ABSTRACT
AIM: There are no published data to demonstrate the efficacy of bolus dose vitamin D in newborn infants. The study sought to evaluate this alternative approach of supplementation. METHODS: This single centre, open randomised controlled trial was conducted from August 2013 to May 2014. It compared the efficacy and safety of daily (400 IU) versus a bolus dose (50 000 IU) of cholecalciferol in newborn infants of vitamin D deficient mothers. The primary outcome measure was the rate of 25 hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) repletion-defined as 25OHD greater than 50 nmol/L. The secondary objective was determining safety using adjusted total serum calcium. RESULTS: Of 70 eligible infants, 36 received a daily dose and 34 received a single high-dose cholecalciferol. Mean 25OHD in the bolus group (154 nmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) 131-177) was higher than the daily group (48 nmol/L, 95% CI 42-54) at 1-2 weeks of age. This was reversed at 3-4 months, (65 nmol/L, 95% CI 59-71) compared with the daily group (81 nmol/L, 95% CI 77-85). More infants in the single bolus group achieved vitamin D repletion (100 vs. 31%) at 1-2 weeks. By 3-4 months, both groups achieved similar vitamin D repletion rates (91 vs. 89%). Mean adjusted total serum calcium in the bolus group were normal at 1-2 weeks (2.73 mmol/L) and 3-4 months (2.55 mmol/L). CONCLUSION: Single bolus dosing of 50 000 IU cholecalciferol achieves higher 25OHD repletion rates at 1-2 weeks of age compared with daily dosing, but repletion rates were similar by 3-4 months. There was no hypercalcaemia documented with single bolus dosing in this study.
Subject(s)
Administration, Oral , Vitamin D Deficiency/drug therapy , Vitamin D/analogs & derivatives , Adult , Australia , Calcium/blood , Dietary Supplements , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Vitamin D/administration & dosage , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Home birth has attracted great controversy in the current context. There is a need for the public and health professionals to understand why maternity care providers have such different views on home birth, why they debate, what divides them into two opposite sides and if they have anything in common. METHOD: A qualitative study involving twenty maternity health providers in Tasmania was conducted. It used semi-structured interview which included closed and open-ended questions to provide opportunities for exploring emerging insights from the voices of the participants. FINDINGS: Health practitioners who support home birth do so for three reasons. Firstly, women have the right to choose the place of birth. Secondly, home birth may be more cost effective compared to hospital birth. Thirdly, if home birth is not supported, some women might choose to have a free birth. Those who opposed home birth argue that complications could occur at childbirth and the transfer time is critical for women's and babies' safety. These differences in opinions can be due to the differences in the training and philosophy of the maternity care providers. Despite the differing views on home births, health professionals share a common goal to protect the women and the newborns from unexpected situations during childbirth. CONCLUSION: This article provides some significant insights derived from the study of home birth from the maternity health professionals' perspectives and could contribute to the enhancement of mutual understanding and collaboration of health professionals in their services to expectant mothers.
