METHODS: We used data from a prospective cohort study of 799 pregnant women from health clinics of two states in east and west coasts of Malaysia. Baseline data were measured at the third trimester of pregnancy on ADS, AAS, socioeconomic condition, anthropometric status, reproductive history and intimate partner violence. Birth outcomes and mode of delivery were determined at the time of delivery. Univariate and multiple Cox's regressions were applied to assess the association between ADS and AAS and LBW, PTB and CS or instrumental delivery.
RESULTS: ADS was significantly associated with an increased risk of giving birth to LBW babies in both east coast (RR = 3.64; 95% CI 1.79-7.40) and west coast (RR = 3.82; 95% CI 1.86-7.84), but not with PTB. AAS was associated with increased risk of both LBW (RR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.39-4.38) and PTB (RR = 2.49; 95% CI 1.16-5.36) in the east coast, but not in west coast. The risk of CS or instrumental delivery was evident among women with ADS (RR = 2.44; 95% CI 1.48-4.03) in west coast only.
CONCLUSION: ADS predicts LBW in both coasts, AAS predicts LBW and PTB in east coast, and ADS predicts CS or instrumental delivery in west coast. Policies aimed at detection and management of ADS and AAS during antenatal check-up in health clinics may help improve birth outcomes and reduce obstetric interventions.
METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study involving 58 pregnancies from 1st January 2013 to 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were previous mid-trimester miscarriage and/or preterm birth, previous cervical surgery or short cervical length on routine sonogram. The demographic data, characteristics of each pregnancy and details of outcomes and management were described.
RESULTS: The majority of women were Malay with mean age and body mass index of 32.9 ± 4.2 years and 27.1 ± 6.3 kg/m2 respectively. The most frequent indications for Arabin pessary insertion were previous mid-trimester miscarriage (46.4%) and early preterm birth (17.2%). A total of 73.4% of these women had the pessary inserted electively at a mean cervical length of 31.6 ± 9.1 mm at median gestation of 15.0 weeks. They were managed as outpatient (56.9%), inpatient (24.1%) or mixed (19.0%) with combination of progestogen (81.0%) and 53.4% received antenatal corticosteroids. Spontaneous preterm birth at or more than 34 weeks gestation occurred in 74.1% with birthweight at or more than 2000 g (82.4%). Despite cervical funneling in 12 women (20.7%), 66.7% delivered at or later than 34 weeks gestation and 2 (16.7%) resulted in miscarriage.
CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of the Arabin pessary is beneficial to prevent spontaneous preterm birth in pregnant women who are at high risk. In particular, early insertion and close monitoring allows the best possible outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04638023 ) on 20/11/2020.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and the safety of progestogens in the treatment of threatened miscarriage.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (8 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised controlled trials, that compared progestogen with placebo, no treatment or any other treatment for the treatment of threatened miscarriage in women carrying singleton pregnancy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors assessed the trials for inclusion in the review, assessed trial quality and extracted the data and graded the body of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (involving 696 participants) in this update of the review. The included trials were conducted in different countries, covering the full spectrum of the World Bank's economic classification, which enhances the applicability of evidence drawn from this review. Two trials were conducted in Germany and Italy which are high-income countries, while four trials were conducted in upper-middle income countries; two in Iran, one in Malaysia and the fourth in Turkey, and the seventh trial was conducted in Jordan, which is a lower-middle income country. In six trials all the participants met the inclusion criteria and in the seventh study, we included in the meta-analysis only the subgroup of participants who met the inclusion criteria. We assessed the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE tool and the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Downgrading of evidence was based on the high risk of bias in six of the seven included trials and a small number of events and wide confidence intervals for some outcomes.Treatment of miscarriage with progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment probably reduces the risk of miscarriage; (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.87; 7 trials; 696 women; moderate-quality evidence). Treatment with oral progestogen compared to no treatment also probably reduces the miscarriage rate (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; 3 trials; 408 women; moderate-quality evidence). However treatment with vaginal progesterone compared to placebo, probably has little or no effect in reducing the miscarriage rate (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.21; 4 trials; 288 women; moderate-quality evidence). The subgroup interaction test indicated no difference according to route of administration between the oral and vaginal subgroups of progesterone.Treatment of preterm birth with the use of progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment may have little or no effect in reducing the rate of preterm birth (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.44; 5 trials; 588 women; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain if treatment of threatened miscarriage with progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment has any effect on the rate of congenital abnormalities because the quality of the evidence is very low (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.10 to 4.82; 2 trials; 337 infants; very-low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this Cochrane Review suggest that progestogens are probably effective in the treatment of threatened miscarriage but may have little or no effect in the rate of preterm birth. The evidence on congenital abnormalities is uncertain, because the quality of the evidence for this outcome was based on only two small trials with very few events and was found to be of very low quality.
METHODS: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in two tertiary referral hospitals in 2014. Postpartum women with severe morbidity and without severe morbidity who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were eligible as cases and controls, respectively. The study population included all postpartum women regardless of their age. Pregnancy at less than 22 weeks of gestation, more than 42 days after the termination of pregnancy and non-Malaysian citizens were excluded. Consecutive sampling was applied for the selection of cases and for each case identified, one unmatched control from the same hospital was selected using computer-based simple random sampling. Simple and multiple logistic regressions were performed using Stata Intercooled version 11.0.
RESULTS: A total of 23,422 pregnant women were admitted to these hospitals in 2014 and 395 women with severe maternal morbidity were identified, of which 353 were eligible as cases. An age of 35 or more years old [Adj. OR (95 % CI): 2.6 (1.67, 4.07)], women with past pregnancy complications [Adj. OR (95 % CI): 1.7 (1.00, 2.79)], underwent caesarean section deliveries [Adj. OR (95 % CI): 6.8 (4.68, 10.01)], preterm delivery [Adj. OR (95 % CI): 3.4 (1.87, 6.32)] and referral to tertiary centres [Adj. OR (95 % CI): 2.7 (1.87, 3.97)] were significant associated factors for severe maternal morbidity.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests the enhanced screening and monitoring of women of advanced maternal age, women with past pregnancy complications, those who underwent caesarean section deliveries, those who delivered preterm and the mothers referred to tertiary centres as they are at increased risk of severe maternal morbidity. Identifying these factors may contribute to specific and targeted strategies aimed at tackling the issues related to maternal morbidity.
DESIGN: GWG trajectories were identified using the latent class growth model. Binary logistic regression was performed to examine the associations between adverse pregnancy outcomes and these trajectories.
SETTING: Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand one hundred ninety-three pregnant women.
RESULTS: Three GWG trajectories were identified: 'Group 1 - slow initial GWG but followed by drastic GWG', 'Group 2 - maintaining rate of GWG at 0·58 kg/week' and 'Group 3 - maintaining rate of GWG at 0·38 kg/week'. Group 1 had higher risk of postpartum weight retention (PWR) (adjusted OR (AOR) 1·02, 95 % CI 1·01, 1·04), caesarean delivery (AOR 1·03, 95 % CI 1·01, 1·04) and having low birth weight (AOR 1·04, 95 % CI 1·02, 1·05) compared with group 3. Group 2 was at higher risk of PWR (AOR 1·18, 95 % CI 1·16, 1·21), preterm delivery (AOR 1·03, 95 % CI 1·01, 1·05) and caesarean delivery (AOR 1·02, 95 % CI 1·01, 1·03), but at lower risk of having small-for-gestational-age infants (AOR 0·97, 95 % CI 0·96, 0·99) compared with group 3. The significant associations between group 1 and PWR were observed among non-overweight/obese women; between group 1 and caesarean delivery among overweight/obese women; group 2 with preterm delivery and caesarean delivery were only found among overweight/obese women.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher GWG as well as increasing GWG trajectories was associated with higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Promoting GWG within the recommended range should be emphasised in antenatal care to prevent the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
METHOD: We reviewed the medical records of 9550 women (9665 infants including 111 twins and two triplets) admitted to the labour wards of nine hospitals in four South East Asian countries during 2005. For women who gave birth before 34 weeks gestation we collected information on women's demographic and pregnancy background, the type, dose and use of corticosteroids, and key birth and infant outcomes.
RESULTS: Administration of antenatal corticosteroids to women who gave birth before 34 weeks gestation varied widely between countries (9% to 73%) and also between hospitals within countries (0% to 86%). Antenatal corticosteroids were most commonly given when women were between 28 and 34 weeks gestation (80%). Overall 6% of women received repeat doses of corticosteroids. Dexamethasone was the only type of antenatal corticosteroid used. Women receiving antenatal corticosteroids compared with those not given antenatal corticosteroids were less likely to have had a previous pregnancy and to be booked for birth at the hospital and almost three times as likely to have a current multiple pregnancy. Exposed women were less likely to be induced and almost twice as likely to have a caesarean section, a primary postpartum haemorrhage and postpartum pyrexia. Infants exposed to antenatal corticosteroids compared with infants not exposed were less likely to die. Live born exposed infants were less likely to have Apgar scores of < 7 at five minutes and less likely to have any lung disease.
CONCLUSION: In this survey the use of antenatal corticosteroids prior to preterm birth varied between countries and hospitals. Evaluation of the enablers and barriers to the uptake of this effective antenatal intervention at individual hospitals is needed.
OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.