Qualitative evaluation of rapid implementation of remote blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy during Covid-19.

In March 2020, the World Health Organisation named the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (Sars-CoV-2), which causes corona virus disease 2019 (COVID -19), as a pandemic. Pregnant women were considered at increased risk of developing severe COVID-19 after viral infection. In response maternity services reduced face-to-face consultations with high-risk pregnant women by supplying blood pressure monitors for supported self-monitoring. This paper explores the experiences of patients and clinicians of the rapid roll-out of supported self-monitoring programme in Scotland during the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with high-risk women and healthcare professionals who were using supported self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) In four case studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. 20 women, 15 midwives and 4 obstetricians took part in the interviews. Interviews with healthcare professionals showed that while implementation occurred at pace and at scale across the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland, implementation differed locally, resulting in mixed experiences. Study Participants observed several barriers and facilitators to implementation. Women value the simplicity of use and convenience of the digital communications platforms while health professionals were more interested in their impact on reducing workload for both women and health professionals largely found self-monitoring acceptable, with only a few exceptions. These results show that rapid change can occur in the NHS at a national level when there is a shared motivation. While self-monitoring is acceptable to most women, decisions regarding self-monitoring should be made jointly and on an individual basis.

Midwife-Led Ultrasound Scanning to Date Pregnancy in Malawi: Development of a Novel Training Program.

The use of ultrasound to determine gestational age is fundamental to the optimum management of pregnancy and is recommended for all women by the World Health Organization. However, this modality remains unavailable to many women in low-income countries where trained practitioners are scarce. Although previous initiatives have demonstrated efficacy in training midwives and technicians to perform antenatal ultrasound, these programs have often been too long and too complex to be realistic within the specific constraints of this context, highlighting the need for a novel and pragmatic approach. We describe the development and piloting of a bespoke course to teach midwives 3 fundamental components of early antenatal ultrasound scanning: (1) to identify the number of fetuses, (2) to confirm fetal viability, and (3) to determine gestational age. Having established that 5 days is insufficient, we propose that the minimum duration required to train ultrasound-naive midwives to competency is 10 days. Our completed program therefore consists of one and one-half days of didactic teaching, followed by 8 and one-half days of supervised hands-on practical training in which trainees are assessed on their skills. This package has subsequently been successfully implemented across 6 sites in Malawi, where 28 midwives have achieved competency. By describing the processes involved in our cross-continental collaboration, we explain how unexpected challenges helped shape and improve our program, demonstrating the value of preimplementation piloting and a pragmatic and adaptive approach.

Training in Ultrasound to Determine Gestational Age (TUDA): Evaluation of a Novel Education Package to Teach Ultrasound-Naive Midwives Basic Obstetric Ultrasound in Malawi.

Introduction: Although ultrasound to determine gestational age is fundamental to the optimum management of pregnancy and is recommended for all women by the World Health Organisation, it remains unavailable to many women in low-income countries where trained practitioners are scarce. This study aimed to evaluate a novel, context-specific education package to teach midwives basic obstetric ultrasound, including the determination of gestational age by measurement of fetal femur length. Methods: The study was conducted across six sites in Malawi in January 2021. Following a virtual "training of the trainers", local teams delivered a 10-day programme encompassing both didactic and "hands on" components. Matched pre and post course tests assessed participants' knowledge of key concepts, with Objective Structured Clinical Examinations used to evaluate practical skills. To achieve a pass, trainees were required to establish the gestational age to within ±7 days of an experienced practitioner and achieve an overall score of >65% on five consecutive occasions. A matched pre and post course survey explored participants' attitudes and confidence in performing ultrasound examinations. Results: Of the 29 midwives who participated, 28 finished the programme and met the criteria specified to pass. 22 midwives completed the matched knowledge tests, with the mean (SD) score increasing from 10.2 (3.3) to 18 (2.5) after training (P <0.0001). Mean difference 7.9, 95% CI 6.5-9.2. Midwives passed 87% of the Observed Structured Clinical Examinations, establishing the gestational age to within ±7 days of an experienced practitioner in 89% of assessments. Beliefs regarding the importance of antenatal ultrasound increased post course (p = 0.02), as did confidence in performing ultrasound examinations (p <0.0001). Conclusion: This study demonstrates not only that ultrasound-naive practitioners can be taught to perform basic obstetric ultrasound dating scans, confidently and competently, after 10 days of training, but also that local teams can be orientated to successfully deliver the programme virtually. Previous ultrasound training initiatives, while often more comprehensive in their syllabus, have been of considerably longer duration and this is likely to be a barrier to upscaling opportunities. We propose that this focused training increases the potential for widescale and sustainable implementation.

Awareness of fetal movements and care package to reduce fetal mortality (AFFIRM): a trial-based and model-based cost-effectiveness analysis from a stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The AFFIRM intervention aimed to reduce stillbirth and neonatal deaths by increasing awareness of reduced fetal movements (RFM) and implementing a care pathway when women present with RFM. Although there is uncertainty regarding the clinical effectiveness of the intervention, the aim of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial was conducted in thirty-three hospitals in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. All women giving birth at the study sites during the analysis period were included in the study. The costs associated with implementing the intervention were estimated from audits of RFM attendances and electronic healthcare records. Trial data were used to estimate a cost per stillbirth prevented was for AFFIRM versus standard care. A decision analytic model was used to estimate the costs and number of perinatal deaths (stillbirths + early neonatal deaths) prevented if AFFIRM were rolled out across Great Britain for one year. Key assumptions were explored in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Direct costs to implement AFFIRM were an estimated £95,126 per 1,000 births. Compared to standard care, the cost per stillbirth prevented was estimated to be between £86,478 and being dominated (higher costs, no benefit). The estimated healthcare budget impact of implementing AFFIRM across Great Britain was a cost increase of £61,851,400/year. CONCLUSIONS: Perinatal deaths are relatively rare events in the UK which can increase uncertainty in economic evaluations. This evaluation estimated a plausible range of costs to prevent baby deaths which can inform policy decisions in maternity services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , number NCT01777022 .

Metformin in obese pregnancy has no adverse effects on cardiovascular risk in early childhood.

Metformin is widely used in pregnancy, despite lack of long-term safety for children. We hypothesised that metformin exposure in utero is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. We tested this hypothesis in a follow-up study of children born to obese mothers who had participated in a randomised controlled trial of metformin versus placebo in pregnancy (EMPOWaR). We measured body composition, peripheral blood pressure (BP), arterial pulse wave velocity and central haemodynamics (central BP and augmentation index) using an oscillometric device in 40 children of mean (SD) age 5.78 (0.93) years, exposed to metformin (n = 19) or placebo (n = 21) in utero. There were no differences in any of the anthropometric or vascular measures between metformin and placebo-exposed groups in univariate analyses, or after adjustment for potential confounders including the child's behaviour, diet and activity levels. Post-hoc sample size calculation indicated we would have detected large clinically significant differences between the groups but would need an unfeasible large number to detect possible subtle differences in key cardiovascular risk parameters in children at this age of follow-up. Our findings suggest no evidence of increased cardiovascular risk in children born to obese mothers who took metformin in pregnancy and increase available knowledge of the long-term safety of metformin on childhood outcomes.

Feasibility and design of a trial regarding the optimal mode of delivery for preterm birth: the CASSAVA multiple methods study.

BACKGROUND: Around 60,000 babies are born preterm (prior to 37 weeks' gestation) each year in the UK. There is little evidence on the optimal birth mode (vaginal or caesarean section). OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of the CASSAVA project was to determine if a trial to define the optimal mode of preterm birth could be carried out and, if so, determine what sort of trial could be conducted and how it could best be performed. We aimed to determine the specific groups of preterm women and babies for whom there are uncertainties about the best planned mode of birth, and if there would be willingness to recruit to, and participate in, a randomised trial to address some, but not all, of these uncertainties. This project was conducted in response to a Heath Technology Assessment programme commissioning call (17/22 'Mode of delivery for preterm infants'). METHODS: We conducted clinician and patient surveys (n = 224 and n = 379, respectively) to identify current practice and opinion, and a consensus survey and Delphi workshop (n = 76 and n = 22 participants, respectively) to inform the design of a hypothetical clinical trial. The protocol for this clinical trial/vignette was used in telephone interviews with clinicians (n = 24) and in focus groups with potential participants (n = 13). RESULTS: Planned sample size and data saturation was achieved for all groups except for focus groups with participants, as this had to be curtailed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and data saturation was not achieved. There was broad agreement from parents and health-care professionals that a trial is needed. The clinician survey demonstrated a variety of practice and opinion. The parent survey suggested that women and their families generally preferred vaginal birth at later gestations and caesarean section for preterm infants. The interactive workshop and Delphi consensus process confirmed the need for more evidence (hence the case for a trial) and provided rich information on what a future trial should entail. It was agreed that any trial should address the areas with most uncertainty, including the management of women at 26-32 weeks' gestation, with either spontaneous preterm labour (cephalic presentation) or where preterm birth was medically indicated. Clear themes around the challenges inherent in conducting any trial emerged, including the concept of equipoise itself. Specific issues were as follows: different clinicians and participants would be in equipoise for each clinical scenario, effective conduct of the trial would require appropriate resources and expertise within the hospital conducting the trial, potential participants would welcome information on the trial well before the onset of labour and minority ethnic groups would require tailored approaches. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of evidence and the variation of practice and opinion in this area, and having listened to clinicians and potential participants, we conclude that a trial should be conducted and the outlined challenges resolved. FUTURE WORK: The CASSAVA project could be used to inform the design of a randomised trial and indicates how such a trial could be carried out. Any future trial would benefit from a pilot with qualitative input and a study within a trial to inform optimal recruitment. LIMITATIONS: Certainty that a trial could be conducted can be determined only when it is attempted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12295730. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 60,000 babies are born preterm each year in the UK. We do not know what the safest mode of birth is for these babies. Birth options include a vaginal birth or a caesarean section (which involves an operation for the mother). Normally, the ideal way to find out what clinical options are best is to carry out a 'randomised trial' in which participants are allocated to a particular treatment group (in this case, vaginal birth or caesarean section) by chance. It is not clear if women who have their babies preterm would want to take part in such a trial or that the clinicians looking after the women would be happy to ask them to, as previous trials have failed to recruit sufficient participants. The purpose of the CASSAVA research project was to find out what people think is the best and safest method of delivering preterm babies, their views on doing a research trial and what sort of research trial could be carried out. We conducted a survey asking clinicians and women their views. We gathered clinicians and women together to discuss and agree the key questions for a trial to answer. We then developed a protocol (plan) for a possible trial. Using this trial protocol, we conducted telephone interviews with clinicians, asking them if they would be willing to be involved and if they would be willing to ask pregnant women to participate. We also conducted focus groups with women, using a vignette (storyboard) about a possible trial. We found that there is a lot of uncertainty about the best way for preterm babies to be born. Clinicians and women broadly agreed that it would be good to resolve this uncertainty through a trial. We were able to identify some areas of the greatest uncertainty where clinicians and women would consider participating in a study. We gained a lot of useful information about how we could best set up a trial and support clinicians and women to get involved.

The Arabin pessary to prevent preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix: the STOPPIT 2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is common in twins and accounts for significant mortality and morbidity. There are no effective preventative treatments. Some studies have suggested that, in twin pregnancy complicated by a short cervix, the Arabin pessary, which fits around the cervix and can be inserted as an outpatient procedure, reduces preterm birth and prevents neonatal morbidity. OBJECTIVE: STOPPIT 2 aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of the Arabin cervical pessary in preventing preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix. DESIGN: STOPPIT 2 was a pragmatic, open label, multicentre randomised controlled trial with two treatment group - the Arabin pessary plus standard care (intervention) and standard care alone (control). Participants were initially recruited into the screening phase of the study, when cervical length was measured. Women with a measured cervical length of ≤ 35 mm were then recruited into the treatment phase of the study. An economic evaluation considered cost-effectiveness and a qualitative substudy explored the experiences of participants and clinicians. SETTING: Antenatal clinics in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. PARTICIPANTS: Women with twin pregnancy at < 21 weeks' gestation with known chorionicity and gestation established by scan at ≤ 16 weeks' gestation. INTERVENTIONS: Ultrasound scan to establish cervical length. Women with a cervical length of ≤ 35 mm at 18+ 0-20+ 6 weeks' gestation were randomised to standard care or Arabin pessary plus standard care. Randomisation was performed by computer and accessed through a web-based browser. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obstetric - all births before 34+ 0 weeks' gestation following the spontaneous onset of labour; and neonatal - composite of adverse outcomes, including stillbirth or neonatal death, periventricular leukomalacia, early respiratory morbidity, intraventricular haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis or proven sepsis, all measured up to 28 days after the expected date of delivery. RESULTS: A total of 2228 participants were recruited to the screening phase, of whom 2170 received a scan and 503 were randomised: 250 to Arabin pessary and 253 to standard care alone. The rate of the primary obstetric outcome was 18.4% (46/250) in the intervention group and 20.6% (52/253) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.38; p = 0.54). The rate of the primary neonatal outcome was 13.4% (67/500) and 15.0% (76/506) in the intervention group and control group, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.36; p = 0.52). The pessary was largely well tolerated and clinicians found insertion and removal 'easy' or 'fairly easy' in the majority of instances. The simple costs analysis showed that pessary treatment is no more costly than standard care. LIMITATIONS: There was the possibility of a type II error around smaller than anticipated benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the Arabin pessary did not reduce preterm birth or adverse neonatal outcomes in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix. The pessary either is ineffective at reducing preterm birth or has an effect size of < 0.4. FUTURE WORK: Women with twin pregnancy remain at risk of preterm birth; work is required to find treatments for this. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98835694 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02235181. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Women who are pregnant with twins have a much higher risk of going into labour early and having an early (preterm) birth than women who are pregnant with only one baby. For this reason, babies who are twins are much more likely to die or to have serious health complications in the first months of life. Although we know that women with twin pregnancy are at risk, there are no treatments that are recommended to prevent early births. Some studies have suggested that the Arabin pessary can help. The Arabin pessary is a silicone ring that fits around the cervix (neck of the womb). The pessary can be put in place in a clinic without any need for an anaesthetic. Some studies have suggested that the Arabin pessary helps and others have suggested that it does not. It appears to be most helpful when the cervix (neck of the womb) is already shortening. Shortening of the neck of the womb is a sign that early birth is even more likely. We asked women with twin pregnancy to take part in STOPPIT 2. Women who agreed had an ultrasound scan of the neck of the womb, which measured its length. Those with a short cervix were randomised to be offered the Arabin pessary (in addition to standard care) or standard care alone. This allocation was carried out 'at random' by a computer. We followed women up until the end of their pregnancy and collected information on the babies' health after birth. We found that the Arabin pessary did not reduce the risk of an early birth; nor did it reduce the risk of health complications for the baby. We conclude that the Arabin pessary should not be used for this purpose.

Evaluation of the Arabin cervical pessary for prevention of preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy and short cervix (STOPPIT-2): An open-label randomised trial and updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preterm-labour-associated preterm birth is a common cause of perinatal mortality and morbidity in twin pregnancy. We aimed to test the hypothesis that the Arabin pessary would reduce preterm-labour-associated preterm birth by 40% or greater in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an open-label randomised controlled trial in 57 hospital antenatal clinics in the UK and Europe. From 1 April 2015 to 14 February 2019, 2,228 women with a twin pregnancy underwent cervical length screening between 18 weeks 0 days and 20 weeks 6 days of gestation. In total, 503 women with cervical length ≤ 35 mm were randomly assigned to pessary in addition to standard care (n = 250, mean age 32.4 years, mean cervical length 29 mm, with pessary inserted in 230 women [92.0%]) or standard care alone (n = 253, mean age 32.7 years, mean cervical length 30 mm). The pessary was inserted before 21 completed weeks of gestation and removed at between 35 and 36 weeks or before birth if earlier. The primary obstetric outcome, spontaneous onset of labour and birth before 34 weeks 0 days of gestation, was present in 46/250 (18.4%) in the pessary group compared to 52/253 (20.6%) following standard care alone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.87 [95% CI 0.55-1.38], p = 0.54). The primary neonatal outcome-a composite of any of stillbirth, neonatal death, periventricular leukomalacia, early respiratory morbidity, intraventricular haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis, or proven sepsis, from birth to 28 days after the expected date of delivery-was present in 67/500 infants (13.4%) in the pessary group compared to 76/506 (15.0%) following standard care alone (aOR 0.86 [95% CI 0.54-1.36], p = 0.50). The positive and negative likelihood ratios of a short cervix (≤35 mm) to predict preterm birth before 34 weeks were 2.14 and 0.83, respectively. A meta-analysis of data from existing publications (4 studies, 313 women) and from STOPPIT-2 indicated that a cervical pessary does not reduce preterm birth before 34 weeks in women with a short cervix (risk ratio 0.74 [95% CI 0.50-1.11], p = 0.15). No women died in either arm of the study; 4.4% of babies in the Arabin pessary group and 5.5% of babies in the standard treatment group died in utero or in the neonatal period (p = 0.53). Study limitations include lack of power to exclude a smaller than 40% reduction in preterm labour associated preterm birth, and to be conclusive about subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: These results led us to reject our hypothesis that the Arabin pessary would reduce the risk of the primary outcome by 40%. Smaller treatment effects cannot be ruled out. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN 02235181. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02235181.

Interventions to reduce preterm birth and stillbirth, and improve outcomes for babies born preterm in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Reducing preterm birth and stillbirth and improving outcomes for babies born too soon is essential to reduce under-5 mortality globally. In the context of a rapidly evolving evidence base and problems with extrapolating efficacy data from high- to low-income settings, an assessment of the evidence for maternal and newborn interventions specific to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is required. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was done. We included all studies performed in LMICs since the Every Newborn Action Plan, between 2013 - 2018, which reported on interventions where the outcome assessed was reduction in preterm birth or stillbirth incidence and/or a reduction in preterm infant neonatal mortality. Evidence was categorised according to maternal or neonatal intervention groups and a narrative synthesis conducted. RESULTS: 179 studies (147 primary evidence studies and 32 systematic reviews) were identified in 82 LMICs. 81 studies reported on maternal interventions and 98 reported on neonatal interventions. Interventions in pregnant mothers which resulted in significant reductions in preterm birth and stillbirth were (i) multiple micronutrient supplementation and (ii) enhanced quality of antenatal care. Routine antenatal ultrasound in LMICs increased identification of fetal antenatal conditions but did not reduce stillbirth or preterm birth due to the absence of services to manage these diagnoses. Interventions in pre-term neonates which improved their survival included (i) feeding support including probiotics and (ii) thermal regulation. Improved provision of neonatal resuscitation did not improve pre-term mortality rates, highlighting the importance of post-resuscitation care. Community mobilisation, for example through community education packages, was found to be an effective way of delivering interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the implementation of several low-cost interventions with the potential to deliver reductions in preterm birth and stillbirth and improve outcomes for preterm babies in LMICs. These, however, must be complemented by overall health systems strengthening to be effective. Quality improvement methodology and learning health systems approaches can provide important means of understanding and tackling implementation challenges within local contexts. Further pragmatic efficacy trials of interventions in LMICs are essential, particularly for interventions not previously tested in these contexts.

Postal recruitment for genetic studies of preterm birth: A feasibility study.

Background: Preterm birth (PTB) represents the leading cause of neonatal death. Large-scale genetic studies are necessary to determine genetic influences on PTB risk, but prospective cohort studies are expensive and time-consuming. We investigated the feasibility of retrospective recruitment of post-partum women for efficient collection of genetic samples, with self-collected saliva for DNA extraction from themselves and their babies, alongside self-recollection of pregnancy and birth details to phenotype PTB. Methods: 708 women who had participated in the OPPTIMUM trial (a randomised trial of progesterone pessaries to prevent PTB [ISRCTN14568373]) and consented to further contact were invited to provide self-collected saliva from themselves and their babies. DNA was extracted from Oragene OG-500 (adults) and OG-575 (babies) saliva kits and the yield measured by Qubit. Samples were analysed using a panel of Taqman single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) assays. A questionnaire designed to meet the minimum data set required for phenotyping PTB was included. Questionnaire responses were transcribed and analysed for concordance with prospective trial data using Cohen's kappa ( k). Results: Recruitment rate was 162/708 (23%) for self-collected saliva samples and 157/708 (22%) for questionnaire responses. 161 samples from the mother provided DNA with median yield 59.0µg (0.4-148.9µg). 156 samples were successfully genotyped (96.9%). 136 baby samples had a median yield 11.5µg (0.1-102.7µg); two samples failed DNA extraction. 131 baby samples (96.3%) were successfully genotyped. Concordance between self-recalled birth details and prospective birth details was excellent ( k>0.75) in 4 out of 10 key fields for phenotyping PTB (mode of delivery, labour onset, ethnicity and maternal age at birth). Conclusion: This feasibility study demonstrates that self-collected DNA samples from mothers and babies were sufficient for genetic analysis but yields were variable. Self-recollection of pregnancy and birth details was inadequate for accurately phenotyping PTB, highlighting the need for alternative strategies for investigating genetic links with PTB.

Open randomised trial of the (Arabin) pessary to prevent preterm birth in twin pregnancy with health economics and acceptability: STOPPIT-2-a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The STOPPIT-2 study aims to determine the clinical utility of the Arabin cervical pessary in preventing preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix, about which there is current uncertainty. STOPPIT-2 will resolve uncertainty around effectiveness for women with a twin pregnancy and a cervical length of 35 mm or less, define adverse effects, ascertain acceptability and estimate National Health Service costs and savings. METHODS: STOPPIT-2 is a pragmatic multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial. Consenting women with twin pregnancy will have an transvaginal ultrasound scan of their cervical length performed between 18+0 and 20+6 weeks' gestation by an accredited practitioner: women with a cervical length of ≤35 mm will be eligible for inclusion in the treatment phase of the study. The intervention by the insertion of the Arabin cervical pessary will be compared with standard treatment (no pessary).The primary outcomes are (obstetric) spontaneous onset of labour for the mother leading to delivery before 34 weeks' gestation and (neonatal) a composite of specific adverse outcomes or death occurring up to the end of the first 4 weeks after the estimated date of delivery to either or both babies.We plan to recruit 500 women in the treatment phase of the study. Assuming a treatment effect of 0.6, and background rates of 35% and 18%, respectively, for each of the primary outcomes, our study has 85% power to detect a difference between the intervention and the control groups. ANALYSIS: Data will be analysed on the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS: STOPPIT-2 was approved by the South East Scotland Ethics Committee 02 on 29 August 2014, reference number 14/SS/1031 IRAS ID 159610. DISSEMINATION: Peer reviewed journals, presentations at national and international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN98835694 and NCT02235181.

Awareness of fetal movements and care package to reduce fetal mortality (AFFIRM): a stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: 2·6 million pregnancies were estimated to have ended in stillbirth in 2015. The aim of the AFFIRM study was to test the hypothesis that introduction of a reduced fetal movement (RFM), care package for pregnant women and clinicians that increased women's awareness of the need for prompt reporting of RFM and that standardised management, including timely delivery, would alter the incidence of stillbirth. METHODS: This stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial was done in the UK and Ireland. Participating maternity hospitals were grouped and randomised, using a computer-generated allocation scheme, to one of nine intervention implementation dates (at 3 month intervals). This date was concealed from clusters and the trial team until 3 months before the implementation date. Each participating hospital had three observation periods: a control period from Jan 1, 2014, until randomised date of intervention initiation; a washout period from the implementation date and for 2 months; and the intervention period from the end of the washout period until Dec 31, 2016. Treatment allocation was not concealed from participating women and caregivers. Data were derived from observational maternity data. The primary outcome was incidence of stillbirth. The primary analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle, with births analysed according to whether they took place during the control or intervention periods, irrespective of whether the intervention had been implemented as planned. This study is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01777022. FINDINGS: 37 hospitals were enrolled in the study. Four hospitals declined participation, and 33 hospitals were randomly assigned to an intervention implementation date. Between Jan 1, 2014, and Dec, 31, 2016, data were collected from 409 175 pregnancies (157 692 deliveries during the control period, 23 623 deliveries in the washout period, and 227 860 deliveries in the intervention period). The incidence of stillbirth was 4·40 per 1000 births during the control period and 4·06 per 1000 births in the intervention period (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·75-1·07; p=0·23). INTERPRETATION: The RFM care package did not reduce the risk of stillbirths. The benefits of a policy that promotes awareness of RFM remains unproven. FUNDING: Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government (CZH/4/882), Tommy's Centre for Maternal and Fetal Health, Sands.

Does progesterone prophylaxis to prevent preterm labour improve outcome? A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial (OPPTIMUM).

BACKGROUND: Progesterone prophylaxis is widely used to prevent preterm birth but is not licensed and there is little information on long-term outcome. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of progesterone prophylaxis in women at high risk of preterm birth on obstetric, neonatal and childhood outcomes. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Obstetric units in the UK and Europe between February 2009 and April 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Women with a singleton pregnancy who are at high risk of preterm birth because of either a positive fibronectin test or a negative fibronectin test, and either previous spontaneous birth at ≤ 34 weeks+0 of gestation or a cervical length of ≤ 25 mm. INTERVENTIONS: Fibronectin test at 18+0 to 23+0 weeks of pregnancy to determine risk of preterm birth. Eligible women were allocated (using a web-based randomisation portal) to 200 mg of progesterone or placebo, taken vaginally daily from 22+0 to 24+0 until 34+0 weeks' gestation. Participants, caregivers and those assessing the outcomes were blinded to group assignment until data collection was complete. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: There were three primary outcomes, as follows: (1) obstetric - fetal death or delivery before 34+0 weeks' gestation; (2) neonatal - a composite of death, brain injury on ultrasound scan (according to specific criteria in the protocol) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia; and (3) childhood - the Bayley-III cognitive composite score at 22-26 months of age. RESULTS: In total, 96 out of 600 (16%) women in the progesterone group and 108 out of 597 (18%) women in the placebo group had the primary obstetric outcome [odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.22]. Forty-six out of 589 (8%) babies of women in the progesterone group and 62 out of 587 (11%) babies of women in the placebo group experienced the primary neonatal outcome [OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.17]. The mean Bayley-III cognitive composite score of the children at 2 years of age was 97.3 points [standard deviation (SD) 17.9 points; n = 430] in the progesterone group and 97.7 points (SD 17.5 points; n = 439) in the placebo group (difference in means -0.48, 95% CI -2.77 to 1.81). LIMITATIONS: Overall compliance with the intervention was 69%. HARMS: There were no major harms, although there was a trend of more deaths from trial entry to 2 years in the progesterone group (20/600) than in the placebo group (16/598) (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.42). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, progesterone had no significant beneficial or harmful effects on the primary obstetric, neonatal or childhood outcomes.The OPPTIMUM trial is now complete. We intend to participate in a comprehensive individual patient-level data meta-analysis examining women with a singleton pregnancy with a variety of risk factors for preterm birth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14568373. FUNDING: This trial was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC-NIHR partnership.

Glibenclamide and metfoRmin versus stAndard care in gEstational diabeteS (GRACES): a feasibility open label randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is widely used to treat gestational diabetes (GDM), but many women remain hyperglycaemic and require additional therapy. We aimed to determine recruitment rate and participant throughput in a randomised trial of glibenclamide compared with standard therapy insulin (added to maximum tolerated metformin) for treatment of GDM. METHODS: We conducted an open label feasibility study in 5 UK antenatal clinics among pregnant women 16 to 36 weeks' gestation with metformin-treated GDM. Women failing to achieve adequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy were randomised to additional glibenclamide or insulin. The primary outcome was recruitment rate. We explored feasibility with uptake, retention, adherence, safety, glycaemic control, participant satisfaction and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Records of 197 women were screened and 23 women randomised to metformin and glibenclamide (n = 13) or metformin and insulin (n = 10). Mean (SD) recruitment rate was 0.39 (0.62) women/centre/month. 9/13 (69.2%, 95%CI 38.6-90.9%) women adhered to glibenclamide and all provided outcome data (100% retention). There were no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, but metformin and insulin gave superior glycaemic control to metformin and glibenclamide, with fewer blood glucose readings <3.5 mmol/l (median [IQR] difference/woman/week of treatment 0.58 [0.03-1.87]). CONCLUSIONS: A large randomised controlled trial comparing glibenclamide or insulin in combination with metformin for women with GDM would be feasible but is unlikely to be worthwhile, given the poorer glycaemic control with glibenclamide and metformin in this pilot study. The combination of metformin and glibenclamide should be reserved for women with GDM with true needle phobia or inability to use insulin therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov registration number:NCT02080377 February 11th 2014.

Can promoting awareness of fetal movements and focusing interventions reduce fetal mortality? A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial (AFFIRM).

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the stillbirth rate in the UK was 4.2 per 1000 live births, ranking 24th out of 49 high-income countries, with an annual rate of reduction of only 1.4% per year. The majority of stillbirths occur in normally formed infants, with (retrospective) evidence of placental insufficiency the most common clinical finding. Maternal perception of reduced fetal movements (RFM) is associated with placental insufficiency and increased risk of subsequent stillbirth.This study will test the hypothesis that the introduction of a package of care to increase women's awareness of the need for prompt reporting of RFM and standardised management to identify fetal compromise with timely delivery in confirmed cases, will reduce the rate of stillbirth. Following the introduction of a similar intervention in Norway the odds of stillbirth fell by 30%, but the efficacy of this intervention (and possible adverse effects and implications for service delivery) has not been tested in a randomised trial. METHODS: We describe a stepped-wedge cluster trial design, in which participating hospitals in the UK and Ireland will be randomised to the timing of introduction of the care package. Outcomes (including the primary outcome of stillbirth) will be derived from detailed routinely collected maternity data, allowing us to robustly test our hypothesis. The degree of implementation of the intervention will be assessed in each site. A nested qualitative study will examine the acceptability of the intervention to women and healthcare providers and identify process issues including barriers to implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref 13/SS/0001) and from Research and Development offices in participating maternity units. The study started in February 2014 and delivery of the intervention completed in December 2016. Results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to local investigating sites to inform education and care of women presenting with RFM. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01777022. VERSION: Protocol Version 4.2, 3 February 2017.

Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone administration has been shown to reduce the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women at high risk, but there is uncertainty about longer term effects on the child. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of vaginal progesterone, 200 mg daily taken from 22-24 to 34 weeks of gestation, on pregnancy and infant outcomes in women at risk of preterm birth (because of previous spontaneous birth at ≤34 weeks and 0 days of gestation, or a cervical length ≤25 mm, or because of a positive fetal fibronectin test combined with other clinical risk factors for preterm birth [any one of a history in a previous pregnancy of preterm birth, second trimester loss, preterm premature fetal membrane rupture, or a history of a cervical procedure to treat abnormal smears]). The objective of the study was to determine whether vaginal progesterone prophylaxis given to reduce the risk of preterm birth affects neonatal and childhood outcomes. We defined three primary outcomes: fetal death or birth before 34 weeks and 0 days gestation (obstetric), a composite of death, brain injury, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (neonatal), and a standardised cognitive score at 2 years of age (childhood), imputing values for deaths. Randomisation was done through a web portal, with participants, investigators, and others involved in giving the intervention, assessing outcomes, or analysing data masked to treatment allocation until the end of the study. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14568373. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2009, and April 12, 2013, we randomly assigned 1228 women to the placebo group (n=610) and the progesterone group (n=618). In the placebo group, data from 597, 587, and 439 women or babies were available for analysis of obstetric, neonatal, and childhood outcomes, respectively; in the progesterone group the corresponding numbers were 600, 589, and 430. After correction for multiple outcomes, progesterone had no significant effect on the primary obstetric outcome (odds ratio adjusted for multiple comparisons [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·61-1·22) or neonatal outcome (OR 0·62, 0·38-1·03), nor on the childhood outcome (cognitive score, progesterone group vs placebo group, 97·3 [SD 17·9] vs 97·7 [17·5]; difference in means -0·48, 95% CI -2·77 to 1·81). Maternal or child serious adverse events were reported in 70 (11%) of 610 patients in the placebo group and 59 (10%) of 616 patients in the progesterone group (p=0·27). INTERPRETATION: Vaginal progesterone was not associated with reduced risk of preterm birth or composite neonatal adverse outcomes, and had no long-term benefit or harm on outcomes in children at 2 years of age. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and National Institute for Social Care and Research in Wales.

Effect of metformin on maternal and fetal outcomes in obese pregnant women (EMPOWaR): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Maternal obesity is associated with increased birthweight, and obesity and premature mortality in adult offspring. The mechanism by which maternal obesity leads to these outcomes is not well understood, but maternal hyperglycaemia and insulin resistance are both implicated. We aimed to establish whether the insulin sensitising drug metformin improves maternal and fetal outcomes in obese pregnant women without diabetes. METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in antenatal clinics at 15 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Pregnant women (aged ≥16 years) between 12 and 16 weeks' gestation who had a BMI of 30 kg/m(2) or more and normal glucose tolerance were randomly assigned (1:1), via a web-based computer-generated block randomisation procedure (block size of two to four), to receive oral metformin 500 mg (increasing to a maximum of 2500 mg) or matched placebo daily from between 12 and 16 weeks' gestation until delivery of the baby. Randomisation was stratified by study site and BMI band (30-39 vs ≥40 kg/m(2)). Participants, caregivers, and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was Z score corresponding to the gestational age, parity, and sex-standardised birthweight percentile of liveborn babies delivered at 24 weeks or more of gestation. We did analysis by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered, ISRCTN number 51279843. FINDINGS: Between Feb 3, 2011, and Jan 16, 2014, inclusive, we randomly assigned 449 women to either placebo (n=223) or metformin (n=226), of whom 434 (97%) were included in the final modified intention-to-treat analysis. Mean birthweight at delivery was 3463 g (SD 660) in the placebo group and 3462 g (548) in the metformin group. The estimated effect size of metformin on the primary outcome was non-significant (adjusted mean difference -0·029, 95% CI -0·217 to 0·158; p=0·7597). The difference in the number of women reporting the combined adverse outcome of miscarriage, termination of pregnancy, stillbirth, or neonatal death in the metformin group (n=7) versus the placebo group (n=2) was not significant (odds ratio 3·60, 95% CI 0·74-17·50; p=0·11). INTERPRETATION: Metformin has no significant effect on birthweight percentile in obese pregnant women. Further follow-up of babies born to mothers in the EMPOWaR study will identify longer-term outcomes of metformin in this population; in the meantime, metformin should not be used to improve pregnancy outcomes in obese women without diabetes. FUNDING: The Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

Efficacy of metformin in pregnant obese women: a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing evidence suggests obesity has its origins prior to birth. There is clear correlation between maternal obesity, high birthweight and offspring risk of obesity in later life. It is also clear that women who are obese during pregnancy are at greater risk of adverse outcomes, including gestational diabetes and stillbirth. The mechanism(s) by which obesity causes these problems is unknown, although hyperglycaemia and insulin resistance are strongly implicated. We present a protocol for a study to test the hypothesis that metformin will improve insulin sensitivity in obese pregnant women, thereby reducing the incidence of high birthweight babies and other pregnancy complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Efficacy of Metformin in Pregnant Obese Women, a Randomised controlled (EMPOWaR) trial is a double-masked randomised placebo-controlled trial to determine whether metformin given to obese (body mass index >30 kg/m(2)) pregnant women from 16 weeks' gestation until delivery reduces the incidence of high birthweight babies. A secondary aim is to test the mechanism(s) of any effect. Obese women with a singleton pregnancy and normal glucose tolerance will be recruited prior to 16 weeks' gestation and prescribed study medication, metformin or placebo, to be taken until delivery. Further study visits will occur at 28 and 36 weeks' gestation for glucose tolerance testing and to record anthropometric measurements. Birth weight and other measurements will be recorded at time of delivery. Anthropometry of mother and baby will be performed at 3 months postdelivery. As of January 2014, 449 women had been randomised across the UK. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice. A favourable ethical opinion was obtained from Scotland A Research Ethics Committee, reference number 10/MRE00/12. Results will be disseminated at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51279843.