Search

Objective: To determine whether oral clindamycin reduces the risk of preterm birth (PTB) in women with abnormal vaginal microflora as evidenced by a vaginal pH ≥5.0.Design: Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial.Setting: Rural southern India.Population: Pregnant women with a singleton fetus between 13+0/7 weeks and 20+6/7 weeks.Methods: Pregnant women were recruited during prenatal visits in Karnataka, India, from October 2013 to July 2015. Women were required to have a singleton fetus between 13+0/7 weeks and 20+6/7 weeks and an elevated vaginal pH (≥5.0) by colorimetric assessment. Participants were randomised to either oral clindamycin 300 mg twice daily for 5 days or an identical-appearing placebo.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of PTB, defined as delivery before 37+0/7 weeks.Results: Of the 6476 screened women, 1727 women were randomised (block randomised in groups of six; clindamycin n = 866, placebo n = 861). The demographic, reproductive, and anthropomorphometric characteristics of the study groups were similar. Compliance was high, with over 94% of capsules being taken. The rate of PTB before 37 weeks was comparable between the two groups [clindamycin 115/826 (13.9%) versus placebo 111/806 (13.8%), between-group difference 0.2% (95% CI -3.2 to 3.5%, P = 0.93)], as was PTB at less than 34 weeks [clindamycin 40/826 (4.8%) versus placebo group 37/806 (4.6%), between-group difference 0.3% (95% CI -1.8 to 2.3%, P = 0.81)]. No differences were detected in the incidence of birthweight of<2500 g, <1500 g, miscarriage, stillbirth or neonatal death.Conclusion: In this setting, oral clindamycin did not decrease PTB among women with vaginal pH ≥5.0.Tweetable Abstract: Oral clindamycin between 13+0/7 and 20+6/7 weeks does not prevent preterm birth in women with a vaginal pH ≥5.0. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess whether secondary prevention, which preemptively treats women with above-average postpartum bleeding, is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis.Design: A cluster-randomised non-inferiority community trial.Setting: Health sub-centres and home deliveries in the Bijapur district of Karnataka, India.Population: Women with low-risk pregnancies who were eligible for delivery with an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife at home or sub-centre and who consented to be part of the study.Methods: Auxiliary Nurse Midwifes were randomised to secondary prevention using 800 mcg sublingual misoprostol administered to women with postpartum blood loss ≥350 ml or to universal prophylaxis using 600 mcg oral misoprostol administered to all women during the third stage of labour.Main Outcome Measures: Postpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl, mean postpartum blood loss and postpartum haemoglobin, postpartum haemorrhage rate, transfer to higher-level facilities, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.Results: Misoprostol was administered to 99.7% of women as primary prevention. In secondary prevention, 92 (4.7%) women had postpartum bleeding ≥350 ml, of which 90 (97.8%) received misoprostol. The proportion of women with postpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl was 5.9 and 8.8% in secondary and primary prevention clusters, respectively [difference -2.9%, one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) <1.3%]. Postpartum transfer and haemorrhage rates were low (<1%) in both groups. Shivering was more common in primary prevention clusters (P = 0.013).Conclusion: Secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis based on the primary outcome of postpartum haemoglobin. Secondary prevention could be a good alternative to universal prophylaxis as it medicates fewer women and is an acceptable and feasible strategy at the community level.Tweetable Abstract: Secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine whether oral clindamycin reduces the risk of preterm birth (PTB) in women with abnormal vaginal microflora as evidenced by a vaginal pH ≥5.0., Design: Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial., Setting: Rural southern India., Population: Pregnant women with a singleton fetus between 13 +0/7 weeks and 20 +6/7 weeks., Methods: Pregnant women were recruited during prenatal visits in Karnataka, India, from October 2013 to July 2015. Women were required to have a singleton fetus between 13 +0/7 weeks and 20 +6/7 weeks and an elevated vaginal pH (≥5.0) by colorimetric assessment. Participants were randomised to either oral clindamycin 300 mg twice daily for 5 days or an identical-appearing placebo., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of PTB, defined as delivery before 37 +0/7 weeks., Results: Of the 6476 screened women, 1727 women were randomised (block randomised in groups of six; clindamycin n = 866, placebo n = 861). The demographic, reproductive, and anthropomorphometric characteristics of the study groups were similar. Compliance was high, with over 94% of capsules being taken. The rate of PTB before 37 weeks was comparable between the two groups [clindamycin 115/826 (13.9%) versus placebo 111/806 (13.8%), between-group difference 0.2% (95% CI -3.2 to 3.5%, P = 0.93)], as was PTB at less than 34 weeks [clindamycin 40/826 (4.8%) versus placebo group 37/806 (4.6%), between-group difference 0.3% (95% CI -1.8 to 2.3%, P = 0.81)]. No differences were detected in the incidence of birthweight of<2500 g, <1500 g, miscarriage, stillbirth or neonatal death., Conclusion: In this setting, oral clindamycin did not decrease PTB among women with vaginal pH ≥5.0., Tweetable Abstract: Oral clindamycin between 13 +0/7 and 20 +6/7 weeks does not prevent preterm birth in women with a vaginal pH ≥5.0., (© 2018 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: To assess whether secondary prevention, which preemptively treats women with above-average postpartum bleeding, is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis., Design: A cluster-randomised non-inferiority community trial., Setting: Health sub-centres and home deliveries in the Bijapur district of Karnataka, India., Population: Women with low-risk pregnancies who were eligible for delivery with an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife at home or sub-centre and who consented to be part of the study., Methods: Auxiliary Nurse Midwifes were randomised to secondary prevention using 800 mcg sublingual misoprostol administered to women with postpartum blood loss ≥350 ml or to universal prophylaxis using 600 mcg oral misoprostol administered to all women during the third stage of labour., Main Outcome Measures: Postpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl, mean postpartum blood loss and postpartum haemoglobin, postpartum haemorrhage rate, transfer to higher-level facilities, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention., Results: Misoprostol was administered to 99.7% of women as primary prevention. In secondary prevention, 92 (4.7%) women had postpartum bleeding ≥350 ml, of which 90 (97.8%) received misoprostol. The proportion of women with postpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl was 5.9 and 8.8% in secondary and primary prevention clusters, respectively [difference -2.9%, one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) <1.3%]. Postpartum transfer and haemorrhage rates were low (<1%) in both groups. Shivering was more common in primary prevention clusters (P = 0.013)., Conclusion: Secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis based on the primary outcome of postpartum haemoglobin. Secondary prevention could be a good alternative to universal prophylaxis as it medicates fewer women and is an acceptable and feasible strategy at the community level., Tweetable Abstract: Secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis., (© 2015 The Authors. BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: Sublingual misoprostol produces a rapid peak concentration, and is more effective than oral administration. We compared the postpartum measured blood loss with 400 μg powdered sublingual misoprostol and after standard care using 10 iu intramuscular (IM) oxytocin., Design: Double-blind randomised controlled trial., Setting: A teaching hospital: J N Medical College, Belgaum, India., Sample: A cohort of 652 consenting eligible pregnant women admitted to the labour room., Methods: Subjects were assigned to receive the study medications and placebos within 1 minute of clamping and cutting the cord by computer-generated randomisation. Chi-square and bootstrapped Student's t-tests were used to test categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively., Main Outcome Measures: Measured mean postpartum blood loss and haemorrhage (PPH, loss ≥ 500 ml), >10% pre- to post-partum decline in haemoglobin, and reported side effects., Results: The mean blood loss with sublingual misoprostol was 192 ± 124 ml (n=321) and 366 ± 136 ml with oxytocin IM (n=331, P ≤ 0.001). The incidence of PPH was 3.1% with misoprostol and 9.1% with oxytocin (P=0.002). No woman lost ≥ 1000 ml of blood. We observed that 9.7% and 45.6% of women experienced a haemoglobin decline of >10% after receiving misoprostol and oxytocin, respectively (P ≤ 0.001). Side effects were significantly greater in the misoprostol group than in the oxytocin group., Conclusion: Unlike other studies, this trial found sublingual misoprostol more effective than intramuscular oxytocin in reducing PPH, with only transient side effects being greater in the misoprostol group. The sublingual mode and/or powdered formulation may increase the effectiveness of misoprostol, and render it superior to injectable oxytocin for the prevention of PPH. Further research is needed to confirm these results., (© 2012 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2012 RCOG.)