Ethylene biosynthesis and signaling: a puzzle yet to be completed.

Item does not contain fulltex

Women refusing standard obstetric care: maternal fetal conflict or doctor-patient conflict?

Contains fulltext : 167280.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Improving maternity care using a personal health record: study protocol for a stepped-wedge, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: A personal health record (PHR) is an online application through which individuals can access, manage, and share their health information in a private, secure, and confidential environment. Personal health records empower patients, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals, and improve health outcomes. Given these anticipated positive effects, we want to implement a PHR, named MyPregn@ncy, in a Dutch maternity care setting and to evaluate its effects in routine care. This paper presents the study protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: The effects of implementing a PHR in maternity care on patients and professionals will be identified in a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised, controlled trial. The study will be performed in the region of Nijmegen, a Dutch area with an average of 4,500 births a year and more than 230 healthcare professionals involved in maternity care. Data analyses will describe the effects of MyPregn@ncy on health outcomes in maternity care, quality of care from the patients' perspectives, and collaboration among healthcare professionals. Additionally, a process evaluation of the implementation of MyPregn@ncy will be performed. Data will be collected using data from the Dutch perinatal registry, questionnaires, interviews, and log data. DISCUSSION: The study is expected to yield new information about the effects, strengths, possibilities, and challenges to the implementation and usage of a PHR in routine maternal care settings. Results may lead to new insights and improvements in the quality of maternal and perinatal care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4063

Een gemelligraviditeit bestaande uit een previagelegen complete mola hydatidosa en co-existente vitale eenling

Item does not contain fulltex

The added value of mifepristone to non-surgical treatment regimens for uterine evacuation in case of early pregnancy failure: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE(S): Early pregnancy failure (EPF) is a common complication of pregnancy. Surgical intervention carries a risk of complications and, therefore, medical treatment appears to be a safe alternative. Unfortunately, the current medical treatment with misoprostol alone has complete evacuation rates between 53% and 87%. Some reports suggest that sequential treatment with mifepristone and misoprostol leads to higher success rates than misoprostol alone. STUDY DESIGN: To evaluate the added value of mifepristone to current non-surgical treatment regimens in women with EPF we performed a systematic literature search. Electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical studies, both randomised and non-randomised trials, reporting on the added value of mifepristone to current non-surgical treatment regimens in women with EPF were included. Data of sixteen studies were extracted using a data extraction sheet (based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's data extraction template). The methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: In five randomised and eleven non-randomised trials, success rates of sequential treatment with mifepristone and misoprostol in case of EPF varied between 52% and 95%. Large heterogeneity existed in treatment regimens and comparators between studies. CONCLUSION(S): The existing evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the added value of mifepristone to misoprostol alone. A sufficiently powered randomised, double blinded placebo-controlled trial is urgently required to test whether, in EPF, the sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is superior to misoprostol only

Economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial comparing mifepristone and misoprostol with misoprostol alone in the treatment of early pregnancy loss.

BACKGROUND: In case of early pregnancy loss (EPL) women can either choose for expectant, medical or surgical management. One week of expectant management is known to lead to spontaneous abortion in approximately 50% of women. Medical treatment with misoprostol is known to be safe and less costly than surgical management, however less effective in reaching complete evacuation of the uterus. Recently, a number of trials showed that prompt treatment with the sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone in reaching complete evacuation. In this analysis we evaluate whether the sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is cost-effective compared to misoprostol alone, in the treatment of EPL. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from a healthcare perspective was performed alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which standard treatment with misoprostol only was compared with a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, in women with EPL after a minimum of one week of unsuccessful management. A limited societal perspective scenario was added. This RCT, the Triple M trial, was a multicentre, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial executed at 17 hospitals in the Netherlands. The trial started on June 27(th) 2018, and ended prematurely in January 2020 due to highly significant outcomes from the predefined interim-analysis. We included 351 women with a diagnosis of EPL between 6 and 14 weeks gestation after at least one week of unsuccessful expectant management. They were randomized between double blinded pre-treatment with oral mifepristone 600mg (N = 175) or placebo (N = 176) taken on day one, both followed by misoprostol orally. In both groups, an intention-to-treat analysis was performed for 172 patients, showing a significant difference in success rates between participants treated with mifepristone and misoprostol versus those treated with misoprostol alone (79.1% vs 58.7% respectively). In this cost-effective analysis we measured the direct, medical costs related to treatment (planned and unplanned hospital visits, medication, additional treatment) and indirect costs based on the IMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ). Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY’s) were calculated from participants’ scores on the SF-36 questionnaires sent digitally at treatment start, and one, two and six weeks later. We found medical treatment with placebo followed by misoprostol to be 26% more expensive compared to mifepristone followed by misoprostol (p = 0.001). Mean average medical costs per patient were significantly lower in the mifepristone group compared to the placebo group (€528.95 ± 328.93 vs €663.77 ± 456.03, respectively; absolute difference €134.82, 95% CI 50,46–219,18, p = 0.002). Both indirect costs and QALY’s were similar between both groups. CONCLUSION: The sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is cost-effective compared with misoprostol alone, for treatment of EPL after a minimum of one week of unsuccessful expectant management

Clinical outcome in neonates with twin anemia-polycythemia sequence.

Item does not contain fulltex

Women's motivations for choosing a high risk birth setting against medical advice in the Netherlands: a qualitative analysis

Contains fulltext : 181580.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Personal health records in maternity care "a process evaluation"

Contains fulltext : 174436.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access