Respiratory syncytial virus vaccination during pregnancy for improving infant outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in infants. Maternal RSV vaccination is a preventive strategy of great interest, as it could have a substantial impact on infant RSV disease burden. In recent years, the clinical development of maternal RSV vaccines has advanced rapidly. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of maternal respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination for preventing RSV disease in infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register and two other trials registries on 21 October 2022. We updated the search on 27 July 2023, when we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and two trials registries. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and conference proceedings. There were no language restrictions on our searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing maternal RSV vaccination with placebo or no intervention in pregnant women of any age. The primary outcomes were hospitalisation with clinically confirmed or laboratory-confirmed RSV disease in infants. The secondary outcomes covered adverse pregnancy outcomes (intrauterine growth restriction, stillbirth, and maternal death) and adverse infant outcomes (preterm birth, congenital abnormalities, and infant death). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (25 study reports) involving 17,991 pregnant women. The intervention was an RSV pre-F protein vaccine in four studies, and an RSV F protein nanoparticle vaccine in two studies. In all studies, the comparator was a placebo (saline, formulation buffer, or sterile water). We judged four studies at overall low risk of bias and two studies at overall high risk (mainly due to selection bias). All studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Maternal RSV vaccination compared with placebo reduces infant hospitalisation with laboratory-confirmed RSV disease (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, 12,216 infants; high-certainty evidence). Based on an absolute risk with placebo of 22 hospitalisations per 1000 infants, our results represent 11 fewer hospitalisations per 1000 infants from vaccinated pregnant women (15 fewer to 4 fewer). No studies reported infant hospitalisation with clinically confirmed RSV disease. Maternal RSV vaccination compared with placebo has little or no effect on the risk of congenital abnormalities (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; 140 per 1000 with placebo, 5 fewer per 1000 with RSV vaccination (17 fewer to 6 more); 4 RCTs, 12,304 infants; high-certainty evidence). Maternal RSV vaccination likely has little or no effect on the risk of intrauterine growth restriction (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.33; 3 per 1000 with placebo, 1 more per 1000 with RSV vaccination (1 fewer to 4 more); 4 RCTs, 12,545 pregnant women; moderate-certainty evidence). Maternal RSV vaccination may have little or no effect on the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.72; 3 per 1000 with placebo, no difference with RSV vaccination (2 fewer to 3 more); 5 RCTs, 12,652 pregnant women). There may be a safety signal warranting further investigation related to preterm birth. This outcome may be more likely with maternal RSV vaccination, although the 95% CI includes no effect, and the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 6 RCTs, 17,560 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Based on an absolute risk of 51 preterm births per 1000 infants from pregnant women who received placebo, there may be 8 more per 1000 infants from pregnant women with RSV vaccination (1 fewer to 18 more). There was one maternal death in the RSV vaccination group and none in the placebo group. Our meta-analysis suggests that RSV vaccination compared with placebo may have little or no effect on the risk of maternal death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.50; 3 RCTs, 7977 pregnant women; low-certainty evidence). The effect of maternal RSV vaccination on the risk of infant death is very uncertain (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.81; 6 RCTs, 17,589 infants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review suggest that maternal RSV vaccination reduces laboratory-confirmed RSV hospitalisations in infants. There are no safety concerns about intrauterine growth restriction and congenital abnormalities. We must be careful in drawing conclusions about other safety outcomes owing to the low and very low certainty of the evidence. The evidence available to date suggests RSV vaccination may have little or no effect on stillbirth, maternal death, and infant death (although the evidence for infant death is very uncertain). However, there may be a safety signal warranting further investigation related to preterm birth. This is driven by data from one trial, which is not fully published yet. The evidence base would be much improved by more RCTs with substantial sample sizes and well-designed observational studies with long-term follow-up for assessment of safety outcomes. Future studies should aim to use standard outcome measures, collect data on concomitant vaccines, and stratify data by timing of vaccination, gestational age at birth, race, and geographical setting.

Mechanical methods for induction of labour.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods. Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI). This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes a total of 112 trials, with 104 studies contributing data (22,055 women; 21 comparisons). Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.   Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively. Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence. Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted. Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile. Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and cardiovascular disease risk: A Mendelian Randomisation study.

Objective: Observational studies show that hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDPs) are related to unfavourable maternal cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk profiles later in life. We investigated whether genetic liability to pre-eclampsia/eclampsia and gestational hypertension is associated with CVD risk factors and occurrence of CVD events. Methods: We obtained genetic associations with HDPs from a genome-wide association study and used individual-participant-data from the UK Biobank to obtain genetic associations with CVD risk factors and CVD events (defined as myocardial infarction or stroke). In our primary analysis, we applied Mendelian Randomisation using inverse-variance weighted regression analysis in ever pregnant women. In sensitivity analyses, we studied men and nulligravidae to investigate genetic liability to HDPs and CVD risk without the ability to experience the underlying phenotype. Results: Our primary analysis included 221,155 ever pregnant women (mean age 56.8 [SD 7.9]) with available genetic data. Odds ratios for CVD were 1.20 (1.02-1.41) and 1.24 (1.12-1.38) per unit increase in the log odds of genetic liability to pre-eclampsia/eclampsia and gestational hypertension, respectively. Furthermore, genetic liability to HDPs was associated with higher levels of systolic and diastolic blood pressure and younger age at hypertension diagnosis. Sensitivity analyses revealed no statistically significant differences when comparing the findings to those of nulligravidae and men. Conclusions: Genetic liability to HDPs is associated with higher CVD risk, lower blood pressure levels, and earlier hypertension diagnosis. Our study suggests similar findings in ever pregnant women, nulligravidae and men, implying biological mechanisms relating to HDPs are causally related to CVD risk.

The global use of the International Classification of Diseases to Perinatal Mortality (ICD-PM): A systematic review.

Background: The World Health Organization launched the International Classification of Diseases for Perinatal Mortality (ICD-PM) in 2016 to uniformly report on the causes of perinatal deaths. In this systematic review, we aim to describe the global use of the ICD-PM by reporting causes of perinatal mortality and summarizing challenges and suggested amendments. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and CINAHL databases using key terms related to perinatal mortality and the classification for causes of death. We included studies that applied the ICD-PM and were published between January 2016 and June 2021. The ICD-PM data were extracted and a qualitative analysis was performed to summarize the challenges of the ICD-PM. We applied the PRISMA guidelines, registered our protocol at PROSPERO [CRD42020203466], and used the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) as a framework to evaluate the quality of evidence. Results: The search retrieved 6599 reports. Of these, we included 15 studies that applied the ICD-PM to 44 900 perinatal deaths. Most causes varied widely; for example, "antepartum hypoxia" was the cause of stillbirths in 0% to 46% (median = 12%, n = 95) in low-income settings, 0% to 62% (median = 6%, n = 1159) in middle-income settings and 0% to 55% (median = 5%, n = 249) in high-income settings. Five studies reported challenges and suggested amendments to the ICD-PM. The most frequently reported challenges included the high proportion of antepartum deaths of unspecified cause (five studies), the inability to determine the cause of death when the timing of death is unknown (three studies), and the challenge of assigning one cause in case of multiple contributing conditions (three studies). Conclusions: The ICD-PM is increasingly being used across the globe and gives health care providers insight into the causes of perinatal death in different settings. However, there is wide variation in reported causes of perinatal death across comparable settings, which suggests that the ICD-PM is applied inconsistently. We summarized the suggested amendments and made additional recommendations to improve the use of the ICD-PM and help strengthen its consistency. Registration: PROSPERO [CRD42020203466].

Applicability of the WHO maternal near-miss tool: A nationwide surveillance study in Suriname.

BACKGROUND: Maternal near-miss (MNM) is an important maternal health quality-of-care indicator. To facilitate comparison between countries, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed the "MNM-tool". However, several low- and middle-income countries have proposed adaptations to prevent underreporting, ie, Namibian and Sub-Sahara African (SSA)-criteria. This study aims to assess MNM and associated factors in middle-income country Suriname by applying the three different MNM tools. METHODS: A nationwide prospective population-based cohort study was conducted using the Suriname Obstetric Surveillance System (SurOSS). We included women with MNM-criteria defined by WHO-, Namibian- and SSA-tools during one year (March 2017-February 2018) and used hospital births (86% of total) as a reference group. RESULTS: There were 9114 hospital live births in Suriname in the one-year study period. SurOSS identified 71 women with WHO-MNM (8/1000 live births, mortality-index 12%), 118 with Namibian-MNM (13/1000 live births, mortality-index 8%), and 242 with SSA-MNM (27/1000 live births, mortality-index 4%). Namibian- and SSA-tools identified all women with WHO-criteria. Blood transfusion thresholds and eclampsia explained the majority of differences in MNM prevalence. Eclampsia was not considered a WHO-MNM in 80% (n = 35/44) of cases. Nevertheless, mortality-index for MNM with hypertensive disorders was 17% and the most frequent underlying cause of maternal deaths (n = 4/10, 40%) and MNM (n = 24/71, 34%). Women of advanced age and maroon ethnicity had twice the odds of WHO-MNM (respectively adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.4-4.8 and aOR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.2-3.6). The stillbirths rate among women with WHO-MNM was 193/1000births, with six times higher odds than women without MNM (aOR = 6.8, 95%CI = 3.0-15.8). While the prevalence and mortality-index differ between the three MNM tools, the underlying causes of and factors associated with MNM were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: The MNM ratio in Suriname is comparable to other countries in the region. The WHO-tool underestimates the prevalence of MNM (high mortality-index), while the adapted tools may overestimate MNM and compromise global comparability. Contextualized MNM-criteria per obstetric transition stage may improve comparability and reduce underreporting. While MNM studies facilitate international comparison, audit will remain necessary to identify shortfalls in quality-of-care and improve maternal outcomes.

Mechanical methods for induction of labour.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods.Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI).This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes a total of 113 trials (22,373 women) contributing data to 21 comparisons. Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (average risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; I² = 79%; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively.Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (average RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; I² = 45%; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence.Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted.Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile.Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.

PROMISE: first-trimester progesterone therapy in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriages - a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Progesterone is essential to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a Cochrane review called for a definitive trial to test whether or not progesterone therapy in the first trimester could reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM). The PROMISE trial was conducted to answer this question. A concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre study, with economic evaluation, conducted in hospital settings across the UK (36 sites) and in the Netherlands (nine sites). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Women with unexplained RM (three or more first-trimester losses), aged between 18 and 39 years at randomisation, conceiving naturally and giving informed consent, received either micronised progesterone (Utrogestan(®), Besins Healthcare) at a dose of 400 mg (two vaginal capsules of 200 mg) or placebo vaginal capsules twice daily, administered vaginally from soon after a positive urinary pregnancy test (and no later than 6 weeks of gestation) until 12 completed weeks of gestation (or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 12 weeks). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Live birth beyond 24 completed weeks of gestation (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy at 6-8 weeks, ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks, miscarriage, gestation at delivery, neonatal survival at 28 days of life, congenital abnormalities and resource use. METHODS: Participants were randomised after confirmation of pregnancy. Randomisation was performed online via a secure internet facility. Data were collected on four occasions of outcome assessment after randomisation, up to 28 days after birth. RESULTS: A total of 1568 participants were screened for eligibility. Of the 836 women randomised between 2010 and 2013, 404 received progesterone and 432 received placebo. The baseline data (age, body mass index, maternal ethnicity, smoking status and parity) of the participants were comparable in the two arms of the trial. The follow-up rate to primary outcome was 826 out of 836 (98.8%). The live birth rate in the progesterone group was 65.8% (262/398) and in the placebo group it was 63.3% (271/428), giving a relative risk of 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.15; p = 0.45). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Economic analysis suggested a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decision-making but wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty in the health benefits. Additional sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that progesterone would fall within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year as between 0.7145 and 0.7341. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that first-trimester progesterone therapy improves outcomes in women with a history of unexplained RM. LIMITATIONS: This study did not explore the effect of treatment with other progesterone preparations or treatment during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. FUTURE WORK: Future research could explore the efficacy of progesterone supplementation administered during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in women attempting natural conception despite a history of RM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92644181; EudraCT 2009-011208-42; Research Ethics Committee 09/H1208/44. 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. 20, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A comprehensive representation of the birth-experience: identification and prioritization of birth-specific domains based on a mixed-method design.

BACKGROUND: In obstetrics, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies often present several specific outcomes with likely contradicting results and may not reflect what is important for women. A birth-specific outcome measure that combines the core domains into one utility score would solve this problem. The aim of this study was to investigate which domains are most relevant for women's overall experience of labor and birth and should be included in such a measure. METHODS: A sequential mixed-method design with three steps was applied. First, the domains were identified by literature review and online focus groups consisting of pregnant women, women who recently gave birth, and their partners. Second, in a prioritizing task, women who recently gave birth and professionals (midwives, gynecologists, and researchers) selected and ranked their top seven domains. Third, the domains that were most frequently selected and had the highest ranking scores determined the basis for a consensus discussion with experts, whereby the definitive list of domains was formed. RESULTS: In the first step, 34 birth-specific domains were identified, which cover domains regarding the caregivers, intrapersonal aspects of the mother, partner support, and contextual and medical aspects of birth. Based on the prioritizing task results (step 2) of 96 women and 89 professionals, this list was reduced to 14 most relevant domains. In a consensus discussion, the final seven domains were selected by combining several of the 14 remaining domains and giving priority to the domains indicated to be relevant by mothers. The seven definite domains were: 1) availability of competent health professionals; 2) health professionals' support; 3) provision of information; 4) health professionals' response to needs and requests; 5) feelings of safety; 6) worries about the child's health; and 7) experienced duration until the first contact with the child. CONCLUSIONS: The experienced availability and quality of received care, concerns about safety and the baby's health, and first contact with the baby are regarded as key aspects for a mother's overall birth experience. Therefore, these domains are considered to be the most crucial for inclusion in a birth-specific outcome measure.

Nifedipine versus atosiban in the treatment of threatened preterm labour (Assessment of Perinatal Outcome after Specific Tocolysis in Early Labour: APOSTEL III-Trial).

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the most common cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Postponing delivery for 48 hours with tocolytics to allow for maternal steroid administration and antenatal transportation to a centre with neonatal intensive care unit facilities is the standard treatment for women with threatening preterm delivery in most centres. However, there is controversy as to which tocolytic agent is the drug of first choice. Previous trials have focused on tocolytic efficacy and side effects, and are probably underpowered to detect clinically meaningfull differences in neonatal outcome. Thus, the current evidence is inconclusive to support a balanced recommendation for clinical practice. This multicenter randomised clinical trial aims to compare nifedipine and atosiban in terms of neonatal outcome, duration of pregnancy and maternal side effects. METHODS/DESIGN: The Apostel III trial is a nationwide multicenter randomised controlled study. Women with threatened preterm labour (gestational age 25 - 34 weeks) defined as at least 3 contractions per 30 minutes, and 1) a cervical length of ≤ 10 mm or 2) a cervical length of 11-30 mm and a positive Fibronectin test or 3) ruptured membranes will be randomly allocated to treatment with nifedipine or atosiban. Primary outcome is a composite measure of severe neonatal morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes will be time to delivery, gestational age at delivery, days on ventilation support, neonatal intensive care (NICU) admittance, length admission in neonatal intensive care, total days in hospital until 3 months corrected age, convulsions, apnoea, asphyxia, proven meningitis, pneumothorax, maternal side effects and costs. Furthermore, an economic evaluation of the treatment will be performed. Analysis will be by intention to treat principle. The power calculation is based on an expected 10% difference in the prevalence of adverse neonatal outcome. This implies that 500 women have to be randomised (two sided test, ß 0.2 at alpha 0.05). DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence on the optimal drug of choice in acute tocolysis in threatening preterm labour. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2947, date of registration: June 20th 2011.

Cardiovascular risk estimation in women with a history of hypertensive pregnancy disorders at term: a longitudinal follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is associated with major morbidity and mortality in women in the Western world. Prediction of an individual cardiovascular disease risk in young women is difficult. It is known that women with hypertensive pregnancy complications have an increased risk for developing cardiovascular disease in later life and pregnancy might be used as a cardiovascular stress test to identify women who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease. In this study we assess the possibility of long term cardiovascular risk prediction in women with a history of hypertensive pregnancy disorders at term. METHODS: In a longitudinal follow-up study, between June 2008 and November 2010, 300 women with a history of hypertensive pregnancy disorders at term (HTP cohort) and 94 women with a history of normotensive pregnancies at term (NTP cohort) were included. From the cardiovascular risk status that was known two years after index pregnancy we calculated individual (extrapolated) 10-and 30-year cardiovascular event risks using four different risk prediction models including the Framingham risk score, the SCORE score and the Reynolds risk score. Continuous data were analyzed using the Student's T test and Mann-Whitney U test and categorical data by the Chi-squared test. A poisson regression analysis was performed to calculate the incidence risk ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals for the different cardiovascular risk estimation categories. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, HTP women had significantly higher mean (SD) extrapolated 10-year cardiovascular event risks (HTP 7.2% (3.7); NTP 4.4% (1.9) (p<.001, IRR 5.8, 95% CI 1.9 to 19)) and 30-year cardiovascular event risks (HTP 11% (7.6); NTP 7.3% (3.5) (p<.001, IRR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6 to 4.5)) as compared to NTP women calculated by the Framingham risk scores. The SCORE score and the Reynolds risk score showed similar significant results. CONCLUSIONS: Women with a history of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia at term have higher predicted (extrapolated) 10-year and 30-year cardiovascular event risks as compared to women with a history of uncomplicated pregnancies. Further large prospective studies have to evaluate whether hypertensive pregnancy disorders have to be included as an independent variable in cardiovascular risk prediction models for women.

Preventing preterm birth with progesterone: costs and effects of screening low risk women with a singleton pregnancy for short cervical length, the Triple P study.

BACKGROUND: Women with a short cervical length in mid-trimester pregnancy have a higher risk of preterm birth and therefore a higher rate of neonatal mortality and morbidity. Progesterone can potentially decrease the number of preterm births and lower neonatal mortality and morbidity. Previous studies showed good results of progesterone in women with either a history of preterm birth or a short cervix. However, it is unknown whether screening for a short cervix and subsequent treatment in mid trimester pregnancy is effective in low risk women. METHODS/DESIGN: We plan a combined screen and treat study among women with a singleton pregnancy without a previous preterm birth. In these women, we will measure cervical length at the standard anomaly scan performed between 18 and 22 weeks. Women with cervical length ≤ 30 mm at two independent measurements will be randomly allocated to receive either vaginal progesterone tablets or placebo between 22 and 34 weeks. The primary outcome of this trial is adverse neonatal condition, defined as a composite outcome of neonatal mortality and severe morbidity. Secondary outcomes are time to delivery, preterm birth rate before 32, 34 and 37 weeks, days of admission in neonatal intensive care unit, maternal morbidity, maternal admission days for preterm labour and costs. We will assess growth, physical condition and neurodevelopmental outcome of the children at two years of age. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence for the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of screening for short cervical length at the 18-22 weeks and subsequent progesterone treatment among low risk women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR207.

Assessment of perinatal outcome after sustained tocolysis in early labour (APOSTEL-II trial).

BACKGROUND: Preterm labour is the main cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality in the Western world. At present, there is evidence that tocolysis for 48 hours is useful in women with threatened preterm labour at least before 32 weeks. This allows transfer of the patient to a perinatal centre, and maximizes the effect of corticosteroids for improved neonatal survival. It is questionable whether treatment with tocolytics should be maintained after 48 hours. METHODS/DESIGN: The APOSTEL II trial is a multicentre placebo-controlled study. Pregnant women admitted for threatened preterm labour who have been treated with 48 hours corticosteroids and tocolysis will be eligible to participate in the trial between 26+0 and 32+2 weeks gestational age. They will be randomly allocated to nifedipine (intervention) or placebo (control) for twelve days or until delivery, whatever comes first.Primary outcome is a composite of perinatal death, and severe neonatal morbidity up to evaluation at 6 months after birth. Secondary outcomes are gestational age at delivery, number of days in neonatal intensive care and total days of the first 6 months out of hospital. In addition a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. Analysis will be by intention to treat. The power calculation is based on an expected 11% difference in adverse neonatal outcome. This implies that 406 women have to be randomised (two sided test, beta 0.2 at alpha 0.05). DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence as to whether maintenance tocolysis reduces severe perinatal morbidity and mortality in women with threatened preterm labour before 32 weeks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.trialregister.nl, NTR 1336, date of registration: June 3rd 2008.

Pessaries in multiple pregnancy as a prevention of preterm birth: the ProTwin Trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple pregnancies are at high risk for preterm birth, and therefore an important cause of infant mortality and morbidity. A pessary is a simple and potentially effective measure for the prevention of preterm birth. Small studies have indicated its effectiveness, but large studies with sufficient power on the subject are lacking. Despite this lack of evidence, the treatment is at present applied by some gynaecologists in The Netherlands. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to investigate the hypothesis that prophylactic use of a cervical pessary will be effective in the prevention of preterm delivery and the neonatal mortality and morbidity resulting from preterm delivery in multiple pregnancy. We will evaluate the costs and effects of this intervention. At study entry, cervical length will be measured. Eligible women will be randomly allocated to receive either a cervical pessary or no intervention. The cervical pessary will be placed in situ at 16 to 20 weeks, and will stay in situ up to 36 weeks gestation or until delivery, whatever comes first.The primary outcome is composite bad neonatal condition (perinatal death or severe morbidity). Secondary outcome measures are time to delivery, preterm birth rate before 32 and 37 weeks, days of admission in neonatal intensive care unit, maternal morbidity, maternal admission days for preterm labour and costs. We need to include 660 women to indicate a reduction in bad neonatal outcome from 7.2% without to 3.9% with a cervical pessary, using a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence on whether a cervical pessary will decrease the incidence of early preterm birth and its concomitant bad neonatal outcome in multiple pregnancies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: NTR 1858.

Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks' gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Robust evidence to direct management of pregnant women with mild hypertensive disease at term is scarce. We investigated whether induction of labour in women with a singleton pregnancy complicated by gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia reduces severe maternal morbidity. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, parallel, open-label randomised controlled trial in six academic and 32 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands between October, 2005, and March, 2008. We enrolled patients with a singleton pregnancy at 36-41 weeks' gestation, and who had gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio by block randomisation with a web-based application system to receive either induction of labour or expectant monitoring. Masking of intervention allocation was not possible. The primary outcome was a composite measure of poor maternal outcome--maternal mortality, maternal morbidity (eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, pulmonary oedema, thromboembolic disease, and placental abruption), progression to severe hypertension or proteinuria, and major post-partum haemorrhage (>1000 mL blood loss). Analysis was by intention to treat and treatment effect is presented as relative risk. This study is registered, number ISRCTN08132825. FINDINGS: 756 patients were allocated to receive induction of labour (n=377 patients) or expectant monitoring (n=379). 397 patients refused randomisation but authorised use of their medical records. Of women who were randomised, 117 (31%) allocated to induction of labour developed poor maternal outcome compared with 166 (44%) allocated to expectant monitoring (relative risk 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.86, p<0.0001). No cases of maternal or neonatal death or eclampsia were recorded. INTERPRETATION: Induction of labour is associated with improved maternal outcome and should be advised for women with mild hypertensive disease beyond 37 weeks' gestation. FUNDING: ZonMw.