Oral misoprostol alone, compared with oral misoprostol followed by oxytocin, in women induced for hypertension of pregnancy: A multicentre randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether, in those requiring continuing uterine stimulation after cervical ripening with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, augmentation with low-dose oral misoprostol is superior to intravenous oxytocin. DESIGN: Open-label, superiority randomised trial. SETTING: Government hospitals in India. POPULATION: Women who were induced for hypertensive disease in pregnancy and had undergone cervical ripening with oral misoprostol, but required continuing stimulation after artificial membrane rupture. METHODS: Participants received misoprostol (25 micrograms, orally, 2-hourly) or titrated oxytocin through an infusion pump. All women had one-to-one care; fetal monitoring was conducted using a mixture of intermittent and continuous electronic fetal monitoring. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Caesarean birth. RESULTS: A total of 520 women were randomised and the baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The caesarean section rate was not reduced with the use of misoprostol (misoprostol, 84/260, 32.3%, vs oxytocin, 71/260, 27.3%; aOR 1.23; 95% CI 0.81-1.85; P = 0.33). The interval from randomisation to birth was somewhat longer with misoprostol (225 min, 207-244 min, vs 194 min, 179-210 min; aOR 1.137; 95% CI 1.023-1.264; P = 0.017). There were no cases of hyperstimulation in either arm. The rates of fetal heart rate abnormalities and maternal side effects were similar. Fewer babies in the misoprostol arm were admitted to the special care unit (10 vs 21 in the oxytocin group; aOR 0.463; 95% CI 0.203-1.058; P = 0.068) and there were no neonatal deaths in the misoprostol group, compared with three neonatal deaths in the oxytocin arm. Women's acceptability ratings were high in both study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Following cervical preparation with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, the use of continuing oral misoprostol for augmentation did not significantly reduce caesarean rates, compared with the use of oxytocin. There were no hyperstimulation or significant adverse events in either arm of the trial.

What do pregnant women think about influenza disease and vaccination practices in selected countries.

Introduction: We evaluated knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) related to influenza and influenza vaccination among pregnant women in three selected countries.Methods: During 2017, pregnant women seeking antenatal care at hospitals at participating sites were enrolled. We described characteristics and responses to KAP questions. We also evaluated predictors associated with influenza vaccination during pregnancy at sites with substantial influenza vaccine uptake by multivariable logistic regression.Results: Overall, 4,648 pregnant women completed the survey. There were substantial differences among the three survey populations; only 8% of the women in Nagpur had heard of influenza, compared to 90% in Lima and 96% in Bangkok (p-value<0.01). Despite significant differences in sociodemographic characteristics in the three populations, most participants across sites who were aware of influenza prior to study enrollment believe they and their infants are at risk of influenza and related complications and believe influenza vaccination is safe and effective. Half of women in Lima had verified receipt of influenza vaccine compared to <5% in Bangkok and Nagpur (p < .05). For further analysis conducted among women in Lima only, household income above the poverty line (aOR: 1.38; 95%CI: 1.01, 1.88), having 8+ antenatal visits, compared to 0-4 (aOR: 2.41; 95%CI: 1.39, 2.87, respectively), having 0 children, compared to 2+ (aOR: 1.96; 95%CIs: 1.23, 3.12), and vaccination recommended by a health-care provider (aOR: 8.25; 95%CI: 6.11, 11.14) were strongly associated with receipt of influenza vaccine during pregnancy.Conclusions: Our findings identify opportunities for targeted interventions to improve influenza vaccine uptake among pregnant women in these settings.

Oral antihypertensive regimens (nifedipine retard, labetalol, and methyldopa) for management of severe hypertension in pregnancy: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the most common medical disorder in pregnancy, complicating one in ten pregnancies. Treatment of severely increased blood pressure is widely recommended to reduce the risk for maternal complications. Regimens for the acute treatment of severe hypertension typically include intravenous medications. Although effective, these drugs require venous access and careful fetal monitoring and might not be feasible in busy or low-resource environments. We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of three oral drugs, labetalol, nifedipine retard, and methyldopa for the management of severe hypertension in pregnancy. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we compared these oral antihypertensives in two public hospitals in Nagpur, India. Pregnant women were eligible for the trial if they were aged at least 18 years; they were pregnant with fetuses that had reached a gestational age of at least 28 weeks; they required pharmacological blood pressure control for severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥110 mm Hg); and were able to swallow oral medications. Women were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg oral nifedipine, 200 mg oral labetalol (hourly, in both of which the dose could be escalated if hypertension was maintained), or 1000 mg methyldopa (a single dose, without dose escalation). Masking of participants, study investigators, and care providers to group allocation was not possible because of different escalation protocols in the study groups. The primary outcome was blood pressure control (defined as 120-150 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and 70-100 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure) within 6 h with no adverse outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01912677, and the Clinical Trial Registry, India, number ctri/2013/08/003866. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2015, and Aug 21, 2017, we screened 2307 women for their inclusion in the study. We excluded 1413 (61%) women who were ineligible, declined to participate, had impending eclampsia, were in active labour, or had a combination of these factors. 11 (4%) women in the nifedipine group, ten (3%) women in the labetalol group, and 11 (4%) women in the methyldopa group were ineligible for treatment (because they had only one qualifying blood pressure measurement) or had treatment stopped (because of delivery or transfer elsewhere). 894 (39%) women were randomly assigned to a treatment group and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 298 (33%) women were assigned to receive nifedipine, 295 (33%) women were assigned to receive labetalol, and 301 (33%) women were assigned to receive methyldopa. The primary outcome was significantly more common in women in the nifedipine group than in those in the methyldopa group (249 [84%] women vs 230 [76%] women; p=0·03). However, the primary outcome did not differ between the nifedipine and labetalol groups (249 [84%] women vs 228 [77%] women; p=0·05) or the labetalol and methyldopa groups (p=0·80). Seven serious adverse events (1% of births) were reported during the study: one (<1%) woman in the labetalol group had an intrapartum seizure and six (1%) neonates (one [<1%] neonate in the nifedipine group, two [1%] neonates in the labetalol group, and three [1%] neonates in the methyldopa group) were stillborn. No birth had more than one adverse event. INTERPRETATION: All oral antihypertensives reduced blood pressure to the reference range in most women. As single drugs, nifedipine retard use resulted in a greater frequency of primary outcome attainment than labetalol or methyldopa use. All three oral drugs-methyldopa, nifedipine, and labetalol-are viable initial options for treating severe hypertension in low-resource settings. FUNDING: PREEMPT (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; grantee of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).