-
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2023Women's choice of birth following a cesarean delivery either includes a trial of elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). No... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Women's choice of birth following a cesarean delivery either includes a trial of elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). No comprehensive overview or systematic summary is currently available.
METHODS
EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 1 February 2020. Studies reporting the safety of TOLAC and ERCS in pregnant women with prior cesarean delivery were included. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adopted as the effective measures.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies covering 676,532 cases were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the rates of uterine rupture (OR = 3.35, 95%CI [1.57, 7.15], = 81%), neonatal asphyxia (OR = 2.32, 95%CI [1.76, 3.08], = 0%) and perinatal death (OR = 1.71, 95%CI [1.29, 2.25], = 0%) were higher in the TOLAC group compared with the ERCS group. The rates of peripartum hysterectomy (OR = 0.70, 95%CI [0.44, 1.11], = 62%), blood transfusion (OR = 1.24, 95%CI [0.72, 2.12], = 95%), and puerperal infection (OR = 1.11, 95%CI [0.77, 1.60], = 95%) showed no significant differences between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
TOLAC is associated with a higher risk of uterine rupture, neonatal asphyxia, and perinatal death compared with ERCS. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the risks of all complications were small in both groups. This information is important for healthcare providers and women choosing the delivery type.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Cesarean Section; Cesarean Section, Repeat; Trial of Labor; Perinatal Death; Uterine Rupture; Asphyxia; Vaginal Birth after Cesarean; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37217450
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2214831 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Description of the condition Malaria, an infectious disease transmitted by the bite of female mosquitoes from several Anopheles species, occurs in 87 countries with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Description of the condition Malaria, an infectious disease transmitted by the bite of female mosquitoes from several Anopheles species, occurs in 87 countries with ongoing transmission (WHO 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that, in 2019, approximately 229 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide, with 94% occurring in the WHO's African region (WHO 2020). Of these malaria cases, an estimated 409,000 deaths occurred globally, with 67% occurring in children under five years of age (WHO 2020). Malaria also negatively impacts the health of women during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period (WHO 2020). Sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP), an antifolate antimalarial, has been widely used across sub-Saharan Africa as the first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria since it was first introduced in Malawi in 1993 (Filler 2006). Due to increasing resistance to SP, in 2000 the WHO recommended that one of several artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) be used instead of SP for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum (Global Partnership to Roll Back Malaria 2001). However, despite these recommendations, SP continues to be advised for intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) and intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi), whether the person has malaria or not (WHO 2013). Description of the intervention Folate (vitamin B9) includes both naturally occurring folates and folic acid, the fully oxidized monoglutamic form of the vitamin, used in dietary supplements and fortified food. Folate deficiency (e.g. red blood cell (RBC) folate concentrations of less than 305 nanomoles per litre (nmol/L); serum or plasma concentrations of less than 7 nmol/L) is common in many parts of the world and often presents as megaloblastic anaemia, resulting from inadequate intake, increased requirements, reduced absorption, or abnormal metabolism of folate (Bailey 2015; WHO 2015a). Pregnant women have greater folate requirements; inadequate folate intake (evidenced by RBC folate concentrations of less than 400 nanograms per millilitre (ng/mL), or 906 nmol/L) prior to and during the first month of pregnancy increases the risk of neural tube defects, preterm delivery, low birthweight, and fetal growth restriction (Bourassa 2019). The WHO recommends that all women who are trying to conceive consume 400 micrograms (µg) of folic acid daily from the time they begin trying to conceive through to 12 weeks of gestation (WHO 2017). In 2015, the WHO added the dosage of 0.4 mg of folic acid to the essential drug list (WHO 2015c). Alongside daily oral iron (30 mg to 60 mg elemental iron), folic acid supplementation is recommended for pregnant women to prevent neural tube defects, maternal anaemia, puerperal sepsis, low birthweight, and preterm birth in settings where anaemia in pregnant women is a severe public health problem (i.e. where at least 40% of pregnant women have a blood haemoglobin (Hb) concentration of less than 110 g/L). How the intervention might work Potential interactions between folate status and malaria infection The malaria parasite requires folate for survival and growth; this has led to the hypothesis that folate status may influence malaria risk and severity. In rhesus monkeys, folate deficiency has been found to be protective against Plasmodium cynomolgi malaria infection, compared to folate-replete animals (Metz 2007). Alternatively, malaria may induce or exacerbate folate deficiency due to increased folate utilization from haemolysis and fever. Further, folate status measured via RBC folate is not an appropriate biomarker of folate status in malaria-infected individuals since RBC folate values in these individuals are indicative of both the person's stores and the parasite's folate synthesis. A study in Nigeria found that children with malaria infection had significantly higher RBC folate concentrations compared to children without malaria infection, but plasma folate levels were similar (Bradley-Moore 1985). Why it is important to do this review The malaria parasite needs folate for survival and growth in humans. For individuals, adequate folate levels are critical for health and well-being, and for the prevention of anaemia and neural tube defects. Many countries rely on folic acid supplementation to ensure adequate folate status in at-risk populations. Different formulations for folic acid supplements are available in many international settings, with dosages ranging from 400 µg to 5 mg. Evaluating folic acid dosage levels used in supplementation efforts may increase public health understanding of its potential impacts on malaria risk and severity and on treatment failures. Examining folic acid interactions with antifolate antimalarial medications and with malaria disease progression may help countries in malaria-endemic areas determine what are the most appropriate lower dose folic acid formulations for at-risk populations. The WHO has highlighted the limited evidence available and has indicated the need for further research on biomarkers of folate status, particularly interactions between RBC folate concentrations and tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and antifolate antimalarial drugs (WHO 2015b). An earlier Cochrane Review assessed the effects and safety of iron supplementation, with or without folic acid, in children living in hyperendemic or holoendemic malaria areas; it demonstrated that iron supplementation did not increase the risk of malaria, as indicated by fever and the presence of parasites in the blood (Neuberger 2016). Further, this review stated that folic acid may interfere with the efficacy of SP; however, the efficacy and safety of folic acid supplementation on these outcomes has not been established. This review will provide evidence on the effectiveness of daily folic acid supplementation in healthy and malaria-infected individuals living in malaria-endemic areas. Additionally, it will contribute to achieving both the WHO Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016-2030 (WHO 2015d), and United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 (to ensure healthy lives and to promote well-being for all of all ages) (United Nations 2021), and evaluating whether the potential effects of folic acid supplementation, at different doses (e.g. 0.4 mg, 1 mg, 5 mg daily), interferes with the effect of drugs used for prevention or treatment of malaria.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of folic acid supplementation, at various doses, on malaria susceptibility (risk of infection) and severity among people living in areas with various degrees of malaria endemicity. We will examine the interaction between folic acid supplements and antifolate antimalarial drugs. Specifically, we will aim to answer the following. Among uninfected people living in malaria endemic areas, who are taking or not taking antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis, does taking a folic acid-containing supplement increase susceptibility to or severity of malaria infection? Among people with malaria infection who are being treated with antifolate antimalarials, does folic acid supplementation increase the risk of treatment failure?
METHODS
Criteria for considering studies for this review Types of studies Inclusion criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) Quasi-RCTs with randomization at the individual or cluster level conducted in malaria-endemic areas (areas with ongoing, local malaria transmission, including areas approaching elimination, as listed in the World Malaria Report 2020) (WHO 2020) Exclusion criteria Ecological studies Observational studies In vivo/in vitro studies Economic studies Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses (relevant systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses will be excluded but flagged for grey literature screening) Types of participants Inclusion criteria Individuals of any age or gender, living in a malaria endemic area, who are taking antifolate antimalarial medications (including but not limited to sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP), pyrimethamine-dapsone, pyrimethamine, chloroquine and proguanil, cotrimoxazole) for the prevention or treatment of malaria (studies will be included if more than 70% of the participants live in malaria-endemic regions) Studies assessing participants with or without anaemia and with or without malaria parasitaemia at baseline will be included Exclusion criteria Individuals not taking antifolate antimalarial medications for prevention or treatment of malaria Individuals living in non-malaria endemic areas Types of interventions Inclusion criteria Folic acid supplementation Form: in tablet, capsule, dispersible tablet at any dose, during administration, or periodically Timing: during, before, or after (within a period of four to six weeks) administration of antifolate antimalarials Iron-folic acid supplementation Folic acid supplementation in combination with co-interventions that are identical between the intervention and control groups. Co-interventions include: anthelminthic treatment; multivitamin or multiple micronutrient supplementation; 5-methyltetrahydrofolate supplementation. Exclusion criteria Folate through folate-fortified water Folic acid administered through large-scale fortification of rice, wheat, or maize Comparators Placebo No treatment No folic acid/different doses of folic acid Iron Types of outcome measures Primary outcomes Uncomplicated malaria (defined as a history of fever with parasitological confirmation; acceptable parasitological confirmation will include rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), malaria smears, or nucleic acid detection (i.e. polymerase chain reaction (PCR), loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), etc.)) (WHO 2010). This outcome is relevant for patients without malaria, given antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis. Severe malaria (defined as any case with cerebral malaria or acute P. falciparum malaria, with signs of severity or evidence of vital organ dysfunction, or both) (WHO 2010). This outcome is relevant for patients without malaria, given antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis. Parasite clearance (any Plasmodium species), defined as the time it takes for a patient who tests positive at enrolment and is treated to become smear-negative or PCR negative. This outcome is relevant for patients with malaria, treated with antifolate antimalarials. Treatment failure (defined as the inability to clear malaria parasitaemia or prevent recrudescence after administration of antimalarial medicine, regardless of whether clinical symptoms are resolved) (WHO 2019). This outcome is relevant for patients with malaria, treated with antifolate antimalarials. Secondary outcomes Duration of parasitaemia Parasite density Haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations (g/L) Anaemia: severe anaemia (defined as Hb less than 70 g/L in pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months; and Hb less than 80 g/L in other populations); moderate anaemia (defined as Hb less than 100 g/L in pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months; and less than 110 g/L in others) Death from any cause Among pregnant women: stillbirth (at less than 28 weeks gestation); low birthweight (less than 2500 g); active placental malaria (defined as Plasmodium detected in placental blood by smear or PCR, or by Plasmodium detected on impression smear or placental histology). Search methods for identification of studies A search will be conducted to identify completed and ongoing studies, without date or language restrictions. Electronic searches A search strategy will be designed to include the appropriate subject headings and text word terms related to each intervention of interest and study design of interest (see Appendix 1). Searches will be broken down by these two criteria (intervention of interest and study design of interest) to allow for ease of prioritization, if necessary. The study design filters recommended by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and those designed by Cochrane for identifying clinical trials for MEDLINE and Embase, will be used (SIGN 2020). There will be no date or language restrictions. Non-English articles identified for inclusion will be translated into English. If translations are not possible, advice will be requested from the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group and the record will be stored in the "Awaiting assessment" section of the review until a translation is available. The following electronic databases will be searched for primary studies. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Embase. MEDLINE. Scopus. Web of Science (both the Social Science Citation Index and the Science Citation Index). We will conduct manual searches of ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Evaluation and Research Database (ERD), in order to identify relevant ongoing or planned trials, abstracts, and full-text reports of evaluations, studies, and surveys related to programmes on folic acid supplementation in malaria-endemic areas. Additionally, manual searches of grey literature to identify RCTs that have not yet been published but are potentially eligible for inclusion will be conducted in the following sources. Global Index Medicus (GIM). African Index Medicus (AIM). Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR). Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Western Pacific Region Index Medicus (WPRO). Index Medicus for the South-East Asian Region (IMSEAR). The Spanish Bibliographic Index in Health Sciences (IBECS) (ibecs.isciii.es/). Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR) (journals.lww.com/ijmr/pages/default.aspx). Native Health Database (nativehealthdatabase.net/). Scielo (www.scielo.br/). Searching other resources Handsearches of the five journals with the highest number of included studies in the last 12 months will be conducted to capture any relevant articles that may not have been indexed in the databases at the time of the search. We will contact the authors of included studies and will check reference lists of included papers for the identification of additional records. For assistance in identifying ongoing or unpublished studies, we will contact the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO) and the Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria (DPDM) of the CDC, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), Nutrition International (NI), Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), and Hellen Keller International (HKI). Data collection and analysis Selection of studies Two review authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts of articles retrieved by each search to assess eligibility, as determined by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies deemed eligible for inclusion by both review authors in the abstract screening phase will advance to the full-text screening phase, and full-text copies of all eligible papers will be retrieved. If full articles cannot be obtained, we will attempt to contact the authors to obtain further details of the studies. If such information is not obtained, we will classify the study as "awaiting assessment" until further information is published or made available to us. The same two review authors will independently assess the eligibility of full-text articles for inclusion in the systematic review. If any discrepancies occur between the studies selected by the two review authors, a third review author will provide arbitration. Each trial will be scrutinized to identify multiple publications from the same data set, and the justification for excluded trials will be documented. A PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process will be presented to provide information on the number of records identified in the literature searches, the number of studies included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusion (Moher 2009). The list of excluded studies, along with their reasons for exclusion at the full-text screening phase, will also be created. Data extraction and management Two review authors will independently extract data for the final list of included studies using a standardized data specification form. Discrepancies observed between the data extracted by the two authors will be resolved by involving a third review author and reaching a consensus. Information will be extracted on study design components, baseline participant characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes. For individually randomized trials, we will record the number of participants experiencing the event and the number analyzed in each treatment group or the effect estimate reported (e.g. risk ratio (RR)) for dichotomous outcome measures. For count data, we will record the number of events and the number of person-months of follow-up in each group. If the number of person-months is not reported, the product of the duration of follow-up and the number of children evaluated will be used to estimate this figure. We will calculate the rate ratio and standard error (SE) for each study. Zero events will be replaced by 0.5. We will extract both adjusted and unadjusted covariate incidence rate ratios if they are reported in the original studies. For continuous data, we will extract means (arithmetic or geometric) and a measure of variance (standard deviation (SD), SE, or confidence interval (CI)), percentage or mean change from baseline, and the numbers analyzed in each group. SDs will be computed from SEs or 95% CIs, assuming a normal distribution of the values. Haemoglobin values in g/dL will be calculated by multiplying haematocrit or packed cell volume values by 0.34, and studies reporting haemoglobin values in g/dL will be converted to g/L. In cluster-randomized trials, we will record the unit of randomization (e.g. household, compound, sector, or village), the number of clusters in the trial, and the average cluster size. The statistical methods used to analyze the trials will be documented, along with details describing whether these methods adjusted for clustering or other covariates. We plan to extract estimates of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) for each outcome. Where results are adjusted for clustering, we will extract the treatment effect estimate and the SD or CI. If the results are not adjusted for clustering, we will extract the data reported. Assessment of risk of bias in included studies Two review authors (KSC, LFY) will independently assess the risk of bias for each included trial using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias 2' tool (RoB 2) for randomized studies (Sterne 2019). Judgements about the risk of bias of included studies will be made according to the recommendations outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2021). Disagreements will be resolved by discussion, or by involving a third review author. The interest of our review will be to assess the effect of assignment to the interventions at baseline. We will evaluate each primary outcome using the RoB2 tool. The five domains of the Cochrane RoB2 tool include the following. Bias arising from the randomization process. Bias due to deviations from intended interventions. Bias due to missing outcome data. Bias in measurement of the outcome. Bias in selection of the reported result. Each domain of the RoB2 tool comprises the following. A series of 'signalling' questions. A judgement about the risk of bias for the domain, facilitated by an algorithm that maps responses to the signalling questions to a proposed judgement. Free-text boxes to justify responses to the signalling questions and 'Risk of bias' judgements. An option to predict (and explain) the likely direction of bias. Responses to signalling questions elicit information relevant to an assessment of the risk of bias. These response options are as follows. Yes (may indicate either low or high risk of bias, depending on the most natural way to ask the question). Probably yes. Probably no. No. No information (may indicate no evidence of that problem or an absence of information leading to concerns about there being a problem). Based on the answer to the signalling question, a 'Risk of bias' judgement is assigned to each domain. These judgements include one of the following. High risk of bias Low risk of bias Some concerns To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the randomized studies, we will use the Excel template, available at www.riskofbias.info/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/current-version-of-rob-2. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Risk of bias in cluster randomized controlled trials For the cluster randomized trials, we will be using the RoB2 tool to analyze the five standard domains listed above along with Domain 1b (bias arising from the timing of identification or recruitment of participants) and its related signalling questions. To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the cluster RCTs, we will use the Excel template available at https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/rob-2-for-cluster-randomized-trials. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Risk of bias in cross-over randomized controlled trials For cross-over randomized trials, we will be using the RoB2 tool to analyze the five standard domains listed above along with Domain 2 (bias due to deviations from intended interventions), and Domain 3 (bias due to missing outcome data), and their respective signalling questions. To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the cross-over RCTs, we will use the Excel template, available at https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/rob-2-for-crossover-trials, for each risk of bias judgement of cross-over randomized studies. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Overall risk of bias The overall 'Risk of bias' judgement for each specific trial being assessed will be based on each domain-level judgement. The overall judgements include the following. Low risk of bias (the trial is judged to be at low risk of bias for all domains). Some concerns (the trial is judged to raise some concerns in at least one domain but is not judged to be at high risk of bias for any domain). High risk of bias (the trial is judged to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain, or is judged to have some concerns for multiple domains in a way that substantially lowers confidence in the result). The 'risk of bias' assessments will inform our GRADE evaluations of the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes presented in the 'Summary of findings' tables and will also be used to inform the sensitivity analyses; (see Sensitivity analysis). If there is insufficient information in study reports to enable an assessment of the risk of bias, studies will be classified as "awaiting assessment" until further information is published or made available to us. Measures of treatment effect Dichotomous data For dichotomous data, we will present proportions and, for two-group comparisons, results as average RR or odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs. Ordered categorical data Continuous data We will report results for continuous outcomes as the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs, if outcomes are measured in the same way between trials. Where some studies have reported endpoint data and others have reported change-from-baseline data (with errors), we will combine these in the meta-analysis, if the outcomes were reported using the same scale. We will use the standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95% CIs, to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods. If we do not find three or more studies for a pooled analysis, we will summarize the results in a narrative form. Unit of analysis issues Cluster-randomized trials We plan to combine results from both cluster-randomized and individually randomized studies, providing there is little heterogeneity between the studies. If the authors of cluster-randomized trials conducted their analyses at a different level from that of allocation, and they have not appropriately accounted for the cluster design in their analyses, we will calculate the trials' effective sample sizes to account for the effect of clustering in data. When one or more cluster-RCT reports RRs adjusted for clustering, we will compute cluster-adjusted SEs for the other trials. When none of the cluster-RCTs provide cluster-adjusted RRs, we will adjust the sample size for clustering. We will divide, by the estimated design effects (DE), the number of events and number evaluated for dichotomous outcomes and the number evaluated for continuous outcomes, where DE = 1 + ((average cluster size 1) * ICC). The derivation of the estimated ICCs and DEs will be reported. We will utilize the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC), derived from the trial (if available), or from another source (e.g., using the ICCs derived from other, similar trials) and then calculate the design effect with the formula provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2021). If this approach is used, we will report it and undertake sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect of variations in ICC. Studies with more than two treatment groups If we identify studies with more than two intervention groups (multi-arm studies), where possible we will combine groups to create a single pair-wise comparison or use the methods set out in the Cochrane Handbook to avoid double counting study participants (Higgins 2021). For the subgroup analyses, when the control group was shared by two or more study arms, we will divide the control group (events and total population) over the number of relevant subgroups to avoid double counting the participants. Trials with several study arms can be included more than once for different comparisons. Cross-over trials From cross-over trials, we will consider the first period of measurement only and will analyze the results together with parallel-group studies. Multiple outcome events In several outcomes, a participant might experience more than one outcome event during the trial period. For all outcomes, we will extract the number of participants with at least one event. Dealing with missing data We will contact the trial authors if the available data are unclear, missing, or reported in a format that is different from the format needed. We aim to perform a 'per protocol' or 'as observed' analysis; otherwise, we will perform a complete case analysis. This means that for treatment failure, we will base the analyses on the participants who received treatment and the number of participants for which there was an inability to clear malarial parasitaemia or prevent recrudescence after administration of an antimalarial medicine reported in the studies. Assessment of heterogeneity Heterogeneity in the results of the trials will be assessed by visually examining the forest plot to detect non-overlapping CIs, using the Chi2 test of heterogeneity (where a P value of less than 0.1 indicates statistical significance) and the I2 statistic of inconsistency (with a value of greater than 50% denoting moderate levels of heterogeneity). When statistical heterogeneity is present, we will investigate the reasons for it, using subgroup analysis. Assessment of reporting biases We will construct a funnel plot to assess the effect of small studies for the main outcome (when including more than 10 trials). Data synthesis The primary analysis will include all eligible studies that provide data regardless of the overall risk of bias as assessed by the RoB2 tool. Analyses will be conducted using Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020). Cluster-RCTs will be included in the main analysis after adjustment for clustering (see the previous section on cluster-RCTs). The meta-analysis will be performed using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model or the generic inverse variance method (when adjustment for clustering is performed by adjusting SEs), as appropriate. Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity The overall risk of bias will not be used as the basis in conducting our subgroup analyses. However, where data are available, we plan to conduct the following subgroup analyses, independent of heterogeneity. Dose of folic acid supplementation: higher doses (4 mg or more, daily) versus lower doses (less than 4 mg, daily). Moderate-severe anaemia at baseline (mean haemoglobin of participants in a trial at baseline below 100 g/L for pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months, and below 110 g/L for other populations) versus normal at baseline (mean haemoglobin above 100 g/L for pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months, and above 110 g/L for other populations). Antimalarial drug resistance to parasite: known resistance versus no resistance versus unknown/mixed/unreported parasite resistance. Folate status at baseline: Deficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration of less than 305 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration of less than 7nmol/L) and Insufficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration from 305 to less than 906 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration from 7 to less than 25 nmol/L) versus Sufficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration above 906 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration above 25 nmol/L). Presence of anaemia at baseline: yes versus no. Mandatory fortification status: yes, versus no (voluntary or none). We will only use the primary outcomes in any subgroup analyses, and we will limit subgroup analyses to those outcomes for which three or more trials contributed data. Comparisons between subgroups will be performed using Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020). Sensitivity analysis We will perform a sensitivity analysis, using the risk of bias as a variable to explore the robustness of the findings in our primary outcomes. We will verify the behaviour of our estimators by adding and removing studies with a high risk of bias overall from the analysis. That is, studies with a low risk of bias versus studies with a high risk of bias. Summary of findings and assessment of the certainty of the evidence For the assessment across studies, we will use the GRADE approach, as outlined in (Schünemann 2021). We will use the five GRADE considerations (study limitations based on RoB2 judgements, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of the body of evidence as it relates to the studies which contribute data to the meta-analyses for the primary outcomes. The GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (GRADEpro) will be used to import data from Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020) to create 'Summary of Findings' tables. The primary outcomes for the main comparison will be listed with estimates of relative effects, along with the number of participants and studies contributing data for those outcomes. These tables will provide outcome-specific information concerning the overall certainty of evidence from studies included in the comparison, the magnitude of the effect of the interventions examined, and the sum of available data on the outcomes we considered. We will include only primary outcomes in the summary of findings tables. For each individual outcome, two review authors (KSC, LFY) will independently assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (Balshem 2011). For assessments of the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome that includes pooled data from included trials, we will downgrade the evidence from 'high certainty' by one level for serious (or by two for very serious) study limitations (risk of bias, indirectness of evidence, serious inconsistency, imprecision of effect estimates, or potential publication bias).
Topics: Child; Infant; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Child, Preschool; Antimalarials; Sulfadoxine; Pyrimethamine; Folic Acid Antagonists; Birth Weight; Parasitemia; Vitamins; Folic Acid; Anemia; Neural Tube Defects; Dietary Supplements; Iron; Recurrence
PubMed: 36321557
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2021There has been an increasing worldwide incidence of invasive group A streptococcal (GAS) disease in pregnancy and in the puerperal period over the past 30 years.... (Review)
Review
There has been an increasing worldwide incidence of invasive group A streptococcal (GAS) disease in pregnancy and in the puerperal period over the past 30 years. Postpartum Group A streptococci infection, and in particular streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (TSS) and necrotizing fasciitis, can be life threatening and difficult to treat. Despite antibiotics and supportive therapy, and in some cases advanced extensive surgery, mortality associated with invasive group A streptococcal postpartum endometritis, necrotizing fasciitis, and toxic shock syndrome remains high, up to 40% of postpartum septic deaths. It now accounts for more than 75,000 deaths worldwide every year. Postpartum women have a 20-fold increased incidence of GAS disease compared to non-pregnant women. Despite the high incidence, many invasive GAS infections are not diagnosed in a timely manner, resulting in potentially preventable maternal and neonatal deaths. In this paper the specific characteristics of GAS infection in the field of Ob/Gyn are brought to our attention, resulting in guidelines to improve our awareness, early recognition and timely treatment of the disease. New European prevalence data of vaginal GAS colonization are presented, alongside two original case histories. Additionally, aerobic vaginitis is proposed as a supplementary risk factor for invasive GAS diseases.
PubMed: 34068785
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10092043 -
Lakartidningen Jan 2018Puerpural fever still exist. A rare condition that must be kept in mind All 33 claims to the Swedish National Patient Insurance (LÖF) in 2010-2014 related to obstetric...
Puerpural fever still exist. A rare condition that must be kept in mind All 33 claims to the Swedish National Patient Insurance (LÖF) in 2010-2014 related to obstetric infections, of which 14 were due to endometritis, were examined. Nine women suffered from fulminant infections consistent with classical puerperal fever (childbed fever), 2 of which were life-threatening. They occurred unexpectedly, mainly after uncomplicated deliveries, and were usually caused by Group A streptococci. Five women suffered from endometritis with a mild or moderate clinical course. All occurred after early birth-related complications and were caused by low-virulent bacteria. In order for an infection to occur in a healthy woman who undergoes normal delivery, more virulent bacteria appear to be required. Since these bacteria may exist in the hospital environment, improved hygiene routines are a prerequisite for reducing the number of nosocomial infections.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Critical Illness; Endometritis; Female; Fever; Humans; Insurance Carriers; Perineum; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection; Reproductive Tract Infections; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus pyogenes; Sweden; Vagina; Young Adult
PubMed: 29381182
DOI: No ID Found -
The British Journal of Radiology Mar 2023Infectious diseases of the breast can demonstrate a wide variety of clinical presentations and imaging appearances. Breast abscesses are often a complication of... (Review)
Review
Infectious diseases of the breast can demonstrate a wide variety of clinical presentations and imaging appearances. Breast abscesses are often a complication of infectious mastitis of the breast. Puerperal mastitis is the most common cause of breast abscess, typically affecting postpartum females. Often diagnosed clinically, it is usually treated with antibiotics without need for imaging. Non-puerperal mastitis is relatively uncommon and typically subareolar in location. Patients can present with asymmetric breast thickening, a palpable lump, nipple discharge, or axillary adenopathy. These presentations can mimic malignancy. Herein, this pictorial review demonstrates imaging findings of common and uncommon infectious processes of the breast and clinically important mimickers of breast infection.
Topics: Female; Humans; Abscess; Breast; Mastitis; Communicable Diseases; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36651859
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20220649 -
Biomolecules Apr 2022Louis Pasteur is the most internationally known French scientist. He discovered molecular chirality, and he contributed to the understanding of the process of... (Review)
Review
Louis Pasteur is the most internationally known French scientist. He discovered molecular chirality, and he contributed to the understanding of the process of fermentation, helping brewers and winemakers to improve their beverages. He proposed a process, known as pasteurization, for the sterilization of wines. He established the germ theory of infectious diseases that allowed Joseph Lister to develop his antiseptic practice in surgery. He solved the problem of silkworm disease, although he had refuted the idea of Antoine Béchamp, who first considered it was a microbial infection. He created four vaccines (fowl cholera, anthrax, pig erysipelas, and rabies) in the paths of his precursors, Henri Toussaint (anthrax vaccine) and Pierre Victor Galtier (rabies vaccine). He generalized the word "vaccination" coined by Richard Dunning, Edward Jenner's friend. Robert Koch, his most famous opponent, pointed out the great ambiguity of Pasteur's approach to preparing his vaccines. Analysis of his laboratory notebooks has allowed historians to discern the differences between the legend built by his hagiographers and reality. In this review, we revisit his career, his undeniable achievements, and tell the truth about a hero who made every effort to build his own fame.
Topics: Animals; Fermentation; Swine; Vaccination; Vaccines; Wine
PubMed: 35454184
DOI: 10.3390/biom12040596 -
Brain Sciences Mar 2021Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a rare variant of stroke in the general population, but an important subtype among pregnancy- and puerperium-related cases. Studies...
BACKGROUND
Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a rare variant of stroke in the general population, but an important subtype among pregnancy- and puerperium-related cases. Studies describing its risk factors and clinical characteristics are limited. The aim of our study is to disclose these aspects and compare with cases unrelated to pregnancy and puerperium.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a retrospective analysis including 88 consecutive cases from a tertiary neurology clinic with a diagnosis of CVT. Ten of the 88 cases (11.3%) appeared during the postpartum period.
RESULTS
The mean age of the puerperal CVT cases was 26.5 years. The main pregnancy-related risk factors besides puerperium were cesarean delivery (5/10), preeclampsia (2/10), and stillbirth (1/10). General risk factors for thrombosis, i.e., infection, smoking, and primary hypercoagulability, were identified in 50% of cases. Onset was in the first 3 weeks after delivery, with a mean value of 9.6 ± 5.6 days. Headache was present in 90% of postpartum CVT cases and in 76.1% of non-postpartum female cases. Seizures were more frequent in the postpartum group (60% vs. 34.8%). Onset was acute (<48 h) in 50% of postpartum cases and in 30.4% of the non-postpartum female group. The Rankin score at discharge was significantly lower in the postpartum group (0.22 vs. 0.7, = 0.02), suggesting a more favorable short-term outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
The early postpartum period represents an important risk for the development of CVT. Cesarean delivery and preeclampsia, besides general risk factors such as infection, smoking, and primary thrombophilia, contribute to enhanced risk. Puerperium-related CVT presents a more favorable outcome compared with CVT with other etiologies.
PubMed: 33806706
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11030327 -
Archives of Public Health = Archives... Nov 2021Puerperal sepsis is a genital tract infection that can occur from amniotic fluid rupture to six weeks after birth. Maternal complication associated with puerperal sepsis... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Puerperal sepsis is a genital tract infection that can occur from amniotic fluid rupture to six weeks after birth. Maternal complication associated with puerperal sepsis includes prolonged hospital stay, septicemia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and death. Even though, puerperal sepsis is the fourth leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality in Ethiopia the overall prevalence of puerperal sepsis and its associated factors are not studied at the national stage. As a result, this systematic review and meta-analysis bring out the pooled prevalence of puerperal sepsis and its associated factors in Ethiopia.
METHODS
A variety of data sources such as Pub Med, Web of Science, Science Direct, Embase, Google Scholar, HINARI, and Ethiopian universities online repositories were searched to identify the primary studies which were used for this systematic review and meta-analysis. The article search was conducted from February10/2021-March 10/2021. The quality of the selected primary studies was assessed using the Newcastle - Ottawa quality assessment Scale (NOS). Data extraction was done with Microsoft Excel and then exported to STATA 11 version statistical software for analysis. The Cochran (Q-test) and I2 test statistics were used to assess the heterogeneity of the studies. Publication bias was evaluated by the eggers regression test. Subgroup analysis was performed with region and sample size category.
RESULT
In this review, a total of 2222 respondents were involved from seven studies. The pooled prevalence of puerperal sepsis was 14.811% (95%CI; 8.46: 21.16; I = 94.2, P ≤ 0.001). Cesarean section delivery (CSD) (OR = 3.26, 95%CI: 1.90, 5.61), membrane rupture≥24 h (OR = 4.04, 95%CI: 2.54, 6.42), being multiparous mother (OR = 3.99, 95%CI: 1.82, 8.78), vaginal examination≥5 times (OR = 3.15, 95%CI: 1.17, 8.52), and anemia (OR = 5.68, 95%CI: 4.38, 7.36) were factors significantly associated with puerperal sepsis.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of puerperal sepsis was high in Ethiopia. CSD, membrane rupture≥24 h, being multiparous mother, vaginal examination≥5, and anemia were factors associated with puerperal sepsis. Appropriate standard infection prevention techniques during CSD shall be practiced to reduce the maternal burden of puerperal sepsis. The unnecessary vaginal examination should be discouraged during the intrapartum period. Besides this, routine Iron sulfate supplementation and counsel on iron reach foods during ante partum and postpartum shall be considered for all mothers.
PubMed: 34844656
DOI: 10.1186/s13690-021-00732-y -
Bioscience Trends Feb 2016Nosocomial infection is a kind of infection, which is spread in various hospital environments, and leads to many serious diseases (e.g. pneumonia, urinary tract... (Review)
Review
Nosocomial infection is a kind of infection, which is spread in various hospital environments, and leads to many serious diseases (e.g. pneumonia, urinary tract infection, gastroenteritis, and puerperal fever), and causes higher mortality than community-acquired infection. Bacteria are predominant among all the nosocomial infection-associated pathogens, thus a large number of antibiotics, such as aminoglycosides, penicillins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems, are adopted in clinical treatment. However, in recent years antibiotic resistance quickly spreads worldwide and causes a critical threat to public health. The predominant bacteria include Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Acinetobacter baumannii. In these bacteria, resistance emerged from antibiotic resistant genes and many of those can be exchanged between bacteria. With technical advances, molecular mechanisms of resistance have been gradually unveiled. In this review, recent advances in knowledge about mechanisms by which (i) bacteria hydrolyze antibiotics (e.g. extended spectrum β-lactamases, (ii) AmpC β-lactamases, carbapenemases), (iii) avoid antibiotic targeting (e.g. mutated vanA and mecA genes), (iv) prevent antibiotic permeation (e.g. porin deficiency), or (v) excrete intracellular antibiotics (e.g. active efflux pump) are summarized.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Proteins; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Humans; Hydrolysis; Mutation; beta-Lactamases
PubMed: 26877142
DOI: 10.5582/bst.2016.01020 -
The Indian Journal of Surgery Jun 2020Hungarian obstetrician Ignac Semmelweis (1818-1865) was one of the earliest clinical investigators of modern medical science. In nineteenth century Europe, puerperal...
Hungarian obstetrician Ignac Semmelweis (1818-1865) was one of the earliest clinical investigators of modern medical science. In nineteenth century Europe, puerperal fever (childbed fever) was a major clinical and public health problem with very high maternal mortality. It was thought to be caused by miasma, epidemicity, or the Will of Providence. Apart from bloodletting, there was no cure for it. Semmelweis cared for the childbed fever women during their illness, and when they died, he did autopsies on them. Astute clinical observations and logical reasoning goaded Semmelweis to suspect the role of "unholy" hands of "holy" physicians in the transmission of puerperal fever. He enforced a hand-washing policy for physicians. Those with unwashed hands were disallowed into labor room. The hand-washing practice for 1 year led to unprecedented decrease in maternal mortality. It enabled Semmelweis to establish a strong, specific, temporal causal association between unclean hands and puerperal fever. Although not accepted during his lifetime, this causal hypothesis contributed significantly to the understanding of etiopathophysiology of not only puerperal fever but also many other communicable diseases. Clinical hand washing, since then, has prevented millions of deaths of humankind. In the present times too, his idea of hand hygiene plays a central role in COVID-19 pandemic management. Authors present a brief account of life and work of this maverick genius, who was born "too early in the darkness." He is also called the "Father of infection control" and "Savior of mothers."
PubMed: 32837058
DOI: 10.1007/s12262-020-02386-6