Spontaneous Preterm Birth: Is Prevention with Aspirin Possible?

Background The rate of preterm births in Germany is 8.6%, which is very high compared to other European countries. As preterm birth contributes significantly to perinatal morbidity and mortality rates, the existing prevention strategies need to be optimized and expanded further. About ⅔ of all women with preterm birth have preterm labor or premature rupture of membranes. They are bracketed together under the term “spontaneous preterm birth” as opposed to iatrogenic preterm birth, for example as a consequence of preeclampsia or fetal growth retardation. Recent studies suggest that low-dose aspirin does not just reduce the rate of iatrogenic preterm births but can also further reduce the rate of spontaneous preterm births. This review article presents the current state of knowledge. Method A selective literature search up until April 2020 was done in PubMed, using the terms “randomized trial”, “randomized study”, “spontaneous preterm birth”, and “aspirin”. Results Secondary analyses of prospective randomized studies on the prevention of preeclampsia with low-dose aspirin show that this intervention also significantly reduced the rate of spontaneous preterm births in both high-risk and low-risk patient populations. The results of the ASPIRIN trial, a prospective, randomized, double-blinded multicenter study carried out in six developing countries, also point in this direction, with the figures showing that the daily administration of 81 mg aspirin starting before 14 weeks of gestation lowered the preterm birth rate of nulliparous women without prior medical conditions by around 11% (11.6 vs. 13.1%; RR 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81 – 0.98, p = 0.012). Conclusion Further studies on this issue are urgently needed. If these confirm the currently available results, then it would be worth discussing whether general aspirin prophylaxis for all pregnant women starting at the latest in 12 weeks of gestation is indicated. Key words: spontaneous preterm birth, iatrogenic preterm birth, prevention, preeclampsia, aspirin     

Sperm agglutination: Prevalence and contributory factors

Agglutination is a finding noted in semen analyses (SAs) that often causes confusion as to its significance. While some have attributed agglutination to antisperm antibodies (ASAs), there are other causes as well, such as genital tract infection and ascorbic acid deficiency. Additionally, it is known that patients with ASAs often have risk factors such as a history of scrotal trauma or surgery. Therefore, we sought to determine the prevalence of agglutination in our patient population and correlate it with these risk factors, regardless of the presence/absence of ASAs. A retrospective study was conducted on the SAs of men seen at a single academic Reproductive Center. Of the 1,095 SAs identified, 133 (12.1%) patients experienced agglutination (61.7% scant, 21.8% moderate and 16.5% excessive). Of patients who underwent multiple SAs, 24 (12.2%) showed variability. Furthermore, patients who underwent scrotal surgery carried 3.4 times the risk of agglutination (X² p < 0.01) and 5.5 times the risk of variability (X² p < 0.01) as compared to those patients without a history significant for scrotal surgery. Agglutination is a relatively common finding in men presenting to a reproductive clinic with little intrapatient variability. Scrotal surgery confers a higher risk of agglutination and variability.     

Impact of Index Surgical Care Setting on Perioperative Outcomes and Cost Following Penile Prosthesis Surgery

BackgroundPenile prosthesis surgery has witnessed a migration from the inpatient to ambulatory surgical care setting. However, little is known about the cost savings afforded by this change in care setting and whether or not these savings come at the expense of worse perioperative outcomes.AimThe aim of this study was to identify predictors of index penile prosthesis (PP) surgery care setting, and whether ambulatory vs inpatient surgery is associated with comparable perioperative outcomes and costs.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study using all-payer claims data from the 2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Databases from Florida and New York. Patient demographics, regional data, total charges (converted to costs), and 30-day revisit rates were abstracted for all patients undergoing index placement of an inflatable or malleable PP. Multivariable logistic and linear regression adjusted for facility clustering was utilized.OutcomesThe outcomes were index surgical and 30-day postoperative costs, as well as 30-day revisit rates.ResultsOf the 1,790 patients undergoing an index surgery, 394 (22.0%) received care in the inpatient setting compared to 1,396 (78.0%) in the ambulatory setting. Adjusted index procedural ($9,319.66 vs $ 10,191.35; P < .001) and 30-day acute care costs ($9,461.74 vs $10,159.42; P < .001) were lower in the ambulatory setting. The underinsured experienced lower odds of receiving surgery in the ambulatory setting (Medicaid vs private: odds ratio [OR] 0.19; 95% CI 0.06?0.55; P < .001). There was no difference in risk-adjusted odds of experiencing a 30-day revisit between patients undergoing surgery in the ambulatory vs inpatient settings (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.78?2.21; P = .3).Clinical TranslationAmbulatory PP surgery confers significant cost savings and is associated with comparable perioperative outcomes relative to inpatient-based surgery.ConclusionsBoth clinical and nonclinical factors predict the care setting of index PP surgery. Notably, underinsured patients experienced lower odds of undergoing ambulatory surgery. Ambulatory surgery was less costly with similar 30-day revisit rates relative to inpatient-based care.Berger A, Friedlander DF, Herzog P, et al. Impact of Index Surgical Care Setting on Perioperative Outcomes and Cost Following Penile Prosthesis Surgery. J Sex Med 2019;16:1451–1458.     

Correction to: Switching from natalizumab to fingolimod treatment in multiple sclerosis: real life data from the Austrian MS Treatment Registry

Journal of Neurology - The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. First and last names of the authors were interchanged. The correct author names are given below.