Misoprostol for primary versus secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage: a cluster-randomised non-inferiority community trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether secondary prevention, which preemptively treats women with above-average postpartum bleeding, is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis. DESIGN: A cluster-randomised non-inferiority community trial. SETTING: Health sub-centres and home deliveries in the Bijapur district of Karnataka, India. POPULATION: Women with low-risk pregnancies who were eligible for delivery with an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife at home or sub-centre and who consented to be part of the study. METHODS: Auxiliary Nurse Midwifes were randomised to secondary prevention using 800 mcg sublingual misoprostol administered to women with postpartum blood loss ≥350 ml or to universal prophylaxis using 600 mcg oral misoprostol administered to all women during the third stage of labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl, mean postpartum blood loss and postpartum haemoglobin, postpartum haemorrhage rate, transfer to higher-level facilities, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. RESULTS: Misoprostol was administered to 99.7% of women as primary prevention. In secondary prevention, 92 (4.7%) women had postpartum bleeding ≥350 ml, of which 90 (97.8%) received misoprostol. The proportion of women with postpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl was 5.9 and 8.8% in secondary and primary prevention clusters, respectively [difference -2.9%, one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) <1.3%]. Postpartum transfer and haemorrhage rates were low (<1%) in both groups. Shivering was more common in primary prevention clusters (P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis based on the primary outcome of postpartum haemoglobin. Secondary prevention could be a good alternative to universal prophylaxis as it medicates fewer women and is an acceptable and feasible strategy at the community level. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis.

Consanguinity, prematurity, birth weight and pregnancy loss: a prospective cohort study at four primary health center areas of Karnataka, India.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether consanguinity adversely influences pregnancy outcome in South India, where consanguinity is a common means of family property retention. STUDY DESIGN: Data were collected from a prospective cohort of 647 consenting women, consecutively registered for antenatal care between 14 and 18 weeks gestation, in Belgaum district, Karnataka in 2005. Three-generation pedigree charts were drawn for consanguineous participants. χ (2)-Test and Student's t-test were used to assess categorical and continuous data, respectively, using SPSS version 14. Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for confounding variables. RESULT: Overall, 24.1% of 601 women with singleton births and outcome data were consanguineous. Demographic characteristics between study groups were similar. Non-consanguineous couples had fewer stillbirths (2.6 vs 6.9% P=0.017; adjusted P=0.050), miscarriages (1.8 vs 4.1%, P=0.097; adjusted P=0.052) and lower incidence of birth weight <2500 g (21.8 vs 29.5%, P=0.071, adjusted P=0.044). Gestation <37 weeks was 6.2% in both the groups. Adjusted for consanguinity and other potential confounders, age <20 years was protective of stillbirth (P=0.01), pregnancy loss (P=0.023) and preterm birth (P=0.013), whereas smoking (P=0.015) and poverty (P=0.003) were associated with higher rates of low birth weight. CONCLUSION: Consanguinity significantly increases pregnancy loss and birth weight <2500 g.