Assessing the multifaceted cervix: examining cervical gland area at cervical length screening to predict spontaneous preterm birth.

BACKGROUND: Biologically active cervical glands provide a mucous barrier while influencing the composition and biomechanical strength of the cervical extracellular matrix. Cervical remodeling during ripening may be reflected as loss of the sonographic cervical gland area. As sonographic cervical length remains suboptimal for universal screening, adjunctive evaluation of other facets of the mid-trimester cervix may impart additional screening benefit. OBJECTIVE: To sonographically assess the cervical gland area at universal cervical length screening for preterm birth. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of singletons with transvaginal cervical length screening universally performed during anatomic survey between 18 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks and subsequent live delivery at a single institution in 2018. Uterine anomalies, cerclage, suboptimal imaging, or medically indicated preterm birth were excluded. Ultrasound images were assessed for cervical length and cervical gland area (with quantitative measurements when present). The primary outcome was spontaneous preterm birth <37 weeks. Absent and present gland groups were compared using χ2, Fisher's exact, T-test, and multivariate logistic regression (adjusting for parity and progesterone use, as well as the gestational age, cervical length, and gland absence at screening ultrasound). Gland measurements were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney-U Test and Spearman's correlation. RESULTS: Among the cohort of 772 patients, absent and present CGA groups were overall similar. Patients were on average 33 years old, ∼20 weeks gestation at screening ultrasound, and overall, 2.5% had history of prior spontaneous preterm birth. The absent gland group was more likely to have been taking progesterone (17% vs 4%, P=.04). Overall rate of preterm birth was 2.6%. However, the 2.3% of patients with absent cervical gland area were significantly more likely to deliver <37 weeks (aOR 23.9, 95% CI 6.4-89, P<.001). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated better performance of a cervical length screening model for preterm birth prediction with the addition of qualitative gland evaluation (P<.001). Qualitative gland assessment was reproducible (PABAK 0.89), but quantitative gland measurements did not correlate with preterm birth. CONCLUSION: Qualitative gland absence at mid-gestation cervical length screening was associated with subsequent spontaneous preterm birth, whereas quantitative gland measurements were not. Multifaceted ultrasound screening may be needed to adequately evaluate the multiple biologic functions of the cervix.

Association of Commonly Prescribed Antepartum Medications and Incidence of Orofacial Clefting.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic agents are often used in the antepartum period, however, studies on their effect on fetal development are limited. Thus, this study aims to examine the effect of commonly prescribed antepartum medications on the development of orofacial clefting. METHODS: Utilizing EPIC Cosmos deidentified data from approximately 180 US institutions was queried. Patients born between January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2023, were included. Eight OC cohorts were identified. Gestational medication use was identified by medications prescribed, provider-administered, or reported use by mothers. Medications used in at least 1 in 10,000 pregnancies were included in this analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12 098 newborns with available maternal pharmacologic data were born with any type of orofacial clefting. Prevalence for all oral clefts, any cleft palate, and any cleft lip were 20.56, 18.10, and 10.60 per 10 000 individuals, respectively. Notable significant exposures include most anticonvulsants, such as lamotrigine (OR1.33, CI 1.10-1.62), and topiramate (OR1.35, CI 1.13-1.62), as well as nearly all SSRIs/SNRIs, including fluoxetine (OR1.34, CI 1.19-1.51), sertraline (OR1.25, CI 1.16-1.34), and citalopram (OR1.28, CI 1.11-1.47). Corticosteroids were also correlated including dexamethasone (OR1.19, CI 1.12-1.27), and betamethasone (OR1.64, CI 1.55-1.73), as were antibiotics, including amoxicillin (OR1.22, CI 1.14-1.30), doxycycline (OR1.29, CI 1.10-1.52), and nitrofuran derivatives (OR1.10, CI 1.03-1.17). CONCLUSION: New associations between commonly prescribed antepartum medications and orofacial clefting were found. These findings should be confirmed as causality is not assessed in this report. Practitioners should be aware of the potential increased risk associated with these medications.

The Role of cfDNA Biomarkers and Patient Data in the Early Prediction of Preeclampsia: Artificial Intelligence Model.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate individualized assessment of preeclampsia risk enables the identification of patients most likely to benefit from initiation of low-dose aspirin at 12-16 weeks' gestation when there is evidence for its effectiveness, as well as guiding appropriate pregnancy care pathways and surveillance. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of artificial neural network models for the prediction of preterm preeclampsia (<37 weeks' gestation) using patient characteristics available at the first antenatal visit and data from prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening. Secondary outcomes were prediction of early onset preeclampsia (<34 weeks' gestation) and term preeclampsia (≥37 weeks' gestation). METHODS: This secondary analysis of a prospective, multicenter, observational prenatal cfDNA screening study (SMART) included singleton pregnancies with known pregnancy outcomes. Thirteen patient characteristics that are routinely collected at the first prenatal visit and two characteristics of cfDNA, total cfDNA and fetal fraction (FF), were used to develop predictive models for early-onset (<34 weeks), preterm (<37 weeks), and term (≥37 weeks) preeclampsia. For the models, the 'reference' classifier was a shallow logistic regression (LR) model. We also explored several feedforward (non-linear) neural network (NN) architectures with one or more hidden layers and compared their performance with the LR model. We selected a simple NN model built with one hidden layer and made up of 15 units. RESULTS: Of 17,520 participants included in the final analysis, 72 (0.4%) developed early onset, 251 (1.4%) preterm, and 420 (2.4%) term preeclampsia. Median gestational age at cfDNA measurement was 12.6 weeks and 2,155 (12.3%) had their cfDNA measurement at 16 weeks' gestation or greater. Preeclampsia was associated with higher total cfDNA (median 362.3 versus 339.0 copies/ml cfDNA; p<0.001) and lower FF (median 7.5% versus 9.4%; p<0.001). The expected, cross-validated area under the curve (AUC) scores for early onset, preterm, and term preeclampsia were 0.782, 0.801, and 0.712, respectively for the LR model, and 0.797, 0.800, and 0.713, respectively for the NN model. At a screen-positive rate of 15%, sensitivity for preterm preeclampsia was 58.4% (95% CI 0.569, 0.599) for the LR model and 59.3% (95% CI 0.578, 0.608) for the NN model.The contribution of both total cfDNA and FF to the prediction of term and preterm preeclampsia was negligible. For early-onset preeclampsia, removal of the total cfDNA and FF features from the NN model was associated with a 6.9% decrease in sensitivity at a 15% screen positive rate, from 54.9% (95% CI 52.9-56.9) to 48.0% (95% CI 45.0-51.0). CONCLUSION: Routinely available patient characteristics and cfDNA markers can be used to predict preeclampsia with performance comparable to other patient characteristic models for the prediction of preterm preeclampsia. Both LR and NN models showed similar performance.

Vasa previa in singleton pregnancies: diagnosis and clinical management based on an international expert consensus.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data to guide the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. Currently, what is known is largely based on case reports or series and cohort studies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically collect and classify expert opinions and achieve consensus on the diagnosis and clinical management of vasa previa using focus group discussions and a Delphi technique. STUDY DESIGN: A 4-round focus group discussion and a 3-round Delphi survey of an international panel of experts on vasa previa were conducted. Experts were selected on the basis of their publication record on vasa previa. First, we convened a focus group discussion panel of 20 experts and agreed on which issues were unresolved in the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. A 3-round anonymous electronic survey was then sent to the full expert panel. Survey questions were presented on the diagnosis and management of vasa previa, which the experts were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (from "strongly disagree"=1 to "strongly agree"=5). Consensus was defined as a median score of 5. Following responses to each round, any statements that had median scores of ≤3 were deemed to have had no consensus and were excluded. Statements with a median score of 4 were revised and re-presented to the experts in the next round. Consensus and nonconsensus statements were then aggregated. RESULTS: A total of 68 international experts were invited to participate in the study, of which 57 participated. Experts were from 13 countries on 5 continents and have contributed to >80% of published cohort studies on vasa previa, as well as national and international society guidelines. Completion rates were 84%, 93%, and 91% for the first, second, and third rounds, respectively, and 71% completed all 3 rounds. The panel reached a consensus on 26 statements regarding the diagnosis and key points of management of vasa previa, including the following: (1) although there is no agreement on the distance between the fetal vessels and the cervical internal os to define vasa previa, the definition should not be limited to a 2-cm distance; (2) all pregnancies should be screened for vasa previa with routine examination for placental cord insertion and a color Doppler sweep of the region over the cervix at the second-trimester anatomy scan; (3) when a low-lying placenta or placenta previa is found in the second trimester, a transvaginal ultrasound with Doppler should be performed at approximately 32 weeks to rule out vasa previa; (4) outpatient management of asymptomatic patients without risk factors for preterm birth is reasonable; (5) asymptomatic patients with vasa previa should be delivered by scheduled cesarean delivery between 35 and 37 weeks of gestation; and (6) there was no agreement on routine hospitalization, avoidance of intercourse, or use of 3-dimensional ultrasound for diagnosis of vasa previa. CONCLUSION: Through focus group discussion and a Delphi process, an international expert panel reached consensus on the definition, screening, clinical management, and timing of delivery in vasa previa, which could inform the development of new clinical guidelines.

Complete genome sequence of Mycobacterium smegmatis phage Rummer, a subcluster A3 actinophage.

Bacteriophage Rummer is a siphovirus morphology actinophage isolated from Mycobacterium smegmatis. Rummer has a 50,908 base pair genome encoding 89 predicted protein-coding genes and three tRNAs. Based on gene content similarity to sequenced actinobacteriophages, Rummer is assigned to phage subcluster A3.

A Pregnant Adolescent with COVID-19 and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a new condition related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the pediatric population, was recognized by physicians in the United Kingdom in April 2020. Given those up to the age of 21 years can be affected, pregnant adolescents and young adults are susceptible. However, there is scant information on how MIS-C may affect pregnancy and whether the presentation differs in the pregnant population. We report a case of a pregnant adolescent with COVID-19 and MIS-C with a favorable outcome. This case highlights the considerations in managing a critically ill pregnant patient with a novel illness and the importance of a multidisciplinary team in coordinating care.

Incidence and causes of perinatal death in prenatally diagnosed vasa previa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the perinatal mortality associated with prenatally diagnosed vasa previa and to determine what proportion of those perinatal deaths are directly attributable to vasa previa. DATA SOURCES: The following databases have been searched from January 1, 1987, to January 1, 2023: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Our study included all studies (cohort studies and case series or reports) that had patients in which a prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa was made. Case series or reports were excluded from the meta-analysis. All cases in which prenatal diagnosis was not made were excluded from the study. METHODS: The programming language software R (version 4.2.2) was used to conduct the meta-analysis. The data were logit transformed and pooled using the fixed effects model. The between-study heterogeneity was reported by I2. The publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and the Peters regression test. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Overall, 113 studies with a cumulative sample size of 1297 pregnant individuals were included. This study included 25 cohort studies with 1167 pregnancies and 88 case series or reports with 130 pregnancies. Moreover, 13 perinatal deaths occurred among these pregnancies, consisting of 2 stillbirths and 11 neonatal deaths. Among the cohort studies, the overall perinatal mortality was 0.94% (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.70; I2=0.0%). The pooled perinatal mortality attributed to vasa previa was 0.51% (95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.14; I2=0.0%). Stillbirth and neonatal death were reported in 0.20% (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.80; I2=0.0%) and 0.77% (95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.48; I2=0.0%) of pregnancies, respectively. CONCLUSION: Perinatal death is uncommon after a prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa. Approximately half of the cases of perinatal mortality are not directly attributable to vasa previa. This information will help in guiding physicians in counseling and will provide reassurance to pregnant individuals with a prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa.

Clinical implications of crown-rump length discordance at 11 to 14 weeks in dichorionic twins.

BACKGROUND: Crown-rump length discordance, defined as ≥10% discordance, has been investigated as an early sonographic marker of subsequent growth abnormalities and is associated with an increased risk of fetal loss in twin pregnancies. Previous studies have not investigated the prevalence of fetal aneuploidy or structural anomalies in twins with discordance or the independent association of crown-rump length discordance with adverse perinatal outcomes. Moreover, data are limited on cell-free DNA screening for aneuploidy in dichorionic twins with discordance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether crown-rump length discordance in dichorionic twins between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation is associated with a higher risk of aneuploidy, structural anomalies, or adverse perinatal outcomes and to assess the performance of cell-free DNA screening in dichorionic twin pregnancies with crown-rump length discordance. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort study that evaluated the performance of cell-free DNA screening for the common trisomies in twin pregnancies from December 2011 to February 2020. For this secondary analysis, we included live dichorionic pregnancies with crown-rump length measurements between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation. First, we compared twin pregnancies with discordant crown-rump lengths with twin pregnancies with concordant crown-rump lengths and analyzed the prevalence of aneuploidy and fetal structural anomalies in either twin. Second, we compared the prevalence of a composite adverse perinatal outcome, which included preterm birth at <34 weeks of gestation, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, stillbirth or miscarriage, small-for-gestational-age birthweight, and birthweight discordance. Moreover, we assessed the performance of cell-free DNA screening in pregnancies with and without crown-rump length discordance. Outcomes were compared with multivariable regression to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Of 987 dichorionic twins, 142 (14%) had crown-rump length discordance. The prevalence of aneuploidy was higher in twins with crown-rump length discordance than in twins with concordance (9.9% vs 3.9%, respectively; adjusted relative risk, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.9). Similarly, structural anomalies (adjusted relative risk, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.4]) and composite adverse perinatal outcomes (adjusted relative risk, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.3) were significantly higher in twins with discordance. A stratified analysis demonstrated that even without other ultrasound markers, there were increased risks of aneuploidy (adjusted relative risk, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-8.4) and structural anomalies (adjusted relative risk, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-4.8) in twins with CRL discordance. Cell-free DNA screening had high negative predictive values for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13, regardless of crown-rump length discordance, with 1 false-negative for trisomy 21 in a twin pregnancy with discordance. CONCLUSION: Crown-rump length discordance in dichorionic twins is associated with an increased risk of aneuploidy, structural anomalies, and adverse perinatal outcomes, even without other sonographic abnormalities. Cell-free DNA screening demonstrated high sensitivity and negative predictive values irrespective of crown-rump length discordance; however, 1 false-negative result illustrated that there is a role for diagnostic testing. These data may prove useful in identifying twin pregnancies that may benefit from increased screening and surveillance and are not ascertained by other early sonographic markers.

Grand Multiparity and Obstetric Outcomes in a Contemporary Cohort: The Role of Increasing Parity.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence is inconsistent regarding grand multiparity and its association with adverse obstetric outcomes. Few large American cohorts of grand multiparas have been studied. We assessed if increasing parity among grand multiparas is associated with increased odds of adverse perinatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort of patients with parity ≥ 5 who delivered a singleton gestation in New York City from 2011 to 2019. Outcomes included postpartum hemorrhage, preterm delivery, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, shoulder dystocia, birth weight > 4,000 and <2,500 g, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Parity was analyzed continuously, and multivariate analysis determined if increasing parity and other obstetric variables were associated with each adverse outcome. RESULTS: There were 2,496 patients who met inclusion criteria. Increasing parity among grand multiparas was not associated with any of the prespecified adverse outcomes. Odds of postpartum hemorrhage increased with history (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.65, 95% confidence interval [1.83, 3.84]) and current cesarean delivery (aOR: 4.59 [3.40, 6.18]). Preterm delivery was associated with history (aOR: 12.36 [8.70-17.58]) and non-White race (aOR: 1.90 [1.27, 2.84]). Odds of shoulder dystocia increased with history (aOR: 5.89 [3.22, 10.79]) and birth weight > 4,000 g (aOR: 9.94 [6.32, 15.65]). Birth weight > 4,000 g was associated with maternal obesity (aOR: 2.92 [2.22, 3.84]). Birth weight < 2,500 g was associated with advanced maternal age (aOR: 1.69 [1.15, 2.48]), chronic hypertension (aOR: 2.45 [1.32, 4.53]), and non-White race (aOR: 2.47 [1.66, 3.68]). Odds of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy increased with advanced maternal age (aOR: 1.79 [1.25, 2.56]), history (aOR: 10.09 [6.77-15.04]), and non-White race (aOR: 2.79 [1.95, 4.00]). NICU admission was associated with advanced maternal age (aOR: 1.47 [1.06, 2.02]) and non-White race (aOR: 2.57 [1.84, 3.58]). CONCLUSION: Among grand multiparous patients, the risk factor for adverse maternal, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes appears to be occurrence of those adverse events in a prior pregnancy and not increasing parity itself. KEY POINTS: · Increasing parity is not associated with adverse obstetric outcomes among grand multiparas.. · Prior adverse pregnancy outcome is a risk factor for the outcome among grand multiparas.. · Advanced maternal age is associated with adverse obstetric outcomes among grand multiparas..

Impact of high-risk prenatal screening results for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome on obstetric and neonatal management: Secondary analysis from the SMART study.

OBJECTIVE: One goal of prenatal genetic screening is to optimize perinatal care and improve infant outcomes. We sought to determine whether high-risk cfDNA screening for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) affected prenatal or neonatal management. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis from the SMART study. Patients with high-risk cfDNA results for 22q11.2DS were compared with the low-risk cohort for pregnancy characteristics and obstetrical management. To assess differences in neonatal care, we compared high-risk neonates without prenatal genetic confirmation with a 1:1 matched low-risk cohort. RESULTS: Of 18,020 eligible participants enrolled between 2015 and 2019, 38 (0.21%) were high-risk and 17,982 (99.79%) were low-risk for 22q11.2DS by cfDNA screening. High-risk participants had more prenatal diagnostic testing (55.3%; 21/38 vs. 2.0%; 352/17,982, p < 0.001) and fetal echocardiography (76.9%; 10/13 vs. 19.6%; 10/51, p < 0.001). High-risk newborns without prenatal diagnostic testing had higher rates of neonatal genetic testing (46.2%; 6/13 vs. 0%; 0/51, P < 0.001), echocardiography (30.8%; 4/13 vs. 4.0%; 2/50, p = 0.013), evaluation of calcium levels (46.2%; 6/13 vs. 4.1%; 2/49, P < 0.001) and lymphocyte count (53.8%; 7/13 vs. 15.7%; 8/51, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk screening results for 22q11.2DS were associated with higher rates of prenatal and neonatal diagnostic genetic testing and other 22q11.2DS-specific evaluations. However, these interventions were not universally performed, and >50% of high-risk infants were discharged without genetic testing, representing possible missed opportunities to improve outcomes for affected individuals.

Comparing outcomes of fetal growth restriction defined by estimated fetal weight versus isolated abdominal circumference.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes when the diagnosis of FGR was based on isolated abdominal circumference < 10th percentile for gestational age (GA) (iAC group) versus overall estimated fetal weight < 10th percentile (EFW group). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of singleton gestations who underwent growth ultrasounds and delivered at a single health system from 1/1/19-9/4/20. The study group was comprised of patients with AC < 10th percentile and EFW ≥ than the 10th percentile (iAC group). The control group included patients with overall EFW < 10th percentile (EFW group). Outcomes evaluated included GA at delivery, mode of delivery, fetal and neonatal outcomes. Data was analyzed using Mann Whitney U, X2, and Fisher exact tests with significance defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: 635 women met the inclusion criteria, 259 women in the iAC group and 376 women in the EFW group. The iAC group was noted to have a later GA at diagnosis and delivery. iAC was associated with lower rates of preterm birth (PTB), NICU admission, SGA at delivery and umbilical artery cord gas < 7.0. CONCLUSION: Using iAC as a definition of FGR increased the number of FGR cases by 1.69-fold over EFW criteria alone. However, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes for the iAC group appear to be significantly better than those in the EFW group, with low rates of PTB, NICU admission, and umbilical artery cord gas < 7.0.

Acceptance of Routine Vaccines in Pregnancy during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the rates of vaccination against infectious diseases (Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis [Tdap] and influenza) in pregnancy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic compared to contemporary historical controls. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing rates of Tdap and influenza vaccination in pregnant people who received care at NYU Langone Health and delivered from September 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021 ("COVID cohort") to the same period the prior year ("2019 cohort"). Demographic information, trimester of initiation of prenatal care, insurance status, and medical comorbidities were evaluated. Outcomes were analyzed using chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and multivariable logistic regression, with significance of p < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 1,713 pregnant people were included. Compared to historical controls, the COVID cohort differed in age, race, timing of initiation of prenatal care, insurance status, and medical comorbidities. After adjusting for these covariates, pregnant people were significantly more likely to accept influenza vaccine in the COVID cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-2.29) and had similar Tdap acceptance (aOR 1.5, 95% CI 0.99-2.17). However, this trend was not observed for the entire obstetric population; public insurance status and medical comorbidities were associated with lower vaccine rates during the pandemic. For those who had public insurance, rates of influenza vaccination decreased from 83% in 2019 to 40% during COVID (aOR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10-0.24) and for Tdap rates decreased from 93 to 54% (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.21). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic era, pregnant people at large were more likely to accept the influenza vaccine. However, this trend did not apply to Tdap, and high-risk groups with public insurance and medical comorbidities. This study highlights potential disparities in vaccination rates, which need to be accounted for when evaluating national vaccine trends. These data support increased efforts in vaccine counseling for high-risk populations. KEY POINTS: · Antenatal flu vaccination increased during the pandemic.. · Antenatal Tdap vaccination was unchanged during the pandemic.. · High-risk pregnant patients had decreased vaccine uptake.. · High-risk subgroups were not included in overarching vaccination trends..

Genetic counseling practices among outpatient obstetric providers in the Northeast.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends all pregnant people be offered genetic screening and diagnostic testing regardless of risk factors. Previous studies have demonstrated disparities in referrals for genetic testing by race outside of pregnancy, but limited data exist regarding genetic counseling practices during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe how patient, provider, and practice demographics influence the offering of diagnostic prenatal genetic testing by outpatient prenatal care providers. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter anonymous survey study conducted between October 2021 and March 2022. Outpatient prenatal care providers, including family medicine and obstetrics attendings, residents, maternal-fetal medicine fellows, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives, were surveyed about their genetic counseling practices and practice demographics. The primary outcome was the proportion of respondents who answered "yes, all patients" to the survey question "Do you offer diagnostic genetic testing to all patients?" The secondary outcomes included the association between patient and practice demographics and offering diagnostic testing. Diagnostic testing was defined as chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. Screening genetic tests were defined as sequential screen, quadruple screen, cell-free DNA screening, or "other." The chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used as appropriate. For the outcome answers of diagnostic testing, logistic regression was performed to assess the association between the answer of diagnostic genetic testing and the current training level of providers, race and ethnicity, and insurance status variables. Multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 635 outpatient prenatal care providers across 7 sites were sent the survey. Overall, 419 providers responded for a total response rate of 66%. Of the providers who responded, most were attendings (44.9%), followed by residents (37.5%). Providers indicated the race, insurance status, and primary language of their patient population. Screening genetic testing was offered by 98% of providers. Per provider report, 37% offered diagnostic testing to all patients, 18% did not offer it at all, and 44% only offered it if certain patient factors were present. Moreover, 54.8% of attendings reported universally offering diagnostic testing. On univariable analysis, residents were less likely to offer diagnostic testing than attendings (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.30). Providers who serve non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic Black, and other Hispanic patients were less likely to report offering diagnostic testing than other patient populations. Providers who served non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to offer diagnostic testing (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-3.39). Patient populations who were primarily privately insured were more likely to be offered diagnostic testing compared with primarily publicly insured patients (odds ratio, 6.25; 95% confidence interval, 3.60-10.85). Providers who served a primarily English-speaking population were more likely to offer diagnostic genetic testing than other patient populations (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.69). On multivariable analysis, the factors that remained significantly associated with offering diagnostic testing included level of training (resident odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.62; P=.0006; advanced practice provider odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.82; P=.02), having at least one-third of the patient population identify as "other Hispanic" (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.77; P=.005), and having private insurance instead of public insurance (primarily private insured odds ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-6.74; P=.02). CONCLUSION: Although offering genetic screening and diagnostic testing to all patients is recommended, no provider group universally offers diagnostic testing. Providers who serve populations from a racial and ethnic minority, those with public insurance, and those whose primary language is not English are less likely to report universally offering diagnostic genetic testing.

Performance of prenatal cfDNA screening for sex chromosomes.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening to detect sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) in an unselected obstetrical population with genetic confirmation. METHODS: This was a planned secondary analysis of the multicenter, prospective SNP-based Microdeletion and Aneuploidy RegisTry (SMART) study. Patients receiving cfDNA results for autosomal aneuploidies and who had confirmatory genetic results for the relevant sex chromosomal aneuploidies were included. Screening performance for SCAs, including monosomy X (MX) and the sex chromosome trisomies (SCT: 47,XXX; 47,XXY; 47,XYY) was determined. Fetal sex concordance between cfDNA and genetic screening was also evaluated in euploid pregnancies. RESULTS: A total of 17,538 cases met inclusion criteria. Performance of cfDNA for MX, SCTs, and fetal sex was determined in 17,297, 10,333, and 14,486 pregnancies, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of cfDNA were 83.3%, 99.9%, and 22.7% for MX and 70.4%, 99.9%, and 82.6%, respectively, for the combined SCTs. The accuracy of fetal sex prediction by cfDNA was 100%. CONCLUSION: Screening performance of cfDNA for SCAs is comparable to that reported in other studies. The PPV for the SCTs was similar to the autosomal trisomies, whereas the PPV for MX was substantially lower. No discordance in fetal sex was observed between cfDNA and postnatal genetic screening in euploid pregnancies. These data will assist interpretation and counseling for cfDNA results for sex chromosomes.

Cell-free DNA screening for trisomy 21 in twin pregnancy: a large multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of cell-free DNA from maternal blood provides effective screening for trisomy 21 in singleton pregnancies. Data on cell-free DNA screening in twin gestations are promising although limited. In previous twin studies, cell-free DNA screening was primarily performed in the second trimester and many studies did not report chorionicity. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the screening performance of cell-free DNA for trisomy 21 in twin pregnancies in a large, diverse cohort. A secondary aim was to evaluate screening performance for trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of twin pregnancies from 17 centers for which cell-free DNA screening was performed from December 2011 to February 2020 by one laboratory using massively parallel sequencing technology. Medical record review was conducted for all newborns and data on the birth outcome, the presence of any congenital abnormalities, phenotypic appearance at birth, and any chromosomal testing that was undertaken in the antenatal or postnatal period were extracted. Cases with a possible fetal chromosomal abnormality with no genetic test results were reviewed by a committee of maternal-fetal medicine geneticists. Cases with a vanishing twin and inadequate follow-up information were excluded. A minimum of 35 confirmed cases of trisomy 21 was required to capture a sensitivity of at least 90% with a prevalence of at least 1.9% with 80% power. Test characteristics were calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 1764 samples were sent for twin cell-free DNA screening. Of those, 78 cases with a vanishing twin and 239 cases with inadequate follow-up were excluded, leaving a total of 1447 cases for inclusion in the analysis. The median maternal age was 35 years and the median gestational age at cell-free DNA testing was 12.3 weeks. In total, 81% of the twins were dichorionic. The median fetal fraction was 12.4%. Trisomy 21 was detected in 41 of 42 pregnancies, yielding a detection rate of 97.6% (95% confidence interval, 83.8-99.7). There was 1 false negative and no false positive cases. Trisomy 21 was detected in 38 out of 39 dichorionic twin pregnancies, yielding a detection rate of 97.4% (95% confidence interval, 82.6-99.7). Trisomy 18 was detected in 10 of the 10 affected pregnancies. There was 1 false positive case. Trisomy 13 was detected in 4 of the 5 cases, yielding a detection rate of 80% (95% confidence interval, 11.1-99.2). There was one false negative and no false positive cases. The nonreportable rate was low at 3.9 %. CONCLUSION: Cell-free DNA testing is effective in screening for trisomy 21 in twin gestations from the first trimester of pregnancy. Detection of trisomy 21 was high in dichorionic and monochorionic twins, and the nonreportable result rates were low. This study included high numbers of cases of trisomy 18 and 13 when compared with the current literature. Although screening for these conditions in twins seems to be promising, the numbers were too small to make definitive conclusions regarding the screening efficacy for these conditions. It is possible that cell-free DNA testing performance may differ among laboratories and vary with screening methodologies.

Obstetrical, perinatal, and genetic outcomes associated with nonreportable prenatal cell-free DNA screening results.

BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of nonreportable cell-free DNA screening results are uncertain, but such results may indicate poor placental implantation in some cases and be associated with adverse obstetrical and perinatal outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the outcomes of pregnancies with nonreportable cell-free DNA screening in a cohort of patients with complete genetic and obstetrical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prespecified secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study of prenatal cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Participants who underwent cell-free DNA screening from April 2015 through January 2019 were offered participation. Obstetrical outcomes and neonatal genetic testing results were collected from 21 primary-care and referral centers in the United States, Europe, and Australia. The primary outcome was risk for adverse obstetrical and perinatal outcomes (aneuploidy, preterm birth at <28, <34, and <37 weeks' gestation, preeclampsia, small for gestational age or birthweight <10th percentile for gestational week, and a composite outcome that included preterm birth at <37 weeks, preeclampsia, small for gestational age, and stillbirth at >20 weeks) after nonreportable cell-free DNA screening because of low fetal fraction or other causes. Multivariable analyses were performed, adjusting for variables known to be associated with obstetrical and perinatal outcomes, nonreportable results, or fetal fraction. RESULTS: In total, 25,199 pregnant individuals were screened, and 20,194 were enrolled. Genetic confirmation was missing in 1165 (5.8%), 1085 (5.4%) were lost to follow-up, and 93 (0.5%) withdrew; the final study cohort included 17,851 (88.4%) participants who had cell-free DNA, fetal or newborn genetic confirmatory testing, and obstetrical and perinatal outcomes collected. Results were nonreportable in 602 (3.4%) participants. A sample was redrawn and testing attempted again in 427; in 112 (26.2%) participants, results were again nonreportable. Nonreportable results were associated with higher body mass index, chronic hypertension, later gestational age, lower fetal fraction, and Black race. Trisomy 13, 18, or 21 was confirmed in 1.6% with nonreportable tests vs 0.7% with reported results (P=.013). Rates of preterm birth at <28, 34, and 37 weeks, preeclampsia, and the composite outcome were higher among participants with nonreportable results, and further increased among those with a second nonreportable test, whereas the rate of small for gestational age infants was not increased. After adjustment for confounders, the adjusted odds ratios were 2.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.4) and 2.6 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-10.8) for aneuploidy, and 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.8) and 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.2) for the composite outcome after a first and second nonreportable test, respectively. Of the patients with nonreportable tests, 94.9% had a live birth, as opposed to 98.8% of those with reported test results (adjusted odds ratio for livebirth, 0.20 [95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.30]). CONCLUSION: Patients with nonreportable cell-free DNA results are at increased risk for a number of adverse outcomes, including aneuploidy, preeclampsia, and preterm birth. They should be offered diagnostic genetic testing, and clinicians should be aware of the increased risk of pregnancy complications.

Timing of birth and adverse pregnancy outcomes in cases of prenatally diagnosed vasa previa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The ideal time for birth in pregnancies diagnosed with vasa previa remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review aiming to identify the gestational age at delivery that best balances the risks for prematurity with that of pregnancy prolongation in cases with prenatally diagnosed vasa previa. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to January 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The intervention analyzed was delivery at various gestational ages in pregnancies prenatally diagnosed with vasa previa. Cohort studies, case series, and case reports were included in the qualitative synthesis. When summary figures could not be obtained directly from the studies for the quantitative synthesis, authors were contacted and asked to provide a breakdown of perinatal outcomes by gestational age at birth. METHODS: Study appraisal was completed using the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for the respective study types. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions. RESULTS: The search identified 3435 studies of which 1264 were duplicates. After screening 2171 titles and abstracts, 140 studies proceeded to the full-text screen. A total of 37 studies were included for analysis, 14 of which were included in a quantitative synthesis. Among 490 neonates, there were 2 perinatal deaths (0.4%), both of which were neonatal deaths before 32 weeks' gestation. In general, the rate of neonatal complications decreased steadily from <32 weeks' gestation (4.6% rate of perinatal death, 91.2% respiratory distress, 11.4% 5-minute Apgar score <7, 23.3% neonatal blood transfusion, 100% neonatal intensive care unit admission, and 100% low birthweight) to 36 weeks' gestation (0% perinatal death, 5.3% respiratory distress, 0% 5-minute Apgar score <7, 2.9% neonatal blood transfusion, 29.2% neonatal intensive care unit admission, and 30.9% low birthweight). Complications then increased slightly at 37 weeks' gestation before decreasing again at 38 weeks' gestation. CONCLUSION: Prolonging pregnancies until 36 weeks' gestation seems to be safe and beneficial in otherwise uncomplicated pregnancies with antenatally diagnosed vasa previa.

Cell-free DNA screening for prenatal detection of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Historically, prenatal screening has focused primarily on the detection of fetal aneuploidies. Cell-free DNA now enables noninvasive screening for subchromosomal copy number variants, including 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (or DiGeorge syndrome), which is the most common microdeletion and a leading cause of congenital heart defects and neurodevelopmental delay. Although smaller studies have demonstrated the feasibility of screening for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, large cohort studies with confirmatory postnatal testing to assess test performance have not been reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the performance of single-nucleotide polymorphism-based, prenatal cell-free DNA screening for detection of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who underwent single-nucleotide polymorphism-based prenatal cell-free DNA screening for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome were prospectively enrolled at 21 centers in 6 countries. Prenatal or newborn DNA samples were requested in all cases for genetic confirmation using chromosomal microarrays. The primary outcome was sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of cell-free DNA screening for the detection of all deletions, including the classical deletion and nested deletions that are ≥500 kb, in the 22q11.2 low-copy repeat A-D region. Secondary outcomes included the prevalence of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and performance of an updated cell-free DNA algorithm that was evaluated with blinding to the pregnancy outcome. RESULTS: Of the 20,887 women enrolled, a genetic outcome was available for 18,289 (87.6%). A total of 12 22q11.2 deletion syndrome cases were confirmed in the cohort, including 5 (41.7%) nested deletions, yielding a prevalence of 1 in 1524. In the total cohort, cell-free DNA screening identified 17,976 (98.3%) cases as low risk for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and 38 (0.2%) cases as high risk; 275 (1.5%) cases were nonreportable. Overall, 9 of 12 cases of 22q11.2 were detected, yielding a sensitivity of 75.0% (95% confidence interval, 42.8-94.5); specificity of 99.84% (95% confidence interval, 99.77-99.89); positive predictive value of 23.7% (95% confidence interval, 11.44-40.24), and negative predictive value of 99.98% (95% confidence interval, 99.95-100). None of the cases with a nonreportable result was diagnosed with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. The updated algorithm detected 10 of 12 cases (83.3%; 95% confidence interval, 51.6-97.9) with a lower false positive rate (0.05% vs 0.16%; P<.001) and a positive predictive value of 52.6% (10/19; 95% confidence interval, 28.9-75.6). CONCLUSION: Noninvasive cell-free DNA prenatal screening for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome can detect most affected cases, including smaller nested deletions, with a low false positive rate.