Epidemiology of spontaneous pregnancy loss in Kazakhstan: A national population-based cohort analysis during 2014-2019 using the national electronic healthcare system.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous pregnancy loss (SPL) is a common health problem that affects 1:10 of childbearing women, and is linked with physical and psychological complications. As the number of nationwide studies on the incidence of SPL is few, especially from middle-income countries, in this study we investigated the epidemiology, complications and outcomes of SPL before 22 weeks of gestation by analyzing large-scale healthcare data from the Unified Nationwide Electronic Healthcare System (UNEHS) in Kazakhstan. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A population-based study among women who experienced SPL in any healthcare setting of the Republic of Kazakhstan during the period of 2014-2019. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 10th edition and ICD 9th edition's procedural codes were utilized to retrieve data using relevant diagnostic and procedural codes. RESULTS: In total, 207 317 records of women who have experienced an SPL before 22 weeks of gestation were analyzed from all Kazakhstani regions. The estimated prevalence of SPL was 8.7%, with a 20% decline over a 6-year period. The SPL cases ratio comprises on average 6.2 per 1000 reproductive-age women. Incomplete miscarriage (ICD-10 code "O03.4") was the most common type (37.8%), followed by blighted ovum (ICD-10 code "O02.0"; 34.1%) and missed abortion (ICD-10 code "O02.1"; 13.5%). The most common management methods were dilation and curettage of the uterus (ICD-9 code "69.0"; 84.7%) and aspiration curettage of the uterus (ICD-9 code "65.0"; 15%), whereas medical management was rarely performed (2.6%). CONCLUSION: The information available in UNEHS adequately identifies types of miscarriages and treatment methods. Although the prevalence of SPL before 22 weeks of gestation is decreasing, management of miscarriages requires closer attention.

Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Etiology, Risk Factors, Diagnosis, and Management. Fresh Look into a Full Box.

Recurrent pregnancy loss is a complex health challenge with no universally accepted definition. Inconsistency in definitions involves not only the number of spontaneous abortions (two or three) that are accepted for recurrent pregnancy loss but the types of pregnancy and gestational age at miscarriage. Due to the heterogeneity of definitions and criteria applied by international guidelines for recurrent pregnancy loss, the true incidence of recurrent miscarriage, which is reported to range from 1% to 5%, is difficult to estimate. Moreover, the exact etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss remains questionable; thus, it is considered a polyetiological and multifactorial condition with many modifiable and non-modifiable factors involved. Even after thoroughly evaluating recurrent pregnancy loss etiology and risk factors, up to 75% of cases remain unexplained. This review aimed to summarize and critically analyze accumulated knowledge on the etiology, risk factors, relevant diagnostic options, and management approach to recurrent pregnancy loss. The relevance of various factors and their proposed roles in recurrent pregnancy loss pathogenesis remains a matter of discussion. The diagnostic approach and the management largely depend on the etiology and risk factors taken into consideration by a healthcare professional as a cause of recurrent miscarriage for a particular woman or couple. Underestimation of social and health consequences of recurrent pregnancy loss leads to compromised reproductive health and psychological well-being of women after miscarriage. Studies on etiology and risk factors for recurrent pregnancy loss, especially idiopathic, should be continued. The existing international guidelines require updates to assist clinical practice.

Genetic polymorphism of 27 Y-STR loci in Kazakh populations from Eastern Kazakhstan.

BACKGROUND: The establishment of a national haplotype database is important for forensic and genetic applications and requires studying genetic polymorphisms at Y-STR sites. However, the genetic structure of the Eastern Kazakhstan population is poorly characterised. AIM: To investigate the genetic polymorphisms of 27 Y-STR loci in the Kazakh population from Eastern Kazakhstan and analyse the population genetic relationships of the Eastern Kazakhs with other populations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The Yfiler Plus kit was utilised to genotype 246 healthy, unrelated males from Eastern Kazakhstan. Based on the raw data, haplotype and allele frequencies along with forensic parameters were calculated, and an MDS plot was constructed. RESULTS: A total of 207 haplotypes were detected, of which 186 were unique. The haplotype diversity and discrimination capacity were 0.997 and 0.841, respectively. Population comparisons showed that Eastern Kazakhs have close genetic relationships with Kazakhs from Xinjiang, China. At the same time, a difference was found between the studied population and the previous one in the same part of Kazakhstan. CONCLUSIONS: The obtained haplotypes will help to expand the Kazakhstan Y-chromosome reference database and will be useful for future genetic research and forensic applications.