Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros

Métodos Terapéuticos y Terapias MTCI
Bases de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Fetal Diagn Ther ; 51(1): 76-84, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37812923

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Fetal anemia from hemolytic disease treated by intrauterine transfusion (IUT) can be performed by intraperitoneal, intracardiac, and intravascular transfusion (IVT). Objective of our study was to compare different transfusion techniques. METHODS: Retrospective review of IUT secondary to red cell alloimmunization was conducted at eight international centers from 2012 to 2020. Severe anemia suspected if middle cerebral artery peaks systolic velocity ≥1.5 multiples of the median. Demographic, delivery, and postnatal variables were analyzed. RESULTS: Total of 344 procedures, 325 IVT and 19 other techniques (non-IVT) included. No difference in demographics, history of stillbirth (20.5 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.7), prior pregnancy IUT (25.6 vs. 31.6%, p = 0.5) or neonatal transfusion (36.1 vs. 43.8%, p = 0.5). At first IUT, non-IVT had higher hydrops (42.1% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.03), lower starting hematocrit (13.3% [±6] vs. 17.7% [±8.2], p = 0.04), and trend toward lower gestational age (24.6 [20.1-27] vs. 26.4 [23.2-29.6] weeks, p = 0.08). No difference in birthweight, neonatal phototherapy, exchange, or simple transfusion was observed. CONCLUSION: This is one of the largest studies comparing techniques to treat fetal anemia. IVT was most performed, other techniques were more likely performed in hydrops, and lower starting hematocrit was seen. Neither technique affected outcomes. This study may suggest that physician's experience may be the strongest contributor of outcomes.


Asunto(s)
Anemia , Enfermedades Fetales , Isoinmunización Rh , Embarazo , Recién Nacido , Femenino , Humanos , Transfusión de Sangre Intrauterina/métodos , Enfermedades Fetales/terapia , Anemia/terapia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Edema , Sangre Fetal
2.
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e050110, 2022 03 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35277398

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomised trial on the effects of myo-inositol in preventing gestational diabetes in high-risk pregnant women. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot randomised trial with nested qualitative evaluation. SETTING: Five inner city UK National Health Service hospitals PARTICIPANTS: Multiethnic pregnant women at 12+0 and 15+6 weeks' gestation with risk factors for gestational diabetes. INTERVENTIONS: 2 g of myo-inositol or placebo, both included 200 µg folic acid, twice daily until delivery. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of recruitment, randomisation, adherence and follow-up. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Glycaemic indices (including homoeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance HOMA-IR), gestational diabetes (diagnosed using oral glucose tolerance test at 28 weeks and by delivery), maternal, perinatal outcomes, acceptability of intervention and costs. RESULTS: Of the 1326 women screened, 58% (773/1326) were potentially eligible, and 27% (205/773) were recruited. We randomised 97% (198/205) of all recruited women (99 each in intervention and placebo arms) and ascertained outcomes in 90% of women (178/198) by delivery. The mean adherence was 52% (SD 44) at 28 weeks' and 34% (SD 41) at 36 weeks' gestation. HOMA-IR and serum insulin levels were lower in the myo-inositol vs placebo arm (mean difference -0.6, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.0 and -2.69, 95% CI -5.26 to -0.18, respectively). The study procedures were acceptable to women and healthcare professionals. Women who perceived themselves at high risk of gestational diabetes were more likely to participate and adhere to the intervention. The powder form of myo-inositol and placebo, along with nausea in pregnancy were key barriers to adherence. CONCLUSIONS: A future trial on myo-inositol versus placebo to prevent gestational diabetes is feasible. The intervention will need to be delivered in a non-powder form to improve adherence. There is a signal for efficacy in reducing insulin resistance in pregnancy with myo-inositol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN48872100.


Asunto(s)
Diabetes Gestacional , Resistencia a la Insulina , Diabetes Gestacional/diagnóstico , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Inositol , Masculino , Proyectos Piloto , Embarazo , Medicina Estatal
3.
BMJ Open ; 8(9): e022831, 2018 09 24.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30249632

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Gestational diabetes increases maternal and offspring complications in pregnancy and cardiovascular complications in the long term. The nutritional supplement myo-inositol may prevent gestational diabetes; however, further evaluation is required, especially in multiethnic high-risk mothers. Our pilot trial on myo-inositol to prevent gestational diabetes will evaluate trial processes, assess acceptability to mothers and obtain preliminary estimates of effect and cost data prior to a large full-scale trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EMmY is a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, pilot, randomised trial, with qualitative evaluation. We will recruit pregnant women at 12-15+6 weeks' gestation, with gestational diabetes risk factors, from five maternity units in England between 2018 and 2019. We will randomise 200 women to take either 2 g of myo-inositol powder (intervention) or placebo, twice daily until delivery. We will assess rates of recruitment, randomisation, adherence to intervention and follow-up. Gestational diabetes will be diagnosed at 24-28 weeks as per the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria (fasting plasma glucose: ≥5.6 mmol/L and 2-hour plasma glucose: ≥7.8 mmol/L). We will assess the effects of myo-inositol on glycaemic indices at 28 weeks and on other maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes at postnatal discharge. Qualitative evaluation will explore the acceptability of the trial and the intervention among women and healthcare professionals. Cost data and health-related quality of life measures will be captured. We will summarise feasibility outcomes using standard methods for proportions and other descriptive statistics, and where appropriate, report point estimates of effect sizes (eg, mean differences and relative risks) and associated 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained through the London Queen Square Research Ethics Committee (17/LO/1741). Study findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Newsletters will be made available to participants, healthcare professionals and members of Katie's Team (a patient and public advisory group) to disseminate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN48872100. PROTOCOL VERSION AND DATE: Version 4.0, 15 January 2018.


Asunto(s)
Diabetes Gestacional , Inositol , Adulto , Diabetes Gestacional/sangre , Diabetes Gestacional/diagnóstico , Diabetes Gestacional/prevención & control , Suplementos Dietéticos , Método Doble Ciego , Monitoreo de Drogas/métodos , Inglaterra , Femenino , Edad Gestacional , Índice Glucémico , Humanos , Inositol/administración & dosificación , Inositol/efectos adversos , Proyectos Piloto , Embarazo , Resultado del Embarazo , Complejo Vitamínico B/administración & dosificación , Complejo Vitamínico B/efectos adversos
4.
Hypertension ; 70(5): 915-922, 2017 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28893900

RESUMEN

Data from randomized controlled trials to guide antihypertensive agent choice for chronic hypertension in pregnancy are limited; this study aimed to compare labetalol and nifedipine, additionally assessing the impact of ethnicity on treatment efficacy. Pregnant women with chronic hypertension (12+0-27+6 weeks' gestation) were enrolled at 4 UK centers (August 2014 to October 2015). Open-label first-line antihypertensive treatment was randomly assigned: labetalol- (200-1800 mg/d) or nifedipine-modified release (20-80 mg/d). Analysis included 112 women (98%) who completed the study (labetalol n=55, nifedipine n=57). Maximum blood pressure after randomization was 161/101 mm Hg with labetalol versus 163/105 mm Hg with nifedipine (mean difference systolic: 1.2 mm Hg [-4.9 to 7.2 mm Hg], diastolic: 3.3 mm Hg [-0.6 to 7.3 mm Hg]). Mean blood pressure was 134/84 mm Hg with labetalol and 134/85 mm Hg with nifedipine (mean difference systolic: 0.3 mm Hg [-2.8 to 3.4 mm Hg], and diastolic: -1.9 mm Hg [-4.1 to 0.3 mm Hg]). Nifedipine use was associated with a 7.4-mm Hg reduction (-14.4 to -0.4 mm Hg) in central aortic pressure, measured by pulse wave analysis. No difference in treatment effect was observed in black women (n=63), but a mean 4 mm Hg reduction (-6.6 to -0.8 mm Hg; P=0.015) in brachial diastolic blood pressure was observed with labetalol compared with nifedipine in non-black women (n=49). Labetalol and nifedipine control mean blood pressure to target in pregnant women with chronic hypertension. This study provides support for a larger definitive trial scrutinizing the benefits and side effects of first-line antihypertensive treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN40973936.


Asunto(s)
Presión Arterial/efectos de los fármacos , Hipertensión , Labetalol , Nifedipino , Complicaciones Cardiovasculares del Embarazo , Adulto , Antihipertensivos/administración & dosificación , Antihipertensivos/efectos adversos , Determinación de la Presión Sanguínea/métodos , Monitoreo de Drogas/métodos , Femenino , Edad Gestacional , Humanos , Hipertensión/diagnóstico , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Labetalol/administración & dosificación , Labetalol/efectos adversos , Nifedipino/administración & dosificación , Nifedipino/efectos adversos , Embarazo , Complicaciones Cardiovasculares del Embarazo/diagnóstico , Complicaciones Cardiovasculares del Embarazo/tratamiento farmacológico , Análisis de la Onda del Pulso/métodos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Reino Unido
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA