Screening and treatment of iron deficiency anemia in pregnancy: A review and appraisal of current international guidelines.

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in pregnancy is a common diagnosis that is associated with adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. There remains uncertainty regarding how best to screen for, prevent, and treat established IDA in pregnancy. There is no consensus on the benefits of routine iron supplementation in pregnancy, with concerns regarding potential harmful effects of routine iron supplementation in women who are iron replete. Fourteen international guidelines were selected and appraised and compared by a multidisciplinary team. The AGREE II GRS tool was used. Each reviewer independently made their own assessment, and the scores from 1 to 7 were also collated and averaged for an overall score incorporating seven domains: process of development, clarity of presentation, completeness of reporting, clinical validity, and overall quality. The reviewers' scores were also individually compared according to discipline. The mean score across all the guidelines was 4.4 (range 3.5-6.5). Only half of the guidelines recommend routine iron in pregnancy. In terms of screening recommendations, five guidelines recommend screening with ferritin in addition to a full blood count in pregnancy, two recommend selective screening with ferritin for at risk groups only, and one guideline suggests using ferritin where feasible. Although many of the guidelines recommend similar doses of oral elemental iron of 100-200 mg daily for the treatment of established IDA in pregnancy, two recommend twice or three times daily dosing. Only five guidelines give hemoglobin rises to expect within specific timeframes. There remains a need to clarify the optimal screening method, dosing regimen, timing, and route of iron supplementation in pregnancy. Robust randomized controlled data are needed to guide appropriate prevention and management.

Health-related quality of life and quality of care in pregnant and postnatal women during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the delivery of high-quality care are ongoing concerns when caring for pregnant women during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We compared self-reported HRQoL and hospital quality of care among perinatal women with and without COVID-19. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of perinatal women attending a tertiary maternity unit during the pandemic. Eighteen women who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 20 SARS-CoV-2-negative women were recruited. Participants completed the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure, and Quality from the Patient's Perspective questionnaires. Mean scores were compared. RESULTS: Of the Non-COVID-19 cohort, 95% (n = 19) were Caucasian, whereas 67% (n = 12) of the COVID-19 cohort were not Caucasian (χ2  = 16.01, P < 0.001). The mean SF-12 for physical health in the COVID-19 cohort had significantly lower scores (P < 0.002). There was no difference in mental health and well-being between cohorts. The quality of care experienced was notably similar and very positive. CONCLUSION: There was a significantly greater burden on physical health among pregnant women with COVID-19. Mental health and psychological status were similar in both groups. High quality of care during a pandemic is possible to deliver in a maternity setting, irrespective of COVID-19 status.

Body Mass Index (BMI) in women booking for antenatal care: comparison between selfreported and digital measurements.

OBJECTIVE: We set out to compare measurement of Body Mass Index (BMI) with selfreporting in women early in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: We studied 100 women booking for antenatal care in the first trimester with a normal ongoing pregnancy. Selfreported maternal weight and height were recorded and the Body Mass Index was calculated. Afterwards maternal weight and height were digitally measured and actual BMI was calculated. RESULTS: If selfreporting is used for BMI classification, we found that 22% of women were classified incorrectly when BMI was measured. 12% of the women who were classified as having a normal selfreported BMI were overweight and 5% classified as overweight were obese. Similar findings have been reported outside pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have implications for clinical practice, and for research studies exploring the relationship between maternal adiposity and pregnancy complications.

Quantifiler observations of relevance to forensic casework.

The Quantifiler (QF) kit is regularly used by forensic scientists for DNA quantitation. We performed in-house validation studies which revealed some interesting observations. The QF standard displayed a two-fold difference between two different lot numbers which suggests that every standard should be tested prior to use. The Promega K562 DNA standard works well with the QF kit. c. 41% of samples that inhibited the internal PCR control (IPC) system within the QF kit still produced good Profiler Plus reactions. QIAquick was effective at removing inhibitors. The presence of dyes within casework samples were observed not to inhibit QF amplifications. Template DNA greater than 100 ng/muL appeared to inhibit the IPC. Close to identical concentration results were obtained when alternative analysis settings were used. These validation findings will assist DNA processes involved in forensic casework.