Theiler, Regan N.

Background Patients with self-reported antibiotic allergies have a higher cost of care, more frequent infections with resistant bacteria and worse health outcomes than patients without antibiotic allergies. Ultimately, less than 5% of patients who report a penicillin allergy have a clinically significant immune-mediated hypersensitivity reaction when tested. As 10%–30% of the population of pregnant patients are colonised for group B Streptococcus (GBS) and guidelines recommend penicillin as the treatment of choice for GBS, current recommendations support penicillin allergy testing in pregnant patients who report an allergy. Methods and intervention In this quality improvement project, nursing staff used an algorithm outlining inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine which patients were eligible to have penicillin allergy testing completed. Penicillin allergy testing consisted of a skin test using benzylpenicilloyl polylysine (Pre-Pen), penicillin G potassium, amoxicillin and alkaline hydrolysis mix (penicilloate) as a prick skin test, followed by intradermal skin test and finally an oral challenge with either amoxicillin or penicillin. Patient outcomes were analysed to evaluate the impact of the intervention. Results Of the 1266 patients receiving prenatal care during the intervention, 236 (19%) reported a history of penicillin allergy, and 212 if these were eligible for testing. 150 of the eligible patients were offered penicillin allergy testing. 101 patients (67%) completed testing and 49 (33%) declined testing. Seven patients (7%) had positive penicillin allergy testing, while 94 patients (93%) had negative penicillin allergy testing and were immediately de-labelled as penicillin allergic. Seventeen of the de-labelled patients subsequently tested positive for GBS colonisation, and all received intrapartum penicillin without adverse events. Conclusions Pursuing penicillin allergy testing for pregnant patients with reported penicillin allergy is a safe and feasible approach, allowing for allergy de-labelling and safe, guideline-driven antimicrobial therapy during subsequent labour and delivery hospitalisations. Cost-effectiveness of the allergy testing and impact on later episodes of care should be further investigated.

INTRODUCTION: While focal-occult placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is known to lead to adverse outcomes, little is known of the morbidity in comparison to previa-associated PAS. METHODS: After IRB approval, retrospective review was conducted of pathologically confirmed (decidual layer absence or basal-plate myometrial fibers) PAS from 2018 to 2021 at a tertiary care center. Baseline characteristics and surgical, obstetric, and subsequent pregnancy outcomes were recorded. Focal-occult PAS was compared with previa-associated PAS using Kruskal-Wallis/Chi-square tests; P<.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 56 cases were identified: 22 previa-associated and 34 focal-occult PAS. All patients with previa-associated and 26.5% of those with focal-occult PAS underwent hysterectomy. Of the previa-associated PAS patients, 20 of 22 were diagnosed antenatally, as was 1 of 34 focal-occult PAS patients. Mean maternal age (32.5 vs. 33.1 year), number of previous dilation and curettage procedures (0.4 vs. 0.3), and in vitro fertilization rates (4.5% vs. 23.5%) were not significantly different between groups. Mean parity (3.7 vs. 1.4), gestational age at delivery (34.3 vs. 35.7 weeks), any previous cesarean delivery (95.5% vs. 29.4%), mean number of previous cesareans (2.5 vs. 0.5), and placental locations were significantly different between groups. All measures of morbidity, including postpartum hemorrhage rates (81.0% vs. 75.8%), median qualitative blood loss (1,500cc, range: 500–9,516cc vs. 1,660cc, range: 350–12,220cc), mean units of red blood cells transfused (1.8 vs. 1.9), massive transfusion (9.1% vs. 20.6%), ICU admission (9.1% vs. 14.7%), and reoperation rates (9.1% vs. 32.4%) were similar between groups. Six focal-occult PAS patients had a subsequent pregnancy, and two had recurrent PAS. CONCLUSION: Despite representing lower grade PAS, focal-occult PAS has similar measures of morbidity when compared to previa-associated PAS, potentially attributable to lack of antenatal detection.

IntroductionWe calculate the financial margins for delivery of routine antenatal care as reimbursed by Medicaid. Prenatal care cost varies with overhead, health care provider type, and number of office visits. Antenatal care is only one component of the global maternity bundle, which also includes intrapartum and postpartum care.MethodsTime for provision of low‐risk antenatal care was determined prospectively from a study of 133 low‐risk pregnant patients. Health care provider time cost was estimated using mean wages for obstetricians and midwives. Margins were estimated by subtracting cost of provider services and overhead for the antenatal component of maternity care from total Medicaid reimbursement for the pregnancy global package (CPT 59400) using 2015 dollars. The maternity bundle elements of routine prenatal laboratory tests, ultrasounds, intrapartum care, and postpartum care were not included in our analysis of cost components.ResultsPatients received an average of 215 minutes of direct provider time per pregnancy. At the 50th percentile for physician payment and assuming overhead is 53.4% of revenue, practice margins varied by state from −$1067 to +$675, with a median of −$357. Median margins for midwifery care were +$15, with a range of −$579 to +$885. Margins were negative if overhead costs exceeded 33% of revenue for physician care and 55% of revenue for midwifery care.DiscussionIn many states, Medicaid reimbursement for the global maternity package is less than the actual cost of antenatal care alone. Improving reimbursement or decreasing costs is necessary to make maternity care more cost‐effective.

As most recently demonstrated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, congenital and perinatal infections are of significant concern to the pregnant population as compared to the general population. These outcomes can range from no apparent impact all the way to spontaneous abortion or fetal infection with long term developmental consequences. While some pathogens have developed mechanisms to cross the placenta and directly infect the fetus, other pathogens lead to an upregulation in maternal or placental inflammation that can indirectly cause harm. The placenta is a temporary, yet critical organ that serves multiple important functions during gestation including facilitation of fetal nutrition, oxygenation, and prevention of fetal infection in utero. Here, we review trophoblast cell immunology and the molecular mechanisms utilized to protect the fetus from infection. Lastly, we discuss consequences in the placenta when these protections fail and the histopathologic result following infection.

Abstract BackgroundTraditional prenatal care includes up to 13 in person office visits, and the cost of this care is not well-described. Alternative models are being explored to better meet the needs of patients and providers. OB Nest is a telemedicine-enhanced program with a reduced frequency of in-person prenatal visits. The cost implications of connected care services added to prenatal care packages are unclear.MethodsUsing data from the OB Nest randomized, controlled trial we analyzed the provider and staff time associated with prenatal care in the traditional and OB Nest models. Fewer visits were required for OB Nest, but given the compensatory increase in connected care activity and supplies, the actual cost difference is not known.Nursing and provider staff time was prospectively recorded for all patients enrolled in the OB Nest clinical trial. Published 2015 national wages for healthcare workers were used to calculate the actual labor cost of providing either traditional or OB Nest prenatal care in 2015 US dollars. Overhead expenses and opportunity costs were not considered.ResultsTotal provider cost was decreased caring for the OB Nest participants, but nursing cost was increased. OB Nest care required an average of 160.8 (+/- 45.0) minutes provider time and 87.8 (+/- 25.1) minutes nursing time, compared to 215.0 (+/- 71.6) and 99.6 (+/- 29.7) minutes for traditional prenatal care (P<0.01). This translated into decreased provider cost and increased nursing cost (P<0.01). Supply costs increased, travel costs declined, and overhead costs declined in the OB Nest model. ConclusionsIn this trial, labor cost for OB Nest prenatal care was 34% higher than for traditional prenatal care. The increased cost is largely attributable to additional nursing connected care time, and in some practice settings may be offset by decreased overhead costs and increased provider billing opportunities. Future efforts will be focused on development of digital solutions for some routine nursing tasks to decrease the overall cost of the model. Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02082275

Background: The incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is increasing in the general population. Data on the epidemiology of CDI in peripartum women – a highly vulnerable patient population – is scarce. The objective of this study was to report the incidence of CDI in peripartum women. Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in peripartum women from 1997 to 2017. Peripartum CDI was defined as definite CDI (watery diarrhea for >24 h with positive stool assay) during pregnancy, or within 6 weeks postpartum. Incidence was reported per 100,000 pregnancies and time trends in incidence were analyzed using Poisson regression. Analyses were done separately for time trends before and after 2007, when CDI testing strategy changed to polymerase chain reaction. Results: From 1997 to 2017, 80 patients with peripartum CDI (47 during pregnancy, 33 postpartum) out of 125,683 pregnancies (0.064%) were identified. Incidence of CDI increased 3.4 fold (95% confidence interval 1.5–7.4, p = 0.005) over the 21 year period. Time trends were evident after ( p = 0.054), but not before 2007 ( p = 0.97). Conclusion: Incidence of CDI in peripartum women increased over the 21 year study period. The rise in incidence is concerning, and calls for heightened surveillance for CDI in this highly vulnerable population.

Since the declaration of the global pandemic of COVID-19 by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020, we have continued to see a steady rise in the number of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. However, there is still very limited data on the course and outcomes of this serious infection in a vulnerable population of pregnant patients and their fetuses. International perinatal societies and institutions including SMFM, ACOG, RCOG, ISUOG, CDC, CNGOF, ISS/SIEOG, and CatSalut have released guidelines for the care of these patients. We aim to summarize these current guidelines in a comprehensive review for patients, healthcare workers, and healthcare institutions. We included 15 papers from 10 societies through a literature search of direct review of society’s websites and their journal publications up till 20 April 2020. Recommendations specific to antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum were abstracted from the publications and summarized into Tables. The summary of guidelines for the management of COVID-19 in pregnancy across different perinatal societies is fairly consistent, with some variation in the strength of recommendations. It is important to recognize that these guidelines are frequently updated, as we continue to learn more about the course and impact of COVID-19 in pregnancy.

INTRODUCTION: This study calculates the financial margins for delivery of routine antenatal care as reimbursed by Medicaid. Prenatal care cost varies with overhead, provider type, and number of office visits. Antenatal care is only one component of the global obstetric bundle, which also includes intrapartum and postpartum care. METHODS: Revenue was based on 2015 Medicaid reimbursement for the pregnancy global package (CPT 59400). All fifty states were represented. Provider time cost was estimated using mean wages for obstetricians and midwives, or using national mean wage data when state-specific data was unavailable. Staff time for provision of low risk prenatal care was determined prospectively from a study of 133 low risk patients. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying overhead as a percentage of total revenue. Routine prenatal labs, ultrasounds, intrapartum care, and postpartum care were not included in our analysis. RESULTS: Patients received an average of 215 minutes of direct provider time per pregnancy. At the 50th percentile for physician payment and assuming overhead is 40% of revenue, practice margins varied by state from -$1,061 to +$785, with a median of -$161. This does not include the cost of intrapartum or postpartum care. The median margin for antenatal care was negative if overhead exceeded 18% of revenue. CONCLUSION: In a majority of states, reimbursement for the global obstetric package reimbursed by Medicaid is less than the actual cost of prenatal care alone. Improving reimbursement or decreasing costs is necessary to make maternity care cost-effective for obstetrics practices.

Background: Since the declaration of the global pandemic of COVID-19 by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020; we have continued to see a steady rise in the numbers of people infected by SARS-CoV-2. However, there is still very limited data on the course and outcomes of this serious infection in a vulnerable population of pregnant patients and their fetuses. International perinatal societies and institutions including SMFM, ACOG, RCOG, ISUOG, CDC, CNGOF, ISS/SIEOG and CatSalut have released guidelines for the care of these patients. Objectives: We aim to summarize these current guidelines in a comprehensive review for patients, healthcare workers and healthcare institutions. Search Strategy: A literature search was performed through PubMed, and direct review of professional society’s website and journal publications. A total of 15 papers were identified from 10 societies and reviewed by two authors who were in agreement. Selection Criteria: The most updated guideline including information on antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum care put forth by each society was included. Data Collection and Analysis: Data specific to antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum were abstracted from the publications and summarized into tables 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Main Results: The summary of guidelines for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy across different perinatal societies is consistent, with some variation in the strength of recommendations. Conclusions: It is important to recognize that these guidelines are frequently updated, as we continue to learn more about the course and impact of COVID-19 in pregnancy. The references to access all these guidelines are provided.