Search

Background: The safety and efficacy of antenatal glucocorticoids in women in low-resource countries who are at risk for preterm birth are uncertain., Methods: We conducted a multicountry, randomized trial involving pregnant women between 26 weeks 0 days and 33 weeks 6 days of gestation who were at risk for preterm birth. The participants were assigned to intramuscular dexamethasone or identical placebo. The primary outcomes were neonatal death alone, stillbirth or neonatal death, and possible maternal bacterial infection; neonatal death alone and stillbirth or neonatal death were evaluated with superiority analyses, and possible maternal bacterial infection was evaluated with a noninferiority analysis with the use of a prespecified margin of 1.25 on the relative scale., Results: A total of 2852 women (and their 3070 fetuses) from 29 secondary- and tertiary-level hospitals across Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Nigeria, and Pakistan underwent randomization. The trial was stopped for benefit at the second interim analysis. Neonatal death occurred in 278 of 1417 infants (19.6%) in the dexamethasone group and in 331 of 1406 infants (23.5%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.97; P = 0.03). Stillbirth or neonatal death occurred in 393 of 1532 fetuses and infants (25.7%) and in 444 of 1519 fetuses and infants (29.2%), respectively (relative risk, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.99; P = 0.04); the incidence of possible maternal bacterial infection was 4.8% and 6.3%, respectively (relative risk, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.03). There was no significant between-group difference in the incidence of adverse events., Conclusions: Among women in low-resource countries who were at risk for early preterm birth, the use of dexamethasone resulted in significantly lower risks of neonatal death alone and stillbirth or neonatal death than the use of placebo, without an increase in the incidence of possible maternal bacterial infection. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Health Organization; Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12617000476336; Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2017/04/008326.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The number of visits for antenatal (prenatal) care developed without evidence of how many visits are necessary. The content of each visit also needs evaluation., Objectives: To compare the effects of antenatal care programmes with reduced visits for low-risk women with standard care., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 March 2015), reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing a reduced number of antenatal visits, with or without goal-oriented care, versus standard care., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. We assessed studies for risk of bias and graded the quality of the evidence., Main Results: We included seven trials (more than 60,000 women): four in high-income countries with individual randomisation; three in low- and middle-income countries with cluster randomisation (clinics as the unit of randomisation). Most of the data included in the review came from the three large, well-designed cluster-randomised trials that took place in Argentina, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Zimbabwe. All results have been adjusted for the cluster design effect. All of the trials were at some risk of bias as blinding of women and staff was not feasible with this type of intervention. For primary outcomes, evidence was graded as being of moderate or low quality, with downgrading decisions due to risks of bias and imprecision of effects.The number of visits for standard care varied, with fewer visits in low- and middle- income country trials. In studies in high-income countries, women in the reduced visits groups, on average, attended between 8.2 and 12 times. In low- and middle- income country trials, many women in the reduced visits group attended on fewer than five occasions, although in these trials the content as well as the number of visits was changed, so as to be more 'goal-oriented'.Perinatal mortality was increased for those randomised to reduced visits rather than standard care, and this difference was borderline for statistical significance (risk ratio (RR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.31; five trials, 56,431 babies; moderate-quality evidence). In the subgroup analysis, for high-income countries the number of deaths was small (32/5108), and there was no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.80, two trials); for low- and middle-income countries perinatal mortality was significantly higher in the reduced visits group (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32, three trials).There was no clear difference between groups for our other primary outcomes: maternal death (RR 1.13, 95%CI 0.50 to 2.57, three cluster-randomised trials, 51,504 women, low-quality evidence); hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (various definitions including pre-eclampsia) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, six studies, 54,108 women, low-quality evidence); preterm birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; seven studies, 53,661 women, moderate-quality evidence); and small-for-gestational age (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, four studies 43,045 babies, moderate-quality evidence).Reduced visits were associated with a reduction in admission to neonatal intensive care that was borderline for significance (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02, five studies, 43,048 babies, moderate quality evidence). There were no clear differences between the groups for the other secondary clinical outcomes.Women in all settings were less satisfied with the reduced visits schedule and perceived the gap between visits as too long. Reduced visits may be associated with lower costs., Authors' Conclusions: In settings with limited resources where the number of visits is already low, reduced visits programmes of antenatal care are associated with an increase in perinatal mortality compared to standard care, although admission to neonatal intensive care may be reduced. Women prefer the standard visits schedule. Where the standard number of visits is low, visits should not be reduced without close monitoring of fetal and neonatal outcome.

Background: Despite the global burden of morbidity and mortality associated with preterm birth, little evidence is available for use of antenatal corticosteroids and tocolytic drugs in preterm births in low-income and middle-income countries. We analysed data from the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health (WHOMCS) to assess coverage for these interventions in preterm deliveries., Methods: WHOMCS is a facility-based, cross-sectional survey database of birth outcomes in 359 facilities in 29 countries, with data collected prospectively from May 1, 2010, to Dec 31, 2011. For this analysis, we included deliveries after 22 weeks' gestation and we excluded births that occurred outside a facility or quicker than 3 h after arrival. We calculated use of antenatal corticosteroids in women who gave birth between 26 and 34 weeks' gestation, when antenatal corticosteroids are known to be most beneficial. We also calculated use in women at 22-25 weeks' and 34-36 weeks' gestation. We assessed tocolytic drug use, with and without antenatal corticosteroids, in spontaneous, uncomplicated preterm deliveries at 26-34 weeks' gestation., Findings: Of 303,842 recorded deliveries after 22 weeks' gestation, 17,705 (6%) were preterm. 3900 (52%) of 7547 women who gave birth at 26-34 weeks' gestation, 94 (19%) of 497 women who gave birth at 22-25 weeks' gestation, and 2276 (24%) of 9661 women who gave birth at 35-36 weeks' gestation received antenatal corticosteroids. Rates of antenatal corticosteroid use varied between countries (median 54%, range 16-91%; IQR 30-68%). Of 4677 women who were potentially eligible for tocolysis drugs, 1276 (27%) were treated with bed rest or hydration and 2248 (48%) received no treatment. β-agonists alone (n=346, 7%) were the most frequently used tocolytic drug. Only 848 (18%) of potentially eligible women received both a tocolytic drug and antenatal corticosteroids., Interpretation: Use of interventions was generally poor, despite evidence for their benefit for newborn babies. A substantial proportion of antenatal corticosteroid use occurred at gestational ages at which benefit is controversial, and use of less effective or potentially harmful tocolytic drugs was common. Implementation research and contextualised health policies are needed to improve drug availability and increase compliance with best obstetric practice., Funding: UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP); WHO; USAID; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; Gynuity Health Projects., (Copyright © 2014 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd/Inc/BV. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2001, the WHO Antenatal Care Trial (WHOACT) concluded that an antenatal care package of evidence-based screening, therapeutic interventions and education across four antenatal visits for low-risk women was not inferior to standard antenatal care and may reduce cost. However, an updated Cochrane review in 2010 identified an increased risk of perinatal mortality of borderline statistical significance in three cluster-randomized trials (including the WHOACT) in developing countries. We conducted a secondary analysis of the WHOACT data to determine the relationship between the reduced visits, goal-oriented antenatal care package and perinatal mortality., Methods: Exploratory analyses were conducted to assess the effect of baseline risk and timing of perinatal death. Women were stratified by baseline risk to assess differences between intervention and control groups. We used linear modeling and Poisson regression to determine the relative risk of fetal death, neonatal death and perinatal mortality by gestational age., Results: 12,568 women attended the 27 intervention clinics and 11,958 women attended the 26 control clinics. 6,160 women were high risk and 18,365 women were low risk. There were 161 fetal deaths (1.4%) in the intervention group compared to 119 fetal deaths in the control group (1.1%) with an increased overall adjusted relative risk of fetal death (Adjusted RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.03, 1.58). This was attributable to an increased relative risk of fetal death between 32 and 36 weeks of gestation (Adjusted RR 2.24; 95% CI 1.42, 3.53) which was statistically significant for high and low risk groups., Conclusion: It is plausible the increased risk of fetal death between 32 and 36 weeks gestation could be due to reduced number of visits, however heterogeneity in study populations or differences in quality of care and timing of visits could also be playing a role. Monitoring maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes when implementing antenatal care protocols is essential. Implementing reduced visit antenatal care packages demands careful monitoring of maternal and perinatal outcomes, especially fetal death.

Background: The number of visits for antenatal (prenatal) care developed without evidence of how many visits are necessary. The content of each visit also needs evaluation., Objectives: To compare the effects of antenatal care programmes with reduced visits for low-risk women with standard care., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2010), reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing a reduced number of antenatal visits, with or without goal-oriented care, with standard care., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data independently., Main Results: We included seven trials (more than 60,000 women): four in high-income countries with individual randomisation; three in low- and middle-income countries with cluster randomisation (clinics as the unit of randomisation). The number of visits for standard care varied, with fewer visits in low- and middle- income country trials. In studies in high-income countries, women in the reduced visits groups, on average, attended between 8.2 and 12 times. In low- and middle- income country trials, many women in the reduced visits group attended on fewer than five occasions, although in these trials the content as well as the number of visits was changed, so as to be more 'goal oriented'.Perinatal mortality was increased for those randomised to reduced visits rather than standard care, and this difference was borderline for statistical significance (five trials; risk ratio (RR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.31). In the subgroup analysis, for high-income countries the number of deaths was small (32/5108), and there was no clear difference between the groups (2 trials; RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.80); for low- and middle-income countries perinatal mortality was significantly higher in the reduced visits group (3 trials RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32). Reduced visits were associated with a reduction in admission to neonatal intensive care that was borderline for significance (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02). There were no clear differences between the groups for the other reported clinical outcomes.Women in all settings were less satisfied with the reduced visits schedule and perceived the gap between visits as too long. Reduced visits may be associated with lower costs., Authors' Conclusions: In settings with limited resources where the number of visits is already low, reduced visits programmes of antenatal care are associated with an increase in perinatal mortality compared to standard care, although admission to neonatal intensive care may be reduced. Women prefer the standard visits schedule. Where the standard number of visits is low, visits should not be reduced without close monitoring of fetal and neonatal outcome.

Calcium supplementation in mothers with low calcium intake has been of interest recently because of its association with optimal fetal growth and improved pre-eclampsia-related outcomes. While the effects of calcium supplementation have demonstrated benefits in prolonging gestation and subsequently improving birthweight, no specific studies have identified the longitudinal effects of supplementation on fetal growth in utero. Data were analysed in the context of the World Health Organization trial of calcium supplementation in calcium-deficient women. Five hundred and ten healthy, primiparous pregnant Argentinean women were randomised (at <20 weeks gestation) to either placebo (n = 230) or calcium supplements (1500 mg calcium/day in 3 divided doses; n = 231). Growth parameters in utero were assessed with serial ultrasound scans. Birthweight, length, head, abdominal and thigh circumferences were recorded at delivery. No differences were found in fetal biometric measurements recorded at 20, 24, 28, 32 and 36 weeks gestation between fetuses of women who were supplemented with calcium and those who were not. Similarly, neonatal characteristics and anthropometric measurements recorded at delivery were comparable in both groups. We conclude that calcium supplementation of 1500 mg calcium/day in pregnant women with low calcium intake does not appear to impact on fetal somatic or skeletal growth.

Background: The results of a qualitative study carried out in four developing countries (Cuba, Thailand, Saudi Arabia and Argentina) are presented. The study was conducted in the context of a randomised controlled trial to test the benefits of a new antenatal care protocol that reduced the number of visits to the doctor, rationalised the application of technology, and improved the provision of information to women in relation to the traditional protocol applied in each country., Methods: Through focus groups discussions we were able to assess the concepts and expectations underlying women's evaluation of concepts and experiences of the care received in antenatal care clinics. 164 women participated in 24 focus groups discussion in all countries., Results: Three areas are particularly addressed in this paper: a) concepts about pregnancy and health care, b) experience with health services and health providers, and c) opinions about the modified Antenatal Care (ANC) programme. In all three topics similarities were identified as well as particular opinions related to country specific social and cultural values. In general women have a positive view of the new ANC protocol, particularly regarding the information they receive. However, controversial issues emerged such as the reduction in the number of visits, particularly in Cuba where women are used to have 18 ANC visits in one pregnancy period., Conclusion: Recommendations to improve ANC services performance are being proposed. Any country interested in the application of a new ANC protocol should regard the opinion and acceptability of women towards changes.

Background: This study assessed women and providers' satisfaction with a new evidence-based antenatal care (ANC) model within the WHO randomized trial conducted in four developing countries. The WHO study was a randomized controlled trial that compared a new ANC model with the standard type offered in each country. The new model of ANC emphasized actions known to be effective in improving maternal or neonatal health, excluded other interventions that have not proved to be beneficial, and improved the information component, especially alerting pregnant women to potential health problems and instructing them on appropriate responses. These activities were distributed within four antenatal care visits for women that did not need any further assessment. Methods: Satisfaction was measured through a standardized questionnaire administered to a random sample of 1,600 pregnant women and another to all antenatal care providers. Results: Most women in both arms expressed satisfaction with ANC. More women in the intervention arm were satisfied with information on labor, delivery, family planning, pregnancy complications and emergency procedures. More providers in the experimental clinics were worried about visit spacing, but more satisfied with the time spent and information provided. Conclusions: Women and providers accepted the new ANC model generally. The safety of fewer visits for women without complications with longer spacing would have to be reinforced, if such a model is to be introduced into routine practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interpretation: A model with a reduced number of antenatal visits, with or without goal-oriented components, could be introduced into clinical practice without risk to mother or baby, but some degree of dissatisfaction by the mother could be expected. Lower costs can be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the antenatal care model of the United Nations World Health Organization. Trial of the model in antenatal clinics; Eclampsia cases before hospital discharge; Hemoglobin levels of women during pregnancy.

Summary Background Caesarean delivery rates continue to increase worldwide. Our aim was to assess the association between caesarean delivery and pregnancy outcome at the institutional level, adjusting for the pregnant population and institutional characteristics. Methods For the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health, we assessed a multistage stratified sample, comprising 24 geographic regions in eight countries in Latin America. We obtained individual data for all women admitted for delivery over 3 months to 120 institutions randomly selected from of 410 identified institutions. We also obtained institutional-level data. Findings We obtained data for 97 095 of 106 546 deliveries (91% coverage). The median rate of caesarean delivery was 33% (quartile range 24-43), with the highest rates of caesarean delivery noted in private hospitals (51%, 43-57). Institution-specific rates of caesarean delivery were affected by primiparity, previous caesarean delivery, and institutional complexity. Rate of caesarean delivery was positively associated with postpartum antibiotic treatment and severe maternal morbidity and mortality, even after adjustment for risk factors. Increase in the rate of caesarean delivery was associated with an increase in fetal mortality rates and higher numbers of babies admitted to intensive care for 7 days or longer even after adjustment for preterm delivery. Rates of preterm delivery and neonatal mortality both rose at rates of caesarean delivery of between 10% and 20%. Interpretation High rates of caesarean delivery do not necessarily indicate better perinatal care and can be associated with harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interpretations: Provision of routine antenatal care by the new model seems not to affect maternal and perinatal outcomes. It could be implemented without major resistance from women and providers and may reduce cost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]