Rising Trends of Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System in Southern California, 2010-2021.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis rates among children aged 5-17 years over the past decade (2010-2021) and to investigate whether there have been differences in temporal changes based on race and ethnicity, sex, or income. STUDY DESIGN: Childhood ADHD diagnosis was ascertained from electronic health records using International Classification of Diseases ninth revision (314.xx) and International Classification of Diseases tenth revision (F90.x) codes. Data were stratified by child's sex, race and ethnicity, and household income, and rates of ADHD were estimated before and after adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: The overall ADHD diagnosis rates increased from 3.5% in 2010 to 4.0% in 2021. ADHD diagnosis was most prevalent among White children (6.1%), then Black (4.6%), Other/multiple (3.7%), Hispanic (3.1%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (PI) (1.7%). ADHD was also highly prevalent among boys (73.3%) or family income≥$70,000 (50.0%). ADHD diagnosis increased among Black (4.2% to 5.1%), Hispanic (2.8% to 3.6%), and Asian/PI children (1.5% to 2.0%) but remained stable for White (6.2% to 6.1%) and Other/multiple race/ethnic children (3.7% to 3.7%). Increases in the prevalence among girls were also observed. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of ADHD in children has risen with the largest increases observed for Black, Hispanic, and Asian/PI children. Rates among less affluent families and girls have also been increasing, narrowing the gaps in diagnosis rates previously observed. These increases may reflect improvements in screening and provision of care among demographics where ADHD has been historically underdiagnosed.

Randomized controlled trials: not always the "gold standard" for evidence in obstetrics and gynecology.

Randomized controlled trials are considered the "gold standard" for therapeutic interventions, and it is not uncommon for sweeping changes in medical practice to follow positive results from such trials. However, randomized controlled trials are not without their limitations. Physicians frequently view randomized controlled trials as infallible, whereas they tend to dismiss evidence derived from sources other than randomized controlled trials as less credible or reliable. In several situations in obstetrics and gynecology, there are no randomized controlled trials to help guide the clinician. In these circumstances, it is important to evaluate the entire body of evidence including observational studies, rather than dismiss interventions altogether simply because no randomized controlled trials exist. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies should be viewed as complementary rather than at odds with each other. Some reversals in widely adopted clinical practice have recently been implemented following subsequent studies that contradicted the outcomes of major randomized controlled trials. The most notable of these was the withdrawal from the market of 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate for preterm birth prevention. Such reversals could potentially have been averted if the inherent limitations of randomized controlled trials were carefully considered before implementing these universal practice changes. This Clinical Opinion underscores the limitations of an exclusive reliance on randomized controlled trials while disregarding other evidence in determining how best to care for patients. Solutions are proposed that advocate that clinicians adopt a more balanced perspective that considers the entirety of the available medical evidence and the individual patient characteristics, needs, and wishes.

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.

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.

Caudal regression in fetus with de novo SMARCA2 pathogenic variant.

Nicolaides-Baraitser syndrome (NCBRS) is a rare autosomal dominant genetic condition that is characterized by severe intellectual disability, dysmorphic facial features, short stature, sparse hair, and early onset seizures. This diagnosis is established by suggestive clinical findings and the identification of a heterozygous SMARCA2 pathogenic variant by molecular genetic testing. There are not, however, consensus clinical diagnostic criteria for this condition as there are so few documented cases. Here, we present a case of prenatally diagnosed caudal regression with sacral agenesis and congenital vertical talus (rocker bottom feet) that was ultimately found to have a de novo SMARCA2 pathogenic variant. The patient had an amniocentesis with normal karyotype and microarray followed by failed direct rapid whole exome sequencing (WES) due to maternal cell contamination. She elected for termination of the pregnancy based on the clinical prognosis of the ultrasound findings; WES revealed a pathogenic variant after her termination. We believe this is the first case of these findings associated with NCBRS. If any future cases of either finding are found in association with a SMARCA2 genetic variant, caudal regression and rocker bottom feet should be included in the spectrum of physical traits associated with this pathogenic variant.

Incorporation of vasa previa screening into a routine anomaly scan: A single center cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Vasa previa (VP), defined as unprotected fetal vessels traversing the membranes over the cervix, is associated with a high perinatal mortality when undiagnosed prenatally. Conversely, prenatal diagnosis with ultrasound and cesarean delivery before the membranes rupture is associated with excellent outcomes. However, controversy exists regarding screening for VP. In the UK, routine screening for VP is not recommended. The objective of this study was to report the incidence of VP and our experience in the detection of VP with a universal screening protocol at the time of the second-trimester fetal anomaly scan with third-trimester confirmation in an unselected population of pregnancies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a single-center historical cohort study of all pregnant women who underwent routine second-trimester anomaly screening scans at West Middlesex University Hospital, London, UK, between 2012 and 2016. Over 5 years, every patient undergoing routine anomaly screening was evaluated for VP using a systematic protocol during their 20-week anomaly scan. Suspected cases of VP were rescanned in the third trimester by specialist sonographers with an interest in VP. The primary outcomes were the incidence and detection of VP. RESULTS: During the study period, 24 690 anatomy scans were performed. A total of 64 patients were identified as having potential VP at the second-trimester anomaly screening scan, of which 19 were confirmed by the specialist sonographer in the third trimester and at delivery. The screen positive rate was 0.26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20%-0.32%). VP at birth was found in 19/24690 births (1:1299 [95% CI: 1:832-1:2030] births). Universal screening for VP using our protocol had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 99.78% (95% CI: 99.72%-99.84%). The false-positive rate of the second-trimester screen was 0.18% (95% CI: 0.13-0.24). There were no false positives or false negatives at delivery. Of the 19 patients with confirmed VP, 17 had scheduled cesarean deliveries, and two required emergency deliveries due to antepartum hemorrhage. One baby died, giving a perinatal mortality of 5%. CONCLUSIONS: VP complicates approximately 1:1300 pregnancies. Routine screening for VP yielded a 100% detection rate. We suggest the inclusion of structured VP assessment in standard fetal anomaly screening programs.

Placental abruption: Incidence and risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies.

AIM: To estimate the incidence of abruption in first births and recurrence in the subsequent birth in patients of a large US-based integrated health care system. METHODS: Retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with first two consecutive singleton births using data from the Kaiser-Permanente South California health care system who delivered over a period of 30 years (1991-2021), using longitudinally linked electronic health records. ICD-9/ICD-10 codes "641.20" and "O45.x" identified placental abruption. We calculated the incidence and rates of abruption in first and second pregnancies. We used logistic regression to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for abruption in second pregnancies in patients with and without abruptions in their first pregnancies. RESULTS: Of the 126 264 patients with first two consecutive singleton births over the period, 805 had abruptions in their first births, and 861 in their second births. Rates of abruption in first and second births were 0.63% and 0.68%, respectively. Twenty-seven patients had abruptions in both first and second births. Rates of abruption in the second birth among individuals with and without previous placental abruption were 3.35% and 0.66%, respectively, giving an approximately five-fold increased odds of abruption in a second pregnancy in individuals who had abruption in their first birth when compared with those who did not have placental abruption in their first birth (aOR: 4.95, 95% confidence interval: 3.35-7.31, p < 0.00001). Interpregnancy interval had no statistically significant association with recurrence. CONCLUSION: Abruption in a first birth is associated with an approximately five-fold increased odds of abruption in a second birth.

Prenatal Screening and Diagnosis: Time for a Paradigm Shift.

Recent advances in genetics and imaging have ushered substantial breakthroughs in screening and diagnosis for chromosomal and structural abnormalities. Thus, it is imperative that health care providers caring for pregnant individuals should reexamine established practices in prenatal screening and diagnosis. In the past, screening for chromosomal abnormalities was based almost entirely on Down syndrome. Pregnant individuals aged > 35 years were considered at "high risk" or of "advanced maternal age" based on age alone; however, the advent of tests with high sensitivity for prenatal detection of chromosomal abnormalities should lead to abandoning that concept, at least from the perspective of chromosomal abnormalities. Given that first-trimester and second-trimester screenings will fail to detect between 5 and 20% of Down syndrome, in most situations, noninvasive testing with cell-free DNA should be the first-line screen for Down syndrome. The fact that over 99% of fetuses with Down syndrome will be detected prenatally with cell-free DNA gives other fetal chromosomal and structural abnormalities increasing prominence. Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) permits prenatal detection of several clinically important chromosomal aberrations that cannot be detected by karyotype and may exist in structurally normal fetuses with low-risk cell-free DNA screening. As such, CMA should be more readily conducted when invasive testing is performed, regardless of the presence of a structural abnormality. Isolated sonographic "soft markers" have no clinical significance in patients who have normal cell-free DNA screening, can cause unwarranted anxiety and a negative impact on pregnancy, and perhaps it is time to stop discussing them. Detailed first-trimester ultrasound allows early detection of several severe fetal anomalies and, therefore, in settings with adequately trained personnel and resources, should be used more frequently. This opinion traces the evolution of prenatal screening and diagnosis and advocates for a paradigm shift that aligns with recent developments in prenatal screening and diagnostic capabilities. KEY POINTS: · Noninvasive prenatal testing with cell-free DNA should be available to all pregnant individuals.. · Chromosomal microarray should be available to all pregnant individuals undergoing amniocentesis.. · Patients >35 years with low-risk screening are not at "high risk" for chromosomal abnormalities..

Association between SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Adverse Perinatal Outcomes by Race/Ethnicity in a Large Integrated Health Care System.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have reported associations between severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during pregnancy and adverse perinatal outcomes but the extent to which these associations vary by race/ethnicity remains uncertain. Therefore, we examined how the association between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse perinatal outcomes may be modified by race/ethnicity. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data on 67,986 pregnant women extracted from the Kaiser Permanente Southern California electronic health records between April 6, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Upon admission to labor and delivery, all women were routinely tested for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were used to estimate associations. RESULTS: During the study period, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 4,960 (7%) of singleton pregnancies, with the highest rates observed among Hispanics (9.4%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (6.2%). Compared with non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.21) with SARS-CoV-2 infection had the highest odds of a pregnancy associated with nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing. Neonates of all races/ethnicities, except for non-Hispanic Blacks, showed significantly increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with the highest risk observed among Asians/Pacific Islanders (aOR: 10.88, 95% CI: 1.33, 89.04). Non-Hispanic White mothers who tested positive were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) at a higher rate at delivery and within 7 days of delivery (aOR: 34.77, 95% CI: 11.3, 107.04; aOR: 26.48, 95% CI: 9.55, 73.46, respectively). Hispanics were also at a significantly higher odds of admission to ICU (aOR: 4.62, 95% CI: 2.69, 7.94; aOR: 4.42, 95% CI: 2.58, 7.56, respectively). Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander mothers who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prenatally, were at increased risk for preeclampsia/eclampsia, and preterm birth as compared to non-Hispanic White mothers. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight racial/ethnic disparities in the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse perinatal outcomes. The risk of neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection was highest for Asian/Pacific Islanders. We also observed a remarkably high risk of ICU admission for non-Hispanic White mothers infected with SARS-CoV-2. KEY POINTS: · Race/ethnicity influences perinatal outcomes in pregnancies impacted by SARS-CoV-2.. · The risk of neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection was highest for Asian/Pacific Islanders.. · White mothers had a notably high risk of ICU admission at delivery following SARS-CoV-2 infection..

Individualized management of vasa previa and neonatal outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our individualized management protocol for women with an antenatal diagnosis of vasa previa (VP) and to report maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients managed according to our protocol. METHODS: A retrospective study of prospectively collected data of antenatally diagnosed VP managed at our hospital between 2014 and 2021. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes were reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: Fourteen cases of antenatally diagnosed VP in 5150 total deliveries were analyzed (0.3%) Five cases (36%) of VP were diagnosed during the routine fetal morphological ultrasound screening, and nine cases (64%) were referred to our hospital due to perinatal complications. There were nine cases that required hospitalization (due to fetal growth restriction [FGR] [1], preterm labor [3], patients' request [5]). The other five were asymptomatic. Eight patients were delivered by scheduled cesarean section at around 36 weeks and only three neonates were admitted to NICU with transient tachypnea of newborn. However, six patients required CS before the scheduled dates because of other complications (preterm labor [3], abnormal cardiotocogram patterns [1], FGR [1] and twin pregnancy [1]). Four neonates born by CS before their scheduled dates were admitted to NICU. No cases required prolonged hospitalization and there were no serious neonatal complications. CONCLUSION: Individualized management may lead to favorable outcomes with VP. Outpatient management may be considered in patients without risk factors. However, maternal hospitalization and earlier scheduled CS should be considered in symptomatic patients or those at risk for preterm delivery.

Vasa previa: avoiding incising the membranes at cesarean delivery.

We present our technique for cesarean delivery of prenatally diagnosed vasa previa in which we avoid incising the membranes and fetal vessels. This technique allows direct visualization of the fetal blood vessels and may prevent blood loss from the baby at the time of birth.

Mechanical Ventilation in Pregnancy Due to COVID-19: A Cohort of Three Cases.

We describe our experience with three pregnant women with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who required mechanical ventilation. Recent data suggest a mortality of 88% in nonpregnant patients with COVID-19 who require intubation and mechanical ventilation. The three women we report were intubated and mechanically ventilated during pregnancy due to respiratory failure and pneumonia resulting from COVID-19. After several days of ventilation, all three were successfully weaned off mechanical ventilation and extubated, and are continuing their pregnancies with no demonstrable adverse effects. Our experience suggests that the mortality in pregnant women with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation is not necessarily as high as in nonpregnant patients with COVID-19. KEY POINTS: · Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is now a pandemic.. · COVID-19 may cause pneumonia or respiratory failure in pregnant women.. · Approximately 5% of women with COVID-19 will develop severe or critical disease.. · Mechanical ventilation in pregnant women may not necessarily result in high mortality rates..

The Impact of COVID-19 Infection on Labor and Delivery, Newborn Nursery, and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Prospective Observational Data from a Single Hospital System.

OBJECTIVE: Since its emergence in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel coronavirus that causes novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spread globally. Within the United States, some of the most affected regions have been New York, and Northern New Jersey. Our objective is to describe the impact of COVID-19 in a large delivery service in Northern New Jersey, including its effects on labor and delivery (L&D), the newborn nursery, and the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 21, 2020 and May 5, 2020, a total of 78 mothers (3.6% of deliveries) were identified by screening history or examination to either be COVID-19 positive or possible positives (persons under investigation). Of the mothers who were tested after admission to L&D, 28% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. DISCUSSION: Isolation between mother and infant was recommended in 62 cases, either because the mother was positive for SARS-CoV-2 or because the test was still pending. Fifty-four families (87%) agreed to isolation and separation. The majority of infants, 51 (94%), were initially isolated on the newborn nursery. Six needed NICU admission. No infants had clinical evidence of symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Fourteen infants whose mothers were positive for SARS-CoV-2, and who had been separated from the mother at birth were tested for SARS-CoV-2 postnatally. All were negative. RESULTS: COVID-19 posed a significant burden to mothers, infants, and staff over the 5-week study period. The yield from screening mothers for COVID-19 on L&D was high. Most families accepted the need for postnatal isolation and separation of mother and newborn. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mother to her fetus/newborn seems to be uncommon if appropriate separation measures are performed at birth. KEY POINTS: · The yield of targeted testing for SARS-CoV-2, on mothers on Labor and Delivery is high.. · Agreement to separation of mothers and infants to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was high.. · The incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 in newborns is low, if appropriate separation occurs at birth..

Vasa Previa: Prenatal Diagnosis and Outcomes: Thirty-five Cases From a Single Maternal-Fetal Medicine Practice.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy and effectiveness of routine screening for vasa previa, to describe our experience, and to assess factors that contribute to missed cases of vasa previa. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study of all cases of vasa previa from a single maternal-fetal medicine service between 2009 and 2017 was performed. Ultrasound findings and obstetric and neonatal outcomes were reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-five cases of vasa previa were identified. Most cases (33 of 35 [94.3%]) were diagnosed antenatally. All 33 cases that followed our screening protocol were diagnosed antenatally and had favorable outcomes. Two cases that did not follow our protocol were not diagnosed antenatally and were delivered emergently. The mean gestational age ± SD at delivery of antenatally diagnosed cases was 34.9 ± 1.69 weeks. All neonates survived. CONCLUSIONS: Routine ultrasound screening for vasa previa using American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine criteria will almost universally lead to good outcomes and prevent perinatal mortality.

The "anathema" of arbitrary categorization of continuous predictors.

In medicine in general, and in obstetrics in particular, it is common practice to use arbitrary cutoffs in expressing continuous variables. However, the dichotomy of continuous data is associated with loss of statistical power, which may result in inaccurate estimates in clinical prognosis or prediction of outcomes and, consequently, may lead to incorrect inferences. If the predictor is a continuous variable, arbitrary percentile-based categorizations without clinical justification is an anathema (Greek word meaning "curse") and should be discouraged. Instead, the clinical outcome of interest should be defined first and then a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis or other appropriate statistical techniques should be employed to determine the most optimal cutoff of the predictor. The next step should be to validate the cutoff in a different population before introducing it to clinical use or interventional trials.