Oral antihypertensive regimens (nifedipine retard, labetalol, and methyldopa) for management of severe hypertension in pregnancy: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the most common medical disorder in pregnancy, complicating one in ten pregnancies. Treatment of severely increased blood pressure is widely recommended to reduce the risk for maternal complications. Regimens for the acute treatment of severe hypertension typically include intravenous medications. Although effective, these drugs require venous access and careful fetal monitoring and might not be feasible in busy or low-resource environments. We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of three oral drugs, labetalol, nifedipine retard, and methyldopa for the management of severe hypertension in pregnancy. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we compared these oral antihypertensives in two public hospitals in Nagpur, India. Pregnant women were eligible for the trial if they were aged at least 18 years; they were pregnant with fetuses that had reached a gestational age of at least 28 weeks; they required pharmacological blood pressure control for severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥110 mm Hg); and were able to swallow oral medications. Women were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg oral nifedipine, 200 mg oral labetalol (hourly, in both of which the dose could be escalated if hypertension was maintained), or 1000 mg methyldopa (a single dose, without dose escalation). Masking of participants, study investigators, and care providers to group allocation was not possible because of different escalation protocols in the study groups. The primary outcome was blood pressure control (defined as 120-150 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and 70-100 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure) within 6 h with no adverse outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01912677, and the Clinical Trial Registry, India, number ctri/2013/08/003866. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2015, and Aug 21, 2017, we screened 2307 women for their inclusion in the study. We excluded 1413 (61%) women who were ineligible, declined to participate, had impending eclampsia, were in active labour, or had a combination of these factors. 11 (4%) women in the nifedipine group, ten (3%) women in the labetalol group, and 11 (4%) women in the methyldopa group were ineligible for treatment (because they had only one qualifying blood pressure measurement) or had treatment stopped (because of delivery or transfer elsewhere). 894 (39%) women were randomly assigned to a treatment group and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 298 (33%) women were assigned to receive nifedipine, 295 (33%) women were assigned to receive labetalol, and 301 (33%) women were assigned to receive methyldopa. The primary outcome was significantly more common in women in the nifedipine group than in those in the methyldopa group (249 [84%] women vs 230 [76%] women; p=0·03). However, the primary outcome did not differ between the nifedipine and labetalol groups (249 [84%] women vs 228 [77%] women; p=0·05) or the labetalol and methyldopa groups (p=0·80). Seven serious adverse events (1% of births) were reported during the study: one (<1%) woman in the labetalol group had an intrapartum seizure and six (1%) neonates (one [<1%] neonate in the nifedipine group, two [1%] neonates in the labetalol group, and three [1%] neonates in the methyldopa group) were stillborn. No birth had more than one adverse event. INTERPRETATION: All oral antihypertensives reduced blood pressure to the reference range in most women. As single drugs, nifedipine retard use resulted in a greater frequency of primary outcome attainment than labetalol or methyldopa use. All three oral drugs-methyldopa, nifedipine, and labetalol-are viable initial options for treating severe hypertension in low-resource settings. FUNDING: PREEMPT (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; grantee of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).

Safety, efficacy and acceptability of outpatient mifepristone-misoprostol medical abortion through 70 days since last menstrual period in public sector facilities in Mexico City.

Extensive evidence exists regarding the efficacy and acceptability of medical abortion through 63 days since last menstrual period (LMP). In Mexico City's Secretariat of Health (SSDF) outpatient facilities, mifepristone-misoprostol medical abortion is the first-line approach for abortion care in this pregnancy range. Recent research demonstrates continued high rates of complete abortion through 70 days LMP. To expand access to legal abortion services in Mexico City (where abortion is legal through 12 weeks LMP), this study sought to assess the efficacy and acceptability of the standard outpatient approach through 70 days in two SSDF points of service. One thousand and one women seeking pregnancy termination were enrolled and given 200 mg mifepristone followed by 800 µg misoprostol 24-48 hours later. Women were asked to return to the clinic one week later for evaluation. The great majority of women (93.3%; 95% CI: 91.6-94.8) had complete abortions. Women with pregnancies ≤ 8 weeks LMP had significantly higher success rates than women in the 9th or 10th weeks (94.9% vs. 90.5%; p = 0.01). The difference in success rates between the 9th and 10th weeks was not significant (90.0% vs. 91.2%; p = 0.71). The majority of women found the side effects (82.9%) and the use of misoprostol (84.4%) to be very acceptable or acceptable. This study provides additional evidence supporting an extended outpatient medical abortion regimen through 10 weeks LMP.

Accessing Sexual and Reproductive Health Information and Services: A Mixed Methods Study of Young Women's Needs and Experiences in Soweto, South Africa.

Young women and girls in South Africa are at high risk of unintended pregnancy and HIV. Previous studies have reported barriers to contraceptive and other sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services among young women in this context. We aimed to assess young women's SRH knowledge and experiences and to determine how they get SRH information and services in Soweto, South Africa using quantitative and qualitative methods. Young women, aged 18-24, recruited from primary health clinics and a shopping mall, reported that they have access to SRH information and know where to obtain services. However there are challenges to accessing and utilizing information and services including providers' unsupportive attitudes, uneven power dynamics in relationships and communication issues with parents and community members. There is a need to assist young women in understanding the significance of SRH information. They need access to age-appropriate, youth-friendly services in order to have healthy sexual experiences.

Calibrated delivery drape versus indirect gravimetric technique for the measurement of blood loss after delivery: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Trials of interventions for PPH prevention and treatment rely on different measurement methods for the quantification of blood loss and identification of PPH. This study's objective was to compare measures of blood loss obtained from two different measurement protocols frequently used in studies. METHODS: Nine hundred women presenting for vaginal delivery were randomized to a direct method (a calibrated delivery drape) or an indirect method (a shallow bedpan placed below the buttocks and weighing the collected blood and blood-soaked gauze/pads). Blood loss was measured from immediately after delivery for at least one hour or until active bleeding stopped. RESULTS: Significantly greater mean blood loss was recorded by the direct than by the indirect measurement technique (253.9 mL and 195.3 mL, respectively; difference = 58.6 mL (95% CI: 31-86); p < 0.001). Almost twice as many women in the direct than in the indirect group measured blood loss > 500 mL (8.7% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests a real and significant difference in blood loss measurement between these methods. Research using blood loss measurement as an endpoint needs to be interpreted taking measurement technique into consideration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01885845.

Sublingual misoprostol versus standard surgical care for treatment of incomplete abortion in five sub-Saharan African countries.

BACKGROUND: In low-resource settings, where abortion is highly restricted and self-induced abortions are common, access to post-abortion care (PAC) services, especially treatment of incomplete terminations, is a priority. Standard post-abortion care has involved surgical intervention but can be hard to access in these areas. Misoprostol provides an alternative to surgical intervention that could increase access to abortion care. We sought to gather additional evidence regarding the efficacy of 400 mcg of sublingual misoprostol vs. standard surgical care for treatment of incomplete abortion in the environments where need for economical non-surgical treatments may be most useful. METHODS: A total of 860 women received either sublingual misoprostol or standard surgical care for treatment of incomplete abortion in a multi-site randomized trial. Women with confirmed incomplete abortion, defined as past or present history of vaginal bleeding during pregnancy and an open cervical os, were eligible to participate. Participants returned for follow-up one week later to confirm clinical status. If abortion was incomplete at that time, women were offered an additional follow-up visit or immediate surgical evacuation. RESULTS: Both misoprostol and surgical evacuation are highly effective treatments for incomplete abortion (misoprostol: 94.4%, surgical: 100.0%). Misoprostol treatment resulted in a somewhat lower chance of success than standard surgical practice (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.89-0.92). Both tolerability of side effects and women's satisfaction were similar in the two study arms. CONCLUSION: Misoprostol, much easier to provide than surgery in low-resource environments, can be used safely, successfully, and satisfactorily for treatment of incomplete abortion. Focus should shift to program implementation, including task-shifting the provision of post-abortion care to mid- and low- level providers, training and assurance of drug availability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00466999 and NCT01539408.

Person-centered, high-quality care from a distance: A qualitative study of patient experiences of TelAbortion, a model for direct-to-patient medication abortion by mail in the United States.

CONTEXT: Direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion allows people to receive mifepristone and misoprostol for medication abortion in their home without requiring an in-person visit with a healthcare provider. This method has high efficacy and safety, but less is known about the person-centered quality of care provided with telemedicine. METHODS: We interviewed 45 participants from the TelAbortion study of direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion in the United States from January to July 2020. Semi-structured qualitative interviews queried their choices, barriers to care, expectations for care, actual abortion experience, and suggestions for improvement. We developed a codebook through an iterative, inductive process and performed content and thematic analyses. RESULTS: The experience of direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion met the person-centered domains of dignity, autonomy, privacy, communication, social support, supportive care, trust, and environment. Four themes relate to the person-centered framework for reproductive health equity: (1) Participants felt well-supported and safe with TelAbortion; (2) Participants had autonomy in their care which led to feelings of empowerment; (3) TelAbortion exceeded expectations; and (4) Challenges arose when interfacing with the healthcare system outside of TelAbortion. Participants perceived abortion stigma which often led them to avoid traditional care and experienced enacted stigma during encounters with non-study healthcare workers. CONCLUSION: TelAbortion is a high quality, person-centered care model that can empower patients seeking care in an increasingly challenging abortion context.