Effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines on maternal and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in women before or during pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 infection-related, pregnancy, offspring and reactogenicity outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Major databases between December 2019 and January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Nine pairs of reviewers contributed to study selection. We included test-negative designs, comparative cohorts and randomised trials on effects of COVID-19 vaccines on infection-related and pregnancy outcomes. Non-comparative cohort studies reporting reactogenicity outcomes were also included. QUALITY ASSESSMENT, DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We undertook random-effects meta-analysis and reported findings as HRs, risk ratios (RRs), ORs or rates with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Sixty-seven studies (1 813 947 women) were included. Overall, in test-negative design studies, pregnant women fully vaccinated with any COVID-19 vaccine had 61% reduced odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75; 4 studies, 23 927 women; I2=87.2%) and 94% reduced odds of hospital admission (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.71; 2 studies, 868 women; I2=92%). In adjusted cohort studies, the risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy was reduced by 12% (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.92; 2 studies; 115 085 women), while caesarean section was reduced by 9% (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98; 6 studies; 30 192 women). We observed an 8% reduction in the risk of neonatal intensive care unit admission (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 2 studies; 54 569 women) in babies born to vaccinated versus not vaccinated women. In general, vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy or perinatal outcomes. Pain at the injection site was the most common side effect reported (77%, 95% CI 52% to 94%; 11 studies; 27 195 women). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and related complications in pregnant women. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178076.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA-feed) for improving breastfeeding initiation and continuation: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Version 3.0).

INTRODUCTION: Breastfeeding has health benefits for infants and mothers, yet the UK has low rates with marked social inequalities. The Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA) feasibility study demonstrated the acceptability of a proactive, assets-based, woman-centred peer support intervention, inclusive of all feeding types, to mothers, peer supporters and maternity services. The ABA-feed study aims to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ABA-feed intervention compared with usual care in first-time mothers in a full trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation to explore clinical and cost-effectiveness, and embedded process evaluation to explore differences in implementation between sites. We aim to recruit 2730 primiparous women, regardless of feeding intention. Women will be recruited at 17 sites from antenatal clinics and various remote methods including social media and invitations from midwives and health visitors. Women will be randomised at a ratio of 1.43:1 to receive either ABA-feed intervention or usual care. A train the trainer model will be used to train local Infant Feeding Coordinators to train existing peer supporters to become 'infant feeding helpers' in the ABA-feed intervention. Infant feeding outcomes will be collected at 3 days, and 8, 16 and 24 weeks postbirth. The primary outcome will be any breastfeeding at 8 weeks postbirth. Secondary outcomes will include breastfeeding initiation, any and exclusive breastfeeding, formula feeding practices, anxiety, social support and healthcare utilisation. All analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. Trial results will be available through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant meetings and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17395671.

Detection and evaluation of signals associated with exposure to individual and combination of medications in pregnancy: a signal detection study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Considering the high prevalence of polypharmacy in pregnant women and the knowledge gap in the risk-benefit safety profile of their often-complex treatment plan, more research is needed to optimise prescribing. In this study, we aim to detect adverse and protective effect signals of exposure to individual and pairwise combinations of medications during pregnancy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a range of real-world data sources from the UK, we aim to conduct a pharmacovigilance study to assess the safety of medications prescribed during the preconception period (3 months prior to conception) and first trimester of pregnancy. Women aged between 15 and 49 years with a record of pregnancy within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Pregnancy Register, the Welsh Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL), the Scottish Morbidity Record (SMR) data sets and the Northern Ireland Maternity System (NIMATS) will be included. A series of case control studies will be conducted to estimate measures of disproportionality, detecting signals of association between a range of pregnancy outcomes and exposure to individual and combinations of medications. A multidisciplinary expert team will be invited to a signal detection workshop. By employing a structured framework, signals will be transparently assessed by each member of the team using a questionnaire appraising the signals on aspects of temporality, selection, time and measurement-related biases and confounding by underlying disease or comedications. Through group discussion, the expert team will reach consensus on each of the medication exposure-outcome signal, thereby excluding spurious signals, leaving signals suggestive of causal associations for further evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee, SAIL Information Governance Review Panel, University of St. Andrews Teaching and Research Ethics Committee and Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (ORECNI) for access and use of CPRD, SAIL, SMR and NIMATS data, respectively.

Maternal multimorbidity and preterm birth in Scotland: an observational record-linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is common in women across the life course. Preterm birth is the single biggest cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity. We aim to estimate the prevalence of multimorbidity in pregnant women and to examine the association between maternal multimorbidity and PTB. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records from the Scottish Morbidity Records. All pregnancies among women aged 15 to 49 with a conception date between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 were included. Multimorbidity was defined as the presence of two or more pre-existing long-term physical or mental health conditions, and complex multimorbidity as the presence of four or more. It was calculated at the time of conception using a predefined list of 79 conditions published by the MuM-PreDiCT consortium. PTB was defined as babies born alive between 24 and less than 37 completed weeks of gestation. We used Generalised Estimating Equations adjusted for maternal age, socioeconomic status, number of previous pregnancies, BMI, and smoking history to estimate the effect of maternal pre-existing multimorbidity. Absolut rates are reported in the results and tables, whilst Odds Ratios (ORs) are adjusted (aOR). RESULTS: Thirty thousand five hundred fifty-seven singleton births from 27,711 pregnant women were included in the analysis. The prevalence of pre-existing multimorbidity and complex multimorbidity was 16.8% (95% CI: 16.4-17.2) and 3.6% (95% CI: 3.3-3.8), respectively. The prevalence of multimorbidity in the youngest age group was 10.2%(95% CI: 8.8-11.6), while in those 40 to 44, it was 21.4% (95% CI: 18.4-24.4), and in the 45 to 49 age group, it was 20% (95% CI: 8.9-31.1). In women without multimorbidity, the prevalence of PTB was 6.7%; it was 11.6% in women with multimorbidity and 15.6% in women with complex multimorbidity. After adjusting for maternal age, socioeconomic status, number of previous pregnancies, Body Mass Index (BMI), and smoking, multimorbidity was associated with higher odds of PTB (aOR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.48-1.82). CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity at the time of conception was present in one in six women and was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. Multimorbidity presents a significant health burden to women and their offspring. Routine and comprehensive evaluation of women with multimorbidity before and during pregnancy is urgently needed.

Key outcomes for reporting in studies of pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Maternal multiple long-term conditions are associated with adverse outcomes for mother and child. We conducted a qualitative study to inform a core outcome set for studies of pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions. METHODS: Women with two or more pre-existing long-term physical or mental health conditions, who had been pregnant in the last five years or planning a pregnancy, their partners and health care professionals were eligible. Recruitment was through social media, patients and health care professionals' organisations and personal contacts. Participants who contacted the study team were purposively sampled for maximum variation. Three virtual focus groups were conducted from December 2021 to March 2022 in the United Kingdom: (i) health care professionals (n = 8), (ii) women with multiple long-term conditions (n = 6), and (iii) women with multiple long-term conditions (n = 6) and partners (n = 2). There was representation from women with 20 different physical health conditions and four mental health conditions; health care professionals from obstetrics, obstetric/maternal medicine, midwifery, neonatology, perinatal psychiatry, and general practice. Participants were asked what outcomes should be reported in all studies of pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Outcomes identified in the focus groups were mapped to those identified in a systematic literature search in the core outcome set development. RESULTS: The focus groups identified 63 outcomes, including maternal (n = 43), children's (n = 16) and health care utilisation (n = 4) outcomes. Twenty-eight outcomes were new when mapped to the systematic literature search. Outcomes considered important were generally similar across stakeholder groups. Women emphasised outcomes related to care processes, such as information sharing when transitioning between health care teams and stages of pregnancy (continuity of care). Both women and partners wanted to be involved in care decisions and to feel informed of the risks to the pregnancy and baby. Health care professionals additionally prioritised non-clinical outcomes, including quality of life and financial implications for the women; and longer-term outcomes, such as children's developmental outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The findings will inform the design of a core outcome set. Participants' experiences provided useful insights of how maternity care for pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions can be improved.

The development of a core outcome set for studies of pregnant women with multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in reported outcomes can limit the synthesis of research evidence. A core outcome set informs what outcomes are important and should be measured as a minimum in all future studies. We report the development of a core outcome set applicable to observational and interventional studies of pregnant women with multimorbidity. METHODS: We developed the core outcome set in four stages: (i) a systematic literature search, (ii) three focus groups with UK stakeholders, (iii) two rounds of Delphi surveys with international stakeholders and (iv) two international virtual consensus meetings. Stakeholders included women with multimorbidity and experience of pregnancy in the last 5 years, or are planning a pregnancy, their partners, health or social care professionals and researchers. Study adverts were shared through stakeholder charities and organisations. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included in the systematic literature search (2017 to 2021) reporting 185 outcomes. Thematic analysis of the focus groups added a further 28 outcomes. Two hundred and nine stakeholders completed the first Delphi survey. One hundred and sixteen stakeholders completed the second Delphi survey where 45 outcomes reached Consensus In (≥70% of all participants rating an outcome as Critically Important). Thirteen stakeholders reviewed 15 Borderline outcomes in the first consensus meeting and included seven additional outcomes. Seventeen stakeholders reviewed these 52 outcomes in a second consensus meeting, the threshold was ≥80% of all participants voting for inclusion. The final core outcome set included 11 outcomes. The five maternal outcomes were as follows: maternal death, severe maternal morbidity, change in existing long-term conditions (physical and mental), quality and experience of care and development of new mental health conditions. The six child outcomes were as follows: survival of baby, gestational age at birth, neurodevelopmental conditions/impairment, quality of life, birth weight and separation of baby from mother for health care needs. CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity in pregnancy is a new and complex clinical research area. Following a rigorous process, this complexity was meaningfully reduced to a core outcome set that balances the views of a diverse stakeholder group.

Maternal and child outcomes for pregnant women with pre-existing multiple long-term conditions: protocol for an observational study in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: One in five pregnant women has multiple pre-existing long-term conditions in the UK. Studies have shown that maternal multiple long-term conditions are associated with adverse outcomes. This observational study aims to compare maternal and child outcomes for pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions to those without multiple long-term conditions (0 or 1 long-term conditions). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Pregnant women aged 15-49 years old with a conception date between 2000 and 2019 in the UK will be included with follow-up till 2019. The data source will be routine health records from all four UK nations (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (England), Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (Wales), Scotland routine health records and Northern Ireland Maternity System) and the Born in Bradford birth cohort. The exposure of two or more pre-existing, long-term physical or mental health conditions will be defined from a list of health conditions predetermined by women and clinicians. The association of maternal multiple long-term conditions with (a) antenatal, (b) peripartum, (c) postnatal and long-term and (d) mental health outcomes, for both women and their children will be examined. Outcomes of interest will be guided by a core outcome set. Comparisons will be made between pregnant women with and without multiple long-term conditions using modified Poisson and Cox regression. Generalised estimating equation will account for the clustering effect of women who had more than one pregnancy episode. Where appropriate, multiple imputation with chained equation will be used for missing data. Federated analysis will be conducted for each dataset and results will be pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been obtained from the respective data sources in each UK nation. Study findings will be submitted for publications in peer-reviewed journals and presented at key conferences.

Polypharmacy during pregnancy and associated risk factors: a retrospective analysis of 577 medication exposures among 1.5 million pregnancies in the UK, 2000-2019.

BACKGROUND: The number of medications prescribed during pregnancy has increased over the past few decades. Few studies have described the prevalence of multiple medication use among pregnant women. This study aims to describe the overall prevalence over the last two decades among all pregnant women and those with multimorbidity and to identify risk factors for polypharmacy in pregnancy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2000 and 2019 using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) pregnancy register. Prescription records for 577 medication categories were obtained. Prevalence estimates for polypharmacy (ranging from 2+ to 11+ medications) were presented along with the medications commonly prescribed individually and in pairs during the first trimester and the entire pregnancy period. Logistic regression models were performed to identify risk factors for polypharmacy. RESULTS: During the first trimester (812,354 pregnancies), the prevalence of polypharmacy ranged from 24.6% (2+ medications) to 0.1% (11+ medications). During the entire pregnancy period (774,247 pregnancies), the prevalence ranged from 58.7 to 1.4%. Broad-spectrum penicillin (6.6%), compound analgesics (4.5%) and treatment of candidiasis (4.3%) were commonly prescribed. Pairs of medication prescribed to manage different long-term conditions commonly included selective beta 2 agonists or selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Risk factors for being prescribed 2+ medications during the first trimester of pregnancy include being overweight or obese [aOR: 1.16 (1.14-1.18) and 1.55 (1.53-1.57)], belonging to an ethnic minority group [aOR: 2.40 (2.33-2.47), 1.71 (1.65-1.76), 1.41 (1.35-1.47) and 1.39 (1.30-1.49) among women from South Asian, Black, other and mixed ethnicities compared to white women] and smoking or previously smoking [aOR: 1.19 (1.18-1.20) and 1.05 (1.03-1.06)]. Higher and lower age, higher gravidity, increasing number of comorbidities and increasing level of deprivation were also associated with increased odds of polypharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of polypharmacy during pregnancy has increased over the past two decades and is particularly high in younger and older women; women with high BMI, smokers and ex-smokers; and women with multimorbidity, higher gravidity and higher levels of deprivation. Well-conducted pharmaco-epidemiological research is needed to understand the effects of multiple medication use on the developing foetus.

Implementation of a quality improvement programme using the Active Patient Link call and recall system to improve timeliness and equity of childhood vaccinations: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Call and recall systems provide actionable intelligence to improve equity and timeliness of childhood vaccinations, which have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will evaluate the effectiveness, fidelity and sustainability of a data-enabled quality improvement programme delivered in primary care using an Active Patient Link Immunisation (APL-Imms) call and recall system to improve timeliness and equity of uptake in a multiethnic disadvantaged urban population. We will use qualitative methods to evaluate programme delivery, focusing on uptake and use, implementation barriers and service improvements for clinical and non-clinical primary care staff, its fidelity and sustainability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods observational study in 284 general practices in north east London (NEL). The target population will be preschool-aged children eligible to receive diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) or measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccinations and registered with an NEL general practice. The intervention comprises an in-practice call and recall tool, facilitation and training, and financial incentives. The quantitative evaluation will include interrupted time Series analyses and Slope Index of Inequality. The primary outcomes will be the proportion of children receiving at least one dose of a DTaP-containing or MMR vaccination defined, respectively, as administered between age 6 weeks and 6 months or between 12 and 18 months of age. The qualitative evaluation will involve a 'Think Aloud' method and semistructured interviews of stakeholders to assess impact, fidelity and sustainability of the APL-Imms tool, and fidelity of the implementation by facilitators. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research team has been granted permission from data controllers in participating practices to use deidentified data for audit purposes. As findings will be specific to the local context, research ethics approval is not required. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and to stakeholders, including parents, health providers and commissioners.

Association of pregnancy complications/risk factors with the development of future long-term health conditions in women: overarching protocol for umbrella reviews.

INTRODUCTION: With good medical care, most pregnancy complications like pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, etc resolve after childbirth. However, pregnancy complications are known to be associated with an increased risk of new long-term health conditions for women later in life, such as cardiovascular disease. These umbrella reviews aim to summarise systematic reviews evaluating the association between pregnancy complications and five groups of long-term health conditions: autoimmune conditions, cancers, functional disorders, mental health conditions and metabolic health conditions (diabetes and hypertension). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct searches in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews without any language restrictions. We will include systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses that studied the association between pregnancy complications and the future risk of the five groups of long-term health conditions in women. Pregnancy complications were identified from existing core outcome sets for pregnancy and after consultation with experts. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles. Data will be synthesised with both narrative and quantitative methods. Where a meta-analysis has been carried out, we will report the combined effect size from individual studies. For binary data, pooled ORs with 95% CIs will be presented. For continuous data, we will use the mean difference with 95% CIs. The findings will be presented in forest plots to assess heterogeneity. The methodological quality of the studies will be evaluated with the AMSTAR 2 tool or the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The corrected covered area method will be used to assess the impact of overlap in reviews. The findings will be used to inform the design of prediction models, which will predict the risk of women developing these five group of health conditions following a pregnancy complication. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approvals required. Findings will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

Care of pregnant women with epilepsy in the United Kingdom: A national survey of healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES: To map the care provided to pregnant women with epilepsy in UK maternity units and identify future research priorities by conducting a nationwide survey of healthcare professionals. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional electronic survey was conducted between 29 April and 30 October 2021. The survey included 23 questions developed and refined with relevant stakeholders, including a woman with lived experience of epilepsy and pregnancy. We used descriptive analyses to summarise responses and estimated proportions with medians and interquartile ranges. RESULTS: 144 individual healthcare professionals from 94 hospitals, representing 77 NHS Trusts, participated in the survey. Obstetricians were the most common responders (45%, 65/144) and almost half (47%, 7/15) of regions had a survey response rate per NHS Trust greater than 50%. Six pregnant women with epilepsy, on average, were booked into antenatal care per hospital per month, and 49% (46/94) of hospitals saw women for specialist antenatal care in the first trimester. The care provided across healthcare systems varied, with multiple pathways for referral to specialist care within regions. Midwife referral was the most used care pathway (80%, 75/94). Less than a third of hospitals (31%, 29/94) ran joint obstetric/neurology clinics for pregnant women with epilepsy. Most survey respondents (81%, 117/144) were confident talking to pregnant women about their risk of seizures but only a minority (20%, 29/144) used validated calculators to assess this risk. There was broad agreement across healthcare professionals that the priorities for research should focus on how to improve communication and address pregnant women's concerns regarding epilepsy and pregnancy, and to develop further understanding on the optimal use and long-term effects of anti-seizure medication. CONCLUSION: Our UK nationwide survey of hospital-based maternity services for pregnant women with epilepsy identified wide variation in when, how and by whom these women are seen, with differences between and within the UK regions. This survey highlights areas for improvement in the care of pregnant women with epilepsy.

Epidemiology of pre-existing multimorbidity in pregnant women in the UK in 2018: a population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Although maternal death is rare in the United Kingdom, 90% of these women had multiple health/social problems. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of pre-existing multimorbidity (two or more long-term physical or mental health conditions) in pregnant women in the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland). STUDY DESIGN: Pregnant women aged 15-49 years with a conception date 1/1/2018 to 31/12/2018 were included in this population-based cross-sectional study, using routine healthcare datasets from primary care: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD, United Kingdom, n = 37,641) and Secure Anonymized Information Linkage databank (SAIL, Wales, n = 27,782), and secondary care: Scottish Morbidity Records with linked community prescribing data (SMR, Tayside and Fife, n = 6099). Pre-existing multimorbidity preconception was defined from 79 long-term health conditions prioritised through a workshop with patient representatives and clinicians. RESULTS: The prevalence of multimorbidity was 44.2% (95% CI 43.7-44.7%), 46.2% (45.6-46.8%) and 19.8% (18.8-20.8%) in CPRD, SAIL and SMR respectively. When limited to health conditions that were active in the year before pregnancy, the prevalence of multimorbidity was still high (24.2% [23.8-24.6%], 23.5% [23.0-24.0%] and 17.0% [16.0 to 17.9%] in the respective datasets). Mental health conditions were highly prevalent and involved 70% of multimorbidity CPRD: multimorbidity with ≥one mental health condition/s 31.3% [30.8-31.8%]). After adjusting for age, ethnicity, gravidity, index of multiple deprivation, body mass index and smoking, logistic regression showed that pregnant women with multimorbidity were more likely to be older (CPRD England, adjusted OR 1.81 [95% CI 1.04-3.17] 45-49 years vs 15-19 years), multigravid (1.68 [1.50-1.89] gravidity ≥ five vs one), have raised body mass index (1.59 [1.44-1.76], body mass index 30+ vs body mass index 18.5-24.9) and smoked preconception (1.61 [1.46-1.77) vs non-smoker). CONCLUSION: Multimorbidity is prevalent in pregnant women in the United Kingdom, they are more likely to be older, multigravid, have raised body mass index and smoked preconception. Secondary care and community prescribing dataset may only capture the severe spectrum of health conditions. Research is needed urgently to quantify the consequences of maternal multimorbidity for both mothers and children.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for studies of pregnant women with pre-existing multimorbidity.

INTRODUCTION: Increasingly more pregnant women are living with pre-existing multimorbidity (≥two long-term physical or mental health conditions). This may adversely affect maternal and offspring outcomes. This study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for maternal and offspring outcomes in pregnant women with pre-existing multimorbidity. It is intended for use in observational and interventional studies in all pregnancy settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a four stage study design: (1) systematic literature search, (2) focus groups, (3) Delphi surveys and (4) consensus group meeting. The study will be conducted from June 2021 to August 2022. First, an initial list of outcomes will be identified through a systematic literature search of reported outcomes in studies of pregnant women with multimorbidity. We will search the Cochrane library, Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL. This will be supplemented with relevant outcomes from published COS for pregnancies and childbirth in general, and multimorbidity. Second, focus groups will be conducted among (1) women with lived experience of managing pre-existing multimorbidity in pregnancy (and/or their partners) and (2) their healthcare/social care professionals to identify outcomes important to them. Third, these initial lists of outcomes will be prioritised through a three-round online Delphi survey using predefined score criteria for consensus. Participants will be invited to suggest additional outcomes that were not included in the initial list. Finally, a consensus meeting using the nominal group technique will be held to agree on the final COS. The stakeholders will include (1) women (and/or their partners) with lived experience of managing multimorbidity in pregnancy, (2) healthcare/social care professionals involved in their care and (3) researchers in this field. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the University of Birmingham's ethical review committee. The final COS will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conferences and to all stakeholders.

Diet and physical activity in pregnancy to prevent gestational diabetes: a protocol for an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis on the differential effects of interventions with economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at increased risk of pregnancy-related complications and developing type 2 diabetes after delivery. Diet and physical activity-based interventions may prevent GDM, but variations in populations, interventions and outcomes in primary trials have limited the translation of available evidence into practice. We plan to undertake an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised trials to assess the differential effects and cost-effectiveness of diet and physical activity-based interventions in preventing GDM and its complications. METHODS: The International Weight Management in Pregnancy Collaborative Network database is a living repository of IPD from randomised trials on diet and physical activity in pregnancy identified through a systematic literature search. We shall update our existing search on MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, LILACS, Pascal, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment Database without language restriction to identify relevant trials until March 2021. Primary researchers will be invited to join the Network and share their IPD. Trials including women with GDM at baseline will be excluded. We shall perform a one and two stage random-effect meta-analysis for each intervention type (all interventions, diet-based, physical activity-based and mixed approach) to obtain summary intervention effects on GDM with 95% CIs and summary treatment-covariate interactions. Heterogeneity will be summarised using I2 and tau2 statistics with 95% prediction intervals. Publication and availability bias will be assessed by examining small study effects. Study quality of included trials will be assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach will be used to grade the evidence in the results. A model-based economic analysis will be carried out to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent GDM and its complications compared with usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The study is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020212884). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Harmonizing research outcomes for polycystic ovary syndrome (HARP), a marathon not a sprint: current challenges and future research need.

Investing in clinical research and evidence-based medicine has helped to improve the care for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, several important questions remain unanswered on the optimal prevention and management strategies for PCOS. Addressing this uncertainty is often hindered by suboptimal research conduct leading to inefficient evidence synthesis and research wastage. PCOS research is often practised by varied specialized teams in silo leading to disharmonious and fragmented efforts neglecting the lifelong impact of PCOS on women's wellbeing. Poor engagement among key stakeholders and lay consumers continues to limit the impact and benefits of research to society. Selective reporting on surrogate outcomes with a 'significant' P-value is a common malpractice in PCOS outputs. Effective adoption of the harmonizing research outcomes for PCOS (HARP) core outcome set is needed to minimize heterogeneity in reporting and promote research excellence. Small single-centre studies offer limited value to assess the varied PCOS phenotypes. Efficient large scale data-sharing is needed to address complex research questions and glean the benefits of big data research. We propose a roadmap to address these challenges and remedy future research need by promoting patient and public involvement in PCOS research to guide research efforts and address real patients' needs; engaging all key stakeholder groups to promote a multi-disciplinary lifelong approach to new research; continuously refining research needs and priorities to revise the knowledge gap and allocate resources judiciously; standardizing outcomes definitions and measurement tools to harmonize reporting and promote excellence in research; and by investing in large data-sharing infrastructure to facilitate big data research and govern ethical data sharing.

Harmonising research outcomes for polycystic ovary syndrome: an international multi-stakeholder core outcome set.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the key core outcomes to be reported in studies on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: We identified 3 generic and 30 specific core outcomes in 6 specialist domains: metabolic (8), reproductive (7), pregnancy (10), oncological (1), psychological (1) and long-term outcomes (1). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Research reporting PCOS is heterogeneous with high variation in outcome selection, definition and quality. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Evidence synthesis and a modified Delphi method with e-surveys were used as well as a consultation meeting. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall, 71 health professionals and 123 lay consumers (women with lived experience of PCOS and members of advocacy and peer support groups) from 17 high-, middle- and low-income countries were involved in this analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The final core outcome set included 3 generic outcomes (BMI, quality of life, treatment satisfaction) that are applicable to all studies on women with PCOS and 30 specific outcomes that were categorised into six specialist domains: 8 metabolic outcomes (waist circumference, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, hypertension, coronary heart disease, lipid profile, venous thromboembolic disease); 7 reproductive outcomes [viable pregnancy (confirmed by ultrasound including singleton, twins and higher multiples), clinical and biochemical hyperandrogenism, menstrual regularity, reproductive hormonal profile, chronic anovulation, ovulation stimulation success including the number of stimulated follicles ≥ 12 mm, incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome]; 10 pregnancy outcomes (live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal mortality, gestational weight gain, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, hypertensive disease in pregnancy, baby birth weight, major congenital abnormalities); 3 psychological outcomes (depression, anxiety, eating disorders); 1 oncological (abnormal endometrial proliferation including atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer); and 1 outcome in the long-term domain (long-term offspring metabolic and developmental outcomes). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We involved lay consumers in all stages of study through e-surveys but not through focus groups, thereby limiting our understanding of their choices. We did not address the variations in the definitions and measurement tools for some of the core outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Implementing this core outcome set in future studies on women with PCOS will improve the quality of reporting and aid evidence synthesis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Evidence synthesis was funded through the Australian government, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence in PCOS, and H.T. is funded through an NHMRC fellowship. B.H.A. is funded through an NIHR lectureship. All authors have no competing interest to declare.

Predicting seizures in pregnant women with epilepsy: Development and external validation of a prognostic model.

BACKGROUND: Seizures are the main cause of maternal death in women with epilepsy, but there are no tools for predicting seizures in pregnancy. We set out to develop and validate a prognostic model, using information collected during the antenatal booking visit, to predict seizure risk at any time in pregnancy and until 6 weeks postpartum in women with epilepsy on antiepileptic drugs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used datasets of a prospective cohort study (EMPiRE) of 527 pregnant women with epilepsy on medication recruited from 50 hospitals in the UK (4 November 2011-17 August 2014). The model development cohort comprised 399 women whose antiepileptic drug doses were adjusted based on clinical features only; the validation cohort comprised 128 women whose drug dose adjustments were informed by serum drug levels. The outcome was epileptic (non-eclamptic) seizure captured using diary records. We fitted the model using LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression, and reported the performance using C-statistic (scale 0-1, values > 0.5 show discrimination) and calibration slope (scale 0-1, values near 1 show accuracy) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We determined the net benefit (a weighted sum of true positive and false positive classifications) of using the model, with various probability thresholds, to aid clinicians in making individualised decisions regarding, for example, referral to tertiary care, frequency and intensity of monitoring, and changes in antiepileptic medication. Seizures occurred in 183 women (46%, 183/399) in the model development cohort and in 57 women (45%, 57/128) in the validation cohort. The model included age at first seizure, baseline seizure classification, history of mental health disorder or learning difficulty, occurrence of tonic-clonic and non-tonic-clonic seizures in the 3 months before pregnancy, previous admission to hospital for seizures during pregnancy, and baseline dose of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. The C-statistic was 0.79 (95% CI 0.75, 0.84). On external validation, the model showed good performance (C-statistic 0.76, 95% CI 0.66, 0.85; calibration slope 0.93, 95% CI 0.44, 1.41) but with imprecise estimates. The EMPiRE model showed the highest net proportional benefit for predicted probability thresholds between 12% and 99%. Limitations of this study include the varied gestational ages of women at recruitment, retrospective patient recall of seizure history, potential variations in seizure classification, the small number of events in the validation cohort, and the clinical utility restricted to decision-making thresholds above 12%. The model findings may not be generalisable to low- and middle-income countries, or when information on all predictors is not available. CONCLUSIONS: The EMPiRE model showed good performance in predicting the risk of seizures in pregnant women with epilepsy who are prescribed antiepileptic drugs. Integration of the tool within the antenatal booking visit, deployed as a simple nomogram, can help to optimise care in women with epilepsy.

AntiEpileptic drug Monitoring in PREgnancy (EMPiRE): a double-blind randomised trial on effectiveness and acceptability of monitoring strategies.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with epilepsy on antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may experience a reduction in serum AED levels. This has the potential to worsen seizure control. OBJECTIVE: To determine if, in pregnant women with epilepsy on AEDs, additional therapeutic drug monitoring reduces seizure deterioration compared with clinical features monitoring after a reduction in serum AED levels. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomised trial nested within a cohort study was conducted and a qualitative study of acceptability of the two strategies was undertaken. Stratified block randomisation with a 1 : 1 allocation method was carried out. SETTING: Fifty obstetric and epilepsy clinics in secondary and tertiary care units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women with epilepsy on one or more of the following AEDs: lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenytoin or levetiracetam. Women with a ≥ 25% decrease in serum AED level from baseline were randomised to therapeutic drug monitoring or clinical features monitoring strategies. INTERVENTIONS: In the therapeutic drug monitoring group, clinicians had access to clinical findings and monthly serum AED levels to guide AED dosage adjustment for seizure control. In the clinical features monitoring group, AED dosage adjustment was based only on clinical features. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - seizure deterioration, defined as time to first seizure and to all seizures after randomisation per woman until 6 weeks post partum. Secondary outcomes - pregnancy complications in mother and offspring, maternal quality of life, seizure rates in cohorts with stable serum AED level, AED dose exposure and adverse events related to AEDs. ANALYSIS: Analysis of time to first and to all seizures after randomisation was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model, and multivariate failure time analysis by the Andersen-Gill model. The effects were reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes were reported as mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios. RESULTS: A total of 130 women were randomised to the therapeutic drug monitoring group and 133 to the clinical features monitoring group; 294 women did not have a reduction in serum AED level. A total of 127 women in the therapeutic drug monitoring group and 130 women in the clinical features monitoring group (98% of complete data) were included in the primary analysis. There were no significant differences in the time to first seizure (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.2) or timing of all seizures after randomisation (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.5) between both trial groups. In comparison with the group with stable serum AED levels, there were no significant increases in seizures in the clinical features monitoring (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.5) or therapeutic drug monitoring group (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.5) associated with a reduction in serum AED levels. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups, except for higher cord blood levels of lamotrigine (MD 0.55 mg/l, 95% CI 0.11 to 1 mg/l) or levetiracetam (MD 7.8 mg/l, 95% CI 0.86 to 14.8 mg/l) in the therapeutic drug monitoring group than in the clinical features monitoring group. There were no differences between the groups on daily AED exposure or quality of life. An increase in exposure to lamotrigine, levetiracetam and carbamazepine significantly increased the cord blood levels of the AEDs, but not maternal or fetal complications. Women with epilepsy perceived the need for weighing up their increased vulnerability to seizures during pregnancy against the side effects of AEDs. LIMITATIONS: Fewer women than the original target were recruited. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence to suggest that regular monitoring of serum AED levels in pregnancy improves seizure control or affects maternal or fetal outcomes. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Further evaluation of the risks of seizure deterioration for various threshold levels of reduction in AEDs and the long-term neurodevelopment of infants born to mothers in both randomised groups is needed. An individualised prediction model will help to identify those women who need close monitoring in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01253916. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.