Smoking during pregnancy. Results of the cross-sectional KiGGS Wave 2 study and trends

Trends in smoking during pregnancy stratified by the use of opioid agonist therapy and the contribution of smoking to poor outcome in neonates prenatally exposed to opioid agonist treatment

High rates of cigarette smoking have been observed in pregnant women on opioid agonist therapy (OAT). However, it is unclear if these rates have changed overtime in line with the general population and the degree to which smoking contributes to poor outcomes in neonates born to women on OAT. Women who gave birth in Western Australia (WA) between 2003 and 2018 were identified from whole-population midwives records. Linked records were used to identify women who had been dispensed OAT during pregnancy and those who had smoking during pregnancy. Temporal changes in smoking during pregnancy were examined for women on OAT (n = 1059) and women not on OAT (n = 397,175) using Joinpoint regression. In women treated with OAT during pregnancy, neonatal outcomes were compared between smoking and non-smoking women using generalised linear models. During the study period, 76.3% of women on OAT smoked during pregnancy compared with 12.0% of the general population. There was a decrease in the prevalence of smoking during pregnancy among women not on OAT (APC: - 5.7, 95%CI: - 6.3, - 5.2), but not in women on OAT (APC: 0.8, 95%CI: - 0.4, 2.1). For women receiving OAT, smoking was associated with an increased odds of low birth weight (OR: 1.57, 95%CI: 1.06, 2.32) and neonatal abstinence syndrome (OR: 1.34, 95%CI: 1.01, 1.78) compared with non-smoking. Despite reductions in the prevalence of smoking during pregnancy in the general population, similar reductions have not occurred in pregnant women on OAT. The high prevalence of smoking in pregnant women on OAT is contributing to poor neonatal outcomes.

The effectiveness of additional screening examinations for children and adolescents in Germany: a longitudinal retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Continuous medical care is particularly important in childhood and adolescence. Since there are gaps in regular care in Germany, various health insurance providers offer to cover additional examinations (e.g., U10, U11, J2) to ensure ongoing paediatrician visits. However, the question arises as to whether these examinations are effective. Thus, the main objective of this study is to determine whether participation in the U10, U11 or J2 examinations leads to more frequent and earlier diagnosis and treatment of age-specific diseases.

METHODS

The analyses are based on administrative claims data from a statutory health insurance fund. For each examination, an intervention group (IG) is formed and matched with a corresponding control group (CG). Descriptive analyses include proportion with diagnosis and treatment, average age of diagnosis and treatment initiation. Hypothesis testing is performed using methods appropriate to each. In addition, subgroup analyses and binominal logistic regression models are conducted.

RESULTS

More diagnoses are detected in IG, irrespective of subgroups. Additionally, diagnoses are made slightly earlier on average in IG. In the total samples, more therapies are initiated in IG, and slightly earlier. Considering only diagnosed cases, more therapies are initiated in CG but continue to be started earlier in IG. Regression models show that participation in the examinations has the highest predictive power for detecting a diagnosis. The presence of a chronic disease and sex - male at the U10 and U11 and female at the J2 - are also significantly associated. The models further show that nationality, unemployment of parents and region also have a significant influence in some cases, whereas school-leaving qualification, vocational qualification and income of parents do not. Considering the initiation of treatment in overall samples, the models show similar results, but here the presence of a chronic illness has the highest predictive power.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that participation in the examinations leads to significantly more diagnoses and, in the overall samples, significantly more treatments. In addition, diagnoses were made somewhat earlier and therapies were initiated somewhat earlier. In the future, it would be useful to investigate the U10, U11 and J2 examinations over a longer time horizon to determine whether the statistically significant difference found is also clinically relevant, i.e., earlier diagnosis and initiation of therapy lead to prevention of manifestation or progression of the diagnosed diseases and to avoidance of secondary diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS-ID: DRKS00015280. Prospectively registered on 18 March 2019.