High dose inhaled nitric oxide gas (iNO) is a safe and effective respiratory therapy for pregnant women hospitalised with severe COVID pneumonia, resulting in faster weaning from oxygen and shorter hospital stay, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) researchers reported that the addition of twice-daily nitric oxide to standard of care oxygen therapy decreased the respiratory rate of pregnant women with low oxygenation levels of the blood without causing any side effects.
“To date, very few respiratory treatments to complement supplemental oxygenation in COVID pregnant patients have been tested,” explained the study’s senior author, Lorenzo Berra, MD. “Investigators from all four medical centers that participated in our study agreed that administration of high dose nitric oxide through a snug-fitting mask has enormous potential as a new therapeutic strategy for pregnant patients with COVID.”
Pneumonia triggered by COVID is particularly threatening to pregnant women since it may quickly progress to hypoxaemia, requiring hospitalisation and cardiopulmonary support. “Compared to non-pregnant female patients with COVID, pregnant women are three times more likely to need intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or advanced life support, and four times more likely to die,” noted lead author Carlo Valsecchi, MD. “They also face a greater risk of obstetric complications such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and stillbirth.”
Nitric oxide is a therapeutic gas that was initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1999 for inhalation treatment of intubated and mechanically ventilated newborns with hypoxic respiratory failure. With MGH driving many early studies, iNO in high concentrations was also shown to be effective as an antimicrobial in reducing viral replication of SARS-CoV-1 and, more recently, SARS CoV-2. During the first wave of COVID, MGH treated six non-intubated pregnant patients with iNO at high doses of up to 200 parts per million (ppm). Favourable outcomes with iNO led MGH clinicians to offer this treatment to other pregnant patients, and motivated the present study.
Researchers and clinicians from multiple departments in four hospitals – including critical care medicine, respiratory care, and maternal foetal medicine – studied 71 pregnant patients with severe COVID pneumonia admitted to these hospitals, 20 of whom received iNO200 twice daily. The study found that iNO therapy at this dosage, when compared to standard of care alone, resulted in reductions in the need for supplemental oxygen and in hospital and ICU lengths of stay. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported in either mothers or their babies.
“Being able to wean patients from respiratory support quicker could have other profound implications, including reducing stress on women and their families, lowering the risk of hospital-acquired infections, and relieving the burden on the health care system,” noted Dr Berra. “Above all, our study supports the safety of high dose nitric oxide in the pregnant population, and we hope more physicians will consider incorporating it into carefully monitored treatment regimens.”
The vaginal microbiota makeup can affect IVF success, and probiotics have attracted interest as a means of improving it. However, a new study presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of ESHRE shows that probiotics failed to make an impact in the microbiota composition – but a third of patients spontaneously improved within three months anyway.
Previous studies have shown that pregnancy and live birth rates are higher among women whose vaginal microbiota is dominated by lactobacillus. Conversely, those with an imbalance, or dysbiosis, where lactobacillus concentration is too low may have a lesser chance of an embryo implanting in the uterus.
Now, a new study has concluded that probiotics do not improve unhealthy vaginal flora when administered vaginally in a daily capsule to patients for 10 days before fertility treatment. No significant difference was observed between these women and those taking a placebo.
However, more than a third (34%) of all women who took part in the trial showed an improvement between a month to three months later, regardless of whether they took a probiotic or not.
On this basis, the authors suggest that it may be worthwhile to postpone fertility treatment among patients with an ‘unfavourable’ vaginal microbiome until a normal balance is achieved.
Principal investigator Ida Engberg Jepsen from The Fertility Clinic at Zealand University Hospital, Denmark, presented the findings at the 38th Annual Meeting of ESHRE. She said that the “spontaneous” improvement rate observed among patients may provide grounds for a change in approach towards IVF timing.
She added: “The study indicates that administering vaginal lactobacilli probiotics may not improve a suboptimal vaginal microbiome.
“However, a spontaneous improvement rate over a period of one to three months may provide the basis for an alternative therapeutic approach. The strategy would involve postponing fertility treatment until spontaneous improvement occurs, but further research is needed. The specific vaginal probiotic tested in this study had no effect on the favourability of the vaginal microbiome before IVF. But probiotics in general should not yet be discounted.”
The study recruited a total of 74 women with abnormal lactobacillus profile referred for IVF treatment. The women were randomised either to receive vaginal probiotic capsules (n = 38) or a placebo (n = 36). Samples were taken to determine the effect on the vaginal microbiome following the 10-day course of probiotics, and again in the subsequent menstrual cycle (on cycle day 21 to 25). Improvement in the vaginal microbiome was defined as a shift in receptivity profile from low to medium; low to high; and from medium to high.
Results showed that the vaginal microbiome improved by 40% in the placebo group and by 29% in those taking the lactobacillus probiotic. This did not represent a significant difference. Similar outcomes were observed in the menstrual cycle after intervention.
The authors advise that only two strains of lactobacilli were contained in the probiotic samples. In addition, they say the broad categorisation of the vaginal microbiome profile may not capture ‘more subtle changes’ that could affect fertility.
With the US Supreme Court’s overturning the Roe v Wade decision, abortion rights are now up to individual US states. However, while there are no legal implications for the rest of the world, it will undoubtedly have a huge influence on other countries’ abortion campaigning and lawmaking decisions. Future anti-abortion efforts in the US may also impact the country’s funding of reproductive services in regions such as Africa.
Without access to legal, safe abortion, many pregnant people will turn to unsafe methods. According to the World Health Organization, 97% of all unsafe abortions happen in developing countries. Some 4.7–13.2% of maternal deaths are attributable to unsafe abortion.
Although Roe v Wade does not have a legal effect in Africa, it was frequently invoked in abortion. Tunisia liberalised its abortion law just nine months after the Roe v Wade ruling – allowing women to access the service on demand. Additionally, in 1986, Cape Verde allowed for abortion on request prior to 12 weeks gestation which aligns with Roe v Wade holding of the same.
In South Africa, the right to abortion is not directly enshrined in the Constitution, but the 1996 Choice in Termination of Pregnancy Act greatly widened accessibility to safe, legal abortions, causing a 90% drop in abortion mortality from 1994 to 2001. The previous apartheid-era laws and their enforcement were predictably stained by racism: abortion was limited to encourage white population growth while contraceptives were promoted to control the population growth of black and coloured people. Wealthy whites could fly to England for an abortion there if they could not arrange one. The 1996 Act was met with significant opposition on religious grounds, and it is speculated that had the ANC done this with an open vote, it would not have passed with such a wide margin.
Even today, research shows that abortion remains highly stigmatised among South Africans, with 75.4% of people surveyed indicating that it was “always wrong” in case of family poverty, and 52.5% indicating the same for either foetal abnormality or family poverty. Provincial splits are apparent, with Gauteng and Limpopo having a > 1 odds ratio of being against abortion.
The 2003 Maputo Protocol adopted by the African Union requires countries to authorise medical abortions in cases of sexual assault, rape, incest, or where the health of the mother is endangered. This specific provision draws from the 1979 United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), whose clause on access to safe abortion was based on on Roe v Wade. However, 12 AU members have not ratified the protocol, and many of those who did have not fully brought their laws into line. South Africa is only one of six African nations that effectively allow elective abortions. Of these, Mozambique and Benin only fully changed their laws in 2020 and 2021.
Abortion opponents led by the Catholic Church and its affiliates enjoy widespread political and social support in many African countries. In 2020, Bhekisisa investigated African pregnancy crisis centres funded by US anti-abortion groups. These centres actively discourage abortion, exerting pressure on girls and women and are rife with misinformation, such as grossly exaggerating the size and development of the foetus in early stages of pregnancy. One NGO offered training to say that abortion would “turn” women’s partners gay if they got an abortion.
Thus, while the legal outcome of Roe v Wade being overturned will have no bearing on South Africa, it will conceivably embolden anti-abortion groups both domestically and abroad and likely to increase the influence they already exert in the country.
The Constitutional Court has declined to confirm the constitutional invalidity of sections of the Births and Deaths Registration Act. This comes after the Pretoria High Court found that the Act denied parents the right to bury the remains of a foetus less than 26-weeks.
The application was brought by The Voice of the Unborn Baby NPC and the Catholic Archdiocese of Durban against the ministers of Home Affairs and Health.
The applicants argued that the Act was “insensitive, hurtful and disrespectful” as it only allows for a death certificate to be issued in “stillborn” cases when the foetus is more than 26-weeks.
High Court Judge Nomonde Mngqibisa-Thusi agreed and ruled that sections of the Act are unconstitutional on the basis it “deemed a foetus less than 26-weeks to be medical waste that must be incinerated”.
However, the Constitutional Court, in a unanimous judgment, said the judge was wrong. Acting Judge Pula Tlaletsi said the applicants had submitted that the provisions of the Act had the effect that no burial order could be issued for foetuses lost through miscarriage before the 26-week mark, and that the regulations only made provision for the burial of corpses and human remains, but not foetal remains.
“While it may be true, as the applicants argued, that throughout the years the practice has been to deny parents this right in the apparent belief that this is what the law provides, matters not. The Act contains no such prohibition,” Judge Tlaletsi said.
“The relevant sections cannot be declared inconsistent with the Constitution because of such omission … the Act does not stand in the way of that burial,” he said, noting that the Act only regulated the burial of “dead human bodies or still-born children”.
The Judge said that the court was not in a position to grant the relief.
The question as to what medical staff at public hospitals must do if parents expressed the wish to bury or cremate pre-viable foetal remains was not clear, he said.
“Such a burial or cremation would no doubt require the cooperation of healthcare professionals and public hospitals would be expected to allocate the necessary resources.
“Because of the way the case was pleaded, we do not have the necessary evidence to evaluate considerations relating to how hospitals would manage this … There may be other restrictions, for example, limitations imposed by municipal regulations (regarding cemeteries and crematoriums).”
The Catholic Church, arguing that its members held “sincere religious beliefs” that they become parents from the moment of conception, said the burial right should also extend to lost pregnancies “due to human intervention”, including termination of pregnancies.
But two amici in the case — the Women’s Legal Centre Trust and the Sexual and Reproductive Justice Coalition — said this would have a profound impact on the termination of pregnancy services offered to women, and the attached confidentiality.
This burden, they said, would lead to a decrease in facilities offering termination and a diminution of sexual and reproductive rights.
The world’s first complete study of living donor uterine transplantation, published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, has found that it is an effective, safe method to remedy infertility when a functioning uterus is lacking.
After seven of the study’s nine transplants, in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment ensued. In this group of seven women, six (86%) became pregnant and gave birth. Three had two children each, making the total number of babies nine.
In terms of what is known as the ‘clinical pregnancy rate’, the study also showed good IVF results. The probability of pregnancy per individual embryo returned to a transplanted uterus was 33%, about the same as for typical IVF.
Participants followed up
Few cases were studied, the researchers observed, but the material is the world best and included extensive, long-term follow-ups of participants’ physical and mental health.
None of the donors had pelvic symptoms but, in a few, the study describes mild, partially transient symptoms in the form of discomfort or minor swelling in the legs.
After four years, health-related quality of life in the recipient group as a whole was higher than in the general population. Neither members of the recipient group nor the donors had levels of anxiety or depression that required treatment.
Growth and development of the children were monitored as well, up to age two and is, accordingly, the longest child follow-up study conducted to date in this context. Further monitoring is planned to adulthood.
Good health in the long term
“This is the first complete study that’s been done, and the results exceed expectations in terms both of clinical pregnancy rate and of the cumulative live birth rate,” said study leader Mats Brännström, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg.
“The study also shows positive health outcomes: The children born to date remain healthy and the long-term health of donors and recipients is generally good too.”
The first birth after uterine transplantation took place in Gothenburg in 2014. Another seven births followed, within the framework of the same research project, before anyone outside Sweden gave birth following uterine transplantation.
The research group has since passed on its methods and techniques through direct knowledge transfer to several research centres outside Sweden. By the end of 2021, there were an estimated 90 uterine transplants worldwide, of which 20 had been done in Sweden. Worldwide, some 50 children have been born after uterine transplantation.
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common hormonal disorder in reproductive-age women. In a study published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, women with PCOS were more likely to also have migraine, hypertension, tendinitis, osteoarthritis, and endometriosis. Affected women were also using medications more often and reported their own health to be poorer than women without PCOS.
Few studies have systematically assessed the overall comorbidity in women with PCOS, which should be of greater importance given the high costs of PCOS-related comorbidity. For example, PCOS-related type 2 diabetes alone has been estimated to carry an annual cost of $310 million in the UK and $1.77 billion in the USA. The syndrome often remains underdiagnosed despite being so common, and therefore is less represented in national databases, making it harder to assess comorbidities.
The present study included 246 women with PCOS symptoms or diagnoses and 1573 controls who were surveyed during their late reproductive years at age 46.
“PCOS is often labelled as a reproductive concern; however, in most cases this is well managed with fertility treatments. Our study underscores the need for health professionals to acknowledge the risk for several comorbidities and increased health burden related to this common syndrome,” said senior author professor Terhi T. Piltonen, MD, PhD, of the University of Oulu, in Finland. “Women should also be aware of this risk, and they should be supported by early diagnosis and treatment.”
Writing for GroundUp, Rebecca Gore lays out the challenges of access to abortion for women in South Africa’s prisons.
As the legal researcher to Justice Edwin Cameron, head of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS), I’ve visited several women’s prisons. A recent encounter with a nurse in a big overcrowded prison was a poignant reminder of the challenges women in prisons experience, especially when it comes to exercising their sexual and reproductive rights.
Cramped in her consulting rooms, the nurse shut the door to talk to me. Outside, weary inmates sighed and waited in line. We discussed how JICS might try to resolve various issues, from mental health to how regularly doctors visit.
On abortions, the nurse’s eyes sparked with alarm. She told me of a perplexing problem she is faced with when an inmate requests an abortion. Is it enough to notify the head of the prison (or area commissioner) – or must she seek their prior approval?
For her, the healthcare policy is unclear. With pressure from her superiors and rumours about another nurse being reprimanded for not obtaining prior approval, she opts for the more constrictive process.
When I raised the issue with the head of the prison, she pointed out a gap in the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998.
As a result, the prison has developed its own policy. If the inmate is above 18 years
they put their request for an abortion in writing;
the nurse facilitates the arrangements; and
the head of the prison and area commissioner are merely informed (so that they are aware of the inmates’ movements).
The head of the prison assured me that the Department of Correctional Services does not intervene. She said it is important to ensure the woman is not a minor and to have the request in writing as it shields the department from potential litigation.
Distressed by this interaction, I had to dig deeper.
There are no easily accessible statistics on abortions in South African prisons. But we do know that women comprise less than 3% of the entire prison population. Lillian Artz and Britta Rotmann have found that women prisoners are “among the most socially and economically vulnerable members” of our society. Their imprisonment has “obvious deleterious effects on both children and the remaining family members charged with childcare responsibilities.”
The Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act
The lodestar for all women seeking abortions in South Africa is the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996. The Preamble recognises “the decision to have children is fundamental to a woman’s physical, psychological and social health” and that the state shoulders the duty to provide reproductive healthcare.
The Act provides that a woman can request an abortion during the first 12 weeks of the gestation period without any constraints. A medical practitioner must be consulted from 13 to 20 weeks to identify risks such as an ongoing pregnancy that may “significantly affect the social or economic circumstances of the woman”, and after 20 weeks, when life and injury-threatening risks are present. While a minor must be advised to consult with her loved ones, she cannot be denied an abortion if she chooses not to.
The policies pertaining to women in prisons are markedly different.
The Correctional Services Act is silent on abortions. But the Department’s Regulations (last amended in 2012) provide that the “National Commissioner may approve an abortion at state expense” – though only in particular circumstances. Strikingly, these do not include when a woman requests an abortion during the first 12 weeks. And they do not extend to women seeking abortions on purely socio-economic grounds.
Unsettling questions
Unsettling questions spring to mind: Why can women prisoners not request an abortion during the first 12 weeks? Why are socio-economic grounds for abortion neglected when socio-economic issues are generally more acute behind bars? Most pressing, how can the deeply personal choice of whether to have an abortion be at the discretion of the National Commissioner?
To complicate matters further, the latest B-Orders – detailed rules the department issues – do not mention abortions. Yet, the older set states under “Women’s reproductive health” that the services rendered include “termination of pregnancy”. No further details. However, the department’s “Health Care Policy and Procedures” provide for termination of pregnancy to be “performed at state costs for medical reasons only”. What about the other legitimate reasons that warrant abortions? This is rights-throttling.
To be clear: Women imprisoned in South Africa do not have the same standard of care when it comes to accessing abortions. They have extra obstacles to overcome. And without clearly outlined and implemented policies, there is room for misuse and, worse, abuse.
More concerns crop up: Does the “equivalence of care” principle not extend to the sexual and reproductive healthcare of women prisoners? Have female inmates been overlooked in the fight for reproductive justice?
Laws and reality
The right to a woman’s bodily autonomy is a burning issue across the world. The recent exposure of a draft majority opinion from the US Supreme Court revealed a sharp repudiation of the right to abortion.
Fortunately for us, in democratic South Africa, the right to abortion is not a lightning rod for the political elite.
The Bill of Rights gives everyone the right of access to healthcare services. Critically, this includes reproductive healthcare. And is further buttressed by the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which expressly includes the right to “make decisions concerning reproduction”.
South Africa has ratified international and regional treaties, including the Maputo Protocol, that explicitly entrench the right to abortion.
Yet, there is a disturbing disparity between laws and reality.
Despite these progressive laws, many women still struggle to access safe abortions at state expense. Instead, some find themselves obliged to turn to illegal, informal and often dangerous means. This has awful consequences, in a country with high levels of sexual and gender-based violence coupled with avoidable maternal deaths.
Hurdles to safe and legal abortions, such as lack of information, stigma, judgmental attitudes and mistreatment by healthcare workers, have been identified by Amnesty International.
These barriers lead to the proliferation of illegal and informal abortion providers and have a brutal and often life-imperilling impact on women from marginalised communities. For instance, a sex worker explained that she would opt for a “backdoor” provider. Why? Because for her, privacy has to trump safety. A recent article in GroundUp revealed how poor treatment and stigma have led to more (sometimes botched) illegal abortions among sex workers.
Equivalence of care
When it comes to prisons, we must remember that by and large prisons are designed with men in mind. It is for this reason that the United Nations Bangkok Rules acknowledges that women prisoners “are one of the vulnerable groups that have specific needs and requirements”, including female-centric healthcare needs. The Rules reaffirm the “equivalence of care” principle – those in prison have a right to the same standard of healthcare as the general public.
When it comes to women prisoners’ access to abortions, the reproductive justice framework is crucial. Researchers from the Black Women’s Health Imperative state that reproductive justice encompasses the “social, political and economic inequalities that affect a woman’s ability to access reproductive health care services”.
According to Rachel Roth, abortions are “deeply personal” and “shaped by the larger political, economic and social context of women’s lives.” In the carceral setting, “[e]very dimension of reproductive justice is negatively affected.” In addition, the Prison Policy Initiative observes that in the US context there are “insurmountable barriers” to accessing abortions behind bars and “people behind bars often have very few – if any – choices and autonomy when it comes to their reproductive health and decisions”.
Political will
With political will, prison policies can be changed so that the law extends abortion rights to these women and guards the exercise of these rights.
JICS is committed to working on this.
But, we need to go further.
We need to ensure that women behind bars know their rights through education and awareness campaigns – and that healthcare workers are well-trained and do not deter or stigmatise abortion seekers.
We must establish independent healthcare in prisons, a point recently raised by Justice Cameron. Without independent healthcare, women prisoners’ access to abortions will be limited by the closed-off and security-focused nature of our prisons. My encounter with the nurse would not have been as frank and candid if a correctional official had been present.
South Africa has a long way to go to guarantee all women and girls access to safe, free and legal abortions with respect for their dignity, privacy, health and bodily integrity. In this fierce battle for reproductive justice, we must break the silence and not perpetuate the invisibility of women and girls behind bars.
Women undergoing operations are not being routinely informed that a common anaesthetic may reduce their contraception’s effectiveness, putting them at risk of an unplanned pregnancy, suggests new research which is being presented at Euroanaesthesia, the annual meeting of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC).
The drug sugammadex is widely used in anaesthesia. Administered towards the end of the operation, ahead of waking the patient up, it reverses the action of the neuromuscular blocking drugs rocuronium and vecuronium given earlier in the procedure to relax the patient’s muscles.
Sugammadex is known to interact with progesterone, possibly reducing the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives, including the progesterone-only pill (mini-pill), combined pill, vaginal rings, implants and intra-uterine devices.
Current guidance is to inform women of child-bearing age (WCBA) that they have received the drug and, due to increased risk of contraceptive failure, advise those taking oral hormonal contraceptives to follow the missed pill advice in the leaflet that comes with their contraceptives and advise those using other types of hormonal contraceptive to use an additional non-hormonal means of contraception for seven days.
However in the experience of the authors, robust methods for identifying at-risk patients and informing them of the associated risk of contraceptive failures is not common practice across anaesthetic departments within the UK, and likely further afield.
To find out more, Dr Neha Passi, Dr Matt Oliver and colleagues at the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust surveyed anaesthetists at their hospital trust on their use of sugammadex and carried out a retrospective audit of sugammadex use in the Trust.
A seven-question survey was sent to all anaesthetists at the Trust. Including consultants, junior doctors and physician assistants, this numbered almost 150 professionals.
Of the 82 anaesthetists who responded, 94% said they were aware of the risk of contraceptive failure – but 70% of respondents reported they do not routinely discuss sugammadex with patients who received it.
During the audit, 65 WCBA patients were given sugammadex, and 48 of these should have received advice on the risks of contraceptive failure. There was no record of it, however, in the medical notes of any of the 48 women. (The other 17’s medical history meant they weren’t at risk of pregnancy and so not eligible for the advice.)
Dr Passi said: “It is concerning that we are so seldom informing patients of the risk of contraceptive failure following sugammadex use.
“Use of sugammadex is expected to rise as it becomes cheaper in the future and ensuring that women this receiving medicine are aware it may increase their risk of unwanted pregnancy must be a priority.”
Dr Oliver added: “We only studied one hospital trust but we expect the results to be similar in elsewhere in the UK.”
Dr Passi adds: “It is important to note, however, that most patients receiving an anaesthetic do not need a muscle relaxant2 and that sugammadex is one several drugs available to reverse muscle relaxation.”
In response to their findings, the study’s authors have created patient information leaflets and letters and programmed the Trust’s electronic patient record system to identify ‘at-risk’ patients and deliver electronic prompts to the anaesthetists caring for them in the perioperative period.
Sugammadex is the only anaesthetic drug known to have this effect.
Doctors have come out in support of criticism of the conditions at Rahima Moosa Mother and Child Hospital (RMMCH) in Johannesburg. The dire situation at the hospital, which has reportedly resulted in numerous patient deaths, has been highlighted on a number of occasions.
A year ago, Daily Maverick visited RMMCH after concerns being voiced by doctors and patients, and found a number of problems there. This year, a viral video clip showed pregnant women sleeping on the floor at the Gauteng hospital, and Daily Maverick returned to found the situation had worsened, yet the hospital’s CEO Dr Nozuko Mkabayi emphatically denied anything was amiss.
Dr Mkabayi said that although the hospital experiences periodic drug stockouts and equipment shortages, “Patients’ lives are not in danger and there is enough essential equipment. The hospital equipment committee is functional in ensuring adequate equipment needs for patient care.”
Then paediatrician Dr Tim de Maayer wrote an open letter to the Department of Health which sent further shockwaves through the media.
He said that his patients were dying due to a simple lack of basic resources. Drugs were in short supply; staff were massively overloaded; the hospital’s generators were ill-equipped to handle load shedding; and even water supply was threatened, causing hospital-acquired infections to spread “like wildfire”. These issues, Dr Maayer noted, had been raised with management before.
Gift of the Givers had stepped in and sunk a borehole to assist with the water supply situation – although a charity having to come to the rescue of a public hospital is an embarrassment.
Department of Health spokesperson Kwara Kekana acknowledged that the infrastructure was lacking:
“The hospital has over the past decade seen an increase in patient load with no increase in infrastructure development,” she said. “It has steadily increased intake from 10 000 deliveries to 16 000 deliveries per year, which is the second highest in the country.”
“To add more capacity, the hospital has repurposed 22 beds to accommodate more antenatal patients in the last two years making a total of 56 antenatal beds, which is still insufficient.”
RMMCH had requested exemption from the load shedding schedule, she noted.
In an interview with eNCA, Professor Haroon Saloojee, head of community paediatrics at Wits Universiy, said that he “wholeheartedly” agreed with Dr Mayeer, saying that, “what I think he is describing is the ‘complete storm'” and it “contributes to a reduction in quality care.
“[…]it’s the issue of inadequate staff, just not enough doctors but particularly nurses for the patient load – and certainly for the situation at Rahima Moosa has been far worsened that Charlotte Maxeke has been closed for so long and they’ve had to take the load. So a very busy hospital with a greatly increased number of deliveries as the load has become more. Added to that a problem with getting adequate equipment, he makes that point. And to add to that we’ve had both the crises with water availability and to top that all the regular loadshedding which means the generators weren’t coping.
“So you end up with a major storm and shouldn’t surprise then that children’s lives get affected.”
Regarding procurement issues such as running out of bread he remarked, “I’m sure there’s a lot of bureaucracy, but a lot of it is the simple management of the day-to-day running of a hospital, including how it places accounts, and the truth is that many hospitals are forfeiting at that.”
Since his letter went out, Dr Maayer has said there has been some reaction from the government, with President Ramaphosa reportedly wanting to see a response from RMMCH’s CEO. Deputy Health Minister, Sibongiseni Dhlomo has said that the letter is worrying and will be looked into.
A new study found that caesarean delivery, either with or without labour, or elective or emergency, compared to vaginal birth does not impact on the likelihood of food allergy at 12 months of age. Led by the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), the study was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.
Associate Professor Rachel Peters of the Children’s Research Institute (MCRI) said the association between food allergy and mode of delivery remained unclear due to the lack of studies with food challenge outcomes.
The study involved 2045 infants from the HealthNuts study, with data linked to a perinatal database for detailed information on birth factors.
The study found that, of the 30% born by caesarean, 12.7% had a food allergy compared to 13.2% born vaginally.
“We found no meaningful differences in food allergy for infants born by caesarean delivery compared to those born by vaginal delivery,” Associate Professor Peters said. “Additionally, there was no difference in the likelihood of food allergy if the caesarean was performed before or after the onset of labour, or whether it was an emergency or elective caesarean.”
Associate Professor Peters said it was thought a potential link between caesarean birth and allergy could reflect differences in early microbial exposure from the mother’s vagina during delivery.
“The infant immune system undergoes rapid development during the neonatal period,” she said. Caesarean delivery may interfere with the normal development of the immune system, as there is less exposure to the mother’s vagina and gut bacteria, influencing the baby’s own microbiome. “However, this doesn’t appear to play a major role in the development of food allergy.”
Australia has the highest rates of childhood food allergy in the world, with about one in 10 infants and one in 20 children over five years of age having a food allergy.
These findings come as other MCRI-led research found 30% of peanut allergy and 90% of egg allergy resolves naturally by age six.
Associate Professor Peters said the resolution rates were great news for families and were even a little higher than what was previously thought.
The results, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, found infants with early-onset and severe eczema and multiple allergies were less likely to outgrow their egg and peanut allergies.
Associate Professor Peters said these infants should be targeted for early intervention trials that evaluate new treatments for food allergy such as oral immunotherapy.
“Prioritising research of these and future interventions for infants less likely to naturally outgrow their allergy would yield the most benefit for healthcare resources and research funding,” she said.
