POPULATION: Women with singleton, term pregnancies in active labour and immediate postnatal period, at low risk of complications.
SETTING: Healthcare facilities in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search and review were conducted on the current guidelines from WHO, NICE, ACOG and RCOG. Additional search was done on PubMed and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to May 2020.
CASE SCENARIOS: Four common intrapartum urinary abnormalities were selected: proteinuria, ketonuria, glycosuria and oliguria. Using reagent strip testing, glycosuria was defined as ≥2+ on one occasion or of ≥1+ on two or more occasions. Proteinuria was defined as ≥2+ and presence of ketone indicated ketonuria. Oliguria was defined as hourly urine output ≤30 ml. Thorough initial assessment using history, physical examination and basic investigations helped differentiate most of the underlying causes, which include diabetes mellitus, dehydration, sepsis, pre-eclampsia, shock, anaemia, obstructed labour, underlying cardiac or renal problems. A clinical algorithm was developed for each urinary abnormality to facilitate intrapartum management and referral of complicated cases for specialised care.
CONCLUSIONS: Four simple, user-friendly and evidence-based clinical algorithms were developed to enhance intrapartum care of commonly encountered maternal urine abnormalities. These algorithms may be used to support healthcare professionals in clinical decision-making when handling normal and potentially complicated labour, especially in low resource countries.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Evidence-based clinical algorithms developed to guide intrapartum management of commonly encountered urinary abnormalities.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of universal HLA-B*15:02 screening in preventing carbamazepine-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis in an ethnically diverse Malaysian population.
METHODS: A hybrid model of a decision tree and Markov model was developed to evaluate three strategies for treating newly diagnosed epilepsy among adults: (i) carbamazepine initiation without HLA-B*15:02 screening (current practice); (ii) universal HLA-B*15:02 screening prior to carbamazepine initiation; and (iii) alternative treatment [sodium valproate (VPA)] prescribing without HLA-B*15:02 screening. Base-case analysis and sensitivity analyses were performed over a lifetime time horizon. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.
RESULTS: Both universal HLA-B*15:02 screening and VPA prescribing were dominated by current practice. Compared with current practice, universal HLA-B*15:02 screening resulted in a loss of 0·0255 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of 707 U.S. dollars (USD); VPA prescribing resulted in a loss of 0·2622 QALYs at an additional cost of USD 4127, owing to estimated differences in antiepileptic treatment efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS: Universal HLA-B*15:02 screening is unlikely to be a cost-effective intervention in Malaysia. However, with the emergence of an ethnically diverse population in many other countries, this may render HLA-B*15:02 screening a viable intervention when an increasing proportion of the population is at risk and an equally effective yet safer antiepileptic drug is available.
METHOD: We translated into Malay a brief screening instrument for ascertainment of epilepsy designed and validated by Ottman et al., using the three-stage cross-cultural adaptation process developed by the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project. We then administered the translated questionnaire via online survey to 162 cases (patients with epilepsy under follow-up care at the neurology clinic in University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur) and 146 controls with no known history of epilepsy for validation.
RESULTS: Applying the most liberal definition for a positive screen, we obtained a sensitivity of 96.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.8-98.5%), with a specificity of 66.4% (95% CI: 58.1-73.0%) and positive predictive value (PPV) of 2.0%. The most stringent definition for a positive screen (only epilepsy) resulted in a sensitivity of 97.4% (95% CI: 62.0-72.6%), specificity of 98.6% (95% CI: 94.6-99.7%), and PPV of 26.6%. Narrowing the definition of a positive screen decreased sensitivity but improved PPVs. When compared to the original English questionnaire, the sensitivities were similar for all four definitions of a positive screen.
CONCLUSION: This is the first validated epilepsy screening questionnaire in the Malay language and represents a useful tool for the ascertainment of epilepsy in population-based studies.
METHODS: A population-based door-to-door survey was carried out throughout the country, using questionnaire for brief screening in ascertainment of epilepsy, using a questionnaire and its validated multilingual versions. Respondents who were screened positive underwent second-stage diagnostic phone interview by neurologists/ research assistants.
RESULTS: A total 16, 686 respondents participated in the survey and 646 (3.8 %) respondents were screened positive during the first stage interview. A total of 185 consented for second stage diagnostic interview and 118 (63.8 %) respondents were contacted successfully for the second stage diagnostic phone interview, of which 17 (14.4 %) respondents were diagnosed to have epilepsy. An additional 68 (57.6 %) respondents had febrile seizures only. After applying a weighting factor to each respondent to adjust for non-response and for the varying probabilities of selection, the adjusted lifetime epilepsy prevalence was 7.8 in 1000 population, and the adjusted prevalence for active epilepsy was 4.2 in 1000 population in Malaysia.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of lifetime epilepsy in Malaysia is 7.8 per 1000 persons.