Tafoxiparin, a novel drug candidate for cervical ripening and labor augmentation: results from 2 randomized, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Slow progression of labor is a common obstetrical problem with multiple associated complications. Tafoxiparin is a depolymerized form of heparin with a molecular structure that eliminates the anticoagulant effects of heparin. We report on 2 phase II clinical studies of tafoxiparin in primiparas. Study 1 was an exploratory, first-in-pregnant-women study and study 2 was a dose-finding study. OBJECTIVE: Study 1 was performed to explore the effects on labor time of subcutaneous administration of tafoxiparin before onset of labor. Study 2 was performed to test the hypothesis that intravenous treatment with tafoxiparin reduces the risk for prolonged labor after spontaneous labor onset in situations requiring oxytocin stimulation because of dystocia. STUDY DESIGN: Both studies were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. Participants were healthy, nulliparous females aged 18 to 45 years with a normal singleton pregnancy and gestational age confirmed by ultrasound. The primary endpoints were time from onset of established labor (cervical dilation of 4 cm) until delivery (study 1) and time from start of study treatment infusion until delivery (study 2). In study 1, patients at 38 to 40 weeks of gestation received 60 mg tafoxiparin or placebo daily as 0.4 mL subcutaneous injections until labor onset (maximum 28 days). In study 2, patients experiencing slow progression of labor, a prolonged latent phase, or labor arrest received a placebo or 1 of 3 short-term tafoxiparin regimens (initial bolus 7, 21, or 35 mg followed by continuous infusion at 5, 15, or 25 mg/hour until delivery; maximum duration, 36 hours) in conjunction with oxytocin. RESULTS: The number of participants randomized in study 1 was 263, and 361 were randomized in study 2. There were no statistically significant differences in the primary endpoints between those receiving tafoxiparin and those receiving the placebo in both studies. However, in study 1, the risk for having a labor time exceeding 12 hours was significantly reduced by tafoxiparin (tafoxiparin 6/114 [5%] vs placebo 18/101 [18%]; P=.0045). Post hoc analyses showed that women who underwent labor induction had a median (range) labor time of 4.44 (1.2-8.5) hours with tafoxiparin and 7.03 (1.5-14.3) hours with the placebo (P=.0041) and that co-administration of tafoxiparin potentiates the effect of oxytocin and facilitates a shorter labor time among women with a labor time exceeding 6 to 8 hours (P=.016). Among women induced into labor, tafoxiparin had a positive effect on cervical ripening in 11 of 13 cases (85%) compared with 3 of 13 participants (23%) who received the placebo (P=.004). For women requiring oxytocin because of slow progression of labor, the corresponding results were 34 of 51 participants (66%) vs 16 of 40 participants (40%) (P=.004). In study 2, tafoxiparin had no positive effects on the secondary endpoints when compared with the placebo. Except for injection-site reactions in study 1, adverse events were no more common for tafoxiparin than for the placebo among either mothers or infants. There were few serious or treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous treatment with tafoxiparin before labor onset (study 1) may be effective in reducing the labor time among women undergoing labor induction and among those requiring oxytocin for slow progression of labor. Moreover, tafoxiparin may have a positive effect on cervical ripening. Short-term, intravenous treatment with tafoxiparin as an adjunct to oxytocin in patients with labor arrest (study 2) did not affect labor time or other endpoints. Both studies suggest that tafoxiparin has a favorable safety profile in mothers and their infants.

Obstetric anal sphincter injury in the second birth after perineal wound complication in the first birth: A nationwide register cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether perineal wound complications in the first birth, alone or in conjunction with obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI), is associated with an increased risk of OASI in the second birth. DESIGN: Nationwide population-based cohort study. SETTING: Sweden. POPULATION: Women (n = 411 317) with first and second singleton vaginal births in Sweden, 2001-2019. METHODS: Data on diagnostic codes and surgical procedures were retrieved from the Swedish Medical Birth Register and the Swedish Patient Register. A perineal wound complication was defined as wound infection, dehiscence or perineal haematoma within 2 months of childbirth. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Associations between wound complications in the first birth and OASI in the second birth were investigated with logistic regression and presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: In total, 2619 (0.6%) women had a wound complication in the first birth, and 5318 (1.3%) had an OASI in the second birth. Women with a wound complication but no OASI in the first birth had more than doubled odds of OASI in the second birth (aOR 2.73, 95% CI 2.11-3.53). Women with OASI and a wound complication in the first birth had almost tenfold odds (aOR 9.97, 95% CI 6.53-15.24) of recurrent OASI. CONCLUSIONS: Perineal wound complication in the first birth increases the likelihood of OASI in a subsequent birth.

Pregnancy planning and neonatal outcome - a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned pregnancy is common, and although some research indicates adverse outcomes for the neonate, such as death, low birth weight, and preterm birth, results are inconsistent. The purpose of the present study was to investigate associated neonatal outcomes of an unplanned pregnancy in a Swedish setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in which data from 2953 women were retrieved from the Swedish Pregnancy Planning Study, covering ten Swedish counties from September 2012 through July 2013. Pregnancy intention was measured using the London Measurement of Unplanned Pregnancy. Women with unplanned pregnancies and pregnancies of ambivalent intention were combined and referred to as unplanned. Data on neonatal outcomes: small for gestational age, low birth weight, preterm birth, Apgar score < 7 at 5 min, and severe adverse neonatal outcome defined as death or need for resuscitation at birth, were retrieved from the Swedish Medical Birth Register. RESULTS: The prevalence of unplanned pregnancies was 30.4%. Compared with women who had planned pregnancies, those with unplanned pregnancies were more likely to give birth to neonates small for gestational age: 3.6% vs. 1.7% (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.7). There were no significant differences in preterm birth, Apgar score < 7 at 5 min, or severe adverse neonatal outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In a Swedish setting, an unplanned pregnancy might increase the risk for birth of an infant small for gestational age.

Lateral episiotomy or no episiotomy in vacuum assisted delivery in nulliparous women (EVA): multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of lateral episiotomy, compared with no episiotomy, on obstetric anal sphincter injury in nulliparous women requiring vacuum extraction. DESIGN: A multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eight hospitals in Sweden, 2017-23. PARTICIPANTS: 717 nulliparous women with a single live fetus of 34 gestational weeks or more, requiring vacuum extraction were randomly assigned (1:1) to lateral episiotomy or no episiotomy using sealed opaque envelopes. Randomisation was stratified by study site. INTERVENTION: A standardised lateral episiotomy was performed during the vacuum extraction, at crowning of the fetal head, starting 1-3 cm from the posterior fourchette, at a 60° (45-80°) angle from the midline, and 4 cm (3-5 cm) long. The comparison was no episiotomy unless considered indispensable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of the episiotomy in vacuum assisted delivery (EVA) trial was obstetric anal sphincter injury, clinically diagnosed by combined visual inspection and digital rectal and vaginal examination. The primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat population that included all consenting women with attempted or successful vacuum extraction. As a result of an interim analysis at significance level P<0.01, the primary endpoint was tested at 4% significance level with accompanying 96% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: From 1 July 2017 to 15 February 2023, 717 women were randomly assigned: 354 (49%) to lateral episiotomy and 363 (51%) to no episiotomy. Before vacuum extraction attempt, one woman withdrew consent and 14 had a spontaneous birth, leaving 702 for the primary analysis. In the intervention group, 21 (6%) of 344 women sustained obstetric anal sphincter injury, compared with 47 (13%) of 358 women in the comparison group (P=0.002). The risk difference was -7.0% (96% CI -11.7% to -2.5%). The risk ratio adjusted for site was 0.47 (96% CI 0.23 to 0.97) and unadjusted risk ratio was 0.46 (0.28 to 0.78). No significant differences were noted between groups in postpartum pain, blood loss, neonatal outcomes, or total adverse events, but the intervention group had more wound infections and dehiscence. CONCLUSIONS: Lateral episiotomy can be recommended for nulliparous women requiring vacuum extraction to significantly reduce the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02643108.

European Association of Perinatal Medicine (EAPM), European Board and College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (EBCOG), European Midwives Association (EMA). Joint position statement: Substandard and disrespectful care in labour - because words matter.

Substandard or disrespectful care during labour should be of serious concern for healthcare professionals, as it can affect one of the most important events in a woman's life. Substandard care refers to the use of interventions that are not considered best-practice, to the inadequate execution of interventions, to situations where best-practice interventions are withheld from patients, or there is lack of adequate informed consent. Disrespectful care refers to forms of verbal and non-verbal communication that affect patients' dignity, individuality, privacy, intimacy, or personal beliefs. There are many possible underlying causes for substandard and disrespectful care in labour, including difficulties in modifying behaviours, judgmental or paternalistic attitudes, personal interests and individualism, and a human tendency to make less arduous, less difficult, or less stressful clinical decisions. The term "obstetric violence" is used in some parts of the world to describe various forms of substandard and disrespectful care in labour, but suggests that it is mainly carried out by obstetricians and is a serious form of aggression, carried out with the intent to cause harm. We believe that this term should not be used, as it does not help to identify the underlying problem, its causes, or its correction. In addition, it is generally seen by obstetricians and other healthcare professionals as an unjust and offensive term, generating a defensive and less collaborative mindset. We reach out to all individuals and institutions sharing the common goal of improving women's experience during labour, to work together to address the underlying causes of substandard and disrespectful care, and to develop common strategies to deal with this problem, based on mutual comprehension, trust and respect.