Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS: Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS: In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS: Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK: Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Home Interventions and Light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo) trial aimed to find out whether or not treating vitiligo at home with a narrowband ultraviolet B light, either by itself or with a steroid ointment, is better than treatment using a steroid ointment only. We enrolled 517 children (aged ≥ 5 years) and adults who had small, active (i.e. recently changing) patches of vitiligo into the study. Participants received one of three possible treatment options: steroid ointment (plus dummy light), hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy (plus placebo ointment) or both treatments used together. We asked participants to judge how noticeable their target vitiligo patch was after 9 months of treatment. We considered the treatment to be successful if the participants' responses were either 'a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable'. The results showed that using both treatments together was better than using a steroid ointment on its own. Around one-quarter of participants (27%) who used both treatments together said that their vitiligo was either 'no longer noticeable' or 'a lot less noticeable' after 9 months of treatment. This was compared with 17% of those using steroid ointment on its own and 22% of those using narrowband ultraviolet B light on its own. All treatments were able to stop the vitiligo from spreading. Patches on the hands and feet were less likely to respond to treatment than patches on other parts of the body. The trial found that the vitiligo tended to return once treatments were stopped, so ongoing intermittent treatment may be needed to maintain the treatment response. The treatments were found to be relatively safe and easy to use, but light treatment required a considerable time commitment (approximately 20 minutes per session, two or three times per week). This trial showed that using steroid ointment and narrowband ultraviolet B light together is likely to be better than steroid ointment alone for people with small patches of vitiligo. Steroid ointment alone can still be effective for some people and remains a useful treatment that is able to stop vitiligo from spreading. The challenge is to make hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment available as normal care in the NHS for people with vitiligo.

Gentamicin, azithromycin and ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea: the relationship between antibiotic MIC and clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between MIC and clinical outcome in a randomized controlled trial that compared gentamicin 240 mg plus azithromycin 1 g with ceftriaxone 500 mg plus azithromycin 1 g. MIC analysis was performed on Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates from all participants who were culture positive before they received treatment. METHODS: Viable gonococcal cultures were available from 279 participants, of whom 145 received ceftriaxone/azithromycin and 134 received gentamicin/azithromycin. Four participants (6 isolates) and 14 participants (17 isolates) did not clear infection in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin and gentamicin/azithromycin arms, respectively. MICs were determined by Etest on GC agar base with 1% Vitox. The geometric mean MICs of azithromycin, ceftriaxone and gentamicin were compared using logistic and linear regression according to treatment received and N. gonorrhoeae clearance. RESULTS: As the azithromycin MIC increased, gentamicin/azithromycin treatment was less effective than ceftriaxone/azithromycin at clearing N. gonorrhoeae. There was a higher geometric mean MIC of azithromycin for isolates from participants who had received gentamicin/azithromycin and did not clear infection compared with those who did clear infection [ratio 1.95 (95% CI 1.28-2.97)], but the use of categorical MIC breakpoints did not accurately predict the treatment response. The geometric mean MIC of azithromycin was higher in isolates from the pharynx compared with genital isolates. CONCLUSIONS: We found that categorical resistance to azithromycin or ceftriaxone in vitro, and higher gentamicin MICs in the absence of breakpoints, were poorly predictive of treatment failure.

Home interventions and light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Vitiligo is a condition resulting in white patches on the skin. People with vitiligo can suffer from low self-esteem, psychological disturbance and diminished quality of life. Vitiligo is often poorly managed, partly due to lack of high-quality evidence to inform clinical care. We describe here a large, independent, randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the comparative effectiveness of potent topical corticosteroid, home-based hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B-light (NB-UVB) or combination of the two, for the management of vitiligo. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial is a multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, pragmatic, placebo-controlled RCT. 516 adults and children with actively spreading, but limited, vitiligo are randomised (1:1:1) to one of three groups: mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus dummy NB-UVB light, vehicle ointment plus NB-UVB light or mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus NB-UVB light. Treatment of up to three patches of vitiligo is continued for up to 9 months with clinic visits at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months and four post-treatment questionnaires.The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial assesses outcomes included in the vitiligo core outcome set and places emphasis on participants' views of treatment success. The primary outcome is proportion of participants achieving treatment success (patient-rated Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) for a target patch of vitiligo at 9 months with further independent blinded assessment using digital images of the target lesion before and after treatment. Secondary outcomes include time to onset of treatment response, treatment success by body region, percentage repigmentation, quality of life, time-burden of treatment, maintenance of response, safety and within-trial cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals were granted by East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (14/EM/1173) and the MHRA (EudraCT 2014-003473-42). The trial was registered 8 January 2015 ISRCTN (17160087). Results will be published in full as open access in the NIHR Journal library and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17160087.

Gentamicin versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-TOG trial): study protocol for a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection which causes genital pain and discomfort; in women it can also lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility, and in men to epididymo-orchitis. Current treatment is with ceftriaxone, but there is increasing evidence of antimicrobial resistance which is reducing its effectiveness against gonorrhoea. A small, but increasing, number of patients have already been found to have highly resistant strains of gonorrhoea which has been associated with clinical failure. This trial aims to determine whether gentamicin is not clinically worse than ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a blinded, two-arm, multicentre, noninferiority randomised trial. Patients are eligible if they are aged 16-70 years with a diagnosis of genital, pharyngeal and/or rectal gonorrhoea. Exclusion criteria are: known concurrent sexually transmitted infection(s) (excluding chlamydia); bacterial vaginosis and/or Trichomonas vaginalis infection; contraindications or an allergy to gentamicin, ceftriaxone, azithromycin or lidocaine; pregnancy or breastfeeding; complicated gonorrhoeal infection; weight under 40 kg; use of ceftriaxone, gentamicin or azithromycin within the preceding 28 days. Randomisation is to receive a single intramuscular injection of either gentamicin or ceftriaxone, all participants receive 1 g oral azithromycin as standard treatment. The estimated sample size is 720 participants (noninferiority limit 5%). The primary outcome is clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all infected sites by a negative Nucleic Acid Amplification Test, 2 weeks post treatment. Secondary outcomes include clinical resolution of symptoms, frequency of adverse events, tolerability of therapy, relationship between clinical effectiveness and antibiotic minimum inhibitory concentration for N. gonorrhoeae, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The options for future treatment of gonorrhoea are limited. Results from this randomised trial will demonstrate whether gentamicin is not clinically worse than ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea. This will inform clinical practice and policy for the treatment of gonorrhoea when current therapy with cephalosporins is no longer effective, or is contraindicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number - ISRCTN51783227 , Registered on 18 September 2014. Current protocol version 2.0 17 June 2015.

Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The number of visits for antenatal (prenatal) care developed without evidence of how many visits are necessary. The content of each visit also needs evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of antenatal care programmes with reduced visits for low-risk women with standard care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 March 2015), reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing a reduced number of antenatal visits, with or without goal-oriented care, versus standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. We assessed studies for risk of bias and graded the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (more than 60,000 women): four in high-income countries with individual randomisation; three in low- and middle-income countries with cluster randomisation (clinics as the unit of randomisation). Most of the data included in the review came from the three large, well-designed cluster-randomised trials that took place in Argentina, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Zimbabwe. All results have been adjusted for the cluster design effect. All of the trials were at some risk of bias as blinding of women and staff was not feasible with this type of intervention. For primary outcomes, evidence was graded as being of moderate or low quality, with downgrading decisions due to risks of bias and imprecision of effects.The number of visits for standard care varied, with fewer visits in low- and middle- income country trials. In studies in high-income countries, women in the reduced visits groups, on average, attended between 8.2 and 12 times. In low- and middle- income country trials, many women in the reduced visits group attended on fewer than five occasions, although in these trials the content as well as the number of visits was changed, so as to be more 'goal-oriented'.Perinatal mortality was increased for those randomised to reduced visits rather than standard care, and this difference was borderline for statistical significance (risk ratio (RR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.31; five trials, 56,431 babies; moderate-quality evidence). In the subgroup analysis, for high-income countries the number of deaths was small (32/5108), and there was no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.80, two trials); for low- and middle-income countries perinatal mortality was significantly higher in the reduced visits group (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32, three trials).There was no clear difference between groups for our other primary outcomes: maternal death (RR 1.13, 95%CI 0.50 to 2.57, three cluster-randomised trials, 51,504 women, low-quality evidence); hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (various definitions including pre-eclampsia) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, six studies, 54,108 women, low-quality evidence); preterm birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; seven studies, 53,661 women, moderate-quality evidence); and small-for-gestational age (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, four studies 43,045 babies, moderate-quality evidence).Reduced visits were associated with a reduction in admission to neonatal intensive care that was borderline for significance (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02, five studies, 43,048 babies, moderate quality evidence). There were no clear differences between the groups for the other secondary clinical outcomes.Women in all settings were less satisfied with the reduced visits schedule and perceived the gap between visits as too long. Reduced visits may be associated with lower costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In settings with limited resources where the number of visits is already low, reduced visits programmes of antenatal care are associated with an increase in perinatal mortality compared to standard care, although admission to neonatal intensive care may be reduced. Women prefer the standard visits schedule. Where the standard number of visits is low, visits should not be reduced without close monitoring of fetal and neonatal outcome.

Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are common causes of serious morbidity and death. Calcium supplementation may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia, and may help to prevent preterm birth. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of calcium supplementation during pregnancy on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and related maternal and child outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 March 2013) and contacted study authors for more data where possible. We updated the search in May 2014 and added the results to the 'Awaiting Classification' section of the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing high-dose (at least 1 g daily of calcium) or low-dose calcium supplementation during pregnancy with placebo or no calcium. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed eligibility and trial quality, extracted and double-entered data. MAIN RESULTS: High-dose calcium supplementation (≥1 g/day)We included 14 studies in the review, however one study contributed no data. We included 13 high-quality studies in our meta-analyses (15,730 women). The average risk of high blood pressure (BP) was reduced with calcium supplementation compared with placebo (12 trials, 15,470 women: risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.81; I² = 74%). There was also a significant reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia associated with calcium supplementation (13 trials, 15,730 women: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65; I² = 70%). The effect was greatest for women with low calcium diets (eight trials, 10,678 women: average RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.65; I² = 76%) and women at high risk of pre-eclampsia (five trials, 587 women: average RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.42; I² = 0%). These data should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of small-study effect or publication bias.The composite outcome maternal death or serious morbidity was reduced (four trials, 9732 women; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; I² = 0%). Maternal deaths were not significantly different (one trial of 8312 women: calcium group one death versus placebo group six deaths). There was an anomalous increase in the risk of HELLP (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets) syndrome (two trials, 12,901 women: RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.82; I² = 0%) in the calcium group, however, the absolute number of events was low (16 versus six).The average risk of preterm birth was reduced in the calcium group (11 trials, 15,275 women: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97; I² = 60%) and amongst women at high risk of developing pre-eclampsia (four trials, 568 women: average RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.83; I² = 60%), but no significant reduction in neonatal high care admission. There was no overall effect on the risk of stillbirth or infant death before discharge from hospital (11 trials 15,665 babies: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09; I² = 0%).One study showed a reduction in childhood systolic BP greater than 95th percentile among children exposed to calcium supplementation in utero (514 children: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). In a subset of these children, dental caries at 12 years old was also reduced (195 children, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87). Low-dose calcium supplementation (< 1 g/day)We included 10 trials (2234 women) that evaluated low-dose supplementation with calcium alone (4) or in association with vitamin D (3), linoleic acid (2), or antioxidants (1). Most studies recruited women at high risk for pre-eclampsia, and were at high risk of bias, thus the results should be interpreted with caution. Supplementation with low doses of calcium significantly reduced the risk of pre-eclampsia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.52; I² = 0%). There was also a reduction in hypertension, low birthweight and neonatal intensive care unit admission. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Calcium supplementation (≥ 1 g/day) is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia, particularly for women with low calcium diets. The treatment effect may be overestimated due to small-study effects or publication bias. It also reduces preterm birth and the occurrence of the composite outcome 'maternal death or serious morbidity'. We considered these benefits to outweigh the increased risk of HELLP syndrome, which was small in absolute numbers. The World Health Organization recommends calcium 1.5 g to 2 g daily for pregnant women with low dietary calcium intake.The limited evidence on low-dose calcium supplementation suggests a reduction in pre-eclampsia, but needs to be confirmed by larger, high-quality trials. Pending such results, in settings of low dietary calcium where high-dose supplementation is not feasible, the option of lower-dose supplements (500 to 600 mg/day) might be considered in preference to no supplementation.

Optimal timing of umbilical cord clamping for term and preterm babies.

Deferring cord clamping allows blood flow between baby and placenta to continue for a few moments. This often leads to increased neonatal blood volume at birth. It also allows for longer transition to the neonatal circulation. Optimal timing for clamping the cord remains uncertain. This paper discusses the physiology of placental transfusion and presents the evidence from systematic reviews of randomised trials comparing alternative strategies for cord clamping for both term and preterm births. For healthy term infants, deferring cord clamping increases iron stores in infancy. Therefore, a more liberal approach to deferring cord clamping appears to be warranted, provided screening and treatment for jaundice requiring phototherapy is available. For preterm births, although there are few data on the main clinical outcomes, the evidence is promising that deferred cord clamping may be beneficial. For both term and preterm infants there is little information about long term development.

Pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: Pre-eclampsia (raised blood pressure and proteinuria) complicates 2% to 8% of pregnancies, and raises morbidity and mortality in the mother and child. Pre-eclampsia is more common in women with multiple pregnancy and in those who have conditions associated with microvascular disease. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: what are the effects of preventive interventions in women at risk of pre-eclampsia? What are the effects of interventions in women who develop mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy? What are the effects of interventions in women who develop severe pre-eclampsia or very high blood pressure during pregnancy? What is the best choice of anticonvulsant for women with eclampsia? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 69 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anticonvulsants, antihypertensive drugs, antioxidants, antiplatelet drugs, atenolol, bed rest, hospital admission, or day care, calcium supplementation, choice of analgesia during labour, early delivery (interventionist care), evening primrose oil, fish oil, glyceryl trinitrate, magnesium supplementation, plasma volume expansion, and salt restriction.

Magnesium sulphate versus phenytoin for eclampsia.

BACKGROUND: Eclampsia, the occurrence of a seizure in association with pre-eclampsia, remains a rare but serious complication of pregnancy. A number of different anticonvulsants have been used to control eclamptic fits and to prevent further seizures. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of magnesium sulphate compared with phenytoin when used for the care of women with eclampsia. Magnesium sulphate is compared with diazepam and with lytic cocktail in other Cochrane reviews. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing magnesium sulphate (intravenous or intramuscular administration) with phenytoin for women with a clinical diagnosis of eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We have included data from seven trials, involving 972 women. One large trial (775 women) was of good quality. Magnesium sulphate was associated with a substantial reduction in the recurrence of seizures, when compared to phenytoin (six trials, 972 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.49). The trend in maternal mortality favours magnesium sulphate, but the difference does not reach statistical significance (three trials, 847 women; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.05). There were reductions in the risk of pneumonia (one trial, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.79), ventilation (one trial, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91) and admission to an intensive care unit (one trial, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.89) associated with the use of magnesium sulphate rather than phenytoin.For the baby, magnesium sulphate was associated with fewer admissions to a special care baby unit (SCBU) (one trial, 518 babies; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91) and fewer babies who died or were in SCBU for more than seven days (one trial, 643 babies; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.95) than phenytoin. There was no clear difference in perinatal deaths (two trials, 665 babies; (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.09). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Magnesium sulphate, rather than phenytoin, for women with eclampsia reduces the risk ratio of recurrence of seizures, probably reduces the risk of maternal death, and improves outcome for the baby. Magnesium sulphate is the drug of choice for women with eclampsia. The use of phenytoin should be abandoned.

Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The number of visits for antenatal (prenatal) care developed without evidence of how many visits are necessary. The content of each visit also needs evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of antenatal care programmes with reduced visits for low-risk women with standard care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2010), reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing a reduced number of antenatal visits, with or without goal-oriented care, with standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (more than 60,000 women): four in high-income countries with individual randomisation; three in low- and middle-income countries with cluster randomisation (clinics as the unit of randomisation). The number of visits for standard care varied, with fewer visits in low- and middle- income country trials. In studies in high-income countries, women in the reduced visits groups, on average, attended between 8.2 and 12 times. In low- and middle- income country trials, many women in the reduced visits group attended on fewer than five occasions, although in these trials the content as well as the number of visits was changed, so as to be more 'goal oriented'.Perinatal mortality was increased for those randomised to reduced visits rather than standard care, and this difference was borderline for statistical significance (five trials; risk ratio (RR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.31). In the subgroup analysis, for high-income countries the number of deaths was small (32/5108), and there was no clear difference between the groups (2 trials; RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.80); for low- and middle-income countries perinatal mortality was significantly higher in the reduced visits group (3 trials RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32). Reduced visits were associated with a reduction in admission to neonatal intensive care that was borderline for significance (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02). There were no clear differences between the groups for the other reported clinical outcomes.Women in all settings were less satisfied with the reduced visits schedule and perceived the gap between visits as too long. Reduced visits may be associated with lower costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In settings with limited resources where the number of visits is already low, reduced visits programmes of antenatal care are associated with an increase in perinatal mortality compared to standard care, although admission to neonatal intensive care may be reduced. Women prefer the standard visits schedule. Where the standard number of visits is low, visits should not be reduced without close monitoring of fetal and neonatal outcome.

Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are common causes of serious morbidity and death. Calcium supplementation may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia through a number of mechanisms, and may help to prevent preterm birth. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of calcium supplementation during pregnancy on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and related maternal and child outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (May 2010) and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing at least 1 g daily of calcium during pregnancy with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed eligibility and trial quality, extracted and double-entered data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies of good quality (involving 15,730 women). The average risk of high blood pressure was reduced with calcium supplementation rather than placebo (12 trials, 15,470 women: risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.81). There was also a reduction in the average risk of pre-eclampsia associated with calcium supplementation (13 trials, 15,730 women: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65). The effect was greatest for high-risk women (five trials, 587 women: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.42), and those with low baseline calcium intake (eight trials, 10,678 women: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.65).The average risk of preterm birth was reduced in the calcium group overall (11 trials, 15,275 women: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97) and amongst women at high risk of developing pre-eclampsia recruited to four small trials (568 women: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.83).There was no overall effect on the risk of stillbirth or death before discharge from hospital (11 trials 15,665 babies; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09). The composite outcome maternal death or serious morbidity was reduced (four trials, 9732 women; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97). Most of the women in these trials were low risk and had a low calcium diet. Maternal deaths were reported in only one trial. One death occurred in the calcium group and six in the placebo group, a difference which was not statistically significant (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.39).Blood pressure in childhood has been assessed in two studies, only one of which is currently included: childhood systolic blood pressure greater than 95th percentile was reduced (514 children: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Calcium supplementation appears to approximately halve the risk of pre-eclampsia, to reduce the risk of preterm birth and to reduce the rare occurrence of the composite outcome 'death or serious morbidity'. There were no other clear benefits, or harms.

Policies for care during the third stage of labour: a survey of maternity units in Syria.

BACKGROUND: Care for women during the third stage aims to reduce the risk of major haemorrhage, but is very variable. The current World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendation is that care should include administration of a uterotonic (oxytocin, if it is available) soon after birth of the baby, delayed cord clamping, and delivery of the placenta by controlled cord traction. METHODS: To ascertain care policies used during the third stage of labour in maternity units in Syria, we conducted a survey of 69 maternity units in obstetric and general public hospitals. A brief questionnaire was administered by face to face interview or telephone with senior obstetricians and midwives. Outcome measures were the use of prophylactic uterotonic drugs, timing of cord clamping, use of controlled cord traction, and treatment for postpartum haemorrhage. Obstetricians were asked about both vaginal and caesarean births, midwives only about vaginal births. RESULTS: Responses were obtained for 66 (96%) hospitals: a midwife and an obstetrician were interviewed in 40; an obstetrician only in 20; a midwife only in 6. Responses were similar, although midwives were more likely to report that the umbilical cord was clamped after 1-3 minutes or after cessation of pulsation (2/40 obstetricians and 9/40 midwives). Responses have therefore been combined.One hospital reported never using a prophylactic uterotonic drug. The uterotonic was Syntometrine(R) (oxytocin and ergometrine) in two thirds of hospitals; given after delivery of the placenta in 60 (91%) for vaginal births, and in 47 (78%) for caesarean births. Cord clamping was within 20 seconds at 42 hospitals 64%) for vaginal births and 45 (75%) for caesarean births. Controlled cord traction was never used in a quarter (17/66) of hospitals for vaginal births and a half (32/60) for caesarean births.68% of respondents (45/66) thought there was a need for more randomised trials of interventions during the third stage of labour. CONCLUSION: Most maternity units report using Syntometrine(R), usually given after delivery of the placenta, clamping the cord within 20 seconds, and using controlled cord traction.

The global impact of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia.

Over half a million women die each year from pregnancy related causes, 99% in low and middle income countries. In many low income countries, complications of pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death amongst women of reproductive years. The Millennium Development Goals have placed maternal health at the core of the struggle against poverty and inequality, as a matter of human rights. Ten percent of women have high blood pressure during pregnancy, and preeclampsia complicates 2% to 8% of pregnancies. Preeclampsia can lead to problems in the liver, kidneys, brain and the clotting system. Risks for the baby include poor growth and prematurity. Although outcome is often good, preeclampsia can be devastating and life threatening. Overall, 10% to 15% of direct maternal deaths are associated with preeclampsia and eclampsia. Where maternal mortality is high, most of deaths are attributable to eclampsia, rather than preeclampsia. Perinatal mortality is high following preeclampsia, and even higher following eclampsia. In low and middle income countries many public hospitals have limited access to neonatal intensive care, and so the mortality and morbidity is likely to be considerably higher than in settings where such facilities are available. The only interventions shown to prevent preeclampsia are antiplatelet agents, primarily low dose aspirin, and calcium supplementation. Treatment is largely symptomatic. Antihypertensive drugs are mandatory for very high blood pressure. Plasma volume expansion, corticosteroids and antioxidant agents have been suggested for severe preeclampsia, but trials to date have not shown benefit. Optimal timing for delivery of women with severe preeclampsia before 32 to 34 weeks' gestation remains a dilemma. Magnesium sulfate can prevent and control eclamptic seizures. For preeclampsia, it more than halves the risk of eclampsia (number needed to treat 100, 95% confidence interval 50 to 100) and probably reduces the risk of maternal death. A quarter of women have side effects, primarily flushing. With clinical monitoring serious adverse effects are rare. Magnesium sulfate is the anticonvulsant of choice for treating eclampsia; more effective than diazepam, phenytoin, or lytic cocktail. Although it is a low cost effective treatment, magnesium sulfate is not available in all low and middle income countries; scaling up its use for eclampsia and severe preeclampsia will contribute to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: Pre-eclampsia (raised blood pressure and proteinuria) complicates 2-8% of pregnancies, and raises morbidity and mortality in the mother and child. Pre-eclampsia is more common in women with multiple pregnancy and in those who have conditions associates with microvascular disease. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of preventive interventions in women at risk of pre-eclampsia? What are the effects of interventions in women who develop mild-moderate hypertension during pregnancy? What are the effects of interventions in women who develop severe pre-eclampsia or very high blood pressure during pregnancy? What is the best choice of anticonvulsant for women with eclampsia? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 53 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anticonvulsants, antihypertensive drugs, antioxidants, antiplatelet drugs, atenolol, bed rest, hospital admission or day care, calcium supplementation, choice of analgesia during labour, early delivery (interventionist care), evening primrose oil, fish oil, glyceryl trinitrate, magnesium supplementation, plasma volume expansion, and salt restriction.