Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate is a common therapy in perinatal care. Its benefits when given to women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection (prevention of cerebral palsy for children) were shown in a 2009 Cochrane review. Internationally, use of magnesium sulphate for preterm cerebral palsy prevention is now recommended practice. As new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longer-term follow-up of prior RCTs have since been conducted, this review updates the previously published version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of magnesium sulphate as a fetal neuroprotective agent when given to women considered to be at risk of preterm birth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 March 2023, as well as reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs of women at risk of preterm birth that assessed prenatal magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection compared with placebo or no treatment. All methods of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and oral) were eligible. We did not include studies where magnesium sulphate was used with the primary aim of preterm labour tocolysis, or the prevention and/or treatment of eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and trustworthiness. Dichotomous data were presented as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and continuous data were presented as mean differences with 95% CI. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (5917 women and their 6759 fetuses alive at randomisation). All RCTs were conducted in high-income countries. The RCTs compared magnesium sulphate with placebo in women at risk of preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation; however, treatment regimens and inclusion/exclusion criteria varied. Though the RCTs were at an overall low risk of bias, the certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low, due to concerns regarding study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency. Primary outcomes for infants/children: Up to two years' corrected age, magnesium sulphate compared with placebo reduced cerebral palsy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89; 6 RCTs, 6107 children; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 60, 95% CI 41 to 158) and death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 6 RCTs, 6481 children; NNTB 56, 95% CI 32 to 363) (both high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 6 RCTs, 6759 children); major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.44; 1 RCT, 987 children); or death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 3 RCTs, 4279 children) (all moderate-certainty evidence). At early school age, magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 2 RCTs, 1758 children); cerebral palsy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41; 2 RCTs, 1038 children); death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 1 RCT, 503 children); and death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 503 children) (all low-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate may also have resulted in little to no difference in major neurodevelopmental disability, but the evidence is very uncertain (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.62; 2 RCTs, 940 children; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for infants/children: Magnesium sulphate probably reduced severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 or 4) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; 5 RCTs, 5885 infants; NNTB 92, 95% CI 55 to 1102; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have resulted in little to no difference in chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 5 RCTs, 6689 infants; low-certainty evidence). Primary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little or no difference in severe maternal outcomes potentially related to treatment (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; 4 RCTs, 5300 women; low-certainty evidence). However, magnesium sulphate probably increased maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment (average RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.88 to 5.48; 3 RCTs, 4736 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; 5 RCTs, 5861 women) and postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 2495 women) (both moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding at hospital discharge and women's views of treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence indicates that magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus, compared with placebo, reduces cerebral palsy, and death or cerebral palsy, in children up to two years' corrected age, and probably reduces severe intraventricular haemorrhage for infants. Magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in outcomes in children at school age. While magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in severe maternal outcomes (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest), it probably increases maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment. Further research is needed on the longer-term benefits and harms for children, into adolescence and adulthood. Additional studies to determine variation in effects by characteristics of women treated and magnesium sulphate regimens used, along with the generalisability of findings to low- and middle-income countries, should be considered.

A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of smoking cessation services for women who smoke during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Although many pregnant women accept referrals to stop-smoking support, the uptake of appointments often remains low. AIM: The aim was to review the success of interventions to increase the uptake of external stop-smoking appointments following health professional referrals in pregnancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and CINAHL were searched in February 2023 for studies with interventions to increase the uptake rates of external stop-smoking appointments among pregnant women who smoke. Eligible studies included randomised, controlled, cluster-randomised, quasi-randomised, before-and-after, interrupted time series, case-control and cohort studies. Cochrane tools assessing for bias and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Two before-and-after studies were included, including a combined total of 1996 women who smoked during pregnancy. Both studies had a serious risk of bias, and meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. One study testing carbon monoxide monitors and opt-out referrals showed increased uptake of external stop-smoking appointments, health professional referrals and smoking cessation rates compared to self-identified smoking status and opt-in referrals. Results were limited in the second study, which used carbon monoxide monitors, urinary cotinine levels and self-disclosed methods to identify the smoking status with opt-out referrals. Only post-intervention data were available on the uptake of appointments to external stop-smoking services. The number of health professional referrals increased, but change in smoking cessation rates was less clear. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to inform practice regarding strategies to increase the uptake of external stop-smoking appointments by women during pregnancy.

Prenatal Intravenous Magnesium at 30-34 Weeks' Gestation and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Offspring: The MAGENTA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Intravenous magnesium sulfate administered to pregnant individuals before birth at less than 30 weeks' gestation reduces the risk of death and cerebral palsy in their children. The effects at later gestational ages are unclear. Objective: To determine whether administration of magnesium sulfate at 30 to 34 weeks' gestation reduces death or cerebral palsy at 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled pregnant individuals expected to deliver at 30 to 34 weeks' gestation and was conducted at 24 Australian and New Zealand hospitals between January 2012 and April 2018. Intervention: Intravenous magnesium sulfate (4 g) was compared with placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was death (stillbirth, death of a live-born infant before hospital discharge, or death after hospital discharge before 2 years' corrected age) or cerebral palsy (loss of motor function and abnormalities of muscle tone and power assessed by a pediatrician) at 2 years' corrected age. There were 36 secondary outcomes that assessed the health of the pregnant individual, infant, and child. Results: Of the 1433 pregnant individuals enrolled (mean age, 30.6 [SD, 6.6] years; 46 [3.2%] self-identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, 237 [16.5%] as Asian, 82 [5.7%] as Maori, 61 [4.3%] as Pacific, and 966 [67.4%] as White) and their 1679 infants, 1365 (81%) offspring (691 in the magnesium group and 674 in the placebo group) were included in the primary outcome analysis. Death or cerebral palsy at 2 years' corrected age was not significantly different between the magnesium and placebo groups (3.3% [23 of 691 children] vs 2.7% [18 of 674 children], respectively; risk difference, 0.61% [95% CI, -1.27% to 2.50%]; adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.19 [95% CI, 0.65 to 2.18]). Components of the primary outcome did not differ between groups. Neonates in the magnesium group were less likely to have respiratory distress syndrome vs the placebo group (34% [294 of 858] vs 41% [334 of 821], respectively; adjusted RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.76 to 0.95]) and chronic lung disease (5.6% [48 of 858] vs 8.2% [67 of 821]; adjusted RR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.99]) during the birth hospitalization. No serious adverse events occurred; however, adverse events were more likely in pregnant individuals who received magnesium vs placebo (77% [531 of 690] vs 20% [136 of 667], respectively; adjusted RR, 3.76 [95% CI, 3.22 to 4.39]). Fewer pregnant individuals in the magnesium group had a cesarean delivery vs the placebo group (56% [406 of 729] vs 61% [427 of 704], respectively; adjusted RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]), although more in the magnesium group had a major postpartum hemorrhage (3.4% [25 of 729] vs 1.7% [12 of 704] in the placebo group; adjusted RR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.01 to 3.91]). Conclusions and Relevance: Administration of intravenous magnesium sulfate prior to preterm birth at 30 to 34 weeks' gestation did not improve child survival free of cerebral palsy at 2 years, although the study had limited power to detect small between-group differences. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12611000491965.

Evaluation of an online education module designed to reduce stillbirth.

BACKGROUND: The Safer Baby Bundle (SBB) eLearning is an online education module that addresses practice gaps in stillbirth prevention in Australia. It provides healthcare professionals with evidence-based resources for: smoking cessation; fetal growth restriction; decreased fetal movements; maternal safe going-to-sleep position; and timing of birth for women with risk factors for stillbirth. AIMS: To determine whether participants' reported knowledge and confidence in providing care designed to reduce stillbirth changed following completion of the module. To assess the module's suitability and acceptability, and participants' reported likelihood to change practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In-built surveys undertaken pre- and post-eLearning module assessed participant knowledge and confidence, module suitability and acceptability, and likelihood of practice change using Likert items. Responses were dichotomised. Differences pre- and post-module were tested using McNemar's test and differences by profession were examined using descriptive statistics and Pearson's χ2 test. RESULTS: Between 15 October 2019 and 2 November 2020, 5223 participants across Australia were included. Most were midwives (82.0%), followed by student midwives (4.6%) and obstetricians (3.3%). Reported knowledge and confidence improved in all areas (P < 0.001). Post-module 96.7-98.9% 'agreed' they had a sound level of knowledge and confidence across all elements of the SBB. Over 95% of participants agreed that the module was helpful and relevant, well organised, and easy to access and use. Eighty-eight percent reported they were likely to change some aspect of their clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The SBB eLearning module is a valuable education program that is well-received and likely to result in improvements in practice.

Pharmacological interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) is a liver disorder that can develop in pregnancy. It occurs when there is a build-up of bile acids in the maternal blood. It has been linked to adverse maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes. As the pathophysiology is poorly understood, therapies have been largely empiric. As ICP is an uncommon condition (incidence less than 2% a year), many trials have been small. Synthesis, including recent larger trials, will provide more evidence to guide clinical practice. This review is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions to treat women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 December 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised trials and trials published in abstract form only, that compared any drug with placebo or no treatment, or two drug intervention strategies, for women with a clinical diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risks of bias. We independently extracted data and checked these for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 trials involving 2007 women. They were mostly at unclear to high risk of bias. They assessed nine different pharmacological interventions, resulting in 14 different comparisons. We judged two placebo-controlled trials of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in 715 women to be at low risk of bias. The ten different pharmacological interventions were: agents believed to detoxify bile acids (UCDA) and S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe); agents used to bind bile acids in the intestine (activated charcoal, guar gum, cholestyramine); Chinese herbal medicines (yinchenghao decoction (YCHD), salvia, Yiganling and Danxioling pill (DXLP)), and agents aimed to reduce bile acid production (dexamethasone) Compared with placebo, UDCA probably results in a small improvement in pruritus score measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean difference (MD) -7.64 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.69 to -5.60 points; 2 trials, 715 women; GRADE moderate certainty), where a score of zero indicates no itch and a score of 100 indicates severe itching. The evidence for fetal distress and stillbirth were uncertain, due to serious limitations in study design and imprecision (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.40; 6 trials, 944 women; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.37; 6 trials, 955 women; GRADE very low certainty). We found very few differences for the other comparisons included in this review. There is insufficient evidence to indicate if SAMe, guar gum, activated charcoal, dexamethasone, cholestyramine, Salvia, Yinchenghao decoction, Danxioling and Yiganling, or Yiganling alone or in combination are effective in treating women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared with placebo, UDCA administered to women with ICP probably shows a reduction in pruritus. However the size of the effect is small and for most pregnant women and clinicians, the reduction may fall below the minimum clinically worthwhile effect. The evidence was unclear for other adverse fetal outcomes, due to very low-certainty evidence. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that SAMe, guar gum, activated charcoal, dexamethasone, cholestyramine, YCHD, DXLP, Salvia, Yiganling alone or in combination are effective in treating women with cholestasis of pregnancy. There are no trials of the efficacy of topical emollients. Further high-quality trials of other interventions are needed in order to identify effective treatments for maternal itching and preventing adverse perinatal outcomes. It would also be helpful to identify those women who are mostly likely to respond to UDCA (for example, whether bile acid concentrations affect how women with ICP respond to treatment with UDCA).

Perioperative transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for analgesia after abdominal surgery.

At April 2020, this review has been withdrawn. It is correct at the date of publication, and previous versions can be accessed in the 'Other versions' tab on the Cochrane Library. We are aware of new studies to potentially change the conclusions, however the update did not meet the timelines and expectations of Cochrane and the PaPaS review group.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Human Milk Feeding and Morbidity in Very Low Birth Weight Infants.

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesised the post-1990 literature examining the effect of human milk on morbidity, specifically necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), late onset sepsis (LOS), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and neurodevelopment in infants born ≤28 weeks' gestation and/or publications with reported infant mean birth weight of ≤1500 g. Online databases including Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and comparisons were grouped as follows: exclusive human milk (EHM) versus exclusive preterm formula (EPTF), any human milk (HM) versus EPTF, higher versus lower dose HM, and unpasteurised versus pasteurised HM. Experimental and observational studies were pooled separately in meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed for each individual study and the GRADE system used to judge the certainty of the findings. Forty-nine studies (with 56 reports) were included, of which 44 could be included in meta-analyses. HM provided a clear protective effect against NEC, with an approximate 4% reduction in incidence. HM also provided a possible reduction in LOS, severe ROP and severe NEC. Particularly for NEC, any volume of HM is better than EPTF, and the higher the dose the greater the protection. Evidence regarding pasteurisation is inconclusive, but it appears to have no effect on some outcomes. Improving the intake of mother's own milk (MOM) and/or donor HM results in small improvements in morbidity in this population.

Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings for improving maternal and infant health.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mothers and their infants in the short and long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not screening all pregnant women for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate setting for screening. This review updates a Cochrane Review, first published in 2010, and subsequently updated in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14 June 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings, compared with the absence of screening, or compared with other protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening. We planned to include trials published as abstracts only and cluster-randomised trials, but we did not identify any. Cross-over trials are not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through consulting a third reviewer. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials that randomised 4523 women and their infants. Both trials were conducted in Ireland. One trial (which quasi-randomised 3742 women, and analysed 3152 women) compared universal screening versus risk factor-based screening, and one trial (which randomised 781 women, and analysed 690 women) compared primary care screening versus secondary care screening. We were not able to perform meta-analyses due to the different interventions and comparisons assessed.Overall, there was moderate to high risk of bias due to one trial being quasi-randomised, inadequate blinding, and incomplete outcome data in both trials. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of the evidence for selected outcomes for the mother and her child. Evidence was downgraded for study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Universal screening versus risk-factor screening (one trial) MotherMore women were diagnosed with GDM in the universal screening group than in the risk-factor screening group (risk ratio (RR) 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 3.04; participants = 3152; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported under this comparison for other maternal outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean birth, perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, and type 2 diabetes. ChildNeonatal outcomes: large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite, hypoglycaemia; and childhood/adulthood outcomes: adiposity, type 2 diabetes, and neurosensory disability, were not reported under this comparison. Primary care screening versus secondary care screening (one trial) MotherThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.66; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), hypertension (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.59; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), pre-eclampsia (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 690;low-quality evidence), or caesarean section birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27; participants = 690; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported for perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, or type 2 diabetes. ChildThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for large-for-gestational age (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.96; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), neonatal complications: composite outcome, including: hypoglycaemia, respiratory distress, need for phototherapy, birth trauma, shoulder dystocia, five minute Apgar less than seven at one or five minutes, prematurity (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.71; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.38; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There was one perinatal death in the primary care screening group and two in the secondary care screening group (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.10 to 12.12; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There were no data for neurosensory disability, or childhood/adulthood adiposity or type 2 diabetes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient randomised controlled trial data evaluating the effects of screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests universal screening compared with risk factor-based screening leads to more women being diagnosed with GDM. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between primary care and secondary care screening, for outcomes: GDM, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, caesarean birth, large-for-gestational age, neonatal complications composite, and hypoglycaemia.Further, high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the value of screening for GDM, which may compare different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening (based on different risk profiles and settings), with the absence of screening, or with other protocols, guidelines or programmes. There is a need for future trials to be sufficiently powered to detect important differences in short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, such as those important outcomes pre-specified in this review. As only a proportion of women will be diagnosed with GDM in these trials, large sample sizes may be required.

Screening and subsequent management for thyroid dysfunction pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy for improving maternal and infant health.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid dysfunction pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy (both hyper- and hypothyroidism) is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes for mothers and infants in the short- and long-term. Managing the thyroid dysfunction (e.g. thyroxine for hypothyroidism, or antithyroid medication for hyperthyroidism) may improve outcomes. The best method of screening to identify and subsequently manage thyroid dysfunction pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different screening methods (and subsequent management) for thyroid dysfunction pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy on maternal and infant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, comparing any screening method (e.g. tool, program, guideline/protocol) for detecting thyroid dysfunction (including hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and/or thyroid autoimmunity) pre-pregnancy or during pregnancy with no screening, or alternative screening methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of studies, extracted and checked data accuracy, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included two randomised controlled trials (involving 26,408 women) - these trials were considered to be at low risk of bias. Universal screening (screening all women) versus case finding (screening only those at perceived increased risk) in pregnancy for thyroid dysfunctionOne trial (4562 women) compared universal screening with case finding for thyroid dysfunction. Before 11 weeks' gestation, women in the universal screening group, and 'high-risk' women in the case finding group had their sera tested for TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone), fT4 (free thyroxine) and TPO-Ab (thyroid peroxidase antibody); women with hypothyroidism (TSH > 2.5 mIU/litre) received levothyroxine; women with hyperthyroidism (undetectable TSH and elevated fT4) received antithyroid medication.In regards to this review's primary outcomes, compared with the case finding group, more women in the universal screening group were diagnosed with hypothyroidism (risk ratio (RR) 3.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.91 to 5.20; 4562 women; GRADE: high quality evidence), with a trend towards more women being diagnosed with hyperthyroidism (RR 4.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 20.82; 4562 women; P = 0.05; GRADE: moderate quality evidence). No clear differences were seen in the risks of pre-eclampsia (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.18; 4516 women; GRADE: moderate quality evidence), or preterm birth (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.24; 4516 women; GRADE: high quality evidence) between groups. This trial did not report on neurosensory disability for the infant as a child.Considering this review's secondary outcomes, more women in the universal screening group received pharmacological treatment for thyroid dysfunction (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.91 to 5.20; 4562 women). No clear differences between groups were observed for miscarriage (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; 4516 women; GRADE: moderate quality evidence), fetal and neonatal death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.02; 4516 infants; GRADE: moderate quality evidence), or other secondary outcomes: pregnancy-induced hypertension, gestational diabetes, congestive heart failure, thyroid storm, mode of birth (caesarean section), preterm labour, placental abruption, respiratory distress syndrome, low birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, or other congenital malformations. The trial did not report on a number of outcomes including adverse effects associated with the intervention. Universal screening versus no screening in pregnancy for hypothyroidismOne trial (21,846 women) compared universal screening with no screening for hypothyroidism. Before 15 + 6 weeks' gestation, women in the universal screening group had their sera tested; women who screened 'positive' (TSH > 97.5th percentile, fT4 < 2.5th percentile, or both) received levothyroxine.Considering primary review outcomes, compared with the no screening group, more women in the universal screening screened 'positive' for hypothyroidism (RR 998.18, 95% CI 62.36 to 15,978.48; 21,839 women; GRADE: high quality evidence). No data were provided for the outcome pre-eclampsia, and for preterm birth, the trial reported rates of 5.6% and 7.9% for the screening and no screening groups respectively (it was unclear if these percentages related to the entire cohort or women who screened positive). No clear difference was seen for neurosensory disability for the infant as a child (three-year follow-up IQ score < 85) (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.22; 794 infants; GRADE: moderate quality evidence).More women in the universal screening group received pharmacological treatment for thyroid dysfunction (RR 1102.90, 95% CI 69.07 to 17,610.46; 1050 women); 10% had their dose lowered because of low TSH, high fT4 or minor side effects. No clear differences were observed for other secondary outcomes, including developmental delay/intellectual impairment at three years. Most of our secondary outcomes, including miscarriage, fetal or neonatal death were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the existing evidence, though universal screening for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy increases the number of women diagnosed with hypothyroidism who can be subsequently treated, it does not clearly impact (benefit or harm) maternal and infant outcomes.While universal screening versus case finding for thyroid dysfunction increased diagnosis and subsequent treatment, we found no clear differences for the primary outcomes: pre-eclampsia or preterm birth. No clear differences were seen for secondary outcomes, including miscarriage and fetal or neonatal death; data were lacking for the primary outcome: neurosensory disability for the infant as a child, and for many secondary outcomes. Though universal screening versus no screening for hypothyroidism similarly increased diagnosis and subsequent treatment, no clear difference was seen for the primary outcome: neurosensory disability for the infant as a child (IQ < 85 at three years); data were lacking for the other primary outcomes: pre-eclampsia and preterm birth, and for the majority of secondary outcomes.For outcomes assessed using the GRADE approach the evidence was considered to be moderate or high quality, with any downgrading of the evidence based on the presence of wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect.More evidence is needed to assess the benefits or harms of different screening methods for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy, on maternal, infant and child health outcomes. Future trials should assess impacts on use of health services and costs, and be adequately powered to evaluate the effects on short- and long-term outcomes.

Non-pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children.

BACKGROUND: Induction of general anaesthesia can be distressing for children. Non-pharmacological methods for reducing anxiety and improving co-operation may avoid the adverse effects of preoperative sedation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions in assisting induction of anaesthesia in children by reducing their anxiety, distress or increasing their co-operation. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12) and searched the following databases from inception to 15 January 2013: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. We reran the search in August 2014. We will deal with the single study found to be of interest when we next update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of a non-pharmacological intervention implemented on the day of surgery or anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 trials (2681 children) investigating 17 interventions of interest; all trials were conducted in high-income countries. Overall we judged the trials to be at high risk of bias. Except for parental acupuncture (graded low), all other GRADE assessments of the primary outcomes of comparisons were very low, indicating a high degree of uncertainty about the overall findings. Parental presence: In five trials (557 children), parental presence at induction of anaesthesia did not reduce child anxiety compared with not having a parent present (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20). In a further three trials (267 children) where we were unable to pool results, we found no clear differences in child anxiety, whether a parent was present or not. In a single trial, child anxiety showed no significant difference whether one or two parents were present, although parental anxiety was significantly reduced when both parents were present at the induction. Parental presence was significantly less effective than sedative premedication in reducing children's anxiety at induction in three trials with 254 children (we could not pool results). Child interventions (passive): When a video of the child's choice was played during induction, children were significantly less anxious than controls (median difference modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPAS) 31.2, 95% CI 27.1 to 33.3) in a trial of 91 children. In another trial of 120 children, co-operation at induction did not differ significantly when a video fairytale was played before induction. Children exposed to low sensory stimulation were significantly less anxious than control children on introduction of the anaesthesia mask and more likely to be co-operative during induction in one trial of 70 children. Music therapy did not show a significant effect on children's anxiety in another trial of 51 children. Child interventions (mask introduction): We found no significant differences between a mask exposure intervention and control in a single trial of 103 children for child anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.11) although children did demonstrate significantly better co-operation in the mask exposure group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.51). Child interventions (interactive): In a three-arm trial of 168 children, preparation with interactive computer packages (in addition to parental presence) was more effective than verbal preparation, although differences between computer and cartoon preparation were not significant, and neither was cartoon preparation when compared with verbal preparation. Children given video games before induction were significantly less anxious at induction than those in the control group (mYPAS mean difference (MD) -9.80, 95% CI -19.42 to -0.18) and also when compared with children who were sedated with midazolam (mYPAS MD -12.20, 95% CI -21.82 to -2.58) in a trial of 112 children. When compared with parental presence only, clowns or clown doctors significantly lessened children's anxiety in the operating/induction room (mYPAS MD -24.41, 95% CI -38.43 to -10.48; random-effects, I² 75%) in three trials with a total of 133 children. However, we saw no significant differences in child anxiety in the operating room between clowns/clown doctors and sedative premedication (mYPAS MD -9.67, 95% CI -21.14 to 1.80, random-effects, I² 66%; 2 trials of 93 children). In a trial of hypnotherapy versus sedative premedication in 50 children, there were no significant differences in children's anxiety at induction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.04). Parental interventions: Children of parents having acupuncture compared with parental sham acupuncture were less anxious during induction (mYPAS MD -17, 95% CI -30.51 to -3.49) and were more co-operative (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.53) in a single trial of 67 children. Two trials with 191 parents assessed the effects of parental video viewing but did not report any of the review's prespecified primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that the presence of parents during induction of general anaesthesia does not diminish their child's anxiety. Potentially promising non-pharmacological interventions such as parental acupuncture; clowns/clown doctors; playing videos of the child's choice during induction; low sensory stimulation; and hand-held video games need further investigation in larger studies.

Creatine for women in pregnancy for neuroprotection of the fetus.

BACKGROUND: Creatine is an amino acid derivative and, when phosphorylated (phosphocreatine), is involved in replenishing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) via the creatine kinase reaction. Cells obtain creatine from a diet rich in fish, meat, or dairy and by endogenous synthesis from the amino acids arginine, glycine, and methionine in an approximate 50:50 ratio. Animal studies have shown that creatine may provide fetal neuroprotection when given to the mother through her diet in pregnancy. It is important to assess whether maternally administered creatine in human pregnancy (at times of known, suspected, or potential fetal compromise) may offer neuroprotection to the fetus and may accordingly reduce the risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, such as cerebral palsy and associated impairments and disabilities arising from fetal brain injury. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of creatine when used for neuroprotection of the fetus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include all published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised trials and quasi-randomised trials. We planned to include studies reported as abstracts only as well as full-text manuscripts. Trials using a cross-over or cluster-randomised design were not eligible for inclusion.We planned to include trials comparing creatine given to women in pregnancy for fetal neuroprotection (regardless of the route, timing, dose, or duration of administration) with placebo, no treatment, or with an alternative agent aimed at providing fetal neuroprotection. We also planned to include comparisons of different regimens for administration of creatine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified no completed or ongoing randomised controlled trials. MAIN RESULTS: We found no randomised controlled trials for inclusion in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As we did not identify any randomised controlled trials for inclusion in this review, we are unable to comment on implications for practice. Although evidence from animal studies has supported a fetal neuroprotective role for creatine when administered to the mother during pregnancy, no trials assessing creatine in pregnant women for fetal neuroprotection have been published to date. If creatine is established as safe for the mother and her fetus, research efforts should first be directed towards randomised trials comparing creatine with either no intervention (ideally using a placebo), or with alternative agents aimed at providing fetal neuroprotection (including magnesium sulphate for the very preterm infant). If appropriate, these trials should then be followed by studies comparing different creatine regimens (dosage and duration of exposure). Such trials should be high quality and adequately powered to evaluate maternal and infant short and longer-term outcomes (including neurodevelopmental disabilities such as cerebral palsy), and should consider utilisation/costs of health care.

Effects of sevoflurane versus other general anaesthesia on emergence agitation in children.

BACKGROUND: Sevoflurane is an inhaled volatile anaesthetic that is widely used in paediatric anaesthetic practice. Since its introduction, postoperative behavioural disturbance known as emergence agitation (EA) or emergence delirium (ED) has been recognized as a problem that may occur during recovery from sevoflurane anaesthesia. For the purpose of this systematic review, EA has been used to describe this clinical entity. A child with EA may be restless, may cause self-injury or may disrupt the dressing, surgical site or indwelling devices, leading to the potential for parents to be dissatisfied with their child's anaesthetic. To prevent such outcomes, the child may require pharmacological or physical restraint. Sevoflurane may be a major contributing factor in the development of EA. Therefore, an evidence-based understanding of the risk/benefit profile regarding sevoflurane compared with other general anaesthetic agents and adjuncts would facilitate its rational and optimal use. OBJECTIVES: To compare sevoflurane with other general anaesthetic (GA) agents, with or without pharmacological or non-pharmacological adjuncts, with regard to risk of EA in children during emergence from anaesthesia. The primary outcome was risk of EA; secondary outcome was agitation score. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from the date of inception to 19 January 2013: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCOhost), Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR) and the Web of Science, as well as the reference lists of other relevant articles and online trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized (or quasi-randomized) controlled trials investigating children < 18 years of age presenting for general anaesthesia with or without surgical intervention. We included any study in which a sevoflurane anaesthetic was compared with any other GA, and any study in which researchers investigated adjuncts (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) to sevoflurane anaesthesia compared with no adjunct or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched the databases, decided on inclusion eligibility of publications, ascertained study quality and extracted data. They then resolved differences between their results by discussion. Data were entered into RevMan 5.2 for analyses and presentation. Comparisons of the risk of EA were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sevoflurane is treated as the control anaesthesia in this review. Sensitivity analyses were performed as appropriate, to exclude studies with a high risk of bias and to investigate heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 158 studies involving 14,045 children. Interventions to prevent EA fell into two broad groups. First, alternative GA compared with sevoflurane anaesthesia (69 studies), and second, use of an adjunct with sevoflurane anaesthesia versus sevoflurane without an adjunct (100 studies). The overall risk of bias in included studies was low. The overall Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) assessment of the quality of the evidence was moderate to high. A wide range of EA scales were used, as were different levels of cutoff, to determine the presence or absence of EA. Some studies involved children receiving potentially inadequate or no analgesia intraoperatively during painful procedures.Halothane (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.63, 3534 participants, high quality of evidence) and propofol anaesthesia were associated with a lower risk of EA than sevoflurane anaesthesia. Propofol was effective when used throughout anaesthesia (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.51, 1098 participants, high quality of evidence) and when used only during the maintenance phase of anaesthesia after sevoflurane induction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.76, 738 participants, high quality of evidence). No clear evidence was found of an effect on risk of EA of desflurane (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.31, 408 participants, moderate quality of evidence) or isoflurane (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.23, 379 participants, moderate quality of evidence) versus sevoflurane.Compared with no adjunct, effective adjuncts for reducing the risk of EA during sevoflurane anaesthesia included dexmedetomidine (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.47, 851 participants, high quality of evidence), clonidine (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66, 739 participants, high quality of evidence), opioids, in particular fentanyl (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.50, 1247 participants, high quality of evidence) and a bolus of propofol (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89, 394 participants, moderate quality of evidence), ketamine (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69, 231 participants, moderate quality of evidence) or midazolam (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.81, 116 participants, moderate quality of evidence) at the end of anaesthesia. Midazolam oral premedication (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12, 370 participants, moderate quality of evidence) and parental presence at emergence (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.60, 180 participants, moderate quality of evidence) did not reduce the risk of EA.One or more factors designated as high risk of bias were noted in less than 10% of the included studies. Sensitivity analyses of these studies showed no clinically relevant changes in the risk of EA. Heterogeneity was significant with respect to these comparisons: halothane; clonidine; fentanyl; midazolam premedication; propofol 1 mg/kg bolus at end; and ketamine 0.25 mg/kg bolus at end of anaesthesia. With investigation of heterogeneity, the only clinically relevant changes to findings were seen in the context of potential pain, namely, the setting of adenoidectomy/adenotonsillectomy (propofol bolus; midazolam premedication) and the absence of a regional block (clonidine). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Propofol, halothane, alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine, clonidine), opioids (e.g. fentanyl) and ketamine reduce the risk of EA compared with sevoflurane anaesthesia, whereas no clear evidence shows an effect for desflurane, isoflurane, midazolam premedication and parental presence at emergence. Therefore anaesthetists can consider several effective strategies to reduce the risk of EA in their clinical practice. Future studies should ensure adequate analgesia in the control group, for which pain may be a contributing or confounding factor in the diagnosis of EA. Regardless of the EA scale used, it would be helpful for study authors to report the risk of EA, so that this might be included in future meta-analyses. Researchers should also consider combining effective interventions as a multi-modal approach to further reduce the risk of EA.

Screening and subsequent management for gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant health.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mother and baby both perinatally and in the long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is little consensus on whether or not screening for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate protocol to follow. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different methods of screening for GDM and maternal and infant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 December 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different methods of screening for GDM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and quality assessment. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through a third author. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials involving 3972 women in the review. One quasi-randomised trial compared risk factor screening with universal or routine screening by 50 g oral glucose challenge testing. Women in the universal screening group were more likely to be diagnosed with GDM (one trial, 3152 women, risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.75). This trial did not report on the other primary outcomes of the review (positive screen for GDM, mode of birth, large-for-gestational age, or macrosomia). Considering secondary outcomes, infants of mothers in the risk factor screening group were born marginally earlier than infants of mothers in the routine screening group (one trial, 3152 women, mean difference (MD) -0.15 weeks, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.03).The remaining three trials evaluated different methods of administering a 50 g glucose load. Two small trials compared glucose monomer with glucose polymer testing, with one of these trials including a candy bar group. One trial compared a glucose solution with food. No differences in diagnosis of GDM were found between each comparison. However, in one trial significantly more women in the glucose monomer group screened positive for GDM than women in the candy bar group (80 women, RR 3.49, 95% CI 1.05 to 11.57). The three trials did not report on the primary review outcomes of mode of birth, large-for-gestational age or macrosomia. Overall, women drinking the glucose monomer experienced fewer side effects from testing than women drinking the glucose polymer (two trials, 151 women, RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.13). However, we observed substantial heterogeneity between the trials for this result (I² = 61%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to determine if screening for gestational diabetes, or what types of screening, can improve maternal and infant health outcomes.

Clonidine premedication for postoperative analgesia in children.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain remains a significant problem following paediatric surgery. Premedication with a suitable agent may improve its management. Clonidine is an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist which has sedative, anxiolytic and analgesic properties. It may therefore be a useful premedication for reducing postoperative pain in children. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of clonidine, when given as a premedication, in reducing postoperative pain in children less than 18 years of age. We also sought evidence of any clinically significant side effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 12, 2012), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 21 December 2012) and Ovid EMBASE (1982 to 21 December 2012), as well as reference lists of other relevant articles and online trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized (or quasi-randomized), controlled trials comparing clonidine premedication to placebo, a higher dose of clonidine, or another agent when used for surgical or other invasive procedures in children under the age of 18 years and where pain or a surrogate (principally the need for supplementary analgesia) was reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed the database search, decided on the inclusion eligibility of publications, ascertained study quality and extracted data. They then resolved any differences between their results by discussion. The data were entered into RevMan 5 for analyses and presentation. Sensitivity analyses were performed, as appropriate, to exclude studies with a high risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 trials investigating a total of 742 children in treatment arms relevant to our study question. Risks of bias in the studies were mainly low or unclear, but two studies had aspects of their methodology that had a high risk of bias. Overall, the quality of the evidence from pooled studies was low or had unclear risk of bias. Four trials compared clonidine with a placebo or no treatment, six trials compared clonidine with midazolam, and one trial compared clonidine with fentanyl. There was substantial methodological heterogeneity between trials; the dose and route of clonidine administration varied as did the patient populations, the types of surgery and the outcomes measured. It was therefore difficult to combine the outcomes of some trials for meta-analysis.When clonidine was compared to placebo, pooling studies of low or unclear risk of bias, the need for additional analgesia was reduced when clonidine premedication was given orally at 4 µg/kg (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.51). Only one small trial (15 patients per arm) compared clonidine to midazolam for the same outcome; this also found a reduction in the need for additional postoperative analgesia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71) when clonidine premedication was given orally at 2 or 4 µg/kg compared to oral midazolam at 0.5 mg/kg. A trial comparing oral clonidine at 4 µg/kg with intravenous fentanyl at 3 µg/kg found no statistically significant difference in the need for rescue analgesia (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42). When clonidine 4 µg/kg was compared to clonidine 2 µg/kg, there was a statistically significant difference in the number of patients requiring additional analgesia, in favour of the higher dose, as reported by a single, higher-quality trial (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.65).The effect of clonidine on pain scores was hard to interpret due to differences in study methodology, the doses and route of drug administration, and the pain scale used. However, when given at a dose of 4 µg/kg, clonidine may have reduced analgesia requirements after surgery. There were no significant side effects of clonidine that were reported such as severe hypotension, bradycardia, or excessive sedation requiring intervention. However, several studies used atropine prophylactically with the aim of preventing such adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were only 11 relevant trials studying 742 children having surgery where premedication with clonidine was compared to placebo or other drug treatment. Despite heterogeneity between trials, clonidine premedication in an adequate dosage (4 µg/kg) was likely to have a beneficial effect on postoperative pain in children. Side effects were minimal, but some of the studies used atropine prophylactically with the intention of preventing bradycardia and hypotension. Further research is required to determine under what conditions clonidine premedication is most effective in providing postoperative pain relief in children.

A randomized controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of a nurse-led Antenatal Asthma Management Service in South Australia (AAMS study).

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy presents a unique situation for the management of asthma as it can alter the course of asthma severity and its treatment, which in turn can affect pregnancy outcomes. Despite awareness of the substantial adverse effects associated with asthma during pregnancy, little has been done to improve its management and reduce associated perinatal morbidity and mortality. The aim of this randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of an Antenatal Asthma Management Service. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomized controlled trial. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Women with physician diagnosed asthma, which is not currently in remission, who are less than 20 weeks gestation with a singleton pregnancy and do not have a chronic medical condition.Trial entry and randomization: Eligible women with asthma, stratified by treatment site, disease severity and parity, will be randomized into either the 'Standard Care Group' or the 'Intervention Group'.Study groups: Both groups will be followed prospectively throughout pregnancy. Women in the 'Standard Care Group' will receive routine obstetric care reflecting current clinical practice in Australian hospitals. Women in the 'Intervention Group' will receive additional care through the nurse-led Antenatal Asthma Management Service, based in the antenatal outpatient clinic. Women will receive asthma education with a full assessment of their asthma at 18, 24, 30 and 36 weeks gestation. Each antenatal visit will include a 60 min session where asthma management skills are assessed including: medication adherence and knowledge, inhaler device technique, recognition of asthma deterioration and possession of a written asthma action plan. Furthermore, subjects will receive education about asthma control and management skills including trigger avoidance and smoking cessation counseling when appropriate.Primary study outcome: Asthma exacerbations during pregnancy. SAMPLE SIZE: A sample size of 378 women will be sufficient to show an absolute reduction in asthma exacerbations during pregnancy of 20% (alpha 0.05 two-tailed, 90% power, 5% loss to follow-up). DISCUSSION: The integration of an asthma education program within the antenatal clinic setting has the significant potential to improve the participation of pregnant women in the self-management of their asthma, reduce asthma exacerbations and improve perinatal health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12613000244707.

Interventions for hyperthyroidism pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Women with hyperthyroidism in pregnancy have increased risks of miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm birth, and intrauterine growth restriction; and they can develop severe pre-eclampsia or placental abruption. OBJECTIVES: To identify interventions used in the management of hyperthyroidism pre-pregnancy or during pregnancy and to ascertain the impact of these interventions on important maternal, fetal, neonatal and childhood outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster-randomised trials comparing antithyroid interventions for hyperthyroidism pre-pregnancy or during pregnancy with another intervention or no intervention (placebo or no treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and planned to assess trial quality and extract the data independently. MAIN RESULTS: No trials were included in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As we did not identify any eligible trials, we are unable to comment on implications for practice, although early identification of hyperthyroidism before pregnancy may allow a woman to choose radioactive iodine therapy or surgery before planning to have a child. Designing and conducting a trial of antithyroid interventions for pregnant women with hyperthyroidism presents formidable challenges. Not only is hyperthyroidism a relatively rare condition, both of the two main drugs used have potential for harm, one for the mother and the other for the child. More observational research is required about the potential harms of methimazole in early pregnancy and about the potential liver damage from propylthiouracil.

Interventions for treating cholestasis in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Obstetric cholestasis has been linked to adverse maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes. As the pathophysiology is poorly understood, therapies have been empiric. The first version of this review, published in 2001, and including nine randomised controlled trials involving 227 women, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend any of the interventions alone or in combination. This is the first update. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic and delivery interventions in women with cholestasis of pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 February 2013) and reference lists of identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared two intervention strategies for women with a clinical diagnosis of obstetric cholestasis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias. We independently extracted data and checked these for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 trials with a total of 1197 women. They were mostly at moderate to high risk of bias. They assessed 11 different interventions resulting in 15 different comparisons.Compared with placebo, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) showed improvement in pruritus in five (228 women) out of seven trials. There were no significant differences in instances of fetal distress in the UDCA groups compared with placebo (average risk ratio (RR) 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.02; five trials, 304 women; random-effects analysis: T² = 0.74; I² = 48%). There were significantly fewer total preterm births with UDCA (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.73; two trials, 179 women). The difference for spontaneous preterm births was not significant (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.36, two trials, 109 women).Two trials (48 women) reported lower (better) pruritus scores for S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) compared with placebo, while two other trials of 34 women reported no significant differences between groups.UDCA was more effective in improving pruritus than either SAMe (four trials; 133 women) or cholestyramine (one trial; 84 women), as was combined UDCA+SAMe when compared with placebo (one trial; 16 women) and SAMe alone (two trials; 68 women). However, combined UDCA+SAMe was no more effective than UDCA alone in regard to pruritus improvement (one trial; 53 women) and two trials (80 women) reported data were insufficient to draw any conclusions from. In one trial comparing UDCA and dexamethasone (83 women), a significant improvement with UDCA was seen only in a subgroup of women with severe obstetric cholestasis (23 women).Danxiaoling significantly improved pruritus in comparison to Yiganling. No significant differences were seen in pruritus improvement with other interventions.Eight trials reported fetal or neonatal deaths, with two deaths reported overall (both in the placebo groups).Women receiving UDCA and cholestyramine experienced nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. Guar gum caused mild abdominal distress, diarrhoea and flatulence during the first days of treatment. Women found charcoal suspension unpleasant to swallow. Dexamethasone caused nausea, dizziness and stomach pain in one woman.One trial (62 women) looked at the timing of delivery intervention. There were no stillbirths or neonatal deaths in 'early delivery' or the 'await spontaneous labour' group. There were no significant differences in the rates of caesarean section, meconium passage or admission to neonatal intensive care unit between the two groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Different approaches to assessing and reporting pruritus precluded pooling of trials comparing the effects of UDCA versus placebo on pruritus, but examination of individual trials suggests that UDCA significantly improves pruritus, albeit by a small amount. Fewer instances of fetal distress/asphyxial events were seen in the UDCA groups when compared with placebo but the difference was not statistically significant. Large trials of UDCA to determine fetal benefits or risks are needed.A single trial was too small to rule in or out a clinically important effect of early term delivery on caesarean section.There is insufficient evidence to indicate that SAMe, guar gum, activated charcoal, dexamethasone, cholestyramine, Salvia, Yinchenghao decoction (YCHD), Danxioling and Yiganling, or Yiganling alone or in combination are effective in treating women with cholestasis of pregnancy.

Interventions for clinical and subclinical hypothyroidism pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade there has been enhanced awareness of the appreciable morbidity of thyroid dysfunction, particularly thyroid deficiency. Since treating clinical and subclinical hypothyroidism may reduce adverse obstetric outcomes, it is crucial to identify which interventions are safe and effective. OBJECTIVES: To identify interventions used in the management of hypothyroidism and subclinical hypothyroidism pre-pregnancy or during pregnancy and to ascertain the impact of these interventions on important maternal, fetal, neonatal and childhood outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared a pharmacological intervention for hypothyroidism and subclinical hypothyroidism pre-pregnancy or during pregnancy with another intervention or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs of moderate risk of bias involving 362 women. In one trial of 115 women, levothyroxine therapy to treat pregnant euthyroid (normal thyroid function) women with thyroid peroxidase antibodies was not shown to reduce pre-eclampsia significantly (risk ratio (RR) 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 3.48) but did significantly reduce preterm birth by 72% (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.80). Two trials of 30 and 48 hypothyroid women respectively compared levothyroxine doses, but both trials reported only biochemical outcomes. A trial of 169 women compared the trace element selenomethionine (selenium) with placebo and no significant differences were seen for either pre-eclampsia (RR 1.44; 95% CI 0.25 to 8.38) or preterm birth (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.20 to 4.61). None of the four trials reported on childhood neurodevelopmental delay.There was a non-significant trend towards fewer miscarriages with levothyroxine, and selenium showed some favourable impact on postpartum thyroid function and a decreased incidence of moderate to advanced postpartum thyroiditis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no difference between levothyroxine therapy and a control for treating pregnant euthyroid women with thyroid peroxidase antibodies for the outcome of pre-eclampsia, however a reduction in preterm birth and a trend towards reduced miscarriage with levothyroxine was shown. This review also showed no difference for pre-eclampsia or preterm birth when selenium was compared with placebo, however a promising reduction in postpartum thyroiditis was shown. Childhood neurodevelopmental delay was not assessed by any trial included in the review.Given that this review is based on four trials of moderate risk of bias, with only two trials contributing data (n = 284), there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of one intervention for clinical or subclinical hypothyroidism pre-pregnancy or during pregnancy over another, for improving maternal, fetal, neonatal and childhood outcomes.

Magnesium sulphate at 30 to 34 weeks' gestational age: neuroprotection trial (MAGENTA)--study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate is currently recommended for neuroprotection of preterm infants for women at risk of preterm birth at less than 30 weeks' gestation, based on high quality evidence of benefit. However there remains uncertainty as to whether these benefits apply at higher gestational ages.The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to assess whether giving magnesium sulphate compared with placebo to women immediately prior to preterm birth between 30 and 34 weeks' gestation reduces the risk of death or cerebral palsy in their children at two years' corrected age. DESIGN: Randomised, multicentre, placebo controlled trial. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Women, giving informed consent, at risk of preterm birth between 30 to 34 weeks' gestation, where birth is planned or definitely expected within 24 hours, with a singleton or twin pregnancy and no contraindications to the use of magnesium sulphate.Trial entry & randomisation: Eligible women will be randomly allocated to receive either magnesium sulphate or placebo.Treatment groups: Women in the magnesium sulphate group will be administered 50 ml of a 100 ml infusion bag containing 8 g magnesium sulphate heptahydrate [16 mmol magnesium ions]. Women in the placebo group will be administered 50 ml of a 100 ml infusion bag containing isotonic sodium chloride solution (0.9%). Both treatments will be administered through a dedicated IV infusion line over 30 minutes.Primary study outcome: Death or cerebral palsy measured in children at two years' corrected age. SAMPLE SIZE: 1676 children are required to detect a decrease in the combined outcome of death or cerebral palsy, from 9.6% with placebo to 5.4% with magnesium sulphate (two-sided alpha 0.05, 80% power, 5% loss to follow up, design effect 1.2). DISCUSSION: Given the magnitude of the protective effect in the systematic review, the ongoing uncertainty about benefits at later gestational ages, the serious health and cost consequences of cerebral palsy for the child, family and society, a trial of magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth between 30 to 34 weeks' gestation is both important and relevant for clinical practice globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry - ACTRN12611000491965.

Detection and management of mood disorders in the maternity setting: the Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Mood disorders arising in the perinatal period (conception to the first postnatal year), occur in up to 13% of women. The adverse impact of mood disorders on mother, infant and family with potential long-term consequences are well documented. There is a need for clear, evidence-based, guidelines for midwives and other maternity care providers. AIM: To describe the process undertaken to develop the Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines for Depression and Related Disorders in the Perinatal Period and to highlight the key recommendations and their implications for the maternity sector. METHOD: Using NHMRC criteria, a rigorous systematic literature review was undertaken synthesising the evidence used to formulate graded guideline recommendations. Where there was insufficient evidence for recommendations, Good Practice Points were formulated. These are based on lower quality evidence and/or expert consensus. FINDINGS: The quality of the evidence was good in regards to the use of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and psychological interventions, but limited as regards medication use and safety perinatally. Recommendations were made for staff training in psychosocial assessment; universal screening for depression across the perinatal period; and the use of evidence based psychological interventions for mild to moderate depression postnatally. Good Practice Points addressed the use of comprehensive psychosocial assessment--including risk to mother and infant, and consideration of the mother-infant interaction--and gave advice around the use and safety of psychotropic medications in pregnancy and breastfeeding. In contrast to their international counterparts, the Australian guidelines emphasize a more holistic, woman and family centred approach to the management of mental health and mood disorders in the perinatal setting. CONCLUSION: The development of these Guidelines is a first step in translating evidence into practice and providing Australian midwives and other maternity care providers with clear guidance on the psychosocial management of women and families.