A history of recurrent pregnancy loss is associated with increased perinatal complications, but not necessarily a longer birth interval: a population study spanning 18 years.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there a difference in the time interval between the first and second live births among individuals with and without recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Primary RPL (two or more pregnancy losses before the first live birth) is associated with a shorter time interval between the first and second live births compared with individuals without RPL, but this association is reversed in patients with secondary RPL (RPL patients with no or one pregnancy loss before the first live birth). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: There is limited information regarding the ability to have more than one child for patients with RPL. Previous studies have investigated the time to live birth and the live birth rate from the initial presentation to clinical providers. Most of the previous studies have included only patients treated at specialized RPL clinics and thus may be limited by selection bias, including patients with a more severe condition. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of 184 241 participants who delivered in British Columbia, Canada, and had at least two recorded live births between 2000 and 2018. The aim was to study the differences in the time interval between the first and second live births and the prevalence of pregnancy complications in patients with and without RPL. Additionally, 198 319 individuals with their first live birth between 2000 and 2010 were studied to evaluate cumulative second live birth rates. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Among individuals with at least two recorded live births between 2000 and 2018, 12 321 patients with RPL and 171 920 participants without RPL were included. RPL was defined as at least two pregnancy losses before 20 weeks gestation. Patients with primary RPL had at least two pregnancy losses occurring before the first live birth, while patients with secondary RPL had no or one pregnancy loss before the first live birth. We compared the time interval from the first to second live birth in patients with primary RPL, those with secondary RPL, and participants without RPL using generalized additive models to allow for a non-linear relationship between maternal age and time interval between first and second live births. We also compared prevalence of pregnancy complications at the first and second live births between the groups using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H test and Fisher's exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. We assessed the cumulative second live birth rates in patients with primary RPL and those without RPL, among participants who had their first live birth between 2000 and 2010. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate and compare hazard ratios between the two groups using a stratified modelling approach. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The adjusted time interval between the first and second live births was the longest in patients with secondary RPL, followed by individuals without RPL, and the shortest time interval was observed in patients with primary RPL: 4.34 years (95% CI: 4.09-4.58), 3.20 years (95% CI: 3.00-3.40), and 3.05 years (95% CI: 2.79-3.32). A higher frequency of pregnancy losses was associated with an increased time interval between the first and second live births. The prevalence of pregnancy complications at the first and second live births, including gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, preterm birth, and multiple gestations was significantly higher in patients with primary RPL compared with those without RPL. The cumulative second live birth rate was significantly lower in patients with primary RPL compared with individuals without RPL. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study may be limited by its retrospective nature. Although we adjusted for multiple potential confounders, there may be residual confounding due to a lack of information about pregnancy intentions and other factors, including unreported pregnancy losses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this study provide information that will help clinicians in the counselling of RPL patients who desire a second child. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported in part by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR): Reference Number W11-179912. M.A.B. reports research grants from CIHR and Ferring Pharmaceutical. He is also on the advisory board for AbbVie, Pfizer, and Baxter. The other authors report no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04360564.

Depression among caregivers of children with asthma and its impact on communication with health care providers.

BACKGROUND: Caregiver depression is common, can negatively influence one's ability to communicate with health care providers, and may hinder appropriate care for children with asthma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of caregiver depression on communication and self-efficacy in interactions about asthma with their child's physician. STUDY DESIGN: Cross sectional analysis using data from the Prompting Asthma Intervention in Rochester-Uniting Parents and Providers study. METHODS: We enrolled caregivers of children (2-12 yrs) with persistent asthma prior to their health care visit. Caregivers were interviewed via telephone after the visit to assess depression, self-efficacy, and provider communication at the visit. Caregiver depression was measured using the Kessler Psychological Distress scale. We assessed caregiver self-efficacy using items from the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scale; caregivers rated their confidence for each item (range 0-10). We also inquired about how well the provider communicated regarding the child's asthma care. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used. RESULTS: We interviewed 195 caregivers (response rate 78%; 41% Black, 37% Hispanic), and 30% had depressive symptoms. Caregiver rating of provider communication did not differ by depression. Most caregivers reported high self-efficacy in their interactions with providers; however depressed caregivers had lower scores (8.7 vs. 9.4, p = .001) than non-depressed caregivers. Further, depressed caregivers were less likely to be satisfied with the visit (66% vs. 83%, p = .014), and to feel all of their needs were met (66% vs. 85%, p = .007). In multivariate analyses, depressed caregivers were >2× more likely to be unsatisfied with the visit and to have unmet needs compared to non-depressed caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Depressed caregivers of children with asthma report lower confidence in interactions with providers about asthma and are less likely to feel that their needs are met at a visit. Further study is needed to determine the best methods to communicate with and meet the needs of these caregivers.