Should singleton birth weight standards be applied to identify small-for-gestational age twins?: analysis of a retrospective cohort study

Congenital and Fetal Effects After Mifepristone Exposure and Continuation of Pregnancy: A Systematic Review

Mifepristone is an anti-progestational drug that is the first component of the standard medical abortion regimen. For women who take mifepristone and then do not take misoprostol, which is the second component of the medical abortion regimen, it is possible that their pregnancy may continue to live birth. Since mifepristone is commonly used for medical abortion up to 9-10 weeks gestation, any adverse or teratogenic effects on the developing embryo/fetus must be considered, given exposure during the critical time of its development and organogenesis. Toxicology and teratology reports have cited studies demonstrating teratogenic effect of mifepristone in some animals. Current clinical guidelines for women exposed to mifepristone in the first trimester of pregnancy state that it is not known to be teratogenic based on limited published evidence from humans. The aim of this narrative systematic review was to investigate embryonic/fetal exposure to mifepristone and any association with congenital or fetal anomalies. This study was conducted by systematic searches of health databases from inception to February 2024. The references of relevant citations were manually searched to retrieve any additional citations not captured in database searching. Congenital anomalies and adverse outcomes were encountered at various doses of mifepristone exposure. A number of the congenital anomalies encountered in this review were explained by circumstances other than exposure to mifepristone. The present systematic review did not find data to support mifepristone being implicated as a teratogen.

Prenatal Weight Change Trajectories and Perinatal Outcomes among Twin Gestations

OBJECTIVE

Despite an increase in twin pregnancies in recent decades, the Institute of Medicine twin weight gain recommendations remain provisional and provide no guidance for the pattern or timing of weight change. We sought to characterize gestational weight change trajectory patterns and examine associations with birth outcomes in a cohort of twin pregnancies.

STUDY DESIGN

Prenatal and delivery records were examined for 320 twin pregnancies from a maternal-fetal medicine practice in Austin, TX 2011-2019. Prenatal weights for those with >1 measured weight in the first trimester and ≥3 prenatal weights were included in analyses. Trajectories were estimated to 32 weeks (mean delivery: 33.7 ± 3.3 weeks) using flexible latent class mixed models with low-rank thin-plate splines. Associations between trajectory classes and infant outcomes were analyzed using multivariable Poisson or linear regression.

RESULTS

Weight change from prepregnancy to delivery was 15.4 ± 6.3 kg for people with an underweight body mass index, 15.4 ± 5.8 kg for healthy weight, 14.7 ± 6.9 kg for overweight, and 12.5 ± 6.4 kg for obesity. Three trajectory classes were identified: low (Class 1), moderate (Class 2), or high gain (Class 3). Class 1 (24.7%) maintained weight for 15 weeks and then gained an estimated 6.6 kg at 32 weeks. Class 2 (60.9%) exhibited steady gain with 13.5 kg predicted total gain, and Class 3 (14.4%) showed rapid gain across pregnancy with 21.3 kg predicted gain. Compared to Class 1, Class 3 was associated with higher birth weight z-score (β = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31,0.96), increased risk for large for gestational age (IRR = 5.60, 95% CI: 1.59, 19.67), and birth <32 weeks (IRR = 2.44, 95% CI: 1.10, 5.4) that was attenuated in sensitivity analyses. Class 2 was associated with moderately elevated birth weight z-score (β = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.48, p = 0.050).

CONCLUSION

Gestational weight change followed a low, moderate, or high trajectory; both moderate and high gain patterns were associated with increased infant size outcomes. Optimal patterns of weight change that balance risk during the prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal periods require further investigation, particularly in high-risk twin pregnancies.

KEY POINTS

· A majority gained weight below IOM twin recommendations.. · Three patterns of GWC across pregnancy were identified.. · Moderate or high GWC was associated with infant size..

Twin charts should be the standard reference to assess growth in twin pregnancy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Twin pregnancies are characterized by slower growth velocity compared with singletons, especially during the third trimester and, therefore, tend to be smaller than singletons. Growth surveillance is instrumental in the identification of twin pregnancies at risk of adverse outcomes. Whether the phenomenon of slow growth is an adaptive physiological response or represents pathological growth lag, is controversial. In this review, we focus on the evidence related to the types of growth charts employed for twin pregnancies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Consistent evidence has emerged over the past few years from large independent cohorts in different countries suggesting that twin-specific standards perform better in identifying growth-restricted twin pregnancies at risk of adverse perinatal outcomes, without resulting in an increase in interventions or iatrogenic prematurity.

SUMMARY

The current evidence supports the use of twin-specific reference charts. Concerted efforts should be made to derive prospective evidence from large multicentre studies on various aspects of the implementation of twin-specific standards.

Fetal growth trajectories of small/large for gestational age infants in twin pregnancies

BACKGROUND

Birthweight is the most common and accessible parameter in assessing neonatal perinatal outcomes and in evaluating the intrauterine environment globally. Infants born too large or too small not only may alter the maternal mode of delivery but also may face other long-term disorders, such as metabolic diseases and neurodevelopmental delay. Studies have revealed different growth profiles of large-for-gestational-age and small-for-gestational-age fetuses in singleton pregnancies. However, currently, no research is focused on the growth trajectories of these infants during twin pregnancies, even though they are at a much higher risk of being small for gestational age.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore fetal growth trajectories of large-for-gestational-age and small-for-gestational-age infants in twin pregnancies to provide strategies for fetal growth management.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a case-control study of all noncomplicated twin pregnancies delivered after 36 weeks of gestation at the Peking University First Hospital between 2012 and 2021. Ultrasound data were recorded every 2 to 4 weeks until delivery. All the infants were divided into large-for-gestational-age, small-for-gestational-age, and appropriate-for-gestational-age groups. Longitudinal fetal growth (estimated fetal weight, abdominal circumference, etc.) was compared among the 3 groups using a linear mixed model, and other maternal and neonatal perinatal outcomes were compared. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to explore optimal biometric parameters and gestational weeks for predicting small-for-gestational-age infants.

RESULTS

Here, 797 pregnant patients with 1494 infants were recruited, with 59 small-for-gestational-age infants, 1335 appropriate-for-gestational-age infants, and 200 large-for-gestational-age infants. The mean birthweights were 1985.34±28.34 g in small-for-gestational-age infants, 2662.08±6.60 g in appropriate-for-gestational-age infants, and 3231.24±11.04 g in large-for-gestational-age infants. The estimated fetal weight of the 3 groups differed from each other from week 26, with the small-for-gestational-age fetuses weighing 51.946 g less and the large-for-gestational-age fetuses weighing 35.233 g more than the appropriate-for-gestational-age fetuses. This difference increased with gestation; at 39 weeks, the small-for-gestational-age fetuses weighed 707.438 g less and the large-for-gestational-age fetuses weighed 614.182 g more than the appropriate-for-gestational-age fetuses (all P<.05). The small-for-gestational-age group had a significantly higher rate of hospitalization (89.9 %) and jaundice (40.7 %) than the appropriate-for-gestational-age group, whereas the hospitalization rate in the large-for-gestational-age group was significantly lower than the appropriate-for-gestational-age group (7.5% and 2.5%; all P<.05). The fetal weight of the small-for-gestational-age infants with adverse outcomes remained near the 10th percentile of the reference and fell below the 3rd percentile at 34 weeks of gestation. The estimated fetal weight after 30 weeks of gestation had a satisfactory diagnostic value in predicting small-for-gestational-age infants. At 30, 32, 34, and 36 weeks of gestation, the areas under the curve were 0.829, 0.840, 0.929, and 0.889 respectively.

CONCLUSION

The growth patterns of small-for-gestational-age, appropriate-for-gestational-age, and large-for-gestational-age twin fetuses diverged from 26 weeks of gestation and continued to increase until delivery; therefore, closer monitoring is suggested from 26 weeks of gestation for those carrying small fetuses.

Gestational hypertensive disease and small for gestational age infants in twin pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The review is to explore the connection between gestational hypertension diseases (GHD) and small for gestational age (SGA) in twin pregnancies.

METHODS

According to the recommendations of PRISMA, relevant studies were systematically searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase from inception until January 16, 2022. Subgroup analysis was performed according to chorionicity and diagnostic criteria of SGA. Odds ratios (OR) were assessed to judge the link between GHD and SGA in twin pregnant women. A random-effect model was used to estimate the pooled hazard ratio when there was significant heterogeneity (I²  > 50%); otherwise, a fixed-effect model was conducted.

RESULTS

Seven articles containing 470 589 twin pregnant women were included. The increased risk of SGA was connected to the twin pregnancies complicated with GHD (OR = 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10-2.24, p = 0.01). After subgroup analysis, the connection between SGA and GHD had no statistical significance (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.95-1.44, p = 0.14) when the enrolled studies using the SGA diagnosis referred to singleton birth weight, but significant (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.77-2.60, p<0.001) in the group using the SGA diagnosis referred to twin birth weight. Stratified by chorionicity, SGA was relevant to GHD in the dichorionic (DC) group (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.17-2.42, p = 0.005), while not in the monochorionic (MC) group (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 0.93-3.03, p = 0.09). More future articles are warranted to confirm these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review demonstrated that GHD in DC twin pregnancies was related to an enlarged risk of SGA. Two SGA diagnosis references led to different results. Twin pregnancies complicated with GHD were at significantly higher risk of SGA when twin birth weight reference was used.

Adverse neonatal outcome in twin pregnancy complicated by small-for-gestational age: twin vs singleton reference charts

OBJECTIVE

The use of twin-specific vs singleton growth charts in the assessment of twin pregnancy has been controversial. The aim of this study was to assess whether a diagnosis of small-for-gestational age (SGA) made using twin-specific estimated-fetal-weight (EFW) and birth-weight (BW) charts is associated more strongly with adverse neonatal outcomes in twin pregnancies, compared with when the diagnosis is made using singleton charts.

METHODS

This was a cohort study of twin pregnancies delivered at St George's Hospital, London, between January 2007 and May 2020. Twin pregnancies complicated by intrauterine death of one or both twins, fetal aneuploidy or major abnormality, twin-twin transfusion syndrome or twin anemia-polycythemia sequence and those delivered before 32 weeks' gestation, were excluded. SGA was defined as EFW or BW below the 10^th centile, and was assessed using both twin-specific and singleton EFW and BW charts. The main study outcome was composite adverse neonatal outcome. Mixed-effects logistic regression analysis with random pregnancy-level intercepts was used to test the association between SGA classified using the different charts and adverse neonatal outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 1329 twin pregnancies were identified, of which 913 (1826 infants) were included in the analysis. Of these pregnancies, 723 (79.2%) were dichorionic and 190 (20.8%) were monochorionic. Using the singleton charts, 33.3% and 35.7% of pregnancies were classified as SGA based on EFW and BW, respectively. The corresponding values were 5.9% and 5.6% when using the twin-specific charts. Classification as SGA based on EFW using the twin charts was associated significantly with composite adverse neonatal outcome (odds ratio (OR), 4.78 (95% CI, 1.47-14.7); P = 0.007), as compared with classification as appropriate-for-gestational age (AGA). However, classification as SGA based on EFW using the singleton standard was not associated significantly with composite adverse neonatal outcome (OR, 1.36 (95% CI, 0.63-2.88); P = 0.424). Classification as SGA based on EFW using twin-specific standards provided a significantly better model fit than did using the singleton standard (likelihood ratio test, P < 0.001). When twin-specific charts were used, classification as SGA based on BW was associated significantly with a 9.3 times increased odds of composite adverse neonatal outcome (OR, 9.27 (95% CI, 2.86-30.0); P < 0.001). Neonates classified as SGA according to the singleton BW standard but not according to the twin-specific BW standards had a significantly lower rate of composite adverse neonatal outcome than did AGA twins (OR, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.07-0.66); P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The singleton charts classified one-third of twins as SGA, both prenatally and postnatally. Infants classified as SGA according to the twin-specific charts, but not those classified as SGA according to the singleton charts, had a significantly increased risk of adverse neonatal outcome compared with infants classified as AGA. This study provides further evidence that twin-specific charts perform better than do singleton charts in the prediction of adverse neonatal outcome in twin pregnancies. The use of these charts may reduce misclassification of twins as SGA and improve identification of those that are truly growth restricted. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.