BACKGROUND: Syphilis in pregnancy imposes a significant global health and economic burden. More than half of cases result in serious adverse events, including infant mortality and infection. The annual global burden from mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of syphilis is estimated at 3.6 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and $309 million in medical costs. Syphilis screening and treatment is simple, effective, and affordable, yet, worldwide, most pregnant women do not receive these services. We assessed cost-effectiveness of scaling-up syphilis screening and treatment in existing antenatal care (ANC) programs in various programmatic, epidemiologic, and economic contexts. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We modeled the cost, health impact, and cost-effectiveness of expanded syphilis screening and treatment in ANC, compared to current services, for 1,000,000 pregnancies per year over four years. We defined eight generic country scenarios by systematically varying three factors: current maternal syphilis testing and treatment coverage, syphilis prevalence in pregnant women, and the cost of healthcare. We calculated program and net costs, DALYs averted, and net costs per DALY averted over four years in each scenario. Program costs are estimated at $4,142,287 - $8,235,796 per million pregnant women (2010 USD). Net costs, adjusted for averted medical care and current services, range from net savings of $12,261,250 to net costs of $1,736,807. The program averts an estimated 5,754 - 93,484 DALYs, yielding net savings in four scenarios, and a cost per DALY averted of $24 - $111 in the four scenarios with net costs. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating MTCT of syphilis through expanded screening and treatment in ANC is likely to be highly cost-effective by WHO-defined thresholds in a wide range of settings. Countries with high prevalence, low current service coverage, and high healthcare cost would benefit most. Future analyses can be tailored to countries using local epidemiologic and programmatic data.

Introduction

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is replacing cytology in primary screening. Its limited specificity demands using a second (triage) test to better identify women at high-risk of cervical disease. Cytology represents the immediate triage but its low sensitivity might hamper HPV testing sensitivity, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where cytology performance has been suboptimal. The ESTAMPA (EStudio multicéntrico de TAMizaje y triaje de cáncer de cuello uterino con pruebas del virus del PApiloma humano; Spanish acronym) study will: (1) evaluate the performance of different triage techniques to detect cervical precancer and (2) inform on how to implement HPV-based screening programmes in LMIC.

Methods and analysis

Women aged 30-64 years are screened with HPV testing and Pap across 12 study centres in Latin America. Screened positives have colposcopy with biopsy and treatment of lesions. Women with no evident disease are recalled 18 months later for another HPV test; those HPV-positive undergo colposcopy with biopsy and treatment as needed. Biological specimens are collected in different visits for triage testing, which is not used for clinical management. The study outcome is histological high-grade squamous intraepithelial or worse lesions (HSIL+) under the lower anogenital squamous terminology. About 50 000 women will be screened and 500 HSIL+ cases detected (at initial and 18 months screening). Performance measures (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of triage techniques to detect HSIL+ will be estimated and compared with adjustment by age and study centre.

Ethics and dissemination

The study protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), of the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) and by those in each participating centre. A Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) has been established to monitor progress of the study, assure participant safety, advice on scientific conduct and analysis and suggest protocol improvements. Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings.

Trial registration number

NCT01881659.

Introduction

Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies.

Methods

We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection-as compared with uninfected pregnant women-were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias.

Conclusions

This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol.