham, D., Arenas, L. A., Takeyama, D., Drummond, M., Aghazarian, H., Andersen, A. J., Andersen, K. B., Anderson, E. W., Babuscia, A., Backes, P. G., Bailey, E. S., Balentine, D., Ballard, C. G., Berisford, D. F., Bhandari, P., Blackwood, K., Bolotin, G. S., Bovre, E. A., Bowkett, J., Boykins, K. T., Bramble, M. S., Brice, T. M., Briggs, P., Brinkman, A. P., Brooks, S. M., Buffington, B. B., Burns, B., Cable, M. L., Campagnola, S., Cangahuala, L. A., Carr, G. A., Casani, J. R., Chahat, N. E., Chamberlain-Simon, B. K., Cheng, Y., Chien, S. A., Cook, B. T., Cooper, M., DiNicola, M., Clement, B., Dean, Z., Cullimore, E. A., Curtis, A. G., Croix, J-P. de la, Pasquale, P. Di, Dodd, E. M., Dubord, L. A., Edlund, J. A., Ellyin, R., Emanuel, B., Foster, J. T., Ganino, A. J., Garner, G. J., Gibson, M. T., Gildner, M., Glazebrook, K. J., Greco, M. E., Green, W. M., Hatch, S. J., Hetzel, M. M., Hoey, W. A., Hofmann, A. E., Ionasescu, R., Jain, A., Jasper, J. D., Johannesen, J. R., Johnson, G. K., Jun, I., Katake, A. B., Kim-Castet, S. Y., Kim, D. I., Kim, W., Klonicki, E. F., Kobeissi, B., Kobie, B. D., Kochocki, J., Kokorowski, M., Kosberg, J. A., Kriechbaum, K., Kulkarni, T. P., Lam, R. L., Landau, D. F., Lattimore, M. A., Laubach, S. L., Lawler, C. R., Lim, G., Lin, J. Y., Litwin, T. E., Lo, M. W., Logan, C. A., Maghasoudi, E., Mandrake, L., Marchetti, Y., Marteau, E., Maxwell, K. A., Namee, J. B. Mc, Mcintyre, O., Meacham, M., Melko, J. P., Mueller, J., Muliere, D. A., Mysore, A., Nash, J., Ono, H., Parker, J. M., Perkins, R. C., Petropoulos, A. E., Gaut, A., Gomez, M. Y. Piette, Casillas, R. P., Preudhomme, M., Pyrzak, G., Rapinchuk, J., Ratliff, J. M., Ray, T. L., Roberts, E. T., Roffo, K., Roth, D. C., Russino, J. A., Schmidt, T. M., Schoppers, M. J., Senent, J. S., Serricchio, F., Sheldon, D. J., Shiraishi, L. R., Shirvanian, J., Siegel, K. J., Singh, G., Sirota, A. R., Skulsky, E. D., Stehly, J. S., Strange, N. J., Stevens, S. U., Sunada, E. T., Tepsuporn, S. P., Tosi, L. P. C., Trawny, N., Uchenik, I., Verma, V., Volpe, R. A., Wagner, C. T., Wang, D., Willson, R. G., Wolff, J. L., Wong, A. T., Zimmer, A. K., Sukhatme, K. G., Bago, K. A., Chen, Y., Deardorff, A. M., Kuch, R. S., Lim, C., Syvertson, M. L., Arakaki, G. A., Avila, A., DeBruin, K. J., Frick, A., Harris, J. R., Heverly, M. C., Kawata, J. M., Kim, S.-K., Kipp, D. M., Murphy, J., Smith, M. W., Spaulding, M. D., Thakker, R., Warner, N. Z., Yahnker, C. R., Young, M. E., Magner, T., Adams, D., Bedini, P., Mehr, L., Sheldon, C., Vernon, S., Bailey, V., Briere, M., Butler, M., Davis, A., Ensor, S., Gannon, M., Haapala-Chalk, A., Hartka, T., Holdridge, M., Hong, A., Hunt, J., Iskow, J., Kahler, F., Murray, K., Napolillo, D., Norkus, M., Pfisterer, R., Porter, J., Roth, D., Schwartz, P., Wolfarth, L., Cardiff, E. H., Davis, A., Grob, E. W., Adam, J. R., Betts, E., Norwood, J., Heller, M. M., Voskuilen, T., Sakievich, P., Gray, L., Hansen, D. J., Irick, K. W., Hewson, J. C., Lamb, J., Stacy, S. C., Brotherton, C. M., Tappan, A. S., Benally, D., Thigpen, H., Ortiz, E., Sandoval, D., Ison, A. M., Warren, M., Stromberg, P. G., Thelen, P. M., Blasy, B., Nandy, P., Haddad, A. W., Trujillo, L. B., Wiseley, T. H., Bell, S. A., Teske, N. P., Post, C., Torres-Castro, L., Grosso, C. Wasiolek, M. Science goals and mission architecture of the Europa Lander mission concept. The Planetary Science Journal, 3(1), (2022): 22, https://doi.org/10.3847/psj/ac4493.Europa is a premier target for advancing both planetary science and astrobiology, as well as for opening a new window into the burgeoning field of comparative oceanography. The potentially habitable subsurface ocean of Europa may harbor life, and the globally young and comparatively thin ice shell of Europa may contain biosignatures that are readily accessible to a surface lander. Europa's icy shell also offers the opportunity to study tectonics and geologic cycles across a range of mechanisms and compositions. Here we detail the goals and mission architecture of the Europa Lander mission concept, as developed from 2015 through 2020. The science was developed by the 2016 Europa Lander Science Definition Team (SDT), and the mission architecture was developed by the preproject engineering team, in close collaboration with the SDT. In 2017 and 2018, the mission concept passed its mission concept review and delta-mission concept review, respectively. Since that time, the preproject has been advancing the technologies, and developing the hardware and software, needed to retire risks associated with technology, science, cost, and schedule.K.P.H., C.B.P., E.M., and all authors affiliated with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory carried out this research at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (grant No. 80NM0018D0004). J.I.L. was the David Baltimore Distinguished Visiting Scientist during the preparation of the SDT report. JPL/Caltech2021