METHODS: This randomised controlled trial conducted from January 2018 until December 2018. Pregnant women below 34 weeks of gestation, with Hb concentration less than 11 g/dL and serum ferritin level less than 12 ug/L were randomised to receive either one tablet Zincofer® or one tablet Iberet Folate® daily for four weeks. Both groups were compared in terms of effect on Hb level, serum ferritin level, and other haematological indices adverse effect related to treatment, and treatment cost.
RESULTS: Hundred and thirty patients were recruited in this study with 68 patients in Iberet Folic group and 62 patients in Zincofer group. The change in the Hb and serum ferritin level from baseline to day 30 did not differ significantly between treatment groups. The mean (±SD) change from baseline to day 30 was 2.15 (±0.59) g/dL in the Iberet Folic group, and 1.98 (±0.49) in the Zincofer (p value = 0.08). Mean serum ferritin at day 30 was 17.2 (±3.68) ug/L and 16.7 (±4.28) ug/L with 8.44 (±3.41) and 8.55 (±3.50) difference, respectively (p = 0.86). Adverse events were comparable in between groups, with p value >0.05. GI intolerance and constipation were among the common side effects, occurred in 34.6 and 29.2% cases, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Zincofer® offers equivalent efficacy and side effect profile in comparison with Iberet Folic® for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) during pregnancy, but with lower cost.
Methods: This was an observational, cross-sectional study involving a total of 447 pregnant women who attended the Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic, Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL), Malaysia. A validated, self-administered questionnaire was used to collect participant data.
Results: Most of pregnant women had taken medication during pregnancy and more than half of them (52.8%) showed a poor level of knowledge about the medication use during pregnancy. Eighty-three percent had a poor level of awareness and 56.5% had negative beliefs. Age and education level were significantly associated with the level of knowledge regarding medication use during pregnancy. Multiparous pregnant women, and pregnant women from rural areas were observed to have a higher level of awareness compared with those who lived in urban areas. Use of medication during pregnancy was determined to be significantly associated with education level, and race.
Conclusion: Although there was prevalent use of medication among pregnant women, many had negative beliefs, and insufficient knowledge and awareness about the risks of taking medication during pregnancy. Several sociodemographic characteristics were significantly associated with the use (race and education level), level of knowledge (age and education level), awareness (parity and place of residence), and beliefs (race, education level, and occupation status) towards medication use during pregnancy.
METHODS: Information on reproductive characteristics was collected at recruitment. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and multivariable models were adjusted for age and year of diagnosis, body mass index, tumour stage, smoking status and stratified by study centre.
RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 3.6 years (±3.2 s.d.) following EOC diagnosis, 511 (49.9%) of the 1025 women died from EOC. We observed a suggestive survival advantage in menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) users (ever vs never use, HR=0.80, 95% CI=0.62-1.03) and a significant survival benefit in long-term MHT users (⩾5 years use vs never use, HR=0.70, 95% CI=0.50-0.99, P(trend)=0.04). We observed similar results for MHT use when restricting to serous cases. Other reproductive factors, including parity, breastfeeding, oral contraceptive use and age at menarche or menopause, were not associated with EOC-specific mortality risk.
CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are warranted to investigate the possible improvement in EOC survival in MHT users.
METHODS: A randomized trial was performed in a university hospital in Malaysia. Participants were nulliparas at term with unripe cervixes (Bishop Score ≤ 5) admitted for IoL who were randomized to digital or speculum-aided transcervical Foley catheter insertion in lithotomy position. Primary outcomes were insertion duration, pain score [11-point Visual Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS)], and failure. All primary outcomes were recorded after the first insertion.
RESULTS: Data from 86 participants were analysed. Insertion duration (with standard deviation) was 2.72 ± 1.85 vs. 2.25 ± 0.55 min p = 0.12, pain score (VNRS) median [interquartile range] 3.5 [2-5] vs. 3 [2-5] p = 0.72 and failure 2/42 (5%) vs. 0/44 (0%) p = 0.24 for digital vs speculum respectively. There was no significant difference found between the two groups for all three primary outcomes. Induction to delivery 30.7 ± 9.4 vs 29.6 ± 11.5 h p = 0.64, Cesarean section 25/60 (64%) vs 28/64 (60%) RR 0.9 95% CI p = 0.7 and maternal satisfaction VNRS score with the birth process 7 [IQR 6-8] vs 7 [7-8] p = 0.97 for digital vs. speculum arms respectively. Other labor, delivery and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: Digital and speculum insertion in nulliparas with unripe cervixes had similar insertion performance. As digital insertion required less equipment and consumables, it could be the preferred insertion method for the equally adept and the insertion technique to train towards.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ISRCTN registration number 13804902 on 15 November 2017.