Search

The article presents a summary of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) updated guidelines on the identification and referral from primary care of individuals with suspected cancer in Great Britain. Topics cited include the symptoms of possible cancer in adults including abdominal discomfort and loss of central neurological function, and the primary care investigation for various types of cancer including melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma and renal cancer.

The article offers information on the guidelines for the prescription of strong opioids for pain management in adult palliative care from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). It states that communication of a practitioner and patient is necessary so that one can ask for concerns such as addiction, tolerance and side effects. It mentions alternatives for people with swallowing problems who may not be suitable to take oral opioids such as transdermal patches, calculation of opioid equivalence and subcutaneous opioids. It cites various ways of managing opioid side effects including constipation, nausea and drowsiness.

A response from the authors of the article "Suspected cancer (part 2--adults): reference tables from updated NICE guidance" in the June 23, 2015 issue is presented.

Over one-quarter of women in the UK have a caesarean birth (CB). More than one in 20 of these births occurs near the end of labour, when the cervix is fully dilated (second stage). In these circumstances, and when labour has been prolonged, the baby's head can become lodged deep in the maternal pelvis making it challenging to deliver the baby. During the caesarean birth, difficulty in delivery of the baby's head may result - this emergency is known as impacted fetal head (IFH). These are technically challenging births that pose significant risks to both the woman and baby. Complications for the woman include tears in the womb, serious bleeding and longer hospital stay. Babies are at increased risk of injury including damage to the head and face, lack of oxygen to the brain, nerve damage, and in rare cases, the baby may die from these complications. Maternity staff are increasingly encountering IFH at CB, and reports of associated injuries have risen dramatically in recent years. The latest UK studies suggest that IFH may complicate as many as one in 10 unplanned CBs (1.5% of all births) and that two in 100 babies affected by IFH die or are seriously injured. Moreover, there has been a sharp increase in reports of babies having brain injuries when their birth was complicated by IFH. When an IFH occurs, the maternity team can use different approaches to help deliver the baby's head at CB. These include: an assistant (another obstetrician or midwife) pushing the head up from the vagina; delivering the baby feet first; using a specially designed inflatable balloon device to elevate the baby's head and/or giving the mother a medicine to relax the womb. However, there is currently no consensus for how best to manage these births. This has resulted in a lack of confidence among maternity staff, variable practice and potentially avoidable harm in some circumstances. This paper reviews the current evidence regarding the prediction, prevention and management of IFH at CB, integrating findings from a systematic review commissioned from the National Guideline Alliance., (© 2023 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Background: Medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol usually involves an interval of 36-48 hours between administering these drugs; however, it is possible that the clinical efficacy at early gestations may be maintained when the drugs are taken simultaneously. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous compared with interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for abortion up to 10 +0 weeks' gestation., Methods: We searched Embase Classic, Embase; Ovid MEDLINE(R) including Daily, and Epub Ahead-of-Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; and Cochrane Library on 11 December 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published in English from 1985, comparing simultaneous to interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for early abortion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for RCTs. Meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method were performed. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE., Results: Meta-analyses of three RCTs (n=1280) showed no differences in 'ongoing pregnancy' (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.36), 'haemorrhage requiring transfusion or ≥500 mL blood loss' (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.03) and 'incomplete abortion with the need for surgical intervention' (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.25) between the interventions. Individual study results showed no difference in patient satisfaction, or 'need for repeat misoprostol', although 'time to onset of bleeding or cramping' was longer after simultaneous than interval administration. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate., Conclusion: The published data support the use of simultaneous mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion up to 9 +0 weeks in women who prefer this method of administration., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Abortion in the second trimester may be performed surgically or medically. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness, safety and acceptability/satisfaction of surgical compared with medical abortion of pregnancy between 13 +0 and 23 +6 weeks' gestation for a new national guideline., Methods: We searched Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Library on 4 March 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; any size) and non-randomised comparative studies with n≥100 in each arm, published in English from 1985. Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for RCTs. Meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs)used the Mantel-Haenszel method. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE., Results: Two RCTs (n=140) were included. 'Incomplete abortion requiring surgical intervention' was clinically significantly higher with medical than surgical methods (RR=4.58, 95% CI 1.07 to 19.64). 'Abortion completed by the intended method' was statistically, but not clinically, significantly lower after medical than surgical methods, but was marked by high between-study heterogeneity (RR=0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98). To the extent that 'haemorrhage requiring transfusion/≥500 mL blood loss', 'uterine injury', 'cervical injury requiring repair' and 'infection reported within 1 month of abortion' were reported, they did not differ significantly between methods. Depending on measurement method, 'patient satisfaction/acceptability' was either clinically significantly higher or comparable after surgical than medical methods. The quality of this evidence was limited by low event rates and attrition bias., Conclusion: Based on this evidence and consensus, women should be offered the choice of medical or surgical methods of abortion between 13 +0 and 23 +6 weeks' gestation, unless not clinically appropriate., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In order to develop the 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) national guideline on abortion care for the National Health Service1 we undertook a systematic review comparing anti-D prophylaxis to no prophylaxis in rhesus D (RhD)-negative women undergoing medical or surgical abortion of pregnancy at ≤13 +6 weeks' gestation METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Library on 19 October 2018. We also consulted experts and checked reference lists for any missed trials. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials and non-randomised comparative studies, published in English from 1985 onwards, comparing anti-D prophylaxis to no anti-D prophylaxis in RhD-negative women undergoing medical or surgical abortion at ≤13 +6 weeks' gestation, and reporting subsequent anti-D isoimmunisation/sensitisation or subsequent affected pregnancy. These outcomes were to be analysed as risk ratios in Review Manager 5.3 using the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and a fixed or random effect model. The overall quality of the evidence was planned to be assessed using GRADE., Results: The search identified 426 potentially relevant studies of which none met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations for practice were therefore based on the clinical expertise of the guideline committee., Conclusions: (1) Offer anti-D prophylaxis to women who are Rhesus D negative who are having an abortion after 10 +0 weeks' gestation. (2) Do not offer anti-D prophylaxis to women who are having a medical abortion up to and including 10 +0 weeks' gestation. (3) Consider anti-D prophylaxis for women who are rhesus D negative and are having a surgical abortion up to and including 10 +0 weeks' gestation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)