OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the relationship between stillbirth and various perinatal outcomes in subsequent pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI databases were searched up to July 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cohort studies that reported the association between stillbirth and perinatal outcomes in subsequent pregnancies were included. METHODS: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using Rand Stata software. We used random-effects models to pool each outcome of interest. We performed a meta-regression analysis to explore the potential heterogeneity. The certainty (quality) of evidence assessment was performed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Nineteen cohort studies were included, involving 4,855,153 participants. From these studies, we identified 28,322 individuals with previous stillbirths who met the eligibility criteria. After adjusting for confounders, evidence of low to moderate certainty indicated that compared with women with previous live births, women with previous stillbirths had higher risks of recurrent stillbirth (odds ratio, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 2.01-3.56), preterm birth (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-4.80), neonatal death (odds ratio, 4.24; 95% confidence interval, 2.65-6.79), small for gestational age/intrauterine growth restriction (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8), low birthweight (odds ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-7.52), placental abruption (odds ratio, 3.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-8.98), instrumental delivery (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-3.11), labor induction (odds ratio, 4.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-8.88), cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-4.73), elective cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.82-3.23), and emergency cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-3.06) in subsequent pregnancies, but had a lower rate of spontaneous labor (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.36). However, there was no association between previous stillbirth and preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-4.70) in subsequent pregnancies. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis provide a more comprehensive understanding of adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with previous stillbirth. These findings could be used to inform counseling for couples who are considering pregnancy after a previous stillbirth.

Background: Hyperemesis gravidarum is a serious pregnancy complication that affects approximately 1% of pregnancies worldwide. Objective: To determine whether the use of ondansetron during pregnancy is associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Search strategy: PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, CNKI, CBM, WANFANG, and were searched for citations published in any language from inception to 15 December 2021. Selection criteria: Eligible studies included any observational study. Data collection and analysis: Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as indicators to examine the association between ondansetron and abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Main results: Twenty articles from 1,558 citations were included. Our preliminary analysis showed that compared with the unexposed group, the use of ondansetron during pregnancy may be associated with an increased incidence of cardiac defects (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01-1.10), neural tube defects (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.18), and chest cleft (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07-1.37). Further sensitivity analysis showed no significant association between ondansetron and cardiac defects (OR = 1.15,95% CI: 0.94-1.40) or neural tube defects (OR = 0.87,95% CI: 0.46-1.66). When controversial studies were eliminated, the results for the chest defects disappeared. Simultaneously, we found that the use of ondansetron was associated with a reduced incidence of miscarriage (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.31-0.89). Ondansetron was not associated with orofacial clefts (OR = 1.09,95% CI: 0.95-1.25), spinal limb defects (OR = 1.14,95% CI: 0.89-1.46), urinary tract deformities (OR = 1.06,95% CI: 0.97-1.15), any congenital malformations (OR = 1.03,95% CI: 0.98-1.09), stillbirth (OR = 0.97,95% CI: 0.83-1.15), preterm birth (OR = 1.22,95% CI: 0.80-1.85), neonatal asphyxia (OR = 1.05,95% CI: 0.72-1.54), or neonatal development (OR = 1.18,95% CI: 0.96-1.44) in our primary analysis. Conclusion: In our analysis, using ondansetron during pregnancy was not associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Although our study did not find sufficient evidence of ondansetron and adverse pregnancy outcomes, future studies including the exposure period and dose of ondansetron, as well as controlling for disease status, may be useful to truly elucidate the potential risks and benefits of ondansetron.

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) is an inflammatory, autoimmune disease encompassing a broad spectrum of subtypes including acute, subacute, chronic and intermittent CLE. Among these, chronic CLE can be further classified into several subclasses of lupus erythematosus (LE) such as discoid LE, verrucous LE, LE profundus, chilblain LE and Blaschko linear LE. To provide all dermatologists and rheumatologists with a practical guideline for the diagnosis, treatment and long-term management of CLE, this evidence- and consensus-based guideline was developed following the checklist established by the international Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) Working Group and was registered at the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform. With the joint efforts of the Asian Dermatological Association (ADA), the Asian Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AADV) and the Lupus Erythematosus Research Center of Chinese Society of Dermatology (CSD), a total of 25 dermatologists, 7 rheumatologists, one research scientist on lupus and 2 methodologists, from 16 countries/regions in Asia, America and Europe, participated in the development of this guideline. All recommendations were agreed on by at least 80% of the 32 voting physicians. As a consensus, diagnosis of CLE is mainly based on the evaluation of clinical and histopathological manifestations, with an exclusion of SLE by assessment of systemic involvement. For localized CLE lesions, topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors are first-line treatment. For widespread or severe CLE lesions and (or) cases resistant to topical treatment, systemic treatment including antimalarials and (or) short-term corticosteroids can be added. Notably, antimalarials are the first-line systemic treatment for all types of CLE, and can also be used in pregnant patients and pediatric patients. Second-line choices include thalidomide, retinoids, dapsone and MTX, whereas MMF is third-line treatment. Finally, pulsed-dye laser or surgery can be added as fourth-line treatment for localized, refractory lesions of CCLE in cosmetically unacceptable areas, whereas belimumab may be used as fourth-line treatment for widespread CLE lesions in patients with active SLE, or recurrence of ACLE during tapering of corticosteroids. As for management of the disease, patient education and a long-term follow-up are necessary. Disease activity, damage of skin and other organs, quality of life, comorbidities and possible adverse events are suggested to be assessed in every follow-up visit, when appropriate.

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether calcium supplement with or without other drugs could reduce the risk of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension based on existed evidence, and to clarify whether there is discrepant effect among different population and using different dose. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE database were searched. Two authors independently screened all records and extracted data. The meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios and 95% CIs using random-effects models. Results: 27 studies, with 28 492 pregnant women were included. The results showed calcium supplement was associated with lower incidence of preeclampsia (RR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.64) and gestational hypertension (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.82). Sub-analyses revealed high-dose (1.2-2 g/day), moderate-dose (0.6-1.2 g/day), and low-dose (<0.6 g/day) of calcium supplement could reduce the risk of preeclampsia. For gestational hypertension, only high dose and moderate dose groups were associated with reducing the risk of gestational hypertension. However, we could draw a conclusion which does group was the most protective, as we were unable to directly compare the effects of different doses. Conclusions: This study indicated calcium supplementation might decrease the risk of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension. And results of subgroups analyses enhanced our confidence to the protective effect of calcium supplementation. However, further studies with direct comparison of different dose of calcium supplementation are needed to explore the ideal dose of calcium supplementation to prevent preeclampsia and gestational hypertension.

Authors' objectives: We conducted a health technology assessment to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of carrier screening programs for cystic fibrosis (CF), fragile X syndrome (FXS), hemoglobinopathies and thalassemia, and spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in people who are considering a pregnancy or who are pregnant. We also evaluated the budget impact of publicly funding carrier screening programs, and patient preferences and values.

Authors' objectives: This health technology assessment evaluates the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of noninvasive fetal RhD blood group genotyping. It also evaluates the budget impact of publicly funding noninvasive fetal RhD blood group genotyping, and the experiences, preferences, and values of people and health care providers related to care for RhD-incompatible pregnancies.

Authors' objectives: This report aims to identify and summarise evidence that addresses the following question: what is the clinical and cost effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes?

Authors' objectives: The purpose of this HTA is to address the policy question through an assessment of the clinical effectiveness and safety, and cost-effectiveness, and patients’, partners’, and health care providers’ perspectives and experiences regarding the screening of pregnant persons for CT and GC. An analytic framework for the HTA can be found in Appendix 1.