MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted in the University of Malaya Medical Center. A total of 163 term multiparas (no dropouts) with unripe cervixes (Bishop score ≤5) scheduled for labor induction were randomized to outpatient or inpatient Foley catheter. Primary outcomes were delivery during "working hours" 08:00-18:00 h and maternal satisfaction on allocated care (assessed by 11-point visual numerical rating score 0-10, with higher score indicating more satisfied).
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13534944.
RESULTS: Comparing outpatient and inpatient arms, delivery during working hours were 54/82 (65.9%) vs. 48/81 (59.3%) (relative risk 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.421) and median maternal satisfaction visual numerical rating score was 9 (interquartile range 9-9) vs. 9 (interquartile range 8-9, p = 0.134), repectively. Duration of hospital stay and membrane rupture to delivery interval were significantly shorter in the outpatient arm: 35.8 ± 20.2 vs. 45.2 ± 16.2 h (p = 0.001) and 4.1 ± 2.9 vs. 5.3 ± 3.6 h (p = 0.020), respectively. Other maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: The trial failed to demonstrate the anticipated increase in births during working hours with outpatient compared with inpatient induction of labor with Foley catheter in parous women with an unripe cervix. Hospital stay and membrane rupture to delivery interval were significantly shortened in the outpatient group. The rate of maternal satisfaction was high in both groups and no significant differences were found.
SETTING: The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales.
PARTICIPANTS: 6221 patients from four of the Hyperglycaemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study centres (two UK, two Australian), 6308 patients from the Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy study and 12 755 patients from UK clinical practice.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES PLANNED: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), net monetary benefit (NMB) and the probability of being cost-effective at CE thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per QALY.
RESULTS: In a population of pregnant women from the four HAPO study centres and using NICE-defined risk factors for GDM, diagnosing GDM using NICE 2015 criteria had an NMB of £239 902 (relative to no treatment) at a CE threshold of £30 000 per QALY compared with WHO 2013 criteria, which had an NMB of £186 675. NICE 2015 criteria had a 51.5% probability of being cost-effective compared with the WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria, which had a 27.6% probability of being cost-effective (no treatment had a 21.0% probability of being cost-effective). For women without NICE risk factors in this population, the NMBs for NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 criteria were both negative relative to no treatment and no treatment had a 78.1% probability of being cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: The NICE 2015 diagnostic criteria for GDM can be considered cost-effective relative to the WHO 2013 alternative at a CE threshold of £30 000 per QALY. Universal screening for GDM was not found to be cost-effective relative to screening based on NICE risk factors.
METHODS: A retrospective study involving pregnant women with SLE who had antenatal follow-up and delivery in between 1 January 2007 and 1 January 2017. All participants were retrospectively enrolled and categorized into two groups based on hydroxychloroquine treatment during pregnancy.
RESULTS: There were 82 pregnancies included with 47 (57.3%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 35 (42.7%) in the non-hydroxychloroquine group. Amongst hydroxychloroquine users, there were significantly more pregnancies with musculoskeletal involvement (p = 0.03), heavier mean neonatal birthweight (p = 0.02), and prolonged duration of pregnancy (p = 0.001). In non-hydroxychloroquine patients, there were significantly more recurrent miscarriages (p = 0.003), incidence of hypertension (p = 0.01) and gestational diabetes mellitus (p = 0.01) and concurrent medical illness (p = 0.005). Hydroxychloroquine use during pregnancy was protective against hypertension (p = 0.001), and the gestational age at delivery had significant effect on the neonatal birthweight (p = 0.001). However, duration of the disease had a significant negative effect on the neonatal birthweight (p = 0.016).
CONCLUSION: Hydroxychloroquine enhanced better neonatal outcomes and reduced adverse pregnancy outcomes and antenatal complications such as hypertension and diabetes.
Methods: This work is a cross-sectional study conducted at the outpatient clinics of Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia involving 235 married men. A self-administered questionnaire was used and it consisted of four sections: socio-demographic data, reproductive characteristics of couples, clinical characteristics and knowledge of pre-pregnancy care.
Results: More than half of the men (51.9%) had poor knowledge of pre-pregnancy care, mostly on high-risk pregnancy, consequences of poor birth spacing and effect of maternal anaemia on a baby. The mean (SD) knowledge was 11.86 (3.85). Poor knowledge of pre-pregnancy care was significantly associated with age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94, 0.99, P = 0.002) and education level (AOR = 2.61; 95% CI: 1.49, 4.57; P = 0.001).
Conclusion: The men in our study had poor knowledge of pre-pregnancy care. Further health promotion and education are needed to be focused on men to increase their knowledge and share the responsibilities in maternal health.
OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.
METHODS: : Nulliparas with uncomplicated PROM at term, a Bishop score less than or equal to 6, and who required labor induction were recruited for a double-blind randomized trial. Participants were randomly assigned to 3-mg dinoprostone pessary and oxytocin infusion or placebo and oxytocin infusion. A cardiotocogram was performed before induction and maintained to delivery. Dinoprostone pessary or placebo was placed in the posterior vaginal fornix. Oxytocin intravenous infusion was commenced at 2 milliunits/min and doubled every 30 minutes to a maximum of 32 milliunits/min. Oxytocin infusion rate was titrated to achieve four contractions every 10 minutes. Primary outcomes were vaginal delivery within 12 hours and maternal satisfaction with the birth process using a visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 to 10 (higher score, greater satisfaction).
RESULTS: : One hundred fourteen women were available for analysis. Vaginal delivery rates within 12 hours were 25 of 57 (43.9%) for concurrent treatment compared with 27/57 (47.4%) (relative risk 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.6-1.4, P=.85) for oxytocin only; median VAS was 8 (interquartile range [IQR] 2) compared with 8 (IQR 2), P=.38. Uterine hyperstimulation was 14% compared with 5.3%, P=.20; overall vaginal delivery rates were 59.6% compared with 64.9%, P=.70; and induction to vaginal delivery interval 9.7 hours compared with 9.4 hours P=.75 for concurrent treatment compared with oxytocin, respectively. There was no significant difference for any other outcome.
CONCLUSION: : Concurrent vaginal dinoprostone and intravenous oxytocin for labor induction of term PROM did not expedite delivery or improve patient satisfaction.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: : Current Controlled Trials, www.controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN74376345
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: : I.