Changes in obstetric interventions and preterm birth during COVID-19: A nationwide study from Iceland

Introduction: Previous evidence has been conflicting regarding the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdowns on obstetric intervention and preterm birth rates. The literature to date suggests potentially differential underlying mechanisms based on country economic setting. We aimed to study these outcomes in an Icelandic population where uniform lockdown measures were implemented across the country. Material and methods: The study included all singleton births (n = 20 680) during 2016–2020 identified from the population-based Icelandic Medical Birth Register. We defined two lockdown periods during March–May and October–December in 2020 according to government implemented nationwide lockdown. We compared monthly rates of cesarean section, induction of labor and preterm birth during lockdown with the same time periods in the 4 previous years (2016–2019) using logit binomial regression adjusted for confounders. Results: Our results indicated a reduction in the overall cesarean section rate, which was mainly evident for elective cesarean section, both during the first (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.51–0.99) and second (aOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52–0.99) lockdown periods, and not for emergency cesarean section. No change during lockdown was observed in induction of labor. Our results also suggested a reduction in the overall preterm birth rate during the first lockdown (aOR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49–0.97) and in the months immediately following the lockdown (June–September) (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49–0.89). The reduction during the first lockdown was mainly evident for medically indicated preterm birth (although not statistically significant) and the reduction during June–September was mainly evident for spontaneous preterm birth. Conclusions: This study suggested a reduction in elective cesarean section during COVID-19 lockdown, possibly reflecting changes in prioritization of non-urgent health care during lockdown. We also found a reduction in overall preterm birth during the first lockdown and spontaneous preterm birth following the first lockdown, but further research is needed to shed light on the underlying mechanisms for these findings

Exploring the effects of capital mobility on the saving–investment nexus: evidence from Icelandic historical data

We explore the effects of capital mobility on the relationship between saving and investment using historical data for Iceland. First, we analyse the saving–investment (S-I) correlation for the period of restricted capital mobility using data from 1960 and 1994. We then add a period of free capital mobility between 1994 and 2008 and estimate the correlation for the period 1960–2008. Finally, we extend our analysis to the 2008 to 2016 period, when capital controls were imposed in response to the crisis. Institutions matter: We find institutional changes, in particular, Iceland’s entry into the European Single Market in 1994, coincided with a fall in the long-run correlation between saving and investment. However, the correlation weakens further when we include the postcrisis regime of capital controls, suggesting a weaker relationship between savings and investment in this regime. We discuss the possible reasons for this pattern and also the implications of our findings for post-crisis policy in small open economies

The golden rule of longevity

How much should society invest in medical care that extends the lives of the older generations? We derive a golden rule for the level of health care expenditures and find that the optimal level of life-extending health care expenditures should increase with rising productivity, increase with the retirement age, and also increase with the population growth rate if a higher growth rate lowers the ratio of retirees to working-age people sufficiently, while the effects of an improvement in medical technology are ambiguous. Moreover, we find that a market economy may be inefficient in terms of the provision of life-extending health care because an individual ignores the effect of his own longevity on the income of others

Choosing wisely? Quantifying the extent of three low value psychotropic prescribing practices in Australia

BACKGROUND:The global Choosing Wisely campaign has identified the following psychotropic prescribing as low-value (harmful or wasteful): (1) benzodiazepine use in the elderly, (2) antipsychotic use in dementia and (3) prescribing two or more antipsychotics concurrently. We aimed to quantify the extent of these prescribing practices in the Australian population. METHODS:We applied indicators to dispensing claims of a 10% random sample of Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme beneficiaries to quantify annual rates of each low-value practice from 2013 to 2016. We also assessed patient factors and direct medicine costs (extrapolated to the entire Australian population) associated with each practice in 2016. RESULTS:We observed little change in the rates of the three practices between 2013 and 2016. In 2016, 15.3% of people aged ≥65 years were prescribed a benzodiazepine, 0.5% were prescribed antipsychotics in the context of dementia and 0.2% of people aged ≥18 years received two or more antipsychotics concurrently. The likelihood of elderly people receiving benzodiazepines or antipsychotics in the context of dementia increased with age and the likelihood of receiving all three practices increased with comorbidity burden. In 2016, direct medicine costs to the government of all three practices combined, extrapolated to national figures, were > $21 million AUD. CONCLUSIONS:Our indicators suggest that the frequency of these three practices has not changed appreciably in recent years and that they incur significant costs. Worryingly, people with the greatest risk of harm from these prescribing practices are often the most likely to receive them.Jonathan Brett, Helga Zoega, Nicholas A. Buckley, Benjamin J. Daniels, Adam G. Elshaug and Sallie-Anne Pearso

The international perinatal outcomes in the pandemic (iPOP) study: Protocol

Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant death worldwide, but the causes of preterm birth are largely unknown. During the early COVID-19 lockdowns, dramatic reductions in preterm birth were reported; however, these trends may be offset by increases in stillbirth rates. It is important to study these trends globally as the pandemic continues, and to understand the underlying cause(s). Lockdowns have dramatically impacted maternal workload, access to healthcare, hygiene practices, and air pollution - all of which could impact perinatal outcomes and might affect pregnant women differently in different regions of the world. In the international Perinatal Outcomes in the Pandemic (iPOP) Study, we will seize the unique opportunity offered by the COVID-19 pandemic to answer urgent questions about perinatal health. In the first two study phases, we will use population-based aggregate data and standardized outcome definitions to: 1) Determine rates of preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirth and describe changes during lockdowns; and assess if these changes are consistent globally, or differ by region and income setting, 2) Determine if the magnitude of changes in adverse perinatal outcomes during lockdown are modified by regional differences in COVID-19 infection rates, lockdown stringency, adherence to lockdown measures, air quality, or other social and economic markers, obtained from publicly available datasets. We will undertake an interrupted time series analysis covering births from January 2015 through July 2020. The iPOP Study will involve at least 121 researchers in 37 countries, including obstetricians, neonatologists, epidemiologists, public health researchers, environmental scientists, and policymakers. We will leverage the most disruptive and widespread natural experiment of our lifetime to make rapid discoveries about preterm birth. Whether the COVID-19 pandemic is worsening or unexpectedly improving perinatal outcomes, our research will provide critical new information to shape prenatal care strategies throughout (and well beyond) the pandemic

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and venlafaxine in early pregnancy and risk of birth defects: population based cohort study and sibling design

OBJECTIVETo assess whether use of specific selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or venlafaxine in early pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of birth defects, with emphasis on cardiovascular birth defects even when accounting for lifestyle or other familial confounding.DESIGNMulticountry population based cohort study, including sibling controlled design.SETTINGNordic population (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) identified from nationwide health registers at different periods in 1996-2010.POPULATIONThe full study cohort included women giving birth to 2.3 million live singletons. The sibling cohort included 2288 singleton live births. The sibling controlled analyses included sibling pairs who were discordant for exposure to SSRIs or venlafaxine and birth defects.MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREPrevalence of birth defects, including subtypes of cardiac defects. Odds ratio of birth defects from logistic and conditional logistic regression.RESULTSAmong 36 772 infants exposed to any SSRI in early pregnancy, 3.7% (n=1357) had a birth defect compared with 3.1% of 2 266 875 unexposed infants, yielding a covariate adjusted odds ratio of 1.13 (95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.20). In the sibling controlled analysis the adjusted odds ratio decreased to 1.06 (0.91 to 1.24). The odds ratios for any cardiac birth defect with use of any SSRI or venlafaxine were 1.15 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.26) in the covariate adjusted analysis and 0.92 (0.72 to 1.17) in the sibling controlled analysis. For atrial and ventricular septal defects the covariate adjusted odds ratio was 1.17 (1.05 to 1.31). Exposure to any SSRI or venlafaxine increased the prevalence of right ventricular outflow tract obstruction defects, with a covariate adjusted odds ratio of 1.48 (1.15 to 1.89). In the sibling controlled analysis the adjusted odds ratio decreased to 0.56 (0.21 to 1.49) for any exposure to SSRIs or venlafaxine and right ventricular outflow tract obstruction defects.CONCLUSIONSIn this large Nordic study no substantial increase was found in prevalence of overall cardiac birth defects among infants exposed to SSRIs or venlafaxine in utero. Although the prevalence of septal defects and right ventricular outflow tract defects was higher in exposed infants, the lack of an association in the sibling controlled analyses points against a teratogenic effect of these drugs.</p

Generating real-world evidence on the quality use, benefits and safety of medicines in australia: History, challenges and a roadmap for the future

Australia spends more than $20 billion annually on medicines, delivering significant health benefits for the population. However, inappropriate prescribing and medicine use also result in harm to individuals and populations, and waste of precious health resources. Medication data linked with other routine collections enable evidence generation in pharmacoepidemiology; the science of quantifying the use, effectiveness and safety of medicines in real-world clinical practice. This review details the history of medicines policy and data access in Australia, the strengths of existing data sources, and the infrastructure and governance enabling and impeding evidence generation in the field. Currently, substantial gaps persist with respect to cohesive, contemporary linked data sources supporting quality use of medicines, effectiveness and safety research; exemplified by Aus-tralia’s limited capacity to contribute to the global effort in real-world studies of vaccine and dis-ease-modifying treatments for COVID-19. We propose a roadmap to bolster the discipline, and population health more broadly, underpinned by a distinct capability governing and streamlining access to linked data assets for accredited researchers. Robust real-world evidence generation requires current data roadblocks to be remedied as a matter of urgency to deliver efficient and equitable health care and improve the health and well-being of all Australians

Generating Real-World Evidence on the Quality Use, Benefits and Safety of Medicines in Australia: History, Challenges and a Roadmap for the Future.

Australia spends more than $20 billion annually on medicines, delivering significant health benefits for the population. However, inappropriate prescribing and medicine use also result in harm to individuals and populations, and waste of precious health resources. Medication data linked with other routine collections enable evidence generation in pharmacoepidemiology; the science of quantifying the use, effectiveness and safety of medicines in real-world clinical practice. This review details the history of medicines policy and data access in Australia, the strengths of existing data sources, and the infrastructure and governance enabling and impeding evidence generation in the field. Currently, substantial gaps persist with respect to cohesive, contemporary linked data sources supporting quality use of medicines, effectiveness and safety research; exemplified by Australia's limited capacity to contribute to the global effort in real-world studies of vaccine and disease-modifying treatments for COVID-19. We propose a roadmap to bolster the discipline, and population health more broadly, underpinned by a distinct capability governing and streamlining access to linked data assets for accredited researchers. Robust real-world evidence generation requires current data roadblocks to be remedied as a matter of urgency to deliver efficient and equitable health care and improve the health and well-being of all Australians