Title: Insights on Stillbirths in Africa using the Robson Classification System: Mini CommentaryAdeline A. BoatinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General HospitalHarvard Medical School, Boston, USAContact:55 Fruit Street,Dept OB/GYNMassachusetts General HospitalBoston, MA 02114Email: [email protected]: +1 617 726 1320Shortened Running title: Insights from Robson Classification on StillbirthDisclosures: I have no relevant disclosuresContribution to Authorship: AAB conceived, wrote, and edited this manuscript.Globally, stillbirths remain a largely neglected health crisis, with up to 2 million stillbirths annually and minimal progress in reduction.1 Despite several global initiatives targeting perinatal mortality, such as the Every Newborn Action Plan (ENAP) launched in 2014, efforts to decrease stillbirth rates have seen only a modest 2.3% decline over the last 20 years.1This underscores the urgent need for novel approaches to understand and addresse this global challenge.1,2Compounding this issue is a substantial lack of comprehensive data on the trends, timing and causes of stillbirths.1 Many classification systems for categorizing stillbirths have been developed to address this data gap.3 To be useful, classification systems should ideally use routinely collected data that does not require substantial input to collect, and that is already readily available. However, most stillbirth classification systems have failed to meet the criteria that allow widespread adoption, particularly in resource-constrained environments where stillbirth rates are the highest.4In this issue of the journal, Hanson et al use the Robson 10-group Classification system to explore stillbirth trends in four countries – Benin, Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda – using data on over 80,000 births and just over 3000 stillbirths collected from 16 hospitals. Their use of the Robson Classification System across these four countries and hospitals of varying levels of care demonstrates the benefits of the chosen classification system: wide applicability across various settings, objective and easily standardizable classifications, and easy comparability across time and place.5 Although not used in this exploration, this classification system also benefits from being versatile in that it can be applied to understand not only stillbirths, but also cesarean delivery or other intrapartum outcomes of interest, thus gaining an efficiency with data collection.The findings from Hanson et al highlight leading contributors to stillbirth among the studied countries – group 10 (preterm births), group 3 (multipara in spontaneous labor) and births complicated by malpresentation and multiple gestations. While high rates of intrapartum stillbirths among preterm deliveries demand attention, they are not surprising. More surprising and warranting further investigation are the high rates of stillbirth seen in Group 3, which, under normal circumstances, should be at the lowest risk for mortality.Importantly, as pointed out by the authors, analysis using the Robson classification system serves as a starting point to pinpoint areas for focused investigation and quality improvement, while also offering valuable insights for each hospital on performance, guidance on where to concentrate efforts, and potentially where to seek lessons from “good performers.”Globally, we have far to go to combat high rates of stillbirths. Using versatile and standardized approaches, as done by Hanson et al offers the opportunity to facilitate targeted investigations and to promote cross-country learning and continuous improvement for maternal and perinatal care.References1 United Nations Children’s Fund. Never forgotten: The situation of stillbirth around the globe. Report of the United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation, 2022. New York, 2023 https://data.unicef.org/resources/never-forgotten-stillbirth-estimates-report/.2 World Health Organization. Every newborn: an action plan to end preventable deaths. 2014.3 Leisher SH, Teoh Z, Reinebrant H, et al. Seeking order amidst chaos: a systematic review of classification systems for causes of stillbirth and neonatal death, 2009–2014.BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2016; 16 : 1–17.4 Mukherjee A, Di Stefano L, Blencowe H, Mee P. Determinants of stillbirths in sub‐Saharan Africa: A systematic review. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2024; 131 : 140–50.5 Robson MS. The 10-Group Classification System-a new way of thinking.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2018; 219 : 1–4.

Adeline Boatin

and 7 more

Background: Intrapartum decision-making for women with a previous caesarean section (CS) is complex due to competing risks of trial of labour after cesarean (TOLAC) and elective repeat CS (ERCS). Objective: Determine rates of TOLAC and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and estimate rates of adverse events associated with TOLAC versus ERCS. Search Strategy: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, CAB, EMBASE, and African-specific databases. Selection Criteria: We included studies with at least one previous CS conducted in SSA. Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data on study design, planned and actual delivery mode, and maternal and perinatal outcomes. We calculated median TOLAC and VBAC rates pooled mean uterine rupture rate and compared uterine rupture rates and mortality between TOLAC and ERCS. Main Results: From 51 included studies, the median TOLAC and VBAC rates, weighted for sample size, were 75% (IQR: 40-100%) and 34% (IQR: 24-44%) , respectively; and the weighted mean uterine rupture rate was 1.3% (SD: 1.6%). The uterine rupture rate [1.2% vs 0.2%, OR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63-3.75)] and maternal mortality [0.3% vs <0.1%, OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.30-1.98)] did not differ significantly between TOLAC and ERCS groups, respectively, however perinatal mortality was higher for the TOLAC group (5% vs 1%, OR 3.3 ; 95% CI 1.5-6.9) Conclusions: We found high rates of TOLAC and moderate rates of VBAC across SSA, with a perinatal but no maternal benefit to ERCS compared to TOLAC. Further research is needed to understand delivery outcomes in this population of women.

Lina Roa

and 6 more

Objective: Assessment of the cost-effectiveness of strategies to scale up cesarean sections (CS) Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate three different strategies to scale up CS Setting: Rural and urban areas of India with varying rates of CS and access to comprehensive emergency obstetric care (CEmOC) Population: Women of reproductive age in India Methods: Three strategies with different access to CEmOC and CS rates were evaluated: (A) India’s national average (50.2% access, 17.2% CS rate), (B) rural areas (47.2% access, 12.8% CS rate) and (C) urban areas (55.7% access, 28.2% CS rate). We performed a first-order Monte Carlo simulation using a 1-year cycle time and 35-year time horizon. All inputs were derived from literature. A societal perspective was utilized with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,940. Main outcome measures: Costs and quality-adjusted life years were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were calculated. Results: Strategy C with the highest access to CEmOC despite the highest CS rate was cost-effective, with an ICER of 354.90. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated this was driven by increased access to CEmOC. The highest CS rate strategy had the highest number of previa, accreta and ICU admissions. The strategy with the lowest access to CEmOC had the highest number of fistulae, uterine rupture, and stillbirths. Conclusions: Morbidity and mortality result from lack of access to CEmOC and overuse of CS. While interventions are needed to address both, increasing access to surgical obstetric care drives cost-effectiveness and is paramount to optimize outcomes.