Alexander Jarde

Neonatal Outcomes in Women With Untreated Antenatal Depression Compared With Women Without Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Despite the prevalence of antenatal depression and the fact that only one-third of pregnant women with depression consider it acceptable to take antidepressants, the effect of untreated depression on neonatal outcomes remains to be addressed thoroughly. OBJECTIVE To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the effect of untreated depression on neonatal outcomes. DATA SOURCES We executed our search strategy, with emphasis on its exhaustiveness, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. The search was conducted in July, 2015. STUDY SELECTION We included randomized and nonrandomized studies that examined neonatal outcomes in women with depression receiving neither pharmacological nor nonpharmacological treatment compared with women without depression. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed their quality using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses, quantified heterogeneity using the I2 statistic, and explored it with subgroup analyses by type of assessment of depression, severity, reported conflicts of interest, and study quality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcomes were preterm birth before 37 weeks and before 32 weeks, small and large for gestational age, low birth weight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. RESULTS Of the 6646 titles initially identified, 23 studies met inclusion criteria, all observational, with a total of 25 663 women. Untreated depression was associated with significantly increased risks of preterm birth (odds ratio [OR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.25-1.94; 14 studies; I2, 39%) and low birth weight (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.10; 8 studies; I2, 48%), with a trend toward higher risks for exposure to more severe depression. While the odds of preterm birth more than doubled in studies reporting conflicts of interest (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.70-3.67; 5 studies; I2, 0%), studies not reporting such conflicts showed more moderate results (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.66; 9 studies; I2, 30%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Our results contrast with what is, to our knowledge, the only previous systematic review that examined the question of untreated depression because we found significant risks of 2 key perinatal outcomes, preterm birth and low birth weight. These are important results for pregnant women and clinicians to take into account in the decision-making process around depression treatment.

Preterm birth prevention in twin pregnancies with progesterone, pessary, or cerclage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

About half of twin pregnancies deliver preterm, and it is unclear whether any intervention reduces this risk.

Effectiveness of progesterone, cerclage and pessary for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of infant death, but it is unclear which intervention is best to prevent it.

Does non-pharmacological therapy for antenatal depression reduce risks for the infant?

Depression during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes for the infant such as preterm birth. These risks are not reduced with pharmacological treatment, but the effect of non-pharmacological therapies is unknown. We performed a systematic review to assess the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in non-pharmacologically treated depressed women compared to non-depressed women. We found no studies that met our inclusion criteria, highlighting a critical need for research on this topic.

The More, the Better? Combining Interventions to Prevent Preterm Birth in Women at Risk: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES To systematically examine the evidence around the combination of interventions to prevent preterm birth. METHODS Without language restrictions, we searched clinicaltrials.gov and five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science) up to July 7, 2016. We included randomized and non-randomized studies where asymptomatic women at risk of preterm birth received any combination of progesterone, cerclage, or pessary compared with either one or no intervention. Primary outcomes were preterm birth <34 and <37 weeks and neonatal death. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a piloted form and assessed risk and direction of bias. We pooled data with unlikely or unclear bias using random-effects meta-analyses. Comparisons with likely bias (e.g., confounding by indication) were not pooled. RESULTS We screened 1335 results and assessed 154 full texts, including seven studies. In singletons, we found no differences in preterm birth <34 weeks when comparing pessary & progesterone with pessary alone (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.70-2.42) or progesterone alone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79-1.72). Similarly, we found no differences in preterm birth <37 weeks when comparing cerclage & progesterone with cerclage alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.56-1.93) or with progesterone alone (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57-1.19) nor between pessary & progesterone and pessary alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.62-1.74). No data were available for neonatal death in singletons. CONCLUSIONS Despite being a common clinical practice, evidence to support the combined use of multiple versus single interventions for preventing preterm birth is scarce.

What Interventions Are Being Used to Prevent Preterm Birth and When

OBJECTIVE This study sought to determine the proportions of women at risk of preterm birth who received progesterone, elective and rescue cerclage, or pessary to prevent preterm birth, by using medical records. The authors also sought to determine whether these proportions differed among primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-level centres. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study and extracted data from consecutive medical charts of women with an estimated date of confinement over 3 months in primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-level centres in Southern Ontario. The study identified women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth or a short cervix and determined whether they were offered and whether they received a preventive intervention for preterm birth. Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact tests were calculated. RESULTS The authors reviewed 1024 consecutive charts at primary, secondary, and tertiary centres and identified 31 women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth or a short cervix. Of these women, less than one half (42%) received progesterone or cerclage for prevention of preterm birth, and none received pessary. One in four women (26%) were not referred to an obstetrician or maternal-fetal medicine specialist in time for an intervention, and among those referred before 24 weeks of gestation, an intervention was offered to 57% of the women. CONCLUSION Less than half of women at risk of spontaneous preterm birth received progesterone, cerclage, or pessary, attesting to the importance of improving knowledge translation methods to encourage timely referral and use of progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth.

A clinical carepath for obese pregnant women: A pragmatic pilot cluster randomized controlled trial

Abstract Objectives: Obese women are at increased risks for complications during pregnancy, birth, and in their infants. Although guidelines have been established for the clinical care of obese pregnant women, management is sometimes suboptimal. Our goal was to determine the feasibility of implementing and testing a clinical carepath for obese pregnant women compared to standard care, in a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods: A pragmatic pilot cluster RCT was conducted, randomly allocating eight clinics to the carepath or standard care for obese pregnant women. Women were eligible if they had a pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 kg/m2 and a viable singleton <21 weeks. The primary outcomes were the feasibility of conducting a full-scale cluster RCT (defined as >80%: randomization of clinics, use in eligible women, and completeness of follow-up) and of the intervention (defined as >80%: compliance with each step in the carepath and recommendation of the carepath by clinicians to a colleague). Results: All eight approached clinics agreed to participate and were randomized. Half of the intervention clinics used the carepath, resulting in <80% uptake of eligible women. High follow-up (99.5%) was achieved, in 188 of 189 women. The carepath was feasible for numerous guideline-directed recommendations for screening, but less so for counseling topics. When the carepath was used in the majority of women, all clinicians, most of whom were midwives, reported they would recommend it to a colleague. The intervention group had significantly higher overall adherence to the guideline recommendations compared to control (relative risk: 1.71, 95% confidence interval: 1.57–1.87). Conclusions: In this pragmatic pilot cluster RCT, a guideline-directed clinical carepath improved some aspects of care of obese pregnant women and was recommended by clinicians, particularly midwives. A cluster RCT may not be feasible in a mix of obstetric and midwifery clinics, but may be feasible in midwifery clinics.