-
Clinical Laboratory Apr 2023Thrombophilia testing is controversial, not least because of its high cost. Because comprehensive valid testing requires standardized blood collection close by the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Thrombophilia testing is controversial, not least because of its high cost. Because comprehensive valid testing requires standardized blood collection close by the specialized laboratory, and interpretation of findings together with clinical data, often only part of the necessary laboratory analyses can be performed in remote central laboratories. Restrictive indications for testing, as have been recommended by previous reviews on the topic, have been based on incomplete analytics, studies with small case numbers, or short observation periods, and on an inappropriate, simple risk stratification for venous thromboembolism (VTE), further subdivided into provoked and unprovoked events.
METHODS
The authors reviewed four electronic databases for all peer-reviewed and in-press articles about thrombophilia, VTE, obstetric complications, and arterial thrombosis. After confirmation for relevance to the topic, 201 articles were accepted for inclusion in this article. This review summarizes the studies relevant to the evaluation of thrombophilic conditions, and their combination with each other and with clinical risk factors, to stratify individual risk for thromboembolism and obstetric complications.
RESULTS
Thrombophilia testing requires highly skilled personnel for laboratory analysis and interpretation. Clinical conditions that influence the results as well as special preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical aspects must be considered if valid results are to be obtained. Tests involved include the natural anticoagulants antithrombin, protein C, and protein S; the procoagulants fibrinogen (dysfibrinogen), prothrombin (mutation G20210A), factor V (Leiden mutation), factor VIII/von Willebrand factor/blood group ABO, factor IX, and factor XI; the anti-phospholipid antibodies to detect an antiphospholipid syndrome and potentially additional uncertain thrombophilic conditions. The risks of thrombophilic conditions and clinical risk factors for VTE are cumulative or even supra-additive. Scores from thrombophilic conditions and other genetic and nongenetic risk factors permit estimation of risk for first and recurrent VTE. Therapeutic strategies can be derived from this risk stratification.
CONCLUSIONS
Thrombophilia testing is indicated when the results have potential to influence the type and duration of treatment. Indications include certain patients after VTE; or patients without previous VTE but with positive family history regarding VTE or thrombophilia before major surgery, pregnancy, combined oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy. Whether or not thrombophilia is present should help determine anticoagulation, hormonal contraception, or hormone replacement.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Thrombophilia; Anticoagulants; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37057948
DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2022.220817 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Jul 2021In December 2019, a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, with an incredible contagion rate. However, the vertical transmission of COVID-19 is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In December 2019, a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, with an incredible contagion rate. However, the vertical transmission of COVID-19 is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
This is a systematic review of published studies concerning pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 and their neonates.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We carried out a systematic search in multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 database using the following keywords: (Coronavirus) OR (novel coronavirus) OR (COVID-19) OR (COVID19) OR (COVID 19) OR (SARS-CoV2) OR (2019-nCoV)) and ((pregnancy) OR (pregnant) OR (vertical transmission) OR (neonate) OR (newborn) OR (placenta) OR (fetus) OR (Fetal)). The search took place in April 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Original articles published in English were eligible if they included pregnant patients infected with COVID-19 and their newborns.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES
The outcomes of interest consisted of clinical manifestations of COVID-19 in pregnant patients with COVID-19 and also the effect of COVID-19 on neonatal and pregnancy outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
37 articles involving 364 pregnant women with COVID-19 and 302 neonates were included. The vast majority of pregnant patients were in their third trimester of pregnancy, and only 45 cases were in the first or second trimester (12.4%). Most mothers described mild to moderate manifestations of COVID-19. Of 364 pregnant women, 25 were asymptomatic at the time of admission. The most common symptoms were fever (62.4%) and cough (45.3%). Two maternal deaths occurred. Some pregnant patients (12.1%) had a negative SARS-CoV-2 test but displayed clinical manifestations and abnormalities in computed tomography (CT) scan related to COVID-19. Twenty-two (6.0%) pregnant patients developed severe pneumonia. Two maternal deaths occurred from severe pneumonia and multiple organ dysfunction. Studies included a total of 302 neonates from mothers with COVID-19. Of the studies that provided data on the timing of birth, there were 65 (23.6%) preterm neonates. One baby was born dead from a mother who also died from COVID-19. Of the babies born alive from mothers with COVID-19, five newborns faced critical conditions, and two later died. A total of 219 neonates underwent nasopharyngeal specimen collection for SARS-CoV-2, of which 11 tested positive (5%). Seventeen studies examined samples of the placenta, breast milk, umbilical cord, and amniotic fluid, and all tested negative except one amniotic fluid sample.
CONCLUSIONS
A systematic review of published studies confirm that the course of COVID-19 in pregnant women resembles that of other populations. However, there is not sufficient evidence to establish an idea that COVID-19 would not complicate pregnancy.
Topics: Adult; Amniotic Fluid; COVID-19; Female; Fever; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Mothers; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy Trimester, Third; Pregnant Women; RNA, Viral; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33797605
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06049-z -
The Lancet. Diabetes & Endocrinology Apr 2022Adequate maternal thyroid function is important for an uncomplicated pregnancy. Although multiple observational studies have evaluated the association between thyroid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adequate maternal thyroid function is important for an uncomplicated pregnancy. Although multiple observational studies have evaluated the association between thyroid dysfunction and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the methods and definitions of abnormalities in thyroid function tests were heterogeneous, and the results were conflicting. We aimed to examine the association between abnormalities in thyroid function tests and risk of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of individual-participant data, we searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from date of inception to Dec 27, 2019, for prospective cohort studies with data on maternal concentrations of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free thyroxine (FT), thyroid peroxidase (TPO) antibodies, individually or in combination, as well as on gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, or both. We issued open invitations to study authors to participate in the Consortium on Thyroid and Pregnancy and to share the individual-participant data. We excluded participants who had pre-existing thyroid disease or multifetal pregnancy, or were taking medications that affect thyroid function. The primary outcomes were documented gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia. Individual-participant data were analysed using logistic mixed-effects regression models adjusting for maternal age, BMI, smoking, parity, ethnicity, and gestational age at blood sampling. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019128585.
FINDINGS
We identified 1539 published studies, of which 33 cohorts met the inclusion criteria and 19 cohorts were included after the authors agreed to participate. Our study population comprised 46 528 pregnant women, of whom 39 826 (85·6%) women had sufficient data (TSH and FT concentrations and TPO antibody status) to be classified according to their thyroid function status. Of these women, 1275 (3·2%) had subclinical hypothyroidism, 933 (2·3%) had isolated hypothyroxinaemia, 619 (1·6%) had subclinical hyperthyroidism, and 337 (0·8%) had overt hyperthyroidism. Compared with euthyroidism, subclinical hypothyroidism was associated with a higher risk of pre-eclampsia (2·1% vs 3·6%; OR 1·53 [95% CI 1·09-2·15]). Subclinical hyperthyroidism, isolated hypothyroxinaemia, or TPO antibody positivity were not associated with gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia. In continuous analyses, both a higher and a lower TSH concentration were associated with a higher risk of pre-eclampsia (p=0·0001). FT concentrations were not associated with the outcomes measured.
INTERPRETATION
Compared with euthyroidism, subclinical hypothyroidism during pregnancy was associated with a higher risk of pre-eclampsia. There was a U-shaped association of TSH with pre-eclampsia. These results quantify the risks of gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia in women with thyroid function test abnormalities, adding to the total body of evidence on the risk of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes of thyroid dysfunction during pregnancy. These findings have potential implications for defining the optimal treatment target in women treated with levothyroxine during pregnancy, which needs to be assessed in future interventional studies.
FUNDING
Arkansas Biosciences Institute and Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Hyperthyroidism; Hypothyroidism; Male; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Prospective Studies; Thyroid Diseases; Thyrotropin; Thyroxine
PubMed: 35255260
DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00007-9 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... Sep 2022Interpretation of thyroid function tests during pregnancy is limited by the generalizability of reference intervals between cohorts due to inconsistent methodology. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Interpretation of thyroid function tests during pregnancy is limited by the generalizability of reference intervals between cohorts due to inconsistent methodology.
OBJECTIVE
(1) To provide an overview of published reference intervals for thyrotropin (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4) in pregnancy, (2) to assess the consequences of common methodological between-study differences by combining raw data from different cohorts.
METHODS
(1) Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched until December 12, 2021. Studies were assessed in duplicate. (2) The individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed in participating cohorts in the Consortium on Thyroid and Pregnancy.
RESULTS
(1) Large between-study methodological differences were identified, 11 of 102 included studies were in accordance with current guidelines; (2) 22 cohorts involving 63 198 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Not excluding thyroid peroxidase antibody-positive participants led to a rise in the upper limits of TSH in all cohorts, especially in the first (mean +17.4%; range +1.6 to +30.3%) and second trimester (mean +9.8%; range +0.6 to +32.3%). The use of the 95th percentile led to considerable changes in upper limits, varying from -10.8% to -21.8% for TSH and -1.2% to -13.2% for FT4. All other additional exclusion criteria changed reference interval cut-offs by a maximum of 3.5%. Applying these findings to the 102 studies included in the systematic review, 48 studies could be used in a clinical setting.
CONCLUSION
We provide an overview of clinically relevant reference intervals for TSH and FT4 in pregnancy. The results of the meta-analysis indicate that future studies can adopt a simplified study setup without additional exclusion criteria.
Topics: Female; Humans; Iodide Peroxidase; Pregnancy; Reference Values; Thyroid Function Tests; Thyroid Gland; Thyrotropin; Thyroxine
PubMed: 35861700
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgac425 -
Human Reproduction Update Jun 2022Uterine natural killer cells (uNK) are the most abundant lymphocytes found in the decidua during implantation and in first trimester pregnancy. They are important for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Uterine natural killer cells (uNK) are the most abundant lymphocytes found in the decidua during implantation and in first trimester pregnancy. They are important for early placental development, especially trophoblast invasion and transformation of the spiral arteries. However, inappropriate uNK function has been implicated in reproductive failure, such as recurrent miscarriage (RM) or recurrent implantation failure (RIF). Previous studies have mainly focussed on peripheral NK cells (pNK), despite the well-documented differences in pNK and uNK phenotype and function. In recent years, there has been an explosion of studies conducted on uNK, providing a more suitable representation of the immune environment at the maternal-foetal interface. Here, we summarize the evidence from studies published on uNK in women with RM/RIF compared with controls.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to evaluate: differences in uNK level in women with RM/RIF compared with controls; pregnancy outcome in women with RM/RIF stratified by high and normal uNK levels; correlation between uNK and pNK in women with RM/RIF; and differences in uNK activity in women with RM/RIF compared with controls.
SEARCH METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Trials Registry were searched from inception up to December 2020 and studies were selected in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analyses were performed for uNK level, pregnancy outcome and uNK/pNK correlation. Narrative synthesis was conducted for uNK activity. Risk of bias was assessed by ROBINS-I and publication bias by Egger's test.
OUTCOMES
Our initial search yielded 4636 articles, of which 60 articles were included in our systematic review. Meta-analysis of CD56+ uNK level in women with RM compared with controls showed significantly higher levels in women with RM in subgroup analysis of endometrial samples (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.49, CI 0.08, 0.90; P = 0.02; I2 88%; 1100 women). Meta-analysis of CD56+ uNK level in endometrium of women with RIF compared with controls showed significantly higher levels in women with RIF (SMD 0.49, CI 0.01, 0.98; P = 0.046; I2 84%; 604 women). There was no difference in pregnancy outcome in women with RM/RIF stratified by uNK level, and no significant correlation between pNK and uNK levels in women with RM/RIF. There was wide variation in studies conducted on uNK activity, which can be broadly divided into regulation and receptors, uNK cytotoxicity, cytokine secretion and effect of uNK on angiogenesis. These studies were largely equivocal in their results on cytokine secretion, but most studies found lower expression of inhibitory receptors and increased expression of angiogenic factors in women with RM.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
The observation of significantly increased uNK level in endometrium of women with RM and RIF may point to an underlying disturbance of the immune milieu culminating in implantation and/or placentation failure. Further research is warranted to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology. The evidence for measuring pNK as an indicator of uNK behaviour is sparse, and of limited clinical use. Measurement of uNK level/activity may be more useful as a diagnostic tool, however, a standardized reference range must be established before this can be of clinical use.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Cytokines; Embryo Implantation; Endometrium; Female; Humans; Killer Cells, Natural; Placenta; Pregnancy; Uterus
PubMed: 35265977
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmac006 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology :... Dec 2023Pregnant women are one of the endangered groups who need special attention in the COVID-19 epidemic. We conducted a systematic review and summarised the studies that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pregnant women are one of the endangered groups who need special attention in the COVID-19 epidemic. We conducted a systematic review and summarised the studies that reported adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19 infection. A literature search was performed in PubMed and Scopus up to 1 September 2022, for retrieving original articles published in the English language assessing the association between COVID-19 infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Finally, in this review study, of 1790 articles obtained in the initial search, 141 eligible studies including 1,843,278 pregnant women were reviewed. We also performed a meta-analysis of a total of 74 cohort and case-control studies. In this meta-analysis, both fixed and random effect models were used. Publication bias was also assessed by Egger's test and the trim and fill method was conducted in case of a significant result, to adjust the bias. The result of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of preterm delivery, maternal mortality, NICU admission and neonatal death in the group with COVID-19 infection was significantly more than those without COVID-19 infection (<.01). A meta-regression was conducted using the income level of countries. COVID-19 infection during pregnancy may cause adverse pregnancy outcomes including of preterm delivery, maternal mortality, NICU admission and neonatal death. Pregnancy loss and SARS-CoV2 positive neonates in Lower middle income are higher than in High income. Vertical transmission from mother to foetus may occur, but its immediate and long-term effects on the newborn are unclear.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; COVID-19; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; SARS-CoV-2; Maternal Mortality; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Patient Admission
PubMed: 36651606
DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2022.2162867 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Jul 2019Primary studies and systematic reviews provide estimates of varying accuracy for different factors in the prediction of pre-eclampsia. The aim of this study was to...
OBJECTIVE
Primary studies and systematic reviews provide estimates of varying accuracy for different factors in the prediction of pre-eclampsia. The aim of this study was to review published systematic reviews to collate evidence on the ability of available tests to predict pre-eclampsia, to identify high-value avenues for future research and to minimize future research waste in this field.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library including DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) databases, from database inception to March 2017, and bibliographies of relevant articles were searched, without language restrictions, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the prediction of pre-eclampsia. The quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool and a modified version of the QUIPS tool. We evaluated the comprehensiveness of search, sample size, tests and outcomes evaluated, data synthesis methods, predictive ability estimates, risk of bias related to the population studied, measurement of predictors and outcomes, study attrition and adjustment for confounding.
RESULTS
From 2444 citations identified, 126 reviews were included, reporting on over 90 predictors and 52 prediction models for pre-eclampsia. Around a third (n = 37 (29.4%)) of all reviews investigated solely biochemical markers for predicting pre-eclampsia, 31 (24.6%) investigated genetic associations with pre-eclampsia, 46 (36.5%) reported on clinical characteristics, four (3.2%) evaluated only ultrasound markers and six (4.8%) studied a combination of tests; two (1.6%) additional reviews evaluated primary studies investigating any screening test for pre-eclampsia. Reviews included between two and 265 primary studies, including up to 25 356 688 women in the largest review. Only approximately half (n = 67 (53.2%)) of the reviews assessed the quality of the included studies. There was a high risk of bias in many of the included reviews, particularly in relation to population representativeness and study attrition. Over 80% (n = 106 (84.1%)) summarized the findings using meta-analysis. Thirty-two (25.4%) studies lacked a formal statement on funding. The predictors with the best test performance were body mass index (BMI) > 35 kg/m , with a specificity of 92% (95% CI, 89-95%) and a sensitivity of 21% (95% CI, 12-31%); BMI > 25 kg/m , with a specificity of 73% (95% CI, 64-83%) and a sensitivity of 47% (95% CI, 33-61%); first-trimester uterine artery pulsatility index or resistance index > 90 centile (specificity 93% (95% CI, 90-96%) and sensitivity 26% (95% CI, 23-31%)); placental growth factor (specificity 89% (95% CI, 89-89%) and sensitivity 65% (95% CI, 63-67%)); and placental protein 13 (specificity 88% (95% CI, 87-89%) and sensitivity 37% (95% CI, 33-41%)). No single marker had a test performance suitable for routine clinical use. Models combining markers showed promise, but none had undergone external validation.
CONCLUSIONS
This review of reviews calls into question the need for further aggregate meta-analysis in this area given the large number of published reviews subject to the common limitations of primary predictive studies. Prospective, well-designed studies of predictive markers, preferably randomized intervention studies, and combined through individual-patient data meta-analysis are needed to develop and validate new prediction models to facilitate the prediction of pre-eclampsia and minimize further research waste in this field. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Adult; Biomarkers; Body Mass Index; Female; Humans; Mass Screening; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Placenta Growth Factor; Pre-Eclampsia; Predictive Value of Tests; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Prospective Studies; Pulsatile Flow; Risk Factors; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography; Uterine Artery
PubMed: 30267475
DOI: 10.1002/uog.20117 -
Fertility and Sterility Mar 2020To determine whether overt/subclinical hypothyroidism and/or thyroid autoimmunity is associated with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and whether treatment improves... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether overt/subclinical hypothyroidism and/or thyroid autoimmunity is associated with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and whether treatment improves outcomes.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
University obstetrics and gynecology departments.
PATIENT(S)
Women with RPL and overt/subclinical hypothyroidism, and/or thyroid autoimmunity.
INTERVENTION(S)
None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Associations between RPL and overt/subclinical hypothyroidism and/or thyroid autoimmunity and any effects of treatment.
RESULT(S)
After our review of articles from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL, we found two interventional studies in which levothyroxine did not improve the subsequent live-birth rate in women with subclinical hypothyroidism with or without thyroid antibodies. A meta-analysis of five studies revealed the prevalence of subclinical hypothyroidism in RPL to be 12.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-35.2%). A meta-analysis of 17 studies revealed a statistically significant association between RPL and thyroid autoimmunity (odds ratio 1.94; 95% CI, 1.43-2.64). However, a randomized study suggested that levothyroxine does not benefit euthyroid women with thyroid autoimmunity.
CONCLUSION(S)
Based on the limited observational studies available, no association exists between RPL and subclinical hypothyroidism, nor does levothyroxine improve subsequent pregnancy outcomes. An association exists between RPL and thyroid autoimmunity, but levothyroxine does not improve subsequent pregnancy outcomes. Women with RPL should be screened/treated for overt thyroid disease but not thyroid autoimmunity. Thyroid antibody screening is not supported by the published studies, and further randomized studies are needed. No recommendation regarding the treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism can be made at this time; prospective and randomized studies are urgently needed.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Asymptomatic Diseases; Female; Humans; Hypothyroidism; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Prenatal Diagnosis; Risk Factors; Thyroid Function Tests; Thyroiditis, Autoimmune
PubMed: 32192591
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.11.003 -
Fertility and Sterility Feb 2023To investigate the impact of endometrial receptivity array (ERA) before frozen embryo transfer in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). There is a lack of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the impact of endometrial receptivity array (ERA) before frozen embryo transfer in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). There is a lack of consensus regarding the use of ERA for increasing the success rate of IVF cycles, mainly in terms of the live birth rate.
DESIGN
PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched from inception up to February 15, 2022.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Patients undergoing ERA vs no ERA before frozen embryo transfer.
INTERVENTION(S)
Only comparative studies evaluating pregnancy rates of patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer cycles with or without prior ERA were included. Inter-study heterogeneity was also assessed using Cochrane's Q test and the I statistic. The random-effects model was used to pool the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the impact of ERA on pregnancy rates according to the number of previous embryo transfer (ET) failures (≤ 2 previous failed ETs vs. > 2 failed ETs, defined as recurrent implantation failure). Separate analyses were performed according to the study design and adjustment for confounders.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES(S)
The primary outcomes of the study were live birth rate and/or ongoing pregnancy rate. Implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and miscarriage rate were considered secondary outcomes.
RESULT(S)
Eight studies (representing data on n = 2,784 patients; n = 831 had undergone ERA and n = 1,953 without ERA) were found to be eligible for this meta-analysis. The live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate for the ERA group was not significantly different compared with the non-ERA group (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.79-2.41; I 83.0%), nor was a difference seen in subgroup analyses based on the number of previous failed ETs. The rates of implantation, biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and miscarriage were also comparable between the ERA and the non-ERA groups. After separate analyses according to the study design and adjustment for confounding factors, overall pooled estimates remained statistically nonsignificant.
CONCLUSION(S)
The findings of the current meta-analysis did not reveal a significant change in the rate of pregnancy after IVF cycles using ERA, and it is not clear whether ERA can increase the pregnancy rate or not.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
Prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022310862).
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Abortion, Spontaneous; Embryo Transfer; Fertilization in Vitro; Pregnancy Rate; Embryo Implantation; Live Birth; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36414088
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.11.012 -
JAMA Jun 2023Depression is common and associated with substantial burden. Suicide rates have increased over the past decade, and both suicide attempts and deaths have devastating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Depression is common and associated with substantial burden. Suicide rates have increased over the past decade, and both suicide attempts and deaths have devastating effects on individuals and families.
OBJECTIVE
To review the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for depression and suicide risk and the accuracy of instruments to detect these conditions among primary care patients.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Cochrane library through September 7, 2022; references of existing reviews; ongoing surveillance for relevant literature through November 25, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language studies of screening or treatment compared with control conditions, or test accuracy of screening instruments (for depression, instruments were selected a priori; for suicide risk, all were included). Existing systematic reviews were used for treatment and test accuracy for depression.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Findings were synthesized qualitatively, including reporting of meta-analysis results from existing systematic reviews; meta-analyses were conducted on original research when evidence was sufficient.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Depression outcomes; suicidal ideation, attempts, and deaths; sensitivity and specificity of screening tools.
RESULTS
For depression, 105 studies were included: 32 original studies (N=385 607) and 73 systematic reviews (including ≈2138 studies [N ≈ 9.8 million]). Depression screening interventions, many of which included additional components beyond screening, were associated with a lower prevalence of depression or clinically important depressive symptomatology after 6 to 12 months (pooled odds ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.50-0.73]; reported in 8 randomized clinical trials [n=10 244]; I2 = 0%). Several instruments demonstrated adequate test accuracy (eg, for the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire at a cutoff of 10 or greater, the pooled sensitivity was 0.85 [95% CI, 0.79-0.89] and specificity was 0.85 [95% CI, 0.82-0.88]; reported in 47 studies [n = 11 234]). A large body of evidence supported benefits of psychological and pharmacologic treatment of depression. A pooled estimate from trials used for US Food and Drug Administration approval suggested a very small increase in the absolute risk of a suicide attempt with second-generation antidepressants (odds ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.09-2.15]; n = 40 857; 0.7% of antidepressant users had a suicide attempt vs 0.3% of placebo users; median follow-up, 8 weeks). Twenty-seven studies (n = 24 826) addressed suicide risk. One randomized clinical trial (n=443) of a suicide risk screening intervention found no difference in suicidal ideation after 2 weeks between primary care patients who were and were not screened for suicide risk. Three studies of suicide risk test accuracy were included; none included replication of any instrument. The included suicide prevention studies generally did not demonstrate an improvement over usual care, which typically included specialty mental health treatment.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Evidence supported depression screening in primary care settings, including during pregnancy and postpartum. There are numerous important gaps in the evidence for suicide risk screening in primary care settings.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Pregnancy; Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Mass Screening; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Sensitivity and Specificity; Suicide; Suicide, Attempted; United States
PubMed: 37338873
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.7787