Labor induction information leaflets-Do women receive evidence-based information about the benefits and harms of labor induction?

Objectives: To determine the extent to which a sample of NHS labor induction leaflets reflects evidence on labor induction. Setting: Audit of labor induction patient information leaflets-local from WILL trial (When to Induce Labor to Limit risk in pregnancy hypertension) internal pilot sites or national-level available online. Methods: Descriptive analysis [n = 21 leaflets, 19 (one shared) in 20 WILL internal pilot sites and 2 NHS online] according to NHS "Protocol on the Production of Patient Information" criteria: general information (including indications), why and how induction is offered (including success and alternatives), and potential benefits and harms. Results: All leaflets described an induction indication. Most leaflets (n = 18) mentioned induction location and 16 the potential for delays due to delivery suite workloads and competing clinical priorities. While 19 leaflets discussed membrane sweeping (17 as an induction alternative), only 4 leaflets mentioned balloon catheter as another mechanical method. Induction success (onset of active labor) was presented by a minority of leaflets (n = 7, 33%), as "frequent" or in the "majority", with "rare" or "occasional" failures. Benefits, harms and outcomes following induction were not compared with expectant care, but rather with spontaneous labor, such as for pain (n = 14, with nine stating more pain with induction). Potential benefits of induction were seldom described [n = 7; including avoiding stillbirth (n = 4)], but deemed to be likely. No leaflet stated vaginal birth was more likely following induction, but most stated Cesarean was not increased (n = 12); one leaflet stated that Cesarean risks were increased following induction. Women's satisfaction was rarely presented (n = 2). Conclusion: Information provided to pregnant women regarding labor induction could be improved to better reflect women's choice between induction and expectant care, and the evidence upon which treatment recommendations are based. A multiple stakeholder-involved and evidence-informed process to update guidance is required.

The strength of evidence supporting luteal phase progestogen after assisted reproduction: A systematic review with reference to trial registration and pre-specified endpoints.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the potential for outcome switching and selective reporting, in trials of luteal phase progestogen in assisted reproduction. STUDY DESIGN: Trials identified through Medline and Embase in August 2017 using the MeSH term "assisted reproductive technology, luteal phase support" and associated text words. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing progestogen of any type, dose, and route of administration, with placebo or no treatment as luteal phase support in subfertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intrauterine insemination (IUI). Eight trials after IVF and eleven after IUI, involving 1040 and 2764 participants respectively, were included. RESULTS: None of the eight trials of progestogen therapy after IVF had been registered. Only 5/11 trials of progestogen after IUI had been registered, and only two of these prospectively. One of these had a registered primary outcome of "pregnancy sac plus heartbeat", but reported "pregnancy sac alone"; we judged this as an altered primary outcome. Three other trial had a registered primary outcome of "clinical pregnancy undefined" and reported "intra or extra-uterine pregnancy with a heartbeat"; we judged this alteration as minimal. That trial was negative. Overall, 26 different outcomes had been reported by the various trials. The three outcomes reported most often were pregnancy undefined (9/19), miscarriage (11/19) and clinical pregnancy (9/19). This suggests considerable potential for selective outcome reporting or outcome switching. CONCLUSION: Apart from one negative trial, none of the evidence on luteal phase progestogen after assisted reproduction comes from prospectively registered trials: a slender reed indeed.

Randomized Trial of Labor Induction in Women 35 Years of Age or Older.

BACKGROUND: The risk of antepartum stillbirth at term is higher among women 35 years of age or older than among younger women. Labor induction may reduce the risk of stillbirth, but it also may increase the risk of cesarean delivery, which already is common in this older age group. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial involving primigravid women who were 35 years of age or older. Women were randomly assigned to labor induction between 39 weeks 0 days and 39 weeks 6 days of gestation or to expectant management (i.e., waiting until the spontaneous onset of labor or until the development of a medical problem that mandated induction). The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. The trial was not designed or powered to assess the effects of labor induction on stillbirth. RESULTS: A total of 619 women underwent randomization. In an intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the percentage of women who underwent a cesarean section (98 of 304 women in the induction group [32%] and 103 of 314 women in the expectant-management group [33%]; relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.14) or in the percentage of women who had a vaginal delivery with the use of forceps or vacuum (115 of 304 women [38%] and 104 of 314 women [33%], respectively; relative risk, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.77). There were no maternal or infant deaths and no significant between-group differences in the women's experience of childbirth or in the frequency of adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among women of advanced maternal age, induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation, as compared with expectant management, had no significant effect on the rate of cesarean section and no adverse short-term effects on maternal or neonatal outcomes. (Funded by the Research for Patient Benefit Programme of the National Institute for Health Research; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN11517275.).

The SNAP trial: a randomised placebo-controlled trial of nicotine replacement therapy in pregnancy--clinical effectiveness and safety until 2 years after delivery, with economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking during pregnancy causes many adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is effective for cessation outside pregnancy but efficacy and safety in pregnancy are unknown. We hypothesised that NRT would increase smoking cessation in pregnancy without adversely affecting infants. OBJECTIVES: To compare (1) at delivery, the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for achieving biochemically validated smoking cessation of NRT patches with placebo patches in pregnancy and (2) in infants at 2 years of age, the effects of maternal NRT patch use with placebo patch use in pregnancy on behaviour, development and disability. DESIGN: Randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial and economic evaluation with follow-up at 4 weeks after randomisation, delivery and until infants were 2 years old. Randomisation was stratified by centre and a computer-generated sequence was used to allocate participants using a 1 : 1 ratio. Participants, site pharmacies and all study staff were blind to treatment allocation. SETTING: Seven antenatal hospitals in the Midlands and north-west England. PARTICIPANTS: Women between 12 and 24 weeks' gestation who smoked ≥ 10 cigarettes a day before and ≥ 5 during pregnancy, with an exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) reading of ≥ 8 parts per million (p.p.m.). INTERVENTIONS: NRT patches (15 mg per 16 hours) or matched placebo as an 8-week course issued in two equal batches. A second batch was dispensed at 4 weeks to those abstinent from smoking. PARTICIPANTS: self-reported, prolonged abstinence from smoking between a quit date and childbirth, validated at delivery by CO measurement and/or salivary cotinine (COT) (primary outcome). Infants, at 2 years: absence of impairment, defined as no disability or problems with behaviour and development. Economic: cost per 'quitter'. RESULTS: One thousand and fifty women enrolled (521 NRT, 529 placebo). There were 1010 live singleton births and 12 participants had live twins, while there were 14 fetal deaths and no birth data for 14 participants. Numbers of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes were similar in trial groups, except for a greater number of caesarean deliveries in the NRT group. Smoking: all participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses; those lost to follow-up (7% for primary outcome) were assumed to be smoking. At 1 month after randomisation, the validated cessation rate was higher in the NRT group {21.3% vs. 11.7%, odds ratio [OR], [95% confidence interval (CI)] for cessation with NRT, 2.05 [1.46 to 2.88]}. At delivery, there was no difference between groups' smoking cessation rates: 9.4% in the NRT and 7.6% in the placebo group [OR (95% CI), 1.26 (0.82 to 1.96)]. Infants: at 2 years, analyses were based on data from 888 out of 1010 (87.9%) singleton infants (including four postnatal infant deaths) [445/503 (88.5%) NRT, 443/507 (87.4%) placebo] and used multiple imputation. In the NRT group, 72.6% (323/445) had no impairment compared with 65.5% (290/443) in placebo (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.86). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NRT use was £4156 per quitter (£4926 including twins), but there was substantial uncertainty around these estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine replacement therapy patches had no enduring, significant effect on smoking in pregnancy; however, 2-year-olds born to women who used NRT were more likely to have survived without any developmental impairment. Further studies should investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety of higher doses of NRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07249128. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 54. See the NIHR Journals Library programme website for further project information.

Discrepancies between registration and publication of randomised controlled trials: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the consistency between information contained in the registration and publication of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: An observational study of RCTs published between May 2011 and May 2012 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) comparing registry data with publication data. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS: Data extracted from published RCTs in BMJ and JAMA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Timing of trial registration in relation to completion of trial data collection and publication. Registered versus published primary and secondary outcomes, sample size. RESULTS: We identified 40 RCTs in BMJ and 36 in JAMA. All 36 JAMA trials and 39 (98%) BMJ trials were registered. All registered trials were registered prior to publication. Thirty-two (82%) BMJ trials recorded the date of data completion; of these, in two trials the date of trial registration postdated the registered date of data completion. There were discrepancies between primary outcomes declared in the trial registry information and in the published paper in 18 (47%) BMJ papers and seven (19%) JAMA papers. The original sample size stated in the trial registration was achieved in 24 (60%) BMJ papers and 21 (58%) JAMA papers. CONCLUSIONS: Compulsory registration of RCTs is meaningless if the content of registry information is not complete or if discrepancies between registration and publication are not reported. This study demonstrates that discrepancies in primary and secondary outcomes and sample size between trial registration and publication remain commonplace, giving further strength to the World Health Organisation's argument for mandatory completion of a minimum number of compulsory fields.

Ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo, and early term delivery versus expectant management, in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: semifactorial randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether ursodeoxycholic acid reduces pruritus in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, whether early term delivery does not increase the incidence of caesarean section, and the feasibility of recruiting women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy to trials of these interventions. DESIGN: First phase of a semifactorial randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Nine consultant led maternity units, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 125 women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (pruritus and raised levels of serum bile acids) or pruritus and raised alanine transaminase levels (>100 IU/L) recruited after 24 weeks' gestation and followed until delivery. 56 women were randomised to ursodeoxycholic acid, 55 to placebo, 30 to early term delivery, and 32 to expectant management. INTERVENTIONS: Ursodeoxycholic acid 500 mg twice daily or placebo increased as necessary for symptomatic or biochemical improvement until delivery; early term delivery (induction or delivery started between 37+0 and 37+6) or expectant management (spontaneous labour awaited until 40 weeks' gestation or caesarean section undertaken by normal obstetric guidelines, usually after 39 weeks' gestation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome for ursodeoxycholic acid was maternal itch (arithmetic mean of measures (100 mm visual analogue scale) of worst itch in past 24 hours) and for the timing of delivery was caesarean section. Secondary outcomes were other maternal and perinatal outcomes and recruitment rates. RESULTS: Ursodeoxycholic acid reduced itching by -16 mm (95% confidence interval -27 mm to -6 mm), less than the 30 mm difference prespecified by clinicians and women as clinically meaningful. 32% (14/44) of women randomised to ursodeoxycholic acid experienced a reduction in worst itching by at least 30 mm compared with 16% (6/37) randomised to placebo. The difference of 16% (95% confidence interval -3 to 34); this would represent a number needed to treat of 6, but it failed to reach significance. Early term delivery did not increase caesarean sections (7/30 (23%) in the early term delivery group versus 11/32 (33%) in the expectant management group (relative risk 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 1.57). No serious harms were noted in either trial. 22% (73/325) of eligible women participated in the drug trial and 19% (39/209) in the timing of delivery trial; both groups had a similar spectrum of disease severity to non-participants. CONCLUSIONS: Ursodeoxycholic acid significantly reduces pruritus, but the size of the benefit may be too small for most doctors to recommend it, or for most women to want to take it. Women are, however, likely to differ in whether they consider the benefit to be worthwhile. Planned early term delivery seems not to increase incidence of caesarean section, although a small increase cannot be excluded. A trial to test whether ursodeoxycholic acid reduces adverse perinatal outcomes would have to be large, but is feasible. A trial to test the effect of early term delivery on adverse fetal outcomes would have to be significantly larger and may not be feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37730443.

A randomized trial of nicotine-replacement therapy patches in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Nicotine-replacement therapy is effective for smoking cessation outside pregnancy and its use is widely recommended during pregnancy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of nicotine patches during pregnancy. METHODS: We recruited participants from seven hospitals in England who were 16 to 50 years of age with pregnancies of 12 to 24 weeks' gestation and who smoked five or more cigarettes per day. Participants received behavioral cessation support and were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with active nicotine patches (15 mg per 16 hours) or matched placebo patches. The primary outcome was abstinence from the date of smoking cessation until delivery, as validated by measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide or salivary cotinine. Safety was assessed by monitoring for adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1050 participants, 521 were randomly assigned to nicotine-replacement therapy and 529 to placebo. There was no significant difference in the rate of abstinence from the quit date until delivery between the nicotine-replacement and placebo groups (9.4% and 7.6%, respectively; unadjusted odds ratio with nicotine-replacement therapy, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.96), although the rate was higher at 1 month in the nicotine-replacement group than in the placebo group (21.3% vs. 11.7%). Compliance was low; only 7.2% of women assigned to nicotine-replacement therapy and 2.8% assigned to placebo used patches for more than 1 month. Rates of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a nicotine patch (15 mg per 16 hours) to behavioral cessation support for women who smoked during pregnancy did not significantly increase the rate of abstinence from smoking until delivery or the risk of adverse pregnancy or birth outcomes. However, low compliance rates substantially limited the assessment of safety. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN07249128.).

Progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancy (STOPPIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Women with twin pregnancy are at high risk for spontaneous preterm delivery. Progesterone seems to be effective in reducing preterm birth in selected high-risk singleton pregnancies, albeit with no significant reduction in perinatal mortality and little evidence of neonatal benefit. We investigated the use of progesterone for prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancy. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 500 women with twin pregnancy were recruited from nine UK National Health Service clinics specialising in the management of twin pregnancy. Women were randomised, by permuted blocks of randomly mixed sizes, either to daily vaginal progesterone gel 90 mg (n=250) or to placebo gel (n=250) for 10 weeks from 24 weeks' gestation. All study personnel and participants were masked to treatment assignment for the duration of the study. The primary outcome was delivery or intrauterine death before 34 weeks' gestation. Analysis was by intention to treat. Additionally we undertook a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data to establish the efficacy of progesterone in prevention of early (<34 weeks' gestation) preterm birth or intrauterine death in women with twin pregnancy. This study is registered, number ISRCTN35782581. FINDINGS: Three participants in each group were lost to follow-up, leaving 247 analysed per group. The combined proportion of intrauterine death or delivery before 34 weeks of pregnancy was 24.7% (61/247) in the progesterone group and 19.4% (48/247) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% CI 0.89-2.09; p=0.16). The rate of adverse events did not differ between the two groups. The meta-analysis confirmed that progesterone does not prevent early preterm birth in women with twin pregnancy (pooled OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89-1.51). INTERPRETATION: Progesterone, administered vaginally, does not prevent preterm birth in women with twin pregnancy. FUNDING: Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorate.

Abdominal dystocia in a case of undetected intrauterine meconium peritonitis due to cystic fibrosis.

The case of a 36 year-old primigravida is presented. After a normal anomaly scan at 22 weeks and a normal pregnancy, she went into labor at term. Dystocia due to massive abdominal distension complicated the second stage. The newborn girl had meconium peritonitis with colonic perforation and required colonic resection with colostomy. Genetic testing detected cystic fibrosis. In this case complex meconium peritonitis developed silently (without any clinical sign) after a normal anomaly scan. This has not been reported since the start of the widespread use of obstetric ultrasound. Late meconium peritonitis can escape detection and should be thought of in cases of unexpected abdominal distension causing dystocia.

A randomized controlled trial of elective preterm delivery of fetuses with gastroschisis.

BACKGROUND: Elective preterm delivery of the fetus with gastroschisis may help to limit injury to the extruded fetal gut and thus promote faster recovery of neonatal gut function and earlier hospital discharge. This hypothesis has not previously been tested in a prospective randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Between May 1995 and September 1999, all women referred to a single tertiary center before 34 weeks' gestation with a sonographically diagnosed fetal gastroschisis were invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients were randomized to elective delivery at 36 weeks or to await the onset of spontaneous labor. The method of delivery was not prescribed by the trial. Primary outcome measures in the neonate were the time taken to tolerate full enteral feeding (150 mL/kg per day) and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: Of 44 eligible women, 42 were randomized, 21 to elective delivery and 21 to await spontaneous labor. There were 20 liveborn infants in each group. Four babies in the elective group and 4 in the spontaneous group delivered before 36 weeks' gestation but were included in the analysis on an intention-to-treat basis. Mean gestational age at delivery was 35.8 weeks in the elective group and 36.7 weeks in the spontaneous group. Primary closure of the gastroschisis was achieved in a similar proportion (80%-85%) of infants in both groups. Two babies in the elective group died from short gut complications. In the survivors, there was a trend in favor of a shorter median time to achieve full enteral feeding (30.5 vs 37.5 days) and a shorter median duration of hospital stay (47.5 vs 53 days) in the elective group, but this was not statistically significant. These findings remained unaltered when the data were reanalyzed after (a) excluding infants with intestinal atresia or (b) excluding infants born before 36 weeks' gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by the small number of patients, this randomized controlled trial demonstrates no significant benefit from elective preterm delivery of fetuses with gastroschisis.

Maintenance tocolysis.

BACKGROUND: Women who are undelivered after 48 hours of tocolysis remain at increased risk of preterm labour, but it is not clear whether prolonged treatment is effective. OBJECTIVE: To review the current evidence for the effectiveness of maintenance tocolysis. METHODS: The results of published systematic reviews were summarised. RESULTS: Four systematic reviews and two trials published too recently for inclusion were identified. Maintenance tocolysis with beta-agonists and magnesium sulphate was ineffective in prolonging gestation or reducing any adverse fetal outcomes. One trial of maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine was underpowered to rule out an effect on prolonging gestation. One trial using the oxytocin receptor blocker, atosiban, showed that this drug used as maintenance tocolysis does prolong gestation, but the trial was too small to demonstrate any reduction in substantive fetal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to justify the routine use of maintenance tocolysis in preterm labour. It remains plausible that prolongation of gestation might be beneficial in selected cases of very preterm labour where fetal compromise and infection have been ruled out. The only tocolytic that has been shown to prolong gestation when used as maintenance therapy is atosiban.