Randomized Trial of Early Detection and Treatment of Postpartum Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Delays in the detection or treatment of postpartum hemorrhage can result in complications or death. A blood-collection drape can help provide objective, accurate, and early diagnosis of postpartum hemorrhage, and delayed or inconsistent use of effective interventions may be able to be addressed by a treatment bundle. METHODS: We conducted an international, cluster-randomized trial to assess a multicomponent clinical intervention for postpartum hemorrhage in patients having vaginal delivery. The intervention included a calibrated blood-collection drape for early detection of postpartum hemorrhage and a bundle of first-response treatments (uterine massage, oxytocic drugs, tranexamic acid, intravenous fluids, examination, and escalation), supported by an implementation strategy (intervention group). Hospitals in the control group provided usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of severe postpartum hemorrhage (blood loss, ≥1000 ml), laparotomy for bleeding, or maternal death from bleeding. Key secondary implementation outcomes were the detection of postpartum hemorrhage and adherence to the treatment bundle. RESULTS: A total of 80 secondary-level hospitals across Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Tanzania, in which 210,132 patients underwent vaginal delivery, were randomly assigned to the intervention group or the usual-care group. Among hospitals and patients with data, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1.6% of the patients in the intervention group, as compared with 4.3% of those in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.50; P<0.001). Postpartum hemorrhage was detected in 93.1% of the patients in the intervention group and in 51.1% of those in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.41 to 1.76), and the treatment bundle was used in 91.2% and 19.4%, respectively (rate ratio, 4.94; 95% CI, 3.88 to 6.28). CONCLUSIONS: Early detection of postpartum hemorrhage and use of bundled treatment led to a lower risk of the primary outcome, a composite of severe postpartum hemorrhage, laparotomy for bleeding, or death from bleeding, than usual care among patients having vaginal delivery. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; E-MOTIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04341662.).

COHESION: a core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in outcomes reported in trials of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) makes evaluating the effectiveness of treatments difficult. Developing a core outcome set for NE treatment would enable researchers to measure and report the same outcomes in future trials. This would minimise waste, ensure relevant outcomes are measured and enable evidence synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop a core outcome set for treating NE. METHODS: Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature and interviews with parents were prioritised by stakeholders (n = 99 parents/caregivers, n = 101 healthcare providers, and n = 22 researchers/ academics) in online Delphi surveys. Agreement on the outcomes was achieved at online consensus meetings attended by n = 10 parents, n = 18 healthcare providers, and n = 13 researchers/ academics. RESULTS: Seven outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: survival; brain injury on imaging; neurological status at discharge; cerebral palsy; general cognitive ability; quality of life of the child, and adverse events related to treatment. CONCLUSION: We developed a core outcome set for the treatment of NE. This will allow future trials to measure and report the same outcomes and ensure results can be compared. Future work should identify how best to measure the COS. IMPACT: We have identified seven outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. Previously, a core outcome set for neonatal encephalopathy treatments did not exist. This will help to reduce heterogeneity in outcomes reported in clinical trials and other studies, and help researchers identify the best treatments for neonatal encephalopathy.

Platelet response to aspirin in UK and Irish pregnancy cohorts: a genome-wide approach.

A multi-center prospective cross-sectional and genome-wide association study (GWAS) recruited pregnant women taking low dose aspirin. Objectives were to (i) develop pregnancy-specific 95% reference intervals for a range of laboratory based platelet function tests (PFTs); (ii) select an optimal and acceptable PFT that reflected aspirin's COX-1 inhibition in women with confirmed aspirin adherence in pregnancy; and (iii) identify genomic variants that may influence pregnant women's platelet response to aspirin.The study included two independent cohorts of pregnant women. A range of PFTs and matched phenotyping with urinary 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (11DTXB2) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy detection of urinary salicyluric acid as a measure of aspirin adherence were performed. Genome-wide data was acquired from the UK Biobank Axiom® (Thermo Fisher Scientific). 11DTXB2 in combination with adherence testing with NMR salicyluric acid was an accurate and acceptable testing strategy for detecting biochemical aspirin responsiveness in pregnant women, with the provision of relevant reference ranges. GWAS meta-analysis found no significant single nucleotide polymorphisms in association with response to aspirin in pregnancy. Further evaluation in relation to effective dosing of aspirin in pregnancy and optimizing the benefits to specific subgroups should now be a priority for future research.

Uterotonic agents for first-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more after birth, is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all women giving birth should receive a prophylactic uterotonic agent. Despite the routine administration of a uterotonic agent for prevention, PPH remains a common complication causing one-quarter of all maternal deaths globally. When prevention fails and PPH occurs, further administration of uterotonic agents as 'first-line' treatment is recommended. However, there is uncertainty about which uterotonic agent is best for the 'first-line' treatment of PPH. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) with the least side-effects for PPH treatment, and generate a meaningful ranking among all available agents according to their relative effectiveness and side-effect profile. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 May 2020), and the reference lists of all retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents for the treatment of PPH were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed each trial for risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were additional blood loss of 500 mL or more after recruitment to the trial until cessation of active bleeding and the composite outcome of maternal death or severe morbidity. Secondary outcomes included blood loss-related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, but due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to conduct the planned network meta-analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials, involving 3738 women in 10 countries, were included in this review. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Randomised women gave birth vaginally, except in one small trial, where women gave birth either vaginally or by caesarean section. Across the seven trials (14 trial arms) the following agents were used: six trial arms used oxytocin alone; four trial arms used misoprostol plus oxytocin; three trial arms used misoprostol; one trial arm used Syntometrine® (oxytocin and ergometrine fixed-dose combination) plus oxytocin infusion. Pairwise meta-analysis of two trials (1787 participants), suggests that misoprostol, as first-line treatment uterotonic agent, probably increases the risk of blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 2.14, moderate-certainty) compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol administration may increase the incidence of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.64). The data comparing misoprostol with oxytocin is imprecise, with a wide range of treatment effects for the additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.02, low-certainty), maternal death or severe morbidity (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.72, low-certainty, based on one study n = 809 participants, as the second study had zero events), and the use of additional uterotonics (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.94, low-certainty). The risk of side-effects may be increased with the use of misoprostol compared with oxytocin: vomiting (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.47, high-certainty) and fever (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 3.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 18.18, low-certainty). According to pairwise meta-analysis of four trials (1881 participants) generating high-certainty evidence, misoprostol plus oxytocin makes little or no difference to the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05) and to blood transfusion (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17) compared with oxytocin. We cannot rule out an important benefit of using the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination over oxytocin alone, for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06, moderate-certainty). We also cannot rule out important benefits or harms for additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.34, moderate-certainty, 3 trials, 1814 participants, one study reported zero events), and maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.39, moderate-certainty). Misoprostol plus oxytocin increases the incidence of fever (4 trials, 1866 participants, RR 3.07, 95% CI 2.62 to 3.61, high-certainty), and vomiting (2 trials, 1482 participants, RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.95, high-certainty) compared with oxytocin alone. For all outcomes of interest, the available evidence on the misoprostol versus Syntometrine® plus oxytocin combination was of very low-certainty and these effects remain unclear. Although network meta-analysis was not performed, we were able to compare the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination with misoprostol alone through the common comparator of oxytocin. This indirect comparison suggests that the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination probably reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99, moderate-certainty) and may reduce the risk of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89, low-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. The combination makes little or no difference to vomiting (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59, high-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. Misoprostol plus oxytocin compared to misoprostol alone are compatible with a wide range of treatment effects for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.26, low-certainty), maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.24, low-certainty), use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.73, low-certainty), and fever (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.77, low-certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that oxytocin used as first-line treatment of PPH probably is more effective than misoprostol with less side-effects. Adding misoprostol to the conventional treatment of oxytocin probably makes little or no difference to effectiveness outcomes, and is also associated with more side-effects. The evidence for most uterotonic agents used as first-line treatment of PPH is limited, with no evidence found for commonly used agents, such as injectable prostaglandins, ergometrine, and Syntometrine®.

Updated guidance for the management of twin and triplet pregnancies from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, UK: What's new that may improve perinatal outcomes?

In September 2019, NICE published updated guidance on the management of multiple pregnancy (NG 137). Many of the previous recommendations for care are upheld but there have been important changes: increased frequency of combined ultrasound/specialist antenatal care appointments for pregnancies containing a monochorionic placenta (twins and triplets), increased frequency of ultrasound monitoring in all triplet pregnancies, changes in the definition of selective growth restriction and its subsequent referral pathways, the introduction of some monitoring for twin (or triplet) anemia polycythemia sequence in monochorionic pregnancies (albeit in complex pregnancies or at an advanced stage), and a recommended timing of birth for any pregnancy with monoamniotic fetuses. New recommendations have been made for mode of delivery, fetal monitoring in labor, maternal analgesia, and the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage. The absence of any recommendation relating to the prevention of preterm birth is notable. The basis and implications of the updates that may improve perinatal outcomes are discussed.

Antiplatelet agents for preventing pre-eclampsia and its complications.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is associated with deficient intravascular production of prostacyclin, a vasodilator, and excessive production of thromboxane, a vasoconstrictor and stimulant of platelet aggregation. These observations led to the hypotheses that antiplatelet agents, low-dose aspirin in particular, might prevent or delay development of pre-eclampsia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antiplatelet agents, such as aspirin and dipyridamole, when given to women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 March 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search in September 2019 and added the results to the awaiting classification section of the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials comparing antiplatelet agents with either placebo or no antiplatelet agent were included. Studies only published in abstract format were eligible for inclusion if sufficient information was available. We would have included cluster-randomised trials in the analyses along with individually-randomised trials, if any had been identified in our search strategy. Quasi-random studies were excluded. Participants were pregnant women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia. Interventions were administration of an antiplatelet agent (such as low-dose aspirin or dipyridamole), comparisons were either placebo or no antiplatelet. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For this update we incorporated individual participant data (IPD) from trials with this available, alongside aggregate data (AD) from trials where it was not, in order to enable reliable subgroup analyses and inclusion of two key new outcomes. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-seven trials (40,249 women, and their babies) were included, although three trials (relating to 233 women) did not contribute data to the meta-analysis. Nine of the trials contributing data were large (> 1000 women recruited), accounting for 80% of women recruited. Although the trials took place in a wide range of countries, all of the nine large trials involved only women in high-income and/or upper middle-income countries. IPD were available for 36 trials (34,514 women), including all but one of the large trials. Low-dose aspirin alone was the intervention in all the large trials, and most trials overall. Dose in the large trials was 50 mg (1 trial, 1106 women), 60 mg (5 trials, 22,322 women), 75mg (1 trial, 3697 women) 100 mg (1 trial, 3294 women) and 150 mg (1 trial, 1776 women). Most studies were either low risk of bias or unclear risk of bias; and the large trials were all low risk of bas. Antiplatelet agents versus placebo/no treatment The use of antiplatelet agents reduced the risk of proteinuric pre-eclampsia by 18% (36,716 women, 60 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.88; high-quality evidence), number needed to treat for one women to benefit (NNTB) 61 (95% CI 45 to 92). There was a small (9%) reduction in the RR for preterm birth <37 weeks (35,212 women, 47 trials; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95, high-quality evidence), NNTB 61 (95% CI 42 to 114), and a 14% reduction infetal deaths, neonatal deaths or death before hospital discharge (35,391 babies, 52 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95; high-quality evidence), NNTB 197 (95% CI 115 to 681). Antiplatelet agents slightly reduced the risk of small-for-gestational age babies (35,761 babies, 50 trials; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92; high-quality evidence), NNTB 146 (95% CI 90 to 386), and pregnancies with serious adverse outcome (a composite outcome including maternal death, baby death, pre-eclampsia, small-for-gestational age, and preterm birth) (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96; 17,382 women; 13 trials, high-quality evidence), NNTB 54 (95% CI 34 to 132). Antiplatelet agents probably slightly increase postpartum haemorrhage > 500 mL (23,769 women, 19 trials; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; moderate-quality evidence due to clinical heterogeneity), and they probably marginally increase the risk of placental abruption, although for this outcome the evidence was downgraded due to a wide confidence interval including the possibility of no effect (30,775 women; 29 trials; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54; moderate-quality evidence). Data from two large trials which assessed children at aged 18 months (including results from over 5000 children), did not identify clear differences in development between the two groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Administering low-dose aspirin to pregnant women led to small-to-moderate benefits, including reductions in pre-eclampsia (16 fewer per 1000 women treated), preterm birth (16 fewer per 1000 treated), the baby being born small-for-gestational age (seven fewer per 1000 treated) and fetal or neonatal death (five fewer per 1000 treated). Overall, administering antiplatelet agents to 1000 women led to 20 fewer pregnancies with serious adverse outcomes. The quality of evidence for all these outcomes was high. Aspirin probably slightly increased the risk of postpartum haemorrhage of more than 500 mL, however, the quality of evidence for this outcome was downgraded to moderate, due to concerns of clinical heterogeneity in measurements of blood loss. Antiplatelet agents probably marginally increase placental abruption, but the quality of the evidence was downgraded to moderate due to low event numbers and thus wide 95% CI. Overall, antiplatelet agents improved outcomes, and at these doses appear to be safe. Identifying women who are most likely to respond to low-dose aspirin would improve targeting of treatment. As almost all the women in this review were recruited to the trials after 12 weeks' gestation, it is unclear whether starting treatment before 12 weeks' would have additional benefits without any increase in adverse effects. While there was some indication that higher doses of aspirin would be more effective, further studies would be warranted to examine this.

Antiplatelet therapy before or after 16 weeks' gestation for preventing preeclampsia: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimum time for commencing antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of preeclampsia and its complications is unclear. Aggregate data meta-analyses suggest that aspirin is more effective if given prior to 16 weeks' gestation, but data are limited because of an inability to place women in the correct gestational age subgroup from relevant trials. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to use the large existing individual participant data set from the Perinatal Antiplatelet Review of International Studies Collaboration to assess whether the treatment effects of antiplatelet agents on preeclampsia and its complications vary based on whether treatment is started before or after 16 weeks' gestation. STUDY DESIGN: A meta-analysis of individual participant data including 32,217 women and 32,819 babies recruited to 31 randomized trials comparing low-dose aspirin or other antiplatelet agents with placebo or no treatment for the prevention of preeclampsia has been published previously. Using this existing data set, we performed a prespecified subgroup analysis based on gestation at randomization to antiplatelet agents before 16 weeks, compared with at or after 16 weeks, for 4 of the main outcomes prespecified in the Perinatal Antiplatelet Review of International Studies protocol: preeclampsia, death of baby, preterm birth before 34 weeks, and small-for-gestational-age baby. Individual participant data for the subgroups were combined in a meta-analysis using RevMan software. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. The χ2 test for interaction was used to assess statistically significant (P < .05) differences in treatment effect between subgroups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the effects of antiplatelet therapy for women randomized before 16 weeks' gestation compared with those randomized at or after 16 weeks for any of the 4 prespecified outcomes: preeclampsia, relative risk, 0.90, (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.03; 17 trials, 9241 women) for <16 weeks and relative risk, 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.98; 22 trials, 21,429 women) for ≥16 weeks (interaction test, P = .98); death of baby, relative risk, 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.09; 15 trials, 8626 women) for <16 weeks and relative risk, 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.07; 21 trials, 22,336 women) for ≥16 weeks (interaction test, P = .80); preterm birth prior to 34 weeks, relative risk, 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.04; 19 trials, 9155 women) for <16 weeks and relative risk, 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.00; 25 trials, 22,117 women) for ≥16 weeks (interaction test, P = .91); and small-for-gestational-age baby, relative risk, 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.94; 13 trials, 6393 women) for <16 weeks and relative risk, 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.08; 18 trials, 14,996 women) for ≥16 weeks (interaction test, P = .08). CONCLUSION: The effect of low-dose aspirin and other antiplatelet agents on preeclampsia and its complications is consistent, regardless of whether treatment is started before or after 16 weeks' gestation. Women at an increased risk of preeclampsia should be offered antiplatelet therapy, regardless of whether they are first seen before or after 16 weeks' gestation.

Questioning approaches to consent in time critical obstetric trials: findings from a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Trial legislation enables research to be conducted without prior consent (RWPC) in emergency situations, yet this approach has rarely been used in time-critical obstetric trials. This study explored views and experiences of antenatal recruitment and consent and RWPC in an emergency intrapartum randomised clinical trial. DESIGN: Embedded, mixed-methods study within a trial, involving questionnaires, recorded recruitment discussions, interviews and focus groups in the first 13 months of trial recruitment (December 2020-January 2022). SETTING: COPE is a double-blind randomised controlled trial, comparing the effectiveness of carboprost or oxytocin as first-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and eighty-six people (190 women/96 birth partners), linked to 198/380 (52%) COPE recruits participated in the embedded study. Of these, 272 completed a questionnaire (178 women/94 birth partners), 22 were interviewed (19 women/3 birth partners) and 16 consent discussions with 12 women were recorded. Twenty-seven staff took part in three focus groups and nine staff were interviewed. RESULTS: Participants recommended that information about the study should be more accessible antenatally for those who wish to be informed. Most women and staff did not think it would be appropriate to seek consent during pregnancy or early labour as it may cause 'unnecessary panic' and lead to research waste, as most women would not become eligible. There was support for the use of RWPC as COPE interventions are used in standard clinical practice and viewed as low risk. Women who were approached about the trial while having a postpartum haemorrhage also supported RWPC as they could not recall research discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the use of RWPC for time-critical interventions, and raise questions about the appropriateness of other commonly used consent pathways, including antenatal consent and verbal assent.

Drugs for treatment of very high blood pressure during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Very high blood pressure during pregnancy poses a serious threat to women and their babies. The aim of antihypertensive therapy is to lower blood pressure quickly but safety, to avoid complications. Antihypertensive drugs lower blood pressure but their comparative effectiveness and safety, and impact on other substantive outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To compare different antihypertensive drugs for very high blood pressure during pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (9 January 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were randomised trials. Participants were women with severe hypertension during pregnancy. Interventions were comparisons of one antihypertensive drug with another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five trials (3573 women) with 15 comparisons were included. Women allocated calcium channel blockers were less likely to have persistent high blood pressure compared to those allocated hydralazine (six trials, 313 women; 8% versus 22%; risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.66). Ketanserin was associated with more persistent high blood pressure than hydralazine (three trials, 180 women; 27% versus 6%; RR 4.79, 95% CI 1.95 to 11.73), but fewer side-effects (three trials, 120 women; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.53) and a lower risk of HELLP (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and lowered platelets) syndrome (one trial, 44 women; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.81).Labetalol was associated with a lower risk of hypotension compared to diazoxide (one trial 90 women; RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.99) and a lower risk of caesarean section (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.02), although both were borderline for statistical significance.Both nimodipine and magnesium sulphate were associated with a high incidence of persistent high blood pressure, but this risk was lower for nimodipine compared to magnesium sulphate (one trial, 1650 women; 47% versus 65%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93). Nimodipine was associated with a lower risk of respiratory difficulties (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.99), fewer side-effects (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.85) and less postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.92) than magnesium sulphate. Stillbirths and neonatal deaths were not reported.There are insufficient data for reliable conclusions about the comparative effects of any other drugs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Until better evidence is available the choice of antihypertensive should depend on the clinician's experience and familiarity with a particular drug; on what is known about adverse effects; and on women's preferences. Exceptions are nimodipine, magnesium sulphate (although this is indicated for women who require an anticonvulsant for prevention or treatment of eclampsia), diazoxide and ketanserin, which are probably best avoided.

Multi-Round versus Real-Time Delphi survey approach for achieving consensus in the COHESION core outcome set: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Delphi surveys are commonly used to prioritise critical outcomes in core outcome set (COS) development. This trial aims to compare a three-round (Multi-Round) Delphi (MRD) with a Real-Time Delphi (RTD) in the prioritisation of outcomes for inclusion in a COS for neonatal encephalopathy treatments and explore whether 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects may occur in the two survey methods. METHODS: We recruited 269 participants (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers/academics) of which 222 were randomised to either the MRD or the RTD. We investigated the outcomes prioritised in each survey and the 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects to identify differences between the two survey methods. RESULTS: In the RTD, n = 92 participants (83%) fully completed the survey. In the MRD, n = 60 participants (54%) completed all three rounds. Of the 92 outcomes presented, 26 (28%) were prioritised differently between the RTD and MRD. Significantly fewer participants amended their scores when shown stakeholder responses in the RTD compared to the MRD ('feedback effect'). The 'iteration effect' analysis found most experts appeared satisfied with their initial ratings in the RTD and did not amend their scores following stakeholder response feedback. Where they did amend their scores, ratings were amended substantially, suggesting greater convergence. Variance in scores reduced with subsequent rounds of the MRD ('iteration effect'). Whilst most participants did not change their initial scores in the RTD, of those that did, later recruits tended to align their final score more closely to the group mean final score than earlier recruits (an 'initial condition' effect). CONCLUSION: The feedback effect differed between the two Delphi methods but the magnitude of this difference was small and likely due to the large number of observations rather than because of a meaningfully large difference. It did not appear to be advantageous to require participants to engage in three rounds of a survey due to the low change in scores. Larger drop-out through successive rounds in the MRD, together with a lesser convergence of scores and longer time to completion, indicate considerable benefits of the RTD approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04471103. Registered on 14 July 2020.

Core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy: a qualitative study with parents.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the outcomes considered important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia in high-income and low- to middle-income countries (LMiCs), as part of the outcome-identification process in developing a core outcome set (COS) for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. DESIGN: A qualitative study involving 25 semistructured interviews with parents or other family members (caregivers) of infants who were diagnosed with, and treated for, neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia. SETTING: Interviews were conducted in high-income countries (HiCs) (n=11) by Zoom video conferencing software and in LMiCs (n=14) by phone or face to face. FINDINGS: Parents identified 54 outcomes overall, which mapped to 16 outcome domains. The domains identified were neurological outcomes, respiratory outcomes, gastrointestinal outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, motor development, cognitive development, development (psychosocial), development (special senses), cognitive development, development (speech and social), other organ outcomes, survival/living outcomes, long-term disability, hospitalisation, parent-reported outcomes and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the outcomes that parents of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy have identified as the most important, to be considered in the process of developing a COS for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. We also provide description of the processes employed to ensure the inclusion of participants from LMiCs as well as HiCs.

Fetal ultrasound diagnosis allows effective early postnatal treatment of hematometrocolpos.

Fetal hematometrocolpos is a rare finding with an incidence of 1 in 16 000 female births. We present a case of fetal hematometrocolpos managed exclusively by prenatal and postnatal ultrasound scans allowing for effective immediate postnatal surgical treatment.

COHESION: core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy (protocol).

BACKGROUND: Neonatal encephalopathy is a complex syndrome in infants that predominantly affects the brain and other organs. The leading cause is a lack of oxygen in the blood reaching the brain. Neonatal encephalopathy can result in mortality or complications later in life, including seizures, movement disorders and cerebral palsy. Treatment options for neonatal encephalopathy are limited mainly to therapeutic hypothermia, although other potential treatments are emerging. However, evaluations of the effectiveness of treatments are challenging because of heterogeneity and inconsistency in outcomes measured and reported between trials. In this paper, we detail how we will develop a core outcome set to standardise outcomes measured and reported upon for interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. METHODS: We will systematically review the literature to identify outcomes reported previously in randomised trials and systematic reviews of randomised trials. We will identify outcomes important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with and who have received treatment for neonatal encephalopathy. We will do this by conducting in person or by video teleconferencing interviews with parents or caregivers in high-income and low- to middle-income countries. Stakeholders with expertise in neonatal encephalopathy (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in an online Delphi survey using either a three-round Delphi survey or a "Real-Time" Delphi survey to which stakeholders will be allocated at random. Consensus meetings will take place by video conference to allow for an international group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final core outcome set (COS). DISCUSSION: More research is needed on treatments for neonatal encephalopathy. Standardising outcomes measured and reported in evaluations of the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy will improve evidence synthesis and improve results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analysis in this area. Overall, this COS will allow for improved treatments to be identified, heterogeneity in research to be reduced, and overall patient care to be enhanced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness (COMET) database http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1270 .

Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The Delphi method is used in a wide variety of settings as a method of building consensus on important issues. Traditionally, the Delphi method uses multiple rounds of a survey to allow for feedback of other participants' survey responses in between rounds. By informing participants about how others answer a question or prioritise specific topics, it allows for diverse opinions to inform the consensus process. For this reason, the Delphi method is popular as a consensus building approach in developing core outcome sets (COS), i.e. the minimum agreed set of standardised outcomes that should be measured and reported in studies on a specific health condition. In a COS setting, participants prioritise the importance of outcomes for inclusion in a COS. This usually involves participating in multiple rounds of a survey that can span several weeks or months. Challenges with participant retention have been highlighted in previous COS. We will compare a three-round with a Real-Time Delphi approach on prioritised outcomes. This trial is embedded within the COHESION study which is developing a COS for interventions treating neonatal encephalopathy. METHODS: One hundred and eighty stakeholders (parents/caregivers of infants diagnosed and treated with neonatal encephalopathy, healthcare providers and researchers) will be randomised using stratified randomisation to take part in either the Multi-Round or Real-Time Delphi. Stakeholders will rate the importance of the same set of outcomes in both arms. We will compare the prioritised outcomes at the end of both surveys as well as other parameters such as feedback, initial condition and iteration effects. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence to inform decisions on the use of Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi survey methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04471103 . Registered on 14 July 2020.

How should we diagnose and assess the severity of PPH in clinical trials?

Interventions for prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage have been the subject of numerous clinical trials. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes reported by trialists, making the evidence difficult to interpret and compare across studies. Recommendations for clinical practice can be robust only if they are based on good-quality evidence, where therapeutic options are compared using indicators that are standardised, important and meaningful measures of wellbeing. The aim of this chapter is to discuss the challenges in selecting outcome measures for postpartum haemorrhage trials, to describe the current state of outcomes reporting in this area and to make recommendations for clinical trials evaluating interventions for prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage, based on the recently developed Core Outcome Sets.

Early-onset twin-twin transfusion syndrome: Case series and systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the outcomes of early-onset twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), diagnosed before 18 weeks gestational age (GA), are sparse. We aimed to review the diagnosis, management and outcomes of early-onset TTTS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pregnancy records at a single referral unit 2010-6 were reviewed. In early-onset TTTS cases, data for pregnancy characteristics, interventions and outcomes were collected. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for studies including pregnant women with early-onset TTTS. The primary outcome measure was livebirths. RESULTS: Case series: 58 cases of early-onset TTTS 2010-6, with full outcome data in 44. Diagnostic criteria were variable. Median GA at intervention was 17+4 (range 15+0-28+1); 67% of patients had laser therapy (39/58). Overall survival: 60% (53/88). At least one livebirth: 86% (38/44), Two livebirths: 34% (15/44); No survivors: 14% (6/44). GA at delivery was 32+1.5 (range 16+2-37+4). Systematic review: 16 studies included (n = 171 pregnancies). Diagnostic criteria varied widely: 79% of studies used Quintero staging. Most offered laser (89%) at median 17+0 weeks (range 16+0-21+6). GA at delivery was 23+0-39+5 weeks. Overall survival: 69% (129/186). At least one livebirth: 74% (127/171). Two livebirths: 59% (55/93). No survivors: 26% (44/171). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with the commonly accepted overall survival for TTTS treated after 18 weeks of 60-90%, outcomes in early-onset TTTS were at the lower bound of this range. Gestational age at intervention is similar to that of later onset TTTS, indicating a lack of therapeutic options when a diagnosis is made before 18 weeks.

A Core Outcome Set for Evaluation of Interventions to Prevent Preterm Birth.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a consensus on a set of key clinical outcomes for the evaluation of preventive interventions for preterm birth in asymptomatic pregnant women. METHODS: A two-stage web-based Delphi survey and a face-to-face meeting of key stakeholders were used to develop a consensus on a set of critical and important outcomes. We approached five stakeholder groups (parents, midwives, obstetricians, neonatologists, and researchers) from middle- and high-income countries. Outcomes subjected to the Delphi survey were identified by systematic literature review and stakeholder input. Survey participants scored each outcome on a 9-point Likert scale anchored between 1 (limited importance) and 9 (critical importance). They had the opportunity to reflect on total and stakeholder subgroup feedback between survey stages. For consensus, defined a priori, outcomes required at least 70% of participants of each stakeholder group to score them as "critical" and less than 15% as "limited." RESULTS: A total of 228 participants from five stakeholder groups from three lower middle-income countries, seven upper middle-income countries, and 17 high-income countries were asked to score 31 outcomes. Of these participants, 195 completed the first survey and 174 the second. Consensus was reached on 13 core outcomes: four were related to pregnant women: maternal mortality, maternal infection or inflammation, prelabor rupture of membranes, and harm to mother from intervention. Nine were related to offspring: gestational age at birth, offspring mortality, birth weight, early neurodevelopmental morbidity, late neurodevelopmental morbidity, gastrointestinal morbidity, infection, respiratory morbidity, and harm to offspring from intervention. CONCLUSION: This core outcome set for studies that evaluate prevention of preterm birth developed with an international multidisciplinary perspective will ensure that data from trials that assess prevention of preterm birth can be compared and combined. DATABASE REGISTRATION: COMET Initiative, http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/603, REGISTRATION NUMBER: 603.

Hypertension in pregnancy.

Formal assessment of the risk of pre-eclampsia should be made early in pregnancy and antenatal care planned accordingly. Recommendations will emerge by the end of this year in a consensus statement (PRECOG guidelines) prepared by clinicians and the lay organisation Action on Pre-eclampsia (APEC) www.apec.org.uk. Some hospitals complement clinical risk assessment with Doppler screening of uterine artery waveforms in mid-pregnancy. Severe pre-eclampsia often takes an explosive course, evolving over a period of hours. Recognition may, therefore, not be amenable to intermittent blood pressure recording and urine testing, but requires women reporting relevant symptoms and GPs being sensitive to the possible significance of complaints such as vomiting and epigastric pain. Severe hypertension demands urgent antihypertensive treatment in hospital. Magnesium sulphate now has an accepted role in the prevention of eclampsia. Possible prevention of pre-eclampsia by antioxidant therapy is the subject of a clinical trial. Low-dose aspirin has a modest but beneficial effect in high-risk women. Delivery remains the definitive treatment for pre-eclampsia, but there may be initial deterioration after birth, especially in the HELLP syndrome.