Analysis of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes of Pregnant Women with Syphilis and Maternal-Infant Serological Association in Changzhou, China, 2015–2019

Abstract

Background. Although the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of syphilis program in China has achieved national coverage for 7 years, controversy still exists regarding the treatment of syphilis and the serological significance of syphilis. Objective. To explore the occurrence and influencing factors of adverse pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women with syphilis in Changzhou from 2015-2019 and to further analyze the impact of syphilis serologic titers on perinatal outcomes and neonatal serologic outcomes. Methods. Syphilis-infected pregnant women reported in Changzhou City from 2015 to 2019 were selected as the study population (data were obtained from the “China Information System for Prevention of Mother-to-child Transmission of AIDS, Syphilis and Hepatitis B.” Demographic characteristics, laboratory tests, and medication were collected to describe adverse pregnancy outcomes and the distribution of non-pale leptospiral antibody titers during pregnancy. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the factors influencing adverse pregnancy outcomes. We also compared differences in syphilis titers among mothers who received different interventions, differences in serologic outcomes of their children, and correlations between them. Results. For mothers with syphilis infection, we found no treatment during pregnancy (OR =1.70) and an initial titer greater than 1 : 8 (OR =2.28) to be risk factors. For treated pregnant women, increasing age (OR =1.08), lack of standardized treatment (OR =1.87), and initial titer greater than 1 : 8 (OR =1.69) were risk factors, while previous parity was a protective factor (OR =0.62). For untreated pregnant women, marital status (OR =2.40) and initial titers greater than 1 : 8 (OR =3.57) were risk factors. There were statistically significant differences ( P < 0.01 ) in serologic titer changes, time to antibody regression, and time to exclusion of syphilis infection in children of pregnant women with syphilis infection after receiving different interventions during pregnancy, but different time distributions of interventions had no effect on these three indicators. Conclusion. Pregnant women with syphilis should actively cooperate with their doctors in the standardized treatment of pregnancy, and doctors should also pay more attention to pregnant women with syphilis whose initial titers are greater than 1 : 8. High-quality prenatal care is a key component in interrupting mother-to-child transmission of syphilis and preventing various adverse pregnancy outcomes. The adaptation of standardized treatment protocols for pregnant women with syphilis in China is a strong proof of the progress of precision medicine.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes and associated risk factors among pregnant women with syphilis during 2013–2018 in Hunan, China

“…It should be noted that primary syphilis in males typically presents as a single, painless, Findings from the present study show that pregnant women with syphilis younger than 20 years or older than 35 years are more likely to have adverse pregnancy outcomes. Bai et al (37) observed that there is a statistical difference in age distribution between normal pregnancy outcomes and adverse pregnancy outcomes of gestational syphilis. The study of Dou et al (38) also showed that syphilis infected pregnant women younger than 20 years are more likely to have adverse pregnancy outcomes compared with those between 20 and 34 years old.…”

Retracted: Analysis of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes of Pregnant Women with Syphilis and Maternal-Infant Serological Association in Changzhou, China, 2015–2019

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”