Search

Background The World Health Organisation (WHO) 2013 diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has been criticised due to the limited evidence of benefits on pregnancy outcomes in different populations when switching from previously higher glycemic thresholds to the lower WHO-2013 diagnostic criteria. The aim of this study was to determine whether the switch from previous Swedish (SWE-GDM) to the WHO-2013 GDM criteria in Sweden following risk factor-based screening improves pregnancy outcomes. Methods and findings A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial was performed between January 1 and December 31, 2018 in 11 clusters (17 delivery units) across Sweden, including all pregnancies under care and excluding preexisting diabetes, gastric bypass surgery, or multifetal pregnancies from the analysis. After implementation of uniform clinical and laboratory guidelines, a number of clusters were randomised to intervention (switch to WHO-2013 GDM criteria) each month from February to November 2018. The primary outcome was large for gestational age (LGA, defined as birth weight >90th percentile). Other secondary and prespecified outcomes included maternal and neonatal birth complications. Primary analysis was by modified intention to treat (mITT), excluding 3 clusters that were randomised before study start but were unable to implement the intervention. Prespecified subgroup analysis was undertaken among those discordant for the definition of GDM. Multilevel mixed regression models were used to compare outcome LGA between WHO-2013 and SWE-GDM groups adjusted for clusters, time periods, and potential confounders. Multiple imputation was used for missing potential confounding variables. In the mITT analysis, 47 080 pregnancies were included with 6 882 (14.6%) oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) performed. The GDM prevalence increased from 595/22 797 (2.6%) to 1 591/24 283 (6.6%) after the intervention. In the mITT population, the switch was associated with no change in primary outcome LGA (2 790/24 209 (11.5%) versus 2 584/22 707 (11.4%)) producing an adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.02, p = 0.26). In the subgroup, the prevalence of LGA was 273/956 (28.8%) before and 278/1 239 (22.5%) after the switch, aRR 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.01, p = 0.076). No serious events were reported. Potential limitations of this trial are mainly due to the trial design, including failure to adhere to guidelines within and between the clusters and influences of unidentified temporal variations. Conclusions In this study, implementing the WHO-2013 criteria in Sweden with risk factor-based screening did not significantly reduce LGA prevalence defined as birth weight >90th percentile, in the total population, or in the subgroup discordant for the definition of GDM. Future studies are needed to evaluate the effects of treating different glucose thresholds during pregnancy in different populations, with different screening strategies and clinical management guidelines, to optimise women's and children's health in the short and long term. Trial registration The trial is registered with ISRCTN (41918550)., Author(s): Maryam de Brun 1, Anders Magnuson 2, Scott Montgomery 2,3,4, Snehal Patil 2, David Simmons 5,6, Kerstin Berntorp 7, Stefan Jansson 8, Ulla-Britt Wennerholm 9, Anna-Karin Wikström 10, Helen [...]

Background: Due to changes in Swedish maternity care during the COVID-19 pandemic, partners were often excluded from antenatal and postnatal care. Aim: To explore partners' experiences of pregnancy, labour, and postnatal care in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Methods: A descriptive qualitative interview study with 15 partners of women who gave birth from March 2020 to March 2022. Data was collected from April to November 2022, and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Findings: Two themes and six subthemes were identified. The first theme, Feelings of loss and exclusion, emphasises the expectation and desire to share the journey of becoming a parent together with the pregnant partner. When excluded from maternity care, a feeling of missing out was described which could create a sense of distance from the unborn child. The second theme, Dealing with powerlessness, relates to the fear of infection and not being able to participate during the birth, and life being adapted to restrictions. Mixed feelings regarding the restrictions were described since the reasons behind were not always perceived as clear and logical. Discussion: Sweden prides itself on gender equality, where partners normally are a natural part of maternity care. This likely contributed to strong feelings of exclusion when partners were prevented from participating in maternity care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: Partners of women giving birth during the COVID-19 pandemic were substantially affected by the restrictions within maternity care. Partners wish to be involved in pregnancy and birth and want to receive clear information as part of their preparation for parenthood. Society–including maternity care–must decide how to address these needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To prevent the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2, hospitals around the world adopted protocols that, in varying ways, resulted in the exclusion of partners from hospital postnatal care wards. The objective of this study was to examine the effect this exclusion had on partners' satisfaction with postnatal care. Methods: An online survey (the Swedish Pregnancy Panel) including free‐text comments was conducted before and during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic; partners of pregnant women were recruited at an early ultrasound appointment and followed until 2 months after childbirth. Data were linked to the Swedish Pregnancy Register. Results: The survey was completed by 524 partners of women who gave birth during the pandemic and 203 partners of women who gave birth before. Partners' satisfaction with hospital postnatal care dropped 29.8 percent (−0.94 OLS, 95% CI = −1.17 to −0.72). The drop was largest for partners of first‐time mothers (−1.40 OLS, 95% CI = −1.69 to −1.11), but unrelated to clinical outcomes such as mode of birth and most social backgrounds, except higher income. The qualitative analysis showed that partners (1) felt excluded as partners and parents, (2) thought the strain on staff led to deficiencies in the care provided, and (3) perceived the decision about partner restrictions as illogical. Conclusions: The exclusion of partners from the hospital postnatal wards clearly impaired satisfaction with care, and partners of first‐time mothers were particularly affected. Planning for future restrictions on partners from hospital wards should factor in these consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery (PTD) although the exact pathomechanism is not yet understood. Women with untreated CIN also seem to have an increased risk of PTD. It is unclear whether this is attributable to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection or other factors. We aimed to investigate whether HPV infection shortly before or during pregnancy, as well as previous treatment for CIN, is associated with an increased risk of PTD and other adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Methods and findings This was a retrospective population-based register study of women with singleton deliveries registered in the Swedish Medical Birth Register 1999-2016 (n = 1,044,023). The study population had a mean age of 30.2 years (SD 5.2) and a mean body mass index of 25.4 kg/m.sup.2 (SD 3.0), and 44% of the women were nulliparous before delivery. Study groups were defined based on cervical HPV tests, cytology, and histology, as registered in the Swedish National Cervical Screening Registry. Women with a history of exclusively normal cytology (n = 338,109) were compared to women with positive HPV tests (n = 2,550) or abnormal cytology (n = 11,727) within 6 months prior to conception or during the pregnancy, women treated for CIN3 before delivery (n = 23,185), and women with CIN2+ diagnosed after delivery (n = 33,760). Study groups were compared concerning obstetric and neonatal outcomes by logistic regression, and comparisons were adjusted for socioeconomic and health-related confounders. HPV infection was associated with PTD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.42, p = 0.042), preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (pPROM) (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.18-1.96, p < 0.001), prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) (aOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.42, p = 0.002), and neonatal mortality (aOR 2.69, 95% CI 1.25-5.78, p = 0.011). Treatment for CIN was associated with PTD (aOR 1.85, 95% CI 1.76-1.95, p < 0.001), spontaneous PTD (aOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.95-2.17, p < 0.001), pPROM (aOR 2.36, 95% CI 2.19-2.54, p < 0.001), PROM (aOR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.17, p < 0.001), intrauterine fetal death (aOR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05-1.72, p = 0.019), chorioamnionitis (aOR 2.75, 95% CI 2.33-3.23, p < 0.001), intrapartum fever (aOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07-1.44, p = 0.003), neonatal sepsis (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.37-1.75, p < 0.001), and neonatal mortality (aOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.30-2.45, p < 0.001). Women with CIN2+ diagnosed within 3 years after delivery had increased PTD risk (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001). Limitations of the study include the retrospective design and the fact that because HPV test results only became available in 2007, abnormal cytology was used as a proxy for HPV infection. Conclusions In this study, we found that HPV infection shortly before or during pregnancy was associated with PTD, pPROM, PROM, and neonatal mortality. Previous treatment for CIN was associated with even greater risks for PTD and pPROM and was also associated with PROM, neonatal mortality, and maternal and neonatal infectious complications., Author(s): Johanna Wiik 1,2,3,*, Staffan Nilsson 4,5, Cecilia Kärrberg 1,3,6, Björn Strander 1,6, Bo Jacobsson 1,3,7, Verena Sengpiel 1,3 Introduction Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the most common genital infection [...]