Oral iron-based interventions for prevention of critical outcomes in pregnancy and postnatal care: An overview and update of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to summarize and update the evidence concerning oral iron-based interventions compared to placebo or no iron-based interventions to prevent critical outcomes in pregnancy or treat critical outcomes in the postpartum phase. METHOD: Published systematic reviews (Feb 2018) and primary studies (from 2015 to March 2018) retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were examined. The AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool was used to assess the quality of reviews. GRADE was used to rate the quality of the evidence for critical outcomes. RESULTS: Antenatal care: Compared to placebo/no treatment, iron-based therapies reduced maternal anemia at term by 59% (seven trials at low risk of bias, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.73; I2  = 86%; moderate-quality evidence) and maternal iron deficiency anemia by 67% (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.69; I2  = 49%). There was no evidence of difference between iron-based therapies vs control in terms of side effects (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.91-2.21), preterm delivery (13 studies: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.03; low-quality evidence), low birthweight (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79-1.13; low-quality evidence) and infant mortality (RR 0.93, 0.72-1.20; low-quality evidence). POSTNATAL CARE: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether iron-based therapies can reduce postpartum anemia. CONCLUSION: Iron supplementation is effective in preventing maternal anemia at term but not low birthweight, preterm delivery or infant mortality.

Modified versus standard intention-to-treat reporting: are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomized trials? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that use the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) approach are increasingly being published. Such trials have a preponderance of post-randomization exclusions, industry sponsorship, and favourable findings, and little is known whether in terms of these items mITT trials are different with respect to trials that report a standard intention-to-treat. METHODS: To determine differences in the methodological quality, sponsorship, authors' conflicts of interest, and findings among trials with different "types" of intention-to-treat, we undertook a cross-sectional study of RCTs published in 2006 in three general medical journals (the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet) and three specialty journals (Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, the American Heart Journal and the Journal of Clinical Oncology). Trials were categorized based on the "type" of intention-to-treat reporting as follows: ITT, trials reporting the use of standard ITT approach; mITT, trials reporting the use of a "modified intention-to-treat" approach; and "no ITT", trials not reporting the use of any intention-to-treat approach. Two pairs of reviewers independently extracted the data in duplicate. The strength of the associations between the "type" of intention-to-treat reporting and the quality of reporting (sample size calculation, flow-chart, lost to follow-up), the methodological quality of the trials (sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding), the funding source, and the findings was determined. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of the 367 RCTs included, 197 were classified as ITT, 56 as mITT, and 114 as "no ITT" trials. The quality of reporting and the methodological quality of the mITT trials were similar to those of the ITT trials; however, the mITT trials were more likely to report post-randomization exclusions (adjusted OR 3.43 [95%CI, 1.70 to 6.95]; P < 0.001). We found a strong association between trials classified as mITT and for-profit agency sponsorship (adjusted OR 7.41 [95%CI, 3.14 to 17.48]; P < .001) as well as the presence of authors' conflicts of interest (adjusted OR 5.14 [95%CI, 2.12 to 12.48]; P < .001). There was no association between mITT reporting and favourable results; in general, however, trials with for-profit agency sponsorship were significantly associated with favourable results (adjusted OR 2.30; [95%CI, 1.28 to 4.16]; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: We found that the mITT trials were significantly more likely to perform post-randomization exclusions and were strongly associated with industry funding and authors' conflicts of interest.

Randomised controlled trials for evaluating the prescribing impact of information meetings led by pharmacists and of new information formats, in General Practice in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal translation of valid and relevant information in clinical practice is a problem for all health systems. Lack of information independent from commercial influences, limited efforts to actively implement evidence-based information and its limited comprehensibility are important determinants of this gap and may influence an excessive variability in physicians' prescriptions. This is quite noticeable in Italy, where the philosophy and methods of Evidence-Based Medicine still enjoy limited diffusion among practitioners. Academic detailing and pharmacist outreach visits are interventions of proven efficacy to make independent and evidence-based information available to physicians; this approach and its feasibility have not yet been tested on a large scale and, moreover, they have never been formally tested in Italy. METHODS/DESIGN: Two RCTs are planned:1) a two-arm cluster RCT, carried out in Emilia-Romagna and Friuli Venezia Giulia, will evaluate the effectiveness of small group meetings, randomising about 150 Primary Care Groups (corresponding to about 2000 GPs) to pharmacist outreach visits on two different topics. Physicians' prescriptions (expressed as DDD per 1000 inhabitants/day), knowledge and attitudes (evaluated through the answers to a specific questionnaire) will be compared for target drugs in the two groups (receiving/not receiving each topic).2) A three-arm RCT, carried out in Sardinia, will evaluate both the effectiveness of one-to-one meetings (one pharmacist visiting one physician per time) and of a 'new' information format (compared to information already available) on changing physicians' prescription of specific drugs. About 900 single GPs will be randomised into three groups: physicians receiving a visit supported by "traditional" information material, those receiving a visit with "new" information material on the same topic and those not receiving any visit/material. DISCUSSION: The two proposed RCTs aim to evaluate the organisational feasibility and barriers to the implementation of independent information programs led by NHS pharmacists. The objective to assess a 10 or 15% decreases in the prescription of the targeted drugs is quite ambitious in such 'natural' settings, which will be minimally altered by the interventions themselves; this in spite of the quite large sample sizes used comparing to other studies of these kind. Complex interventions like these are not easy to evaluate, given the many different variables into play. Anyway, the pragmatic nature of the two RCTs appears to be also one of their major strengths, helping to provide a deeper insight on what is possible to achieve - in terms of independent information - in a National Health System, with special reference to Italy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN05866587 (cluster RCT) and ISRCTN28525676 (single GPs RCT).